Centaurs and Weapon Size [Archive] - Wizards Community

Centaurs and Weapon Size [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Verelor
02-15-06, 09:56 PM Well, I'm sure this has been discussed here plenty of times before, but I either missed it or never bothered to tune in. The issue is this: There seems to be a whole following of people (I often lean in their favor) that say despite the fact that centaur characters are large-sized, it would probably make more sense for them to wield medium-sized weapons instead of large because their torsos, arms,a nd hands are only as large as a human's? But it can also be argued that their large and powerful lower body provieds the balance they need to wield weapons of such size. What does everyone else think? Should i make the change or keep it as it is?
dok
02-15-06, 10:45 PM The default decision is to follow the RAW. When in doubt, follow the RAW, playtest it, and if it proves to be unbalancing to the game, you can revisit the issue.

Using Large weapons has an effect on game mechanics. Several, actually, that work to benefit the creature. What is your game mechanics-based argument against allowing Centaurs Large weapons? I don't mean "well, the pictures look like they're medium sized" or "it seems silly to me", I mean where in the rules do you see justification to create an exception to the rules on weapon sizing?

Let me put it another way: what is gained by creating a case-by-case review of all monster weapon-sizing rules? How is the game improved by creating an exception to the existing rules?

Do Centaur characters have to pay more for armor? Yes, they do. Can they use magical boots, or do they have to have magic footwear specially made for themselves?

The argument that Centaurs can't use Large weapons ("because their torsos are Medium-sized") falls into the same categories as arguments for limiting Cleave ("How can you cleave with a peircing weapon?") or restricting Great Cleave. ("How can you cleave into opponents on opposite sides of you?") These argument all share the same two features: they're not based on game mechanics or game balance, and they all serve to weaken existing rules without providing any offseting benefits.
runestar
02-15-06, 11:23 PM He's large size, so let him use large weapons accordingly. Not all game mechanics always make sense logic wise, but I don't see anything inherently broken about allowing large weapons. After all, reach is based on your size, not the size of your weapon.
Verelor
02-16-06, 05:44 PM The default decision is to follow the RAW. When in doubt, follow the RAW, playtest it, and if it proves to be unbalancing to the game, you can revisit the issue.

Using Large weapons has an effect on game mechanics. Several, actually, that work to benefit the creature. What is your game mechanics-based argument against allowing Centaurs Large weapons? I don't mean "well, the pictures look like they're medium sized" or "it seems silly to me", I mean where in the rules do you see justification to create an exception to the rules on weapon sizing?

Let me put it another way: what is gained by creating a case-by-case review of all monster weapon-sizing rules? How is the game improved by creating an exception to the existing rules?

Do Centaur characters have to pay more for armor? Yes, they do. Can they use magical boots, or do they have to have magic footwear specially made for themselves?

The argument that Centaurs can't use Large weapons ("because their torsos are Medium-sized") falls into the same categories as arguments for limiting Cleave ("How can you cleave with a peircing weapon?") or restricting Great Cleave. ("How can you cleave into opponents on opposite sides of you?") These argument all share the same two features: they're not based on game mechanics or game balance, and they all serve to weaken existing rules without providing any offseting benefits.

Rules-lawyer...There's basically no other races of Large size but five-foot reach (well, there is the lamia, but that's about it) that use weapons, so there is no case-by-case here.

He's large size, so let him use large weapons accordingly. Not all game mechanics always make sense logic wise, but I don't see anything inherently broken about allowing large weapons. After all, reach is based on your size, not the size of your weapon.

I didn't say I wanted to change it because it is broken, I'm thinking about changing it because it seems to make more sense that centaurs wield human-size weapons.
Ogre4Hire
02-16-06, 07:57 PM Actually, the human half of the centaur is supposed to be in proportion to the horse half. I don't know if you've ever seen a horse's skeleton, but picture a human torso that size.

The Centaur's lack of reach stems from its long body limiting the amount of lunging it can do while staying in the same square, just like most large animals.

