Posted: Sat May 08, 2010 4:29 am
Given that a beholder would probably be using barding of some sort it'd probably be a nonissue. But I could be wrong.
I'm going to have to agree with you on that one. Arbitrarily resizing & reshaping armor could be it's own type of magic enhancement: 'tessellated tesseract' armor. Fits right in with morphic sizing metalline weapons as a shapechanger's best friend. And also for all of you fans of that movie with the armored robot strippers and the Russian who somehow stole a robot bikini from the strippers and a couple of ropes from Wonder Woman.Judging__Eagle wrote:I've always maintained that equipment reforms to fit creatures of the size and shape it was made for.
Stealing a Beholder's Adamantine carapace is cool, but it's not going to suddenly shrink, and fit around you. Unless you are also a Beholder (or Beholder Kin of a similar shape), and about the same size category.
A Dwarf stealing an Elf's mithral shirt, and having that resize is fine. they're both medium sized humanoids, and a PHB PC race character could conceivably wear a Minotaur's Armour (given liberal uses of Enlarge Person). So long as they're not a Halfling or Gnome.
Of course, having a ball of armour suddenly transmogriphy to fit a human is awesome.
They're not really shaped the same. The whole "small creatures use daggers as swords" thing always struck me as stupid. Different weapons have different shapes, not just different sizes, and it means that apparently it's impossible to make a halfling-sized quarterstaff or lance.Humans have 2 handed Rapiers. You might know them as Katanas. Two hands gives better leverage, strength and speed than one hand does.
I call bullshit. Other than both being swords that can only be used in single time, how the heck is a rapier like a katana? Everything from the hilt to the tip of the blade is different.Judging__Eagle wrote: Also Souran.... on 2-handed Rapiers. You're an idiot, not because of what you said, but because you're parroting one of the WoTC designers when you say that nonsense; and repeating a wrong won't ever make it right.
Humans have 2 handed Rapiers. You might know them as Katanas. Two hands gives better leverage, strength and speed than one hand does.
An actual rapier is pretty similar to a katana. When D&D talks about rapiers, they actually mean épées.Shiritai wrote:
I call bullshit. Other than both being swords that can only be used in single time, how the heck is a rapier like a katana? Everything from the hilt to the tip of the blade is different.


Okay, what the fuck.Humans have 2 handed Rapiers. You might know them as Katanas. Two hands gives better leverage, strength and speed than one hand does.
Alright, thank you. Totally reasonable.FrankTrollman wrote:For a game that treats these two weapons as identical:It is actually insulting to have them turn around and rant at me about realism as regards pommel diameter.
-Username17
In D&D, as Frank noted, the games designers frankly don't care enough about things like reality, or research when doing things.Shiritai wrote:I call bullshit. Other than both being swords that can only be used in single time, how the heck is a rapier like a katana? Everything from the hilt to the tip of the blade is different.Judging__Eagle wrote: Also Souran.... on 2-handed Rapiers. You're an idiot, not because of what you said, but because you're parroting one of the WoTC designers when you say that nonsense; and repeating a wrong won't ever make it right.
Humans have 2 handed Rapiers. You might know them as Katanas. Two hands gives better leverage, strength and speed than one hand does.
3.5 Layout gets +2 points for putting the Diplomacy DCs in the Skill chapter next to the Diplomacy entry instead of in the DMG under influencing NPCs. But then it loses a point again for having the Charm Person spell reference that same section of the DMG that no longer has the DCs table and instead has a pointer back to the PHB's Diplomacy skill chart.TOZ wrote:This thread inspired me to leaf through the 3.0 PHB my friend gave me. Rangers really did suck balls. Besides that, the only other thing I noticed is that the 3.5 book had better layout. Fucking whitespace tables. And Spell Mastery having a notice in the feat section telling you to go to the wizard page, because only wizards can have it. Made me wonder why they wasted the space.
Ironic name is ironic.PoliteNewb wrote:But that's not what you fucking said. If that's what you meant and what you're trying to say now, okay, great, happy fucking day. But don't act like everyone else is a dumbass because you said something that was wrong and got misunderstood.
