Fullblade vs. Large Greatsword?

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Hmm? Of course it does.

No Medium creature without the Monkey Grip feat can wield it in one hand. Monkey Grip lets someone use a Large weapon without increasing its relative encumbrance category, so it breaks sizing rules all the time...?

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Monkey Grip is silly.

 

[Derulbaskul]

Monkey Grip is silly.

Yes and the name is even more silly.

Actually, no. The name is stupid.

 

[Ottergame]

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.

By the same token, a bastard sword isn't supposed to be used in one hand, it's just that some people can use it that way. A bastard sword is not much less damaging then a Large longsword. Why not just bring in a fullblade, reduce it's damage to 2d6 if need be, and allow it as a two handed exotic weapon?

 

[Camarath]

But why not just bring in a 3.5 fullblade, with no penalty for attacking? A 2d8 two handed exotic weapon isn't game breaking.

IMO the 3.0 FullBlade sevred the purposes of what would be two 3.5 weapons, first a Large Bastard Sword and second a Medium Exotic weapon with a one step damage increase over the Greatsword. I do not believe that Hypersmurf sees any reason for the second weapon to be updated to 3.5.

 

[Ottergame]

I see a reason to update it. In 3.0, someone could use this weapon with the feat at no penalty. If you just turn it into a large bastard sword, you are still required to take the feat, except regardless, you have a penalty to attack. Why not just re-introduce the fullblade at 2d6 damage in 3.5?

 

[Camarath]

Why not just re-introduce the fullblade at 2d6 damage in 3.5?

How would the Fullblade be different from the Greatsword if it did 2d6?

 

[Scion]

How would the Fullblade be different from the Greatsword if it did 2d6?

my thought exactly

 

[Ottergame]

Sorry, I had meant 2d8.

 

[Camarath]

Sorry, I had meant 2d8.

I see nothing wrong with a Medium Exotic Two-hand Weapon that does 2d8 19-20/x2.