Also, many of the other Large creatures have much longer arms: Ogre arms hang down to their knees, while trolls are knuckle-draggers. Centaurs, on the other hand, have arms that are proportional to that of a human (but one who stands about 8-9 feet tall).
Verelor
02-16-06, 08:37 PM Actually, the human half of the centaur is supposed to be in proportion to the horse half. I don't know if you've ever seen a horse's skeleton, but picture a human torso that size.

The Centaur's lack of reach stems from its long body limiting the amount of lunging it can do while staying in the same square, just like most large animals.

Also, many of the other Large creatures have much longer arms: Ogre arms hang down to their knees, while trolls are knuckle-draggers. Centaurs, on the other hand, have arms that are proportional to that of a human (but one who stands about 8-9 feet tall).

Hm, you might be right. It's just still kinda debatable, considering they've never released a centaurnomicon! :D
dok
02-16-06, 08:54 PM Rules-lawyer...

I can't tell if you're using that phrase as a negative or not.
You asked a question about whether or not to change the rules.
That would seem to be an appropriate place for a "rules laywer"...

There's basically no other races of Large size but five-foot reach (well, there is the lamia, but that's about it) that use weapons, so there is no case-by-case here.

There's the Lamia. There's the Amanite (demon, MotP), there's the Scorpionfolk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/scorpionfolk.htm)(MMII, but Open Content), and there's the Tauric creature template. (MMII and Savage Species) There might be more in other books, but that's the few I can locate quickly.

There are also a fair number of Medium creature that use Large weapons (Goliaths, Half-Giants) that still only have a 5 ft. reach.

I didn't say I wanted to change it because it is broken, I'm thinking about changing it because it seems to make more sense that centaurs wield human-size weapons.

Wow. It's like you didn't bother to read what I wrote.

Does it "make sense" that you can use a feat called Cleave with a Piercing weapon?

Does it "make sense" that you can use Great Cleave to attack opponents on opposite sides, in any order that you'd like?

Does it "make sense" that you can have a flaming, frost weapon that is simultanously on fire and freezing cold?

Does it "make sense" that a Gargantuan dragon could ever generate enough lift to take off, let alone fly at such tremendous speeds?

Your position here (and you've stated it twice) seem to be:
"I know the rules aren't broken, but I want to make a special exception here anyway, for no real reason beyond my inability to imagine how it might work normally."

My argument against that is pretty simple:
Don't change game mechanics unless there your reasons are based in game mechanics.
Verelor
02-16-06, 09:14 PM Does it "make sense" that you can use a feat called Cleave with a Piercing weapon?

Not really. Maybe I should revise it (all balance intended, of course).

Does it "make sense" that you can use Great Cleave to attack opponents on opposite sides, in any order that you'd like?

Well, since D&D now luckily no longer has facing rules, and actions in the same round occur at about exactly the same time, I don't see it as much of an issue.

Does it "make sense" that you can have a flaming, frost weapon that is simultanously on fire and freezing cold?

Which is precisely why a sensible DM wouldn't throw one into their games! :)

Does it "make sense" that a Gargantuan dragon could ever generate enough lift to take off, let alone fly at such tremendous speeds?

Well, don't underestimate the fact that a dragon of that size has massive wings and is also extrmely magical. And that the manuevarability is practically nonexistant.

G-d bless you. :D
Nolgoth
02-16-06, 09:45 PM Check out the picture of the centaur from the monster manual and most other centaur pictures. Now imagine the human part as a human riding on the creatures back. That would be one large human. Why is it so hard to imagine him using large size weapons? His torso would be proportional to at least an 8 feet tall human it seems. Add to that the high strength, it would seem sillier for the centaur to be using puny human weapons.
Branto
02-16-06, 10:26 PM This is sad.. Truly sad..

First off, the Centaur is 'large' because of his horse body. Even if the humanoid half is slightly larger than a normal human, that still wouldn't be enough for the human half to be large (gnolls, after all, can reach heights of 9 feet and are still considerred medium!)

Secondly, horses barely make large. Members of the Wizards staff have said on many occasions that they would make horses and centaurs and the like only take up 1x2 squares instead of four, if D&D took facing into account.

