So I'm a little blind but I started a thread that belongs here in General Discussion because I didn't see this one. Here is a link to OP and early replies: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rtpq?Weapon-size-ruling
I don't see the issue. It works JUST like it says in the PRD. Changing the size of a weapon doesn't change what kind of weapon it is. All it does is change ease of use and give penalties for size differences.
Saw the original thread. Would it be easier to ask your GM to just let you slash with the shortsword? The base request is to get around a printed game mechanic, and I think 'please?' is a better method than a convoluted rules question. (And it avoids that -2 for size!)
If the whole thing is JUST to get a different damage type, there is a feat for that. Weapon Versatility. Different sizes of the same weapon don't magically change damage types.
Oh good, you want the rules. Source of these rules.So if you want a creature to use a weapon sized incorrectly for it you first figure out how far apart the size of the weapon's intended wielder and the size of the creature are and then take a -2 penalty for each step and increase or decrease the weapon's "effort" by that many steps as well. That is all. In all other ways it functions as it would for a creature of appropriate size (proficiency, damage, damage types, crit range, special abilities). Those are the rules.Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
We have been over that in the other (incorrectly placed) thread and what your saying isn't what I'm going for.
Saw the original thread. Would it be easier to ask your GM to just let you slash with the shortsword? The base request is to get around a printed game mechanic, and I think 'please?' is a better method than a convoluted rules question. (And it avoids that -2 for size!)
I understand that the please works better, but in the case it doesn't or I don't want to have to explain how it would work (or they just cant understand how it would work) it would be nice to have something I can reference as an "Official Ruling."
Saw the original thread. Would it be easier to ask your GM to just let you slash with the shortsword? The base request is to get around a printed game mechanic, and I think 'please?' is a better method than a convoluted rules question. (And it avoids that -2 for size!)I understand that the please works better, but in the case it doesn't or I don't want to have to explain how it would work (or they just cant understand how it would work) it would be nice to have something I can reference as an "Official Ruling."
In that case, if you're really aiming for slashing with a light weapon ... grab a handaxe (d6, x3 for crit). If you need that critical range, a kukri is often suggested (d4, but 18-20/x2).
You are looking for an official ruling where there isn't one AwesomenessDog . A longsword ALWAYS deals the same damage types no matter if it's dagger or greatsword sized for the wielder. That's the rule.