I'm not sure I buy the Fullblade

[Mercurius]

...and other d12 superior weapons. First of all, they're massive; a fullblade, I take it, is the equivalent of a no-dachi or an Exalted-esque sword - six feet in length or more.

What I don't buy are two things: First of all, how do you carry the thing? I imagine a bastard sword to be about 4 ft tip to pommel and a greatsword about 5 ft, but if a fullblade is about 6 ft it would be very cumbersome and inhibit movement. Secondly, wielding a slashing weapon that long would be very slow. That's fine and all, but why a +3 prof bonus? Why not +2?

I guess what I am not buying is that there is no downside to wielding such a weapon. I am tempted to use it for a ranger I'm dabbling with instead of a bastard sword, but I have a hard time justifying it fluff-wise; the only way I can see it working is if I imagine it smaller, like a greatsword, but perhaps very well crafted to allow it the fullblade effect. But that's not what a fullblade is supposed to be; it is supposed to be a sword that is as long as a tall man. How practical is that, really? In a similar sense that in the real world, I imagine, a katana wielder would slaughter a no-dachi wielder because he would be so much more maneuverable.

So again, the only way I personally can justify a fullblade in my mind is NOT as a mega-sword but as a more finely crafted greatsword, perhaps something akin to a masterwork greatsword that is superbly made for balance and speed.

Or am I being too finicky?

 

[Jools]

Yes! Have you ever seen Highlander? Swords just magically pop into their hands whenever combat begins. Its fine. Highlander is good. D&D is good. Its all good.

 

[domino]

Do you allow full range of arrows indoors, no matter what the height of the ceiling is? How about a blast of fire that does massive damage instantly, but no matter what it was used on, doesn't cause any fires to start that would do damage later?

Are you being too finicky? Not necessarily. But you're being kind of finicky, and you have to decide at what point you're just going to roll with it. A longbow would be about as cumbersome as a fullblade, especially indoors, or in a forest, or swamp, for example.

Also, one downside of using a fullblade is that it eats a feat to really be good with it. And for what you can get for feats, the little bit of extra damage doesn't seem unbalancing to me.

 

[jonesy]

I am tempted to use it for a ranger I'm dabbling with instead of a bastard sword, but I have a hard time justifying it fluff-wise...

Make it a really tall ranger?

 

[Destil]

...and other d12 superior weapons. First of all, they're massive; a fullblade, I take it, is the equivalent of a no-dachi or an Exalted-esque sword - six feet in length or more.

What I don't buy are two things: First of all, how do you carry the thing? I imagine a bastard sword to be about 4 ft tip to pommel and a greatsword about 5 ft, but if a fullblade is about 6 ft it would be very cumbersome and inhibit movement. Secondly, wielding a slashing weapon that long would be very slow. That's fine and all, but why a +3 prof bonus? Why not +2?

I have two fullblade wielders in my current game and I'm playing one in a second campaign. All three are different.

The first is a stormsoul genasi swordmage who wields a no-dachi. How does he carry it? Electromagnitisim. It hovers behind his back when he's not using it. For him, it's just a really big-ass sword.

The second is a avenger of Olladra who uses a unique sword no one else in the party has ever seen the likes of before. He has a dervish dance-fighting style and wields a large curved blade with a grip on both ends, allowing spinning and slashing strikes with a variety of grips he switches between. His amazing luck also plays into how well the weapon works for him.

Finally, I'm playing a cleric of Sarenrae. For him it's simply a great-scimitar, but the force of his faith empowers his blows to cut far deeper than anyone else wielding the same weapon.

I guess what I am not buying is that there is no downside to wielding such a weapon. I am tempted to use it for a ranger I'm dabbling with instead of a bastard sword, but I have a hard time justifying it fluff-wise; the only way I can see it working is if I imagine it smaller, like a greatsword, but perhaps very well crafted to allow it the fullblade effect. But that's not what a fullblade is supposed to be; it is supposed to be a sword that is as long as a tall man. How practical is that, really? In a similar sense that in the real world, I imagine, a katana wielder would slaughter a no-dachi wielder because he would be so much more maneuverable.

So again, the only way I personally can justify a fullblade in my mind is NOT as a mega-sword but as a more finely crafted greatsword, perhaps something akin to a masterwork greatsword that is superbly made for balance and speed.

Or am I being too finicky?

I would say 'yes' in a world where halfling adventurers can kill hundred foot long dragons or 20 foot tall giants. That said if it bothers you as a player there's no reason you can't argue that your own full blade proficiency as a way to represent how you wield a masterfully forged katana, go for it.

For what it's worth I have a bit of a verisimilitude problem myself with longbows and greatbows used on horseback and shooting 20 shots from a crossbow in the time it would actually take to load it once. But I just sort of ignore those.

 

[aurance]

The first is a stormsoul genasi swordmage who wields a no-dachi. How does he carry it? Electromagnitisim. It hovers behind his back when he's not using it.

Hah! This is really really really cool and original. This alone might make me play a genasi.

To Mercurius, in reality, a sword bigger than a greatsword/zweihander would be a bit unrealistic. However mechanically it works, as it requires an extra feat. You could consider just reskinning "weapon proficiency: fullblade" to be "extra special sauce training: greatsword" or something and imagine you're wielding a greatsword.

I might just get rid of the oddly placed d10 greatsword altogether and call the d12 high crit weapon as greatsword. The extra training (i.e. feat) makes sense; there's a reason that in history footsoldiers trained in greatsword fighting were paid twice as much.

 

[jbear]

The barbarian/paladin hybrid in my game just got a fullblade 2 sessions ago, just in time for a massive end of chapter battle of epic proportions.

It was originally a +2 Flaming Greatsword (mechanically) but described as a massive sword with it's tip snapped off. It was taken from a corrupt eladrin king in a cursed castle trapped in space and time. In the same castle in the normal flow of time they had also discovered the broken tip.

They finally found/invented a way to pay for the Repair ritual (5000gp) which turned the weapon into a +3 fullblade. The whole party was involved in the ritual, sacrificing blood cut with the jagged tip they wanted to attach, and tuning their unwanted magic items to have the residuum drawn out of them directly and into the sword being repaired. Evertone got into a circle and held hands while the cleric performed the ritual (rolled the dice) It was very cool and memorable.

The tip can now fly off as a daily power so the wielder can make a melee attack with a reach of 5, before flying back on. It makes the sword unique, and special and a real in game story built around it. Not to mention he's the only PC with a +3 weapon so far.

How do I/we imagine it. Well he's spent a feat on learning how to wield it properly, so it isn't a useless overly large hunk of metal. He is a goliath, so he's well over 6ft himself. In my head it looks like the sword of War in Darksiders. Almost his size, but wielded with great skill and mastery. It's not sheathed, it clips in and out from an attachment on the back of his armour with the twist of the wrists.

 

[S'mon]

1. The Greatsword does the same damage as the Bastard Sword, so I treat both as roughly a 4' blade, + 12" to 18" hilt. Much like historical 'greteswords' in fact.

2. A fullblade with 5' blade + 12" to 18" hilt is the size of the 1e AD&D "Two-Handed Sword" and is no bigger than plenty of historical two-handed swords; William Wallace's personal sword was that size. 16th century German Zweihanders were often larger.

3. These big swords were NOT just slashing weapons; they were used as piercing weapons at least as often. And the hilt could be used as a crushing/piercing (short spike on end) weapon in close combat, even when grappling.

 

[S'mon]

I might just get rid of the oddly placed d10 greatsword altogether and call the d12 high crit weapon as greatsword. The extra training (i.e. feat) makes sense; there's a reason that in history footsoldiers trained in greatsword fighting were paid twice as much.

Yes, their role in the front of the pike formation, lopping at pike heads, was much more dangerous than that of the pikemen, and they died more than twice as often!

 

[mkill]

Once you start questioning the realism of D&D weapon rules, one historical, physical or medical inaccuracy leads to the other, and you end up with two choices:

* Burn all RPG books and start reading real books on medieval warfare
* Give up and accept the rule of cool

You just have to accept that D&D is a game, not a medieval combat simulation.

Just think about "hit points": while it's easy to handle in game terms to think of the human body as a punchbag that you hit until you reach the point where it breaks, life doesn't work that way. A "realistic" game first has to have some kind of model to account for the difference of head concussion, skin burns, severed limbs, broken bones and pierced organs. Then you could think about modelling weapon damage.

The D&D formula of "longer iron = more damage" is as realistic as "longer male implement = better intercourse".

3. These big swords were NOT just slashing weapons; they were used as piercing weapons at least as often. And the hilt could be used as a crushing/piercing (short spike on end) weapon in close combat, even when grappling.

These swords weren't all that sharp - but the sheer weight of the thing and the impact of the hit would break enough bones to take you out of the fight, even without cutting very deep.

I wouldn't even use such a sword in hand-to-hand combat, it's too slow. You're dead before the hit connects. And even if you hit, the added length doesn't really increase impact, because it's too unwieldy to really use the leverage.

The main benefit is added reach against polearms and enemies on horseback.

One other advantage is psychological - the longer sword is more impressive, even if it's not necessarily more effective.