Thirdly, a centaur would have HORRIBLE balance. You notice that there is NOTHING on the rear of the centaur to balance the human half, and anything worn or carried there? This is the BIGGEST reason that centaurs rarely wear even the most basic of armor, and why they do NOT carry large weapons. If they tried, without putting some signifigant amount of weight above their rear legs, they would immediately fall forward, and quite likely either be crushed or snap their spine as the taur half falls forward onto them.

For ALL purposes of equipment from the waist up, centaurs are treated as medium. Anything else just doesn't make sense, and throws off the creature's balance... both literally and gameplay-wise.
Nolgoth
02-16-06, 10:45 PM Not to argue with you about weapon size, but I think you are underestimating the weight of a horses rump. I don't think carrying some extra gear up front will make them "tip over". Would be funny to see though.
Vaalingrade Ashland
02-16-06, 11:13 PM Beautiful, another example of the sucktitude of 3.5 weapon sizing. Just give him medium weapons.
Ogre4Hire
02-17-06, 01:02 AM This is sad.. Truly sad..

First off, the Centaur is 'large' because of his horse body. Even if the humanoid half is slightly larger than a normal human, that still wouldn't be enough for the human half to be large (gnolls, after all, can reach heights of 9 feet and are still considerred medium!)

Yes, gnolls get that tall. But most Large Monsterous Humanoids and Giants weigh at least twice as much as a gnoll does (600+ pounds).

Secondly, horses barely make large. Members of the Wizards staff have said on many occasions that they would make horses and centaurs and the like only take up 1x2 squares instead of four, if D&D took facing into account.

Like they did in 3.0? Where large (tall) creatures took up a 1X1 square?

Thirdly, a centaur would have HORRIBLE balance. You notice that there is NOTHING on the rear of the centaur to balance the human half, and anything worn or carried there? This is the BIGGEST reason that centaurs rarely wear even the most basic of armor, and why they do NOT carry large weapons. If they tried, without putting some signifigant amount of weight above their rear legs, they would immediately fall forward, and quite likely either be crushed or snap their spine as the taur half falls forward onto them.

We're playing a game where there are 3 ton flying reptiles that breath fire, creatures who appear to be several feet to the left of where they actually are, and humans who can destroy a castle just by pointing their finger at it and chanting, and you're argueing about how a centaur's spine would work? :uh-huh:

For ALL purposes of equipment from the waist up, centaurs are treated as medium. Anything else just doesn't make sense, and throws off the creature's balance... both literally and gameplay-wise.

Except that it flies completely against the rules. If the game designers had wanted centaurs to be medium sized, they'd be medium sized.
runestar
02-17-06, 07:42 AM Does it "make sense" that you can have a flaming, frost weapon that is simultanously on fire and freezing cold?
Since when is dnd and magic supposed to make sense? :cool: Its magic. You are supposed to be able to do anything with it. You can bend reality to your will. Having a weapon with both flaming and freezing properties would be the least of my expectations. :cool: I suppose you balk at the improbability of how some bat dung and sulphur can produce a ball of fire, right? :rolleyes:

That said, all in all, if you wish to houserule that centaurs use medium weapons, be my guest by all means. But it does not change the fact that they are listed as large size, and thus, unless it is explicitly stated somewhere that they are limited to medium sized gear, they can legitly use equipment appropriate for their size(large).
savant_warlord13
02-17-06, 12:44 PM Actually, the human half of the centaur is supposed to be in proportion to the horse half. I don't know if you've ever seen a horse's skeleton, but picture a human torso that size.

The Centaur's lack of reach stems from its long body limiting the amount of lunging it can do while staying in the same square, just like most large animals.

Also, many of the other Large creatures have much longer arms: Ogre arms hang down to their knees, while trolls are knuckle-draggers. Centaurs, on the other hand, have arms that are proportional to that of a human (but one who stands about 8-9 feet tall).

this is absolutely not true. a centaur's foretorso (never thought I'd use that word) is the same size as a human's torso. It is also about the same size as a horse's head and neck stuck together.
Longwinn
02-17-06, 02:48 PM Reading this post has been quite enjoyable. I guess I'm of the school that most creatures, if proficient in the use of a weapon, could use a large, medium, small, or tiny weapon simply by choice. It's the flavor of the character to act according to his class or whim.

