Smokingmonkee
First Post
I'm just wondering if there is supposed to be a difference because according to the weapon damage according to size a large greatsword is 3d6 and a fullblade is 2d8. Am I reading something wrong here?
Fullblade vs. Large Greatsword?
- Thread starter Smokingmonkee
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Smokingmonkee said:
Even though they refer to it as the "Ogre's Greatsword", stat the Fullblade as a Large Bastard Sword and you're fine.
As long as you ignore the bizarre nonsense in the FAQ about "one-handed exotic weapon doesn't really mean 'one-handed exotic weapon'".
-Hyp.
Ottergame
First Post
Well, a Large greatsword would impose an akward size penalty on a medium sized character who used it, while a fullblade would not. If you are going to compare weapons of the same size, a Large greatsword does 2d8 damage while a large fullblade would do 4d6, if you don't try to compensate for the sizes of the fullblade between 3.0 and 3.5.
Edit: ack, I see I made a mistake, a fullblade would do 3d8 if it were made large.
Edit: ack, I see I made a mistake, a fullblade would do 3d8 if it were made large.
Last edited:
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Ottergame said:
As far as I can see, in 3E, a Fullblade was a weapon designed for Large creatures, that happened (with an EWP) to be usable in two hands by Medium creatures... just like the Bastard Sword was a weapon designed for Medium creatures, that happened (with an EWP) to be usable in two hands by Small creatures.
So when you convert it to 3.5, it should be a Large weapon, and give a penalty to Medium creatures.
And it happens that the damage is identical to a Large Bastard Sword. So it works perfectly, to me, to say "What was called a Fullblade in 3E is a Large Bastard Sword in 3.5."
-Hyp.
Smokingmonkee
First Post
Thanks a lot.. it makes a wee bit more sense now.
Ottergame
First Post
The only problem is that assumes that a Large bastard sword can use the same feat as a medium bastard sword, which effectivly lets a person get two weapons for one feat. While that's ok, it makes it the only weapon I can think of that allows a person to use the same weapon of different sizes with no penalty. And a feat that applies to one weapon would extend to the other in this case. A fighter could specialize in the bastard sword, and get a sword and board version for defense and a two handed version for better damage.Hypersmurf said:
Again, while I don't have a problem with that, under normal rules, the only real advantage of using a bastard sword in two hands is it is a true two handed weapon for the rare few times that's better than having a one handed weapon held in two hands.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Ottergame said:
What no penalty? If you're Medium and swinging a Large Bastard Sword, you take a -2.
That's part of how I'd convert Fullblade to 3.5.
If someone in 3E was playing a halfling with a shortsword, and converted to 3.5, I'd give them the choice - downsize it to a Small shortsword, or keep using a Medium shortsword but take the -2 for inappropriate size.
If someone used a Fullblade in 3E, and converted to 3.5, I'd give him the choice - downsize it to a Medium Bastard Sword, downsize it to a Medium Greatsword and get a feat back, swap it for a Large Greatsword and swap the EWP for Monkey Grip at -2, or keep using it as a Large Bastard Sword and take the -2 for inappropriate size.
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Ottergame said:
The flavour text and mechanics of the 3E Fullblade strongly indicated it was a weapon designed for a Large creature. It wasn't designed for a Medium creature, it was just that some Medium creatures used it. Like 3E halflings used human shortswords.
In 3.5, that means it's a Large weapon. A Medium weapon is a weapon designed for a Medium creature. The 3E Fullblade isn't, so it's not a Medium weapon when you convert it to 3.5.
And since it has stats identical to a Large Bastard Sword, call it a Large Bastard Sword.
-Hyp.
Shin Okada
Explorer
I vote for large greatsword (3d6). Because,
1: Weapon damage table for larger creatures have changed in 3.5e. In 3.0e, a weapon which inflicts 2d6 damage in medium size (like greatsword) did inflict 2d8 damage if it were 1 size larger. Now, a 2d6 weapon inflicts 3d6 damage if it were one category larger.
2: Descriptive text of Full Blade were calling it "Ogre's Greatsword". Not "Ogre's Bastard Sword".
Of course, large sized creature cannot use large greatsword in one hand (even with penalty) in 3.5e rule and this does not match to the descriptive text of Fullblade. But if you make it a large bastard sword in 3.5e, now a medium sized character with exotic weapon proficiency and monkey grip can use it in one hand, and thus does not match to the descriptive text either.
So I vote for large greatsword. Mainly because it is called "Ogre's Greatsword".
1: Weapon damage table for larger creatures have changed in 3.5e. In 3.0e, a weapon which inflicts 2d6 damage in medium size (like greatsword) did inflict 2d8 damage if it were 1 size larger. Now, a 2d6 weapon inflicts 3d6 damage if it were one category larger.
2: Descriptive text of Full Blade were calling it "Ogre's Greatsword". Not "Ogre's Bastard Sword".
Of course, large sized creature cannot use large greatsword in one hand (even with penalty) in 3.5e rule and this does not match to the descriptive text of Fullblade. But if you make it a large bastard sword in 3.5e, now a medium sized character with exotic weapon proficiency and monkey grip can use it in one hand, and thus does not match to the descriptive text either.
So I vote for large greatsword. Mainly because it is called "Ogre's Greatsword".
