Full sword (all natural)

[Hypersmurf]

Thanks hype, Can a fighter take this feat and use a glaive in one hand, or a lance in one hand, that they normaly could could use as as a two handed weapon?

No. Monkey Grip applies to weapons designed for a creature one size larger than you.

If you're Medium, then a Medium Greatsword, a Large Longsword, and a Huge Shortsword are all considered two-handed weapons for you. If you have Monkey Grip, the Medium Greatsword and the Huge Shortsword are still considered two-handed weapons, but the weapon designed for a creature one size larger than you - the Large Longsword - remains a one-handed weapon.

The feat will have no effect on a glaive or a lance that is already designed for a creature of your size category, but it will allow you to wield a Large Glaive as a two-handed weapon, and a Large Lance as a two-handed weapon that can be used in one hand if you're mounted.

-Hyp.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I have come full circle. I think this feat stinks.

thanks for your help though.

 

[mvincent]

If you have Monkey Grip, the Medium Greatsword and the Huge Shortsword are still considered two-handed weapons, but the weapon designed for a creature one size larger than you - the Large Longsword - remains a one-handed weapon.

I believe that is open to interpretation. Strictly as written, you are correct that monkey-grip and powerful build wouldn't help you wield a huge dagger.

However, I can see how someone could arrive at a different conclusion, and the 3.5 FAQ provides an example of a medium character using powerful-build to better wield a huge weapon. This indicates that the Sage interpreted the writer's intent as different from the strictly written rule. He does something similar in an answer to a different question regarding powerful-build. I don't expect everyone to agree with the interpretation, but those that do will at least have company (and RPGA support).

(it's moot for me, as I don't allow either feat in my game)

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, I can see how someone could arrive at a different conclusion...

I think the wording renders the different conclusion inaccurate

Monkey Grip specifically references 'melee weapons one size larger than you'. A weapon two sizes larger than you is not 'interpretation' of that; it's rewriting the feat.

Someone might feel that it's logical that a feat affecting Large longswords should affect Medium greatswords and Huge shortswords (or daggers), but it's not possible to 'interpret' Monkey Grip to make it work that way. You need to actually say "What is written is not what the feat does" to end up with it having any effect on Huge weapons (assuming a Medium character).

The wording of Powerful Build, of course, is completely messed up anyway

-Hyp.

 

[escaflowne777]

So, technically, with 3.0 rules I could make it a size cat. larger for 2d10 damage and a -4 penalty?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, technically, with 3.0 rules I could make it a size cat. larger for 2d10 damage and a -4 penalty?

If you're using 3E rules, Monkey Grip works differently - you'd have to use the Sword and Fist version of the feat.

-Hyp.

 

[escaflowne777]

but you could do that in 3.5? And also, do keen and the feat that improves crit range stack? And finally(sry), Is there a crossbow version of the Full blade, as in, REALLY BIG, Other than a ballista, and, could I use a ballista in both hands?

 

[Hypersmurf]

but you could do that in 3.5?

Well, there isn't a Fullblade in 3.5. Like I said, I'd call the Fullblade a Large Bastard Sword... which means one size up is a Huge weapon, which Monkey Grip won't help you with.

And also, do keen and the feat that improves crit range stack?

No.

And finally(sry), Is there a crossbow version of the Full blade, as in, REALLY BIG, Other than a ballista, and, could I use a ballista in both hands?

There's a Great Crossbow in... Complete Warrior or Races of Stone, I think. And a ballista is a siege weapon... you aren't going to be picking that up and carrying it.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

The closest thing to a fullblade in 3.5 is a Large longsword wielded with Monkey Grip, which is not all that efficient at -2 to hit for an average of +2 damage. However, it goes nicely with Enlarge person, and isn't particularly a bad choice.

The FAQ answer to the EWP (bastard sword) appears to be dead wrong. I think someone was just too embarrassed to admit the 3.5 designers didn't think about what would happen to weapon proficiencies and feats for specific weapons with weapons coming in various sizes. For instance, it's amusing to think of an Ogre with EWP (bastard sword) using the feat to wield a human's bastard sword as a light weapon, and get the benefits of Weapon Focus (bastard sword). Elven wizards are proficient with Large longswords but not greatswords. Etc.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The closest thing to a fullblade in 3.5 is a Large longsword wielded with Monkey Grip, which is not all that efficient at -2 to hit for an average of +2 damage.

Out of curiosity, why Large Longsword?

The 3E Fullblade could be wielded in two hands as a martial weapon by a Large creature, or one hand with the EWP. It dealt 2d8 19-20/x2 S damage. It could be wielded in two hands by a Medium creature with the EWP (depending on whether you were using S&F first printing, S&F second printing, or A&EG, that is), but not at all by a Medium creature without the EWP.

The 3.5 Large Bastard Sword can be wielded in two hands as a martial weapon by a Large creature, or one hand with the EWP. It deals 2d8 damage 19-20/x2 S damage. It can be wielded in two hands by a Medium creature with the EWP (if you ignore the FAQ answer), but not at all by a Medium creature without the EWP.

The 3.5 Large Longsword can be wielded in one hand by a Large creature, or by a Medium creature with Monkey Grip, as a martial weapon... or in two hands by a Medium creature as a martial weapon with no other feats required. It deals 2d6 19-20/x2 S damage.

The bastard sword is a near-perfect fit; the longsword bears little resemblance...?

-Hyp.