In the instance of the Centaur, I find them to be AMAZING cavalry types. Who wouldn't love to charge into the flank of the enemy and never worry about getting knocked out of the saddle? 10 foot reach with a jousting stick or longspear used as a jousting stick is well within reason. Medium sized longswords for when you switch to melee once the charge has stopped makes perfect sense too. As far as rules go. No, I'm not much for legalistically following the rules. They are playtested well and work well. But if your DM allows for some flexibility for the sake of making it fun for you to play the game, then by all means, take license with it. Just don't break too far beyond what's feasible.

That's my .02.

I play a Centaur Mage/Eldritch Knight. It's quite fun. You should try it.
savant_warlord13
02-17-06, 04:08 PM Cleaveing with a piercing weapon actually does make sense, as does cleaving around into someone behind you.

You could drive a spear through multiple enemies, and has anyone ever heard of spinning?
runestar
02-17-06, 09:52 PM ANd how do you rationalise cleaving with your bare fists? Punching through the rib cage of the first foe to get at the enemy behind him? :P
Athanatos
02-17-06, 11:21 PM Cleaveing with a piercing weapon actually does make sense, as does cleaving around into someone behind you.

You could drive a spear through multiple enemies, and has anyone ever heard of spinning?

<-[ENEMY]----[ME] [ENEMY]

Watch how my spear is able to cleave the other guy. What, do I rotate the other guy 180 degrees (still being skewered by the spear!) and then stick it into the other fellow? And this is a free action? Wow, those level 1 human warriors who take power attack and cleave must be really fast with those spears.

Anyway, horses can get over 6 feet tall, even without a humanoid torso. I'd wager to say that if a centaur is more based off a draft horse than a miniature horse, large weapons aren't out of the question.
runestar
02-17-06, 11:55 PM When will people learn to stop attempting to try rationalising dnd scenarios with real life mechanics? :rolleyes:
Ogre4Hire
02-18-06, 01:22 AM this is absolutely not true. a centaur's foretorso (never thought I'd use that word) is the same size as a human's torso. It is also about the same size as a horse's head and neck stuck together.

