Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 2325189" data-attributes="member: 6939">But, it *is* an example of trying to get a different 'equivalent' based on use. According to the rules, you cannot use a glaive one handed. You want to be able to 'improvise' it as one handed.According to the rules, you cannot use a longbow one handed. I just want to be able to 'improvise' it as one handed.Ruleswise, they are the same. If you make a subjective change, it is just subjective, and not backed by the rules. Sure, and in some cultures, you cut a long stick, put a point on it, and call it a lance. But that is not what DnD considers a lance. Barely what it considers a spear. And I would assert that a bow, and crossbow have a lot in common. As does a shortsword and Greatsword, or *every* polearm, etc. Yes, in 3.0 with a feat.... but from your method of determining 'equivalent weapons' for improvisation, you also consider method of use. So according to your 'system', in every edition, without a feat, you can use a greatsword one handed. In fact, if I say I want to use it off hand, as a light weapon, I should be able to improvise it as a shortsword. A 2D6 light weapon isn't bad. (albeit with a -4 to hit)The problem is that you are using *method* or *technique* to help determine an equivalent weapon for improvisation, and that doesn't work very well.What about a glaive, it has reach. But someone is within 5' of me. So I just 'improvise' that it is a reach weapon that can also hit inside 5'. Just like the spiked chain does. So I take a -4 for improvise, and do my normal attack and normal damage.(this can only be done because you allow for 'technique' as a factor for finding an equivalent.)Equivalents must only deal with the weapon. Not the How. But that is not what the *rules* are all about. I allow a lot of things that the rules don't allow, so I don't have a problem with it, but then it is a house rule, or a DM change.</blockquote>

Verification