hogarth wrote:
Right, but we're talking about D&D where a 6 foot man can't use a 15 foot weapon. So...I don't know how that translates into "a halfling should be able to use a reach weapon", square-cube law or no square-cube law.
1. The whole 15'-pike thing started as a rebuttal to the argument that it's "unrealistic" for characters to wield weapons nearly three times as long as they are.
Yes, and in "D&D land" (3e, 4e, whatever) it's impossible. Full stop. Of course, in 3e a medium or a large character could use a whip-dagger or some weapon like that.
Absentminded_Wizard wrote:2. Assuming this is still a 4e discussion, does anybody expect WotC not to introduce a 15' polearm for humans at some point? I mean, isn't the point of Exception-Based Design that there are no fixed principles?
Both editions, in fact, though in the 3.0E core rulebooks every small that wanted reach needed to use a heavy lance.
3.5E weapon sizes had a lot of problems, but the fact that small characters could start using scythes was not one of them.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
it didn't make sense, but it did do it's job of being a band-aid fix for various weapon rules. (which, again, could have just been solved by letting the damnn midgets use full size weapons instead)
4E abandoned this idea, so now we once again have stupid rule conflicts like how some people argue that Halflings can't actually use several Barbarian powers since they're technically not using a two handed weapon when they use a medium sized weapon as a two handed weapon.
Who said anything about scythes? I'm specifically talking about "small version of reach weapon = reach weapon".
So what? Shorties who pick lances or spiked chains should not get reach now? That was half the damn reason to pick these weapons.
But anyway, what exactly is your problem with this?
As we've seen in real life, the weapon size ratio works--not that it matters, being a fantasy game where no one blinks an eye at 5-foot long swords, but you don't even have that pitiful objection. People want to play shorties with reach weapons. And it's certainly not unbalanced.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Lago Paranoia wrote:People want to play shorties with reach weapons. And it's certainly not unbalanced.
You're right; it's not imbalanced, it's just stupid (i.e. that there's an effective weapon that a 2'8" halfling can hold that reaches opponents 10' away, and yet there's no effective weapon that a 6'8" human can hold that reaches opponents 15' away, except for Catharz's legendary exotic spear of longness that he thinks he might have seen once).
Similarly, it wouldn't be imbalanced for a fighter to be able to fire coconuts from his ass and transform into a speedboat. I hear that's scheduled for 6e.
You're right; it's not imbalanced, it's just stupid (i.e. that there's an effective weapon that a 2'8" halfling can hold that reaches opponents 10' away, and yet there's no effective weapon that a 6'8" human can hold that reaches opponents 15' away, except for Catharz's legendary exotic spear of longness that he thinks he might have seen once).
That's not an argument for halflings not getting 10' weapons, that's an argument against humans not getting 15' pikes, especially since they existed in the real world.
And you know what? In 3rd Edition, that wouldn't have even been unbalanced. In fact, a weapon where you could only hit foes 15 feet would be extraordinarily shitty, so I'm not surprised that they wouldn't have included it.
Similarly, it wouldn't be imbalanced for a fighter to be able to fire coconuts from his ass and transform into a speedboat. I hear that's scheduled for 6e.
15' pikes did exist and are appropriate for the genre. Take your strawman somewhere else.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think that the rules are wonderfully vague and the general consensus is "wielding a staff as an implement isn't the same as wielding a staff as a weapon."
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
Staves used as an implement can be wielded in one hand, so I guess halflings can use staff implements in two hands?
Who the fuck knows? The rules are ass anyway.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
virgileso wrote:Aren't halflings also unable to be a staff wizard because of the sizing issue?
The official ruling was 'they can use a staff as an two handed implement, but can't actually use it as a melee weapon'. This makes them complete rubbish because any damage focused caster will be dual wielding implements, and because serving double duty as both an implement and a melee weapon was suppose to be one of the it's advantages. (not a good one, mind you...)
Also, the whole batshit crazy 'Wielded as an implement/wielded as a weapon' rule mechanic where the item seems to almost exist in a state of quantum flux between two categories rather than just being fucking both, still makes me cry.
Last edited by sake on Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