Okay, show me your centaur skeleton that you're using as a reference.:D

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Verelor 02-15-06, 09:56 PM	Well, I'm sure this has been discussed here plenty of times before, but I either missed it or never bothered to tune in. The issue is this: There seems to be a whole following of people (I often lean in their favor) that say despite the fact that centaur characters are large-sized, it would probably make more sense for them to wield medium-sized weapons instead of large because their torsos, arms,a nd hands are only as large as a human's? But it can also be argued that their large and powerful lower body provieds the balance they need to wield weapons of such size. What does everyone else think? Should i make the change or keep it as it is?
dok 02-15-06, 10:45 PM	The default decision is to follow the RAW. When in doubt, follow the RAW, playtest it, and if it proves to be unbalancing to the game, you can revisit the issue. Using Large weapons has an effect on game mechanics. Several, actually, that work to benefit the creature. What is your game mechanics-based argument against allowing Centaurs Large weapons? I don't mean "well, the pictures look like they're medium sized" or "it seems silly to me", I mean where in the rules do you see justification to create an exception to the rules on weapon sizing? Let me put it another way: what is gained by creating a case-by-case review of all monster weapon-sizing rules? How is the game improved by creating an exception to the existing rules? Do Centaur characters have to pay more for armor? Yes, they do. Can they use magical boots, or do they have to have magic footwear specially made for themselves? The argument that Centaurs can't use Large weapons ("because their torsos are Medium-sized") falls into the same categories as arguments for limiting Cleave ("How can you cleave with a peircing weapon?") or restricting Great Cleave. ("How can you cleave into opponents on opposite sides of you?") These argument all share the same two features: they're not based on game mechanics or game balance, and they all serve to weaken existing rules without providing any offseting benefits.
runestar 02-15-06, 11:23 PM	He's large size, so let him use large weapons accordingly. Not all game mechanics always make sense logic wise, but I don't see anything inherently broken about allowing large weapons. After all, reach is based on your size, not the size of your weapon.
Verelor 02-16-06, 05:44 PM	The default decision is to follow the RAW. When in doubt, follow the RAW, playtest it, and if it proves to be unbalancing to the game, you can revisit the issue. Using Large weapons has an effect on game mechanics. Several, actually, that work to benefit the creature. What is your game mechanics-based argument against allowing Centaurs Large weapons? I don't mean "well, the pictures look like they're medium sized" or "it seems silly to me", I mean where in the rules do you see justification to create an exception to the rules on weapon sizing? Let me put it another way: what is gained by creating a case-by-case review of all monster weapon-sizing rules? How is the game improved by creating an exception to the existing rules? Do Centaur characters have to pay more for armor? Yes, they do. Can they use magical boots, or do they have to have magic footwear specially made for themselves? The argument that Centaurs can't use Large weapons ("because their torsos are Medium-sized") falls into the same categories as arguments for limiting Cleave ("How can you cleave with a peircing weapon?") or restricting Great Cleave. ("How can you cleave into opponents on opposite sides of you?") These argument all share the same two features: they're not based on game mechanics or game balance, and they all serve to weaken existing rules without providing any offseting benefits. Rules-lawyer...There's basically no other races of Large size but five-foot reach (well, there is the lamia, but that's about it) that use weapons, so there is no case-by-case here. He's large size, so let him use large weapons accordingly. Not all game mechanics always make sense logic wise, but I don't see anything inherently broken about allowing large weapons. After all, reach is based on your size, not the size of your weapon. I didn't say I wanted to change it because it is broken, I'm thinking about changing it because it seems to make more sense that centaurs wield human-size weapons.
Ogre4Hire 02-16-06, 07:57 PM	Actually, the human half of the centaur is supposed to be in proportion to the horse half. I don't know if you've ever seen a horse's skeleton, but picture a human torso that size. The Centaur's lack of reach stems from its long body limiting the amount of lunging it can do while staying in the same square, just like most large animals. Also, many of the other Large creatures have much longer arms: Ogre arms hang down to their knees, while trolls are knuckle-draggers. Centaurs, on the other hand, have arms that are proportional to that of a human (but one who stands about 8-9 feet tall).
Verelor 02-16-06, 08:37 PM	Actually, the human half of the centaur is supposed to be in proportion to the horse half. I don't know if you've ever seen a horse's skeleton, but picture a human torso that size. The Centaur's lack of reach stems from its long body limiting the amount of lunging it can do while staying in the same square, just like most large animals. Also, many of the other Large creatures have much longer arms: Ogre arms hang down to their knees, while trolls are knuckle-draggers. Centaurs, on the other hand, have arms that are proportional to that of a human (but one who stands about 8-9 feet tall). Hm, you might be right. It's just still kinda debatable, considering they've never released a centaurnomicon! :D
