# Fullblade vs. Large Greatsword?



## Smokingmonkee (Jun 17, 2004)

I'm just wondering if there is supposed to be a difference because according to the weapon damage according to size a large greatsword is 3d6 and a fullblade is 2d8.  Am I reading something wrong here?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 17, 2004)

Smokingmonkee said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering if there is supposed to be a difference because according to the weapon damage according to size a large greatsword is 3d6 and a fullblade is 2d8.  Am I reading something wrong here?




Even though they refer to it as the "Ogre's Greatsword", stat the Fullblade as a Large Bastard Sword and you're fine.

As long as you ignore the bizarre nonsense in the FAQ about "one-handed exotic weapon doesn't really mean 'one-handed exotic weapon'".

-Hyp.


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 17, 2004)

Well, a Large greatsword would impose an akward size penalty on a medium sized character who used it, while a fullblade would not.  If you are going to compare weapons of the same size, a Large greatsword does 2d8 damage while a large fullblade would do 4d6, if you don't try to compensate for the sizes of the fullblade between 3.0 and 3.5.

Edit: ack, I see I made a mistake, a fullblade would do 3d8 if it were made large.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 17, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> Well, a Large greatsword would impose an akward size penalty on a medium sized character who used it, while a fullblade would not.




As far as I can see, in 3E, a Fullblade was a weapon designed for Large creatures, that happened (with an EWP) to be usable in two hands by Medium creatures... just like the Bastard Sword was a weapon designed for Medium creatures, that happened (with an EWP) to be usable in two hands by Small creatures.

So when you convert it to 3.5, it _should_ be a Large weapon, and give a penalty to Medium creatures.

And it happens that the damage is identical to a Large Bastard Sword.  So it works perfectly, to me, to say "What was called a Fullblade in 3E is a Large Bastard Sword in 3.5."

-Hyp.


----------



## Smokingmonkee (Jun 17, 2004)

Thanks a lot.. it makes a wee bit more sense now.


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 17, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> As far as I can see, in 3E, a Fullblade was a weapon designed for Large creatures, that happened (with an EWP) to be usable in two hands by Medium creatures... just like the Bastard Sword was a weapon designed for Medium creatures, that happened (with an EWP) to be usable in two hands by Small creatures.
> 
> So when you convert it to 3.5, it _should_ be a Large weapon, and give a penalty to Medium creatures.
> 
> ...



The only problem is that assumes that a Large bastard sword can use the same feat as a medium bastard sword, which effectivly lets a person get two weapons for one feat.  While that's ok, it makes it the only weapon I can think of that allows a person to use the same weapon of different sizes with no penalty.  And a feat that applies to one weapon would extend to the other in this case.  A fighter could specialize in the bastard sword, and get a sword and board version for defense and a two handed version for better damage.

Again, while I don't have a problem with that, under normal rules, the only real advantage of using a bastard sword in two hands is it is a true two handed weapon for the rare few times that's better than having a one handed weapon held in two hands.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 17, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> The only problem is that assumes that a Large bastard sword can use the same feat as a medium bastard sword, which effectivly lets a person get two weapons for one feat.  While that's ok, it makes it the only weapon I can think of that allows a person to use the same weapon of different sizes with no penalty.




What no penalty?  If you're Medium and swinging a Large Bastard Sword, you take a -2.

That's part of how I'd convert Fullblade to 3.5.

If someone in 3E was playing a halfling with a shortsword, and converted to 3.5, I'd give them the choice - downsize it to a Small shortsword, or keep using a Medium shortsword but take the -2 for inappropriate size.

If someone used a Fullblade in 3E, and converted to 3.5, I'd give him the choice - downsize it to a Medium Bastard Sword, downsize it to a Medium Greatsword and get a feat back, swap it for a Large Greatsword and swap the EWP for Monkey Grip at -2, or keep using it as a Large Bastard Sword and take the -2 for inappropriate size.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 17, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What no penalty?  If you're Medium and swinging a Large Bastard Sword, you take a -2.
> 
> That's part of how I'd convert Fullblade to 3.5.
> 
> ...





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.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 17, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> 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.




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.


----------



## Shin Okada (Jun 17, 2004)

I vote for large greatsword (3d6). Because,

1: Weapon damage table for larger creatures have changed in 3.5e. In 3.0e, a weapon which inflicts 2d6 damage in medium size (like greatsword) did inflict 2d8 damage if it were 1 size larger. Now, a 2d6 weapon inflicts 3d6 damage if it were one category larger.

2: Descriptive text of Full Blade were calling it "Ogre's Greatsword". Not "Ogre's Bastard Sword".

Of course, large sized creature cannot use large greatsword in one hand (even with penalty) in 3.5e rule and this does not match to the descriptive text of Fullblade. 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.

So I vote for large greatsword. Mainly because it is called "Ogre's Greatsword".


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 17, 2004)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 17, 2004)

Monkey Grip is silly.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Jun 17, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Monkey Grip is silly.




Yes and the name is even more silly.

Actually, no. The name is stupid.


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 17, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 17, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 17, 2004)

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 (Jun 17, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 17, 2004)

Camarath said:
			
		

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




my thought exactly


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 17, 2004)

Sorry, I had meant 2d8.


----------



## Camarath (Jun 17, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> Sorry, I had meant 2d8.



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


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 18, 2004)

Camarath said:
			
		

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




Well, as a simple power analysis, we can see that the average base damage increases by 2 points, compared to the greatsword.

So in essence it's comparable to Weapon Specialization in terms of return on the investment of the EWP feat.  (but available to all classes right from the outset)

IMO it would be at the powerful end of ok, and I'd like to see it playtested for a while before I'd allow it more freely.  (I can imagine it becoming the only weapon the 2h fighters & barbs ever take, and that would be bad)


----------



## Camarath (Jun 18, 2004)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> (but available to all classes right from the outset)



Not exactly from the outset for all classes since EWP requires BAB +1.


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 18, 2004)

Oops, forgot about that.


