How can I walk softly and carry a BIG sword?

[Moon-Lancer]

thanks Three_Haligonians, it would seem i am not the only one who thinks someone who takes a exotic weapon proficiency shouldent still take a -2 to their attacks.

Only if they take the EWP feat.


You ask "What's the need for a Fullblade?" I answer "Exactly!"

-Hyp.

I answer, "to use a weapon that is popularized by many iconic fantasy heroes without a penalty." it seems the only reason for it to take a -2 on attacks is to disenfranchise the big sword hero. in 3.0 a fullblade does not have the penalty. I stand by my conviction that if it takes a -2 to attack then its a 3d6 weapon because it is a large great sword. Its called a ogres great sword and a great sword for an ogre is a 3d6 weapon in 3.5. I think to rule any other way is has a bias to it.

ps: sorry for derailing the thread.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I answer, "to use a weapon that is popularized by many iconic fantasy heroes without a penalty."

But why should "Used by a hero" automatically imply "Without penalty"?

The Manyshot feat was inspired by the FotR movie. If we have Legolas use the feat in game, he takes a penalty! We don't need to introduce a feat that allows him to do it without penalty; we just need to ensure that his other bonuses are sufficient that he can still pull it off despite the penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

sure, i would love to be able to get a extra attack at a -2. Thats effective. A fullblade with a -2 is not effective. You know the math. Power attack gets you 2 more points of damage with the -2 to attack if your comparing a great sword to a large bastard sword. because of this a fullblade with a -2 to attack will get no use out of anyone worth their weight in math. So balance wise, a fullblade should take a -1 to attack, or none at all. For a price of a -1 to attack you get a tower shield. What inventive is their for a fullblade? It wont see any use and thats why i think its a bad conversion my opinion.

*edit* although if you could use a fullblade as a tower shield, a -2 to attack would be worth it.

 

[frankthedm]

A fullblade with a -2 is not effective. You know the math.

Just because Power attack gives too much does not mean exotic weapons have to follow suit.

 

[Hypersmurf]

First the weapon was reclassified to a huge exotic weapon in the Arms and Equipment Guide (it has the same text description as was in Sword and Fist).

Post-errata (and in the second printing), the Sword and Fist version explicitly stated "too large for a Medium creature to wield", without any EWP exception.

The A&EG version was closer to the first printing version than the second printing version.

So balance wise, a fullblade should take a -1 to attack, or none at all.

Ruleswise, weapons in 3.5 have size categories. So either the Fullblade as described in S&F(1), S&F(2), and A&EG represents a Large weapon (in which case Medium creatures take a -2), or it represents a Medium weapon (in which case Large creatures take a -2).

My reading of the 3E material suggests strongly to me that the intent of the weapon is to be used by Large creatures, and it happens to be of a size that Medium creatures can also use despite not being designed for them (or, in S&F 2nd printing, of a size the Medium creatures can't use at all). So when I convert the weapon to 3.5 and must select a size category, as I must for any other weapon, I choose Large to represent the statistics printed in the 3E material. And then, since it ends up being identical to a Large Bastard Sword, I don't bother with the name 'Fullblade' any more, except as a nickname.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Post-errata (and in the second printing), the Sword and Fist version explicitly stated "too large for a Medium creature to wield", without any EWP exception.

The A&EG version was closer to the first printing version than the second printing version.

S&F errata in question:

p. 70, Weapons Table: Fullblade, listed as a Large weapon. Change to a Huge weapon Also, change the Fullblade damage from 1d12 to 2d8.

Same point though. It is a "Huge" weapon - which specifically means that the 3.0 Monkey Grip would not work so a medium creature could never use the fullblade with one hand.

P.S. - I agree with Hyp's equivalency here. The weapon functioned much more like a large bastard sword than anything else (for large creatures that is)

It should likewise be noted that Exotic Weapon proficiency does not automatically mean that a character can use a weapon with one hand. The specific use of the feat is described in the specific weapon's text.

For example in Races of Stone the goliath greathammer is a two-handed exotic weapon. taking the EW feat does not allow someone to use the weapon with one hand - only to not suffer the non-proficiency penalty.

 

[irdeggman]

My reading of the 3E material suggests strongly to me that the intent of the weapon is to be used by Large creatures, and it happens to be of a size that Medium creatures can also use despite not being designed for them (or, in S&F 2nd printing, of a size the Medium creatures can't use at all). So when I convert the weapon to 3.5 and must select a size category, as I must for any other weapon, I choose Large to represent the statistics printed in the 3E material. And then, since it ends up being identical to a Large Bastard Sword, I don't bother with the name 'Fullblade' any more, except as a nickname.

-Hyp.

Except that in 3.0 a medium creature could "never" use it with one hand since it was "two" sizes larger (being classified as "huge") and monkey grip only worked on a weapon one size larger.

 

[irdeggman]

thanks Three_Haligonians, it would seem i am not the only one who thinks someone who takes a exotic weapon proficiency shouldent still take a -2 to their attacks.



I answer, "to use a weapon that is popularized by many iconic fantasy heroes without a penalty." it seems the only reason for it to take a -2 on attacks is to disenfranchise the big sword hero. in 3.0 a fullblade does not have the penalty. I stand by my conviction that if it takes a -2 to attack then its a 3d6 weapon because it is a large great sword. Its called a ogres great sword and a great sword for an ogre is a 3d6 weapon in 3.5. I think to rule any other way is has a bias to it.

ps: sorry for derailing the thread.

What iconic fantasy heros particularly? I really want to know - honestly I can't think of any myself, but I'm probably not using sufficient fantasy references.

 

[Hypersmurf]

S&F errata in question:

Hmm... maybe that makes it four versions?

Because my second printing of Sword and Fist doesn't allow for a Medium creature to wield it with one hand or two. It just says "It's too big".

I'll try to post text when I get home.

-Hyp.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Just because Power attack gives too much does not mean exotic weapons have to follow suit.

I agree--the designers even admitted that they rounded up two-handed Power Attack to make the math easier, but it should be giving 1.5x instead of 2x. If you make this fix, you'd get more use out of Monkey Grip for a Greatsword (3.5 versus 3) and either way, for a one-handed weapon like a Longsword, you already get the same advantage (2.5 versus 2)