dok 02-16-06, 08:54 PM	Rules-lawyer... I can't tell if you're using that phrase as a negative or not. You asked a question about whether or not to change the rules. That would seem to be an appropriate place for a "rules laywer"... There's basically no other races of Large size but five-foot reach (well, there is the lamia, but that's about it) that use weapons, so there is no case-by-case here. There's the Lamia. There's the Amanite (demon, MotP), there's the Scorpionfolk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/scorpionfolk.htm)(MMII, but Open Content), and there's the Tauric creature template. (MMII and Savage Species) There might be more in other books, but that's the few I can locate quickly. There are also a fair number of Medium creature that use Large weapons (Goliaths, Half-Giants) that still only have a 5 ft. reach. I didn't say I wanted to change it because it is broken, I'm thinking about changing it because it seems to make more sense that centaurs wield human-size weapons. Wow. It's like you didn't bother to read what I wrote. Does it "make sense" that you can use a feat called Cleave with a Piercing weapon? Does it "make sense" that you can use Great Cleave to attack opponents on opposite sides, in any order that you'd like? Does it "make sense" that you can have a flaming, frost weapon that is simultanously on fire and freezing cold? Does it "make sense" that a Gargantuan dragon could ever generate enough lift to take off, let alone fly at such tremendous speeds? Your position here (and you've stated it twice) seem to be: "I know the rules aren't broken, but I want to make a special exception here anyway, for no real reason beyond my inability to imagine how it might work normally." My argument against that is pretty simple: Don't change game mechanics unless there your reasons are based in game mechanics.
Verelor 02-16-06, 09:14 PM	Does it "make sense" that you can use a feat called Cleave with a Piercing weapon? Not really. Maybe I should revise it (all balance intended, of course). Does it "make sense" that you can use Great Cleave to attack opponents on opposite sides, in any order that you'd like? Well, since D&D now luckily no longer has facing rules, and actions in the same round occur at about exactly the same time, I don't see it as much of an issue. Does it "make sense" that you can have a flaming, frost weapon that is simultanously on fire and freezing cold? Which is precisely why a sensible DM wouldn't throw one into their games! :) Does it "make sense" that a Gargantuan dragon could ever generate enough lift to take off, let alone fly at such tremendous speeds? Well, don't underestimate the fact that a dragon of that size has massive wings and is also extrmely magical. And that the manuevarability is practically nonexistant. G-d bless you. :D
Nolgoth 02-16-06, 09:45 PM	Check out the picture of the centaur from the monster manual and most other centaur pictures. Now imagine the human part as a human riding on the creatures back. That would be one large human. Why is it so hard to imagine him using large size weapons? His torso would be proportional to at least an 8 feet tall human it seems. Add to that the high strength, it would seem sillier for the centaur to be using puny human weapons.
Branto 02-16-06, 10:26 PM	This is sad.. Truly sad.. First off, the Centaur is 'large' because of his horse body. Even if the humanoid half is slightly larger than a normal human, that still wouldn't be enough for the human half to be large (gnolls, after all, can reach heights of 9 feet and are still considerred medium!) Secondly, horses barely make large. Members of the Wizards staff have said on many occasions that they would make horses and centaurs and the like only take up 1x2 squares instead of four, if D&D took facing into account. Thirdly, a centaur would have HORRIBLE balance. You notice that there is NOTHING on the rear of the centaur to balance the human half, and anything worn or carried there? This is the BIGGEST reason that centaurs rarely wear even the most basic of armor, and why they do NOT carry large weapons. If they tried, without putting some signifigant amount of weight above their rear legs, they would immediately fall forward, and quite likely either be crushed or snap their spine as the taur half falls forward onto them. For ALL purposes of equipment from the waist up, centaurs are treated as medium. Anything else just doesn't make sense, and throws off the creature's balance... both literally and gameplay-wise.
Nolgoth 02-16-06, 10:45 PM	Not to argue with you about weapon size, but I think you are underestimating the weight of a horses rump. I don't think carrying some extra gear up front will make them "tip over". Would be funny to see though.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-16-06, 11:13 PM	Beautiful, another example of the sucktitude of 3.5 weapon sizing. Just give him medium weapons.
