Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jeffh" data-source="post: 3145528" data-attributes="member: 2642">Regarding having a rule for length - it seems to me that the best way to accomodate this, both in terms of not adding new mechanics and in terms of reflecting what really happens, is with attacks of opportunity for (say) going at a greatsword wielder with a dagger. If your weapon is X amount smaller than that of the guy you're trying to attack, you suffer AoOs just as unarmed characters do. If you really want to model reality, add that if such an AoO hits, you can't attack that opponent that round, or suffer severe penalties to attempts to do so.If, on the other hand, the AoO misses and your attack hits, you are assumed to have gotten inside the other guy's reach somehow (i.e. if you were any closer you'd be grappling), and the penalties are now reversed; the longer weapon now provokes AoOs and can be prevented from striking entirely. The character with the longer weapon may use the Withdraw action (without actually moving, if he doesn't want to) to return things to normal. (This is... not totally unrealistic, but I've definitely made getting inside the guy's reach a lot easier than it would be in real life. This is partly for smooth gameplay and partly for genre emulation. IRL, having a longer weapon is a big advantage, well before you get to the weapons that are actually given reach in D&D).This is really little more than a logical extension of the existing reach rule, unless you add the rule I've tentatively suggested for holding people off. Other than that, it just makes greatsword vs dagger work the same way as longspear vs longsword or longsword vs bare hands.</blockquote>

Verification