Monkey Grip in CW

[Hypersmurf]

The point of a Fullblade for a Medium creature was that it did more damage than the greatsword. All the chaff about Large creatures and how they might weilded the weapon is completely irrelevant to medium creatures and IMO was a rather ill inspired.

Don't forget, the second 3E incarnation of the Fullblade couldn't be used by Medium creatures at all.

It's a weapon designed for Large creatures, that happens to have rules in two incarnations for use by Medium creatures.

That converts to 3.5 just fine by making it a Large Bastard Sword.

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Don't forget, the second 3E incarnation of the Fullblade couldn't be used by Medium creatures at all.

Which made it pointless since it was no different than a Large version of a Bastard Sword.

It's a weapon designed for Large creatures, that happens to have rules in two incarnations for use by Medium creatures.

I believe it to be an unfortunate juxtaposition of two weapon ideas. One of those ideas was a Large version of a Bastard Sword (which I believe was pointless in 3e since one could just use a Large version of a Bastard Sword) and the other was a bigger sword for use by medium characters. Only the bigger sword idea for the Fullblade needs to be updated to 3.5 (or IMO presented in 3e) since the rules already proved for Large Bastard Swords.Thus I suggest allowing the Fullblade as a 2d8 Medium Exotic Two-Handed weapon since follows the normal pattern for what constitutes an Exotic weapon and results in a useful weapon. Other wise there is no point to the weapon in 3.5.

If one wanted to preserve the Fullblade/Bastard Swords juxtaposition in 3.5 I think my suggestion earlier might be useful.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which made it pointless since it was no different than a Large version of a Bastard Sword.

Well, the 3E FAQ says that a Small creature can use a Medium bastard sword in two hands with the EWP. So that makes the "No way, Medium creature!" version of the Fullblade quite different to a Large Bastard Sword. Especially since it was Huge.

Other wise there is no point to the weapon in 3.5.

Now there, I agree with you. There is no point to the weapon in 3.5

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Well, the 3E FAQ says that a Small creature can use a Medium bastard sword in two hands with the EWP. So that makes the "No way, Medium creature!" version of the Fullblade quite different to a Large Bastard Sword. Especially since it was Huge.

Sorry, it was pointless because it was inferior to a Large version of a Bastard Sword.

Now there, I agree with you. There is no point to the weapon in 3.5

I see a point to a 2d8 19-20/x2 Exotic Medium Two-Handed weapon. But perhaps you think there is no point to such a weapon in which case we can just wait till WoTC inevitably puts such a weapon into a 3.5 book.

 

[El Ravager]

I'm sorry this is redundant, but the weapon size classifications are still confusing me. I am getting the 3.0 and the 3.5 use of the word large mixed up and I don't have my books on me.

Am I correct that my human cleric with Monkey Grip from CW could use a longsword made for a large creature in one hand but not a greatsword which was made for a medium creature?

=========
El Rav

 

[Camarath]

Am I correct that my human cleric with Monkey Grip from CW could use a longsword made for a large creature in one hand but not a greatsword which was made for a medium creature?

Yes that is correct.