Ogre4Hire 02-17-06, 01:02 AM	This is sad.. Truly sad.. First off, the Centaur is 'large' because of his horse body. Even if the humanoid half is slightly larger than a normal human, that still wouldn't be enough for the human half to be large (gnolls, after all, can reach heights of 9 feet and are still considerred medium!) Yes, gnolls get that tall. But most Large Monsterous Humanoids and Giants weigh at least twice as much as a gnoll does (600+ pounds). Secondly, horses barely make large. Members of the Wizards staff have said on many occasions that they would make horses and centaurs and the like only take up 1x2 squares instead of four, if D&D took facing into account. Like they did in 3.0? Where large (tall) creatures took up a 1X1 square? Thirdly, a centaur would have HORRIBLE balance. You notice that there is NOTHING on the rear of the centaur to balance the human half, and anything worn or carried there? This is the BIGGEST reason that centaurs rarely wear even the most basic of armor, and why they do NOT carry large weapons. If they tried, without putting some signifigant amount of weight above their rear legs, they would immediately fall forward, and quite likely either be crushed or snap their spine as the taur half falls forward onto them. We're playing a game where there are 3 ton flying reptiles that breath fire, creatures who appear to be several feet to the left of where they actually are, and humans who can destroy a castle just by pointing their finger at it and chanting, and you're argueing about how a centaur's spine would work? :uh-huh: For ALL purposes of equipment from the waist up, centaurs are treated as medium. Anything else just doesn't make sense, and throws off the creature's balance... both literally and gameplay-wise. Except that it flies completely against the rules. If the game designers had wanted centaurs to be medium sized, they'd be medium sized.
runestar 02-17-06, 07:42 AM	Does it "make sense" that you can have a flaming, frost weapon that is simultanously on fire and freezing cold? Since when is dnd and magic supposed to make sense? :cool: Its magic. You are supposed to be able to do anything with it. You can bend reality to your will. Having a weapon with both flaming and freezing properties would be the least of my expectations. :cool: I suppose you balk at the improbability of how some bat dung and sulphur can produce a ball of fire, right? :rolleyes: That said, all in all, if you wish to houserule that centaurs use medium weapons, be my guest by all means. But it does not change the fact that they are listed as large size, and thus, unless it is explicitly stated somewhere that they are limited to medium sized gear, they can legitly use equipment appropriate for their size(large).
savant_warlord13 02-17-06, 12:44 PM	Actually, the human half of the centaur is supposed to be in proportion to the horse half. I don't know if you've ever seen a horse's skeleton, but picture a human torso that size. The Centaur's lack of reach stems from its long body limiting the amount of lunging it can do while staying in the same square, just like most large animals. Also, many of the other Large creatures have much longer arms: Ogre arms hang down to their knees, while trolls are knuckle-draggers. Centaurs, on the other hand, have arms that are proportional to that of a human (but one who stands about 8-9 feet tall). this is absolutely not true. a centaur's foretorso (never thought I'd use that word) is the same size as a human's torso. It is also about the same size as a horse's head and neck stuck together.
Longwinn 02-17-06, 02:48 PM	Reading this post has been quite enjoyable. I guess I'm of the school that most creatures, if proficient in the use of a weapon, could use a large, medium, small, or tiny weapon simply by choice. It's the flavor of the character to act according to his class or whim. In the instance of the Centaur, I find them to be AMAZING cavalry types. Who wouldn't love to charge into the flank of the enemy and never worry about getting knocked out of the saddle? 10 foot reach with a jousting stick or longspear used as a jousting stick is well within reason. Medium sized longswords for when you switch to melee once the charge has stopped makes perfect sense too. As far as rules go. No, I'm not much for legalistically following the rules. They are playtested well and work well. But if your DM allows for some flexibility for the sake of making it fun for you to play the game, then by all means, take license with it. Just don't break too far beyond what's feasible. That's my .02. I play a Centaur Mage/Eldritch Knight. It's quite fun. You should try it.
savant_warlord13 02-17-06, 04:08 PM	Cleaveing with a piercing weapon actually does make sense, as does cleaving around into someone behind you. You could drive a spear through multiple enemies, and has anyone ever heard of spinning?
runestar 02-17-06, 09:52 PM	ANd how do you rationalise cleaving with your bare fists? Punching through the rib cage of the first foe to get at the enemy behind him? :P
Athanatos 02-17-06, 11:21 PM	Cleaveing with a piercing weapon actually does make sense, as does cleaving around into someone behind you. You could drive a spear through multiple enemies, and has anyone ever heard of spinning? <-[ENEMY]----[ME] [ENEMY] Watch how my spear is able to cleave the other guy. What, do I rotate the other guy 180 degrees (still being skewered by the spear!) and then stick it into the other fellow? And this is a free action? Wow, those level 1 human warriors who take power attack and cleave must be really fast with those spears. Anyway, horses can get over 6 feet tall, even without a humanoid torso. I'd wager to say that if a centaur is more based off a draft horse than a miniature horse, large weapons aren't out of the question.
runestar 02-17-06, 11:55 PM	When will people learn to stop attempting to try rationalising dnd scenarios with real life mechanics? :rolleyes:
Ogre4Hire 02-18-06, 01:22 AM	this is absolutely not true. a centaur's foretorso (never thought I'd use that word) is the same size as a human's torso. It is also about the same size as a horse's head and neck stuck together. Okay, show me your centaur skeleton that you're using as a reference.:D