A rapier is a weapon specialized for killing unarmored rapier-wielding opponents in an elegant fashion, right? Is the katana designed for the equivalent purpose? The curved blade and focus on cutting implies mounted use (but I'm no expert; maybe that's just a specialization towards two-handed use).Judging__Eagle wrote:Actually, what I meant to say in my first post was that the "idea" of a rapier held in two hands is not only highly logical, but we've already done it. A Katana is the principles of a Rapier, with extra muscle applied to it.
The curved blade emphasizes use against unarmored opponents. It enhances the effects of sharpness. That's why cavalry sabers are curved (used by cavalry against unarmored footmen), and that's why traditional Arabic scimitars are curved too (not much armor use in the Arabian Peninsula for obvious reasons).The Katana is a peasant murdering weapon.CatharzGodfoot wrote:A rapier is a weapon specialized for killing unarmored rapier-wielding opponents in an elegant fashion, right? Is the katana designed for the equivalent purpose? The curved blade and focus on cutting implies mounted use (but I'm no expert; maybe that's just a specialization towards two-handed use).Judging__Eagle wrote:Actually, what I meant to say in my first post was that the "idea" of a rapier held in two hands is not only highly logical, but we've already done it. A Katana is the principles of a Rapier, with extra muscle applied to it.
Any chance of getting a quote on this?This was simply because Andy Collins hated people who didn't fight with Greatswords. He straight up said so. He said that it was "wrong" for people to do more damage with two short swords (hence the Power Attack change) or a falchion (hence the crit change).
The original discussions are three purges and seven years ago on WotC's boards. Best I can do off hand is secondary quotes from the period from places like Enworld:Psychic Robot wrote:Any chance of getting a quote on this?This was simply because Andy Collins hated people who didn't fight with Greatswords. He straight up said so. He said that it was "wrong" for people to do more damage with two short swords (hence the Power Attack change) or a falchion (hence the crit change).
-Username17Enworld, 2003 wrote:While I agree with Andy Collins' sentiment that Power Attack should be more appealing to "the greataxe-wielding barbarian" than to "the twin-dagger-wielding halfling rogue," I that think allowing wielders of two-handed weapons to gain double the usual benefit from the feat is a huge mistake.
Indeed. I recall one GenCon when me and the wife were walking past the WotC zone and she asked who the guy was getting mobbed by people [andy collins].Lago PARANOIA wrote: There's a reason why I call that sack of crap a rat bastard constantly.
A quick google search of those quoted characters plus Andy's name turns up the following:FrankTrollman wrote:The original discussions are three purges and seven years ago on WotC's boards. Best I can do off hand is secondary quotes from the period from places like Enworld:Psychic Robot wrote:Any chance of getting a quote on this?This was simply because Andy Collins hated people who didn't fight with Greatswords. He straight up said so. He said that it was "wrong" for people to do more damage with two short swords (hence the Power Attack change) or a falchion (hence the crit change).
-Username17Enworld, 2003 wrote:While I agree with Andy Collins' sentiment that Power Attack should be more appealing to "the greataxe-wielding barbarian" than to "the twin-dagger-wielding halfling rogue," I that think allowing wielders of two-handed weapons to gain double the usual benefit from the feat is a huge mistake.
It didn't work correctly. This is a tricky category of changes, because it encompasses a variety of issues. A spell's description might be worded in such a way as to confuse players as to its actual effect. A feat might be least useful to exactly the characters who are most drawn to it. A monster might be so complicated to run that DMs couldn't use it effectively. None of these rules are necessarily broken, but none of them work in the manner they were intended. These aren't "necessary" changes in the way the first two categories might be, but D&D shouldn't be a bait-and-switch game. If Power Attack looks most exciting to the greataxe-wielding barbarian (and the game sells it that way), then he should be the one getting the biggest bang for his buck from the feat, and not the twin-dagger-wielding halfling rogue. The game should deliver what it promises