I'm not sure I buy the Fullblade

[JoeGKushner]

For D&D? Way too finiciky.

Read some manga like Berserk and it's merely second nature.

Might as well ask how those who use primal, shadow, arcane or divine can call upon their abilities.

 

[S'mon]

I'd have thought there was an upper limit of once each.

Clearly you have never studied statistics.

 

[Pentius]

...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?

Try imagining it differently? Other people have given some good ideas, and there's nothing in the rules that says a fullblade must be of a certain size.

I guess what I am not buying is that there is no downside to wielding such a weapon.

You're right not to buy that. There is a downside. You spend a feat to get it. That means that a Fullblade is extra damage at the expense of whatever else you would have bought with that feat.

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.

You seem to be assigning too much weight, in my opinion, to this idea of what a Fullblade "should be". Maybe try thinking along the lines of what a fullblade "could be".

Or am I being too finicky?

Yes. I mean, this is far, far from the worst case of Finicky I've ever encountered, but it is there. I don't quite get how some people can play a game where one character shoots lightning from his fingertips and another turns into a bear in order to fight a giant, fire-breathing lizard and his army of walking corpses but wait, wait. That guy's sword is like, a few inches bigger than it should be. Immersion: RUINED.

 

[MrMyth]

I can't find the size and nature of the Fullblade too silly; or rather, I can understand why one might do so, but there are so many other thresholds of silly built into D&D that one must cross long before reaching that point that thus render it moot.

I do find it bothersome in a mechanical sense, being so good that you'll regularly find it (or other potent superior weapons) as the most common weapon at the table, instead of the rare and unique items they are supposed to be.

 

[Ryujin]

I find pretty much all of the uber-weapons to be quite silly and wish that I had just banned them from my campaign. There's simply no need for them and they put weapon users on even higher footing, damage wise, than casters.

On the speed issue I have to think back to the 1e days, in which weapon speed factors were quoted. I still remember, quite fondly, how the group I was DMing reacted to the BBEG I created, who used two hand-axes. IIRC using the weapon speed factor rules, when he tied the party's halberd wielding front-rank fighter on initiative, he got an attack before the fighter, then another one before him, then one simultaneously, and another after him, followed by his off-hand axe attack.

I was the only DM I knew about, at the time, who used the speed factor rules.

 

[Riastlin]

Yeah honestly, I just roll with it. After all, where do you draw the line? Certainly a 7 foot tall goliath could probably get away with wielding a 6 foot tall greatbow but it clearly seems to be a stretch for the halfling. Ironically, I've never yet had a player who wielded a greatbow actually have their character be at least 6 feet tall. Most were about 5 feet. They liked the "cool" factor of the ranger having to tilt the bow in order to shoot it -- never mind that this would no doubt affect its accuracy. In the end though, its just a game. After all, couldn't they argue that they could just use a longbow and shoot particularly viscious arrows? I know that there were many archers (particularly in Asia if memory serves) who would shoot arrows with little hooks on them so that when the arrow was removed it would do more damage. From a practical standpoint, you've just accomplished the same thing as giving them a greatbow only not making them use a feat (at the cost of a little more money per arrow -- an amount that is likely to become negligible very quickly).

So yeah, Rule of Cool rules the day for me and thus I don't have to make a judgment call as to just how tall a character needs to be in order to wield a particular weapon -- though I think it could be argued that certain weapons should give a penalty to stealth checks (after all that 6 foot sword is going to be a little hard to conceal). Still though, until they do this whole scale, I'm not about to get into house ruling it since it will likely lead to arguments, etc.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah honestly, I just roll with it. After all, where do you draw the line? Certainly a 7 foot tall goliath could probably get away with wielding a 6 foot tall greatbow but it clearly seems to be a stretch for the halfling. Ironically, I've never yet had a player who wielded a greatbow actually have their character be at least 6 feet tall. Most were about 5 feet.

Would this necessarily be a problem? I mean, think about it--when you hold a bow, you've got the midpoint about chin level. Say you're 5 feet tall, your chin is maybe 4 feet up; if you're using a 6-foot bow, you've still got a foot of clearance between the bottom of the bow and the ground. And that's assuming you're shooting straight, without an arc.

I suppose if your arms are too short, you might have some trouble drawing it all the way. And it'd be awkward as hell to tote around cramped dungeon corridors. But in a game where ten-foot poles are traditional dungeoneering gear, quibbling about greatbows seems excessive.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

im sure that guy probably could have moved faster if he wanted to (5 shows a day man!) but i think the whole point is you are using the reach of the weapon to keep people at bay, not to mention the psychological effect of a huge sword being swung at you, you will more instinctively want to get out of the way even if you know better

Then there's the aspect of trying to show WHAT you're doing as opposed to how fast you can do it.

 

[Ryujin]

Would this necessarily be a problem? I mean, think about it--when you hold a bow, you've got the midpoint about chin level. Say you're 5 feet tall, your chin is maybe 4 feet up; if you're using a 6-foot bow, you've still got a foot of clearance between the bottom of the bow and the ground. And that's assuming you're shooting straight, without an arc.

I suppose if your arms are too short, you might have some trouble drawing it all the way. And it'd be awkward as hell to tote around cramped dungeon corridors. But in a game where ten-foot poles are traditional dungeoneering gear, quibbling about greatbows seems excessive.

Certainly not much of an issue, in use, but as you say it would be rather difficult to manoeuvre.

A longbow can go up to 6 feet tall, when strung. I own a longbow, in traditional pattern, that's roughly 5'4" when strung. The Greatbow's description fits either a massively large composite bow, like a Japanese Yumi/Daikyu, of a straight bow ('selfbow') like a European longbow. It's a nonsense creation, trying to set it apart from something that already exists in the game for purely 'uber' reasons.

To go above something that would fit the Longbow listings, in the PHB, you would have to go to something like a siege bow. I really can't picture a Ranger in a dungeon dropping prone, hooking his feet in the stirrups, then spinning on his butt to pepper the enemy with shots from his eight foot long archery cannon.

 

[Riastlin]

True, thinking about it now, in use, not much of an issue, though the halfling might start running into issues even using it.

As you mention, it would still be extremely awkward trying to lug it around, but that's a different issue. All in all, I don't have a problem with it anyhow as its just a game and at a certain point you have to realize that the rules are there to make things easier to adjudicate and not to always make things accurate. If we start trying to make everything accurate (even accounting for magic) you'll run into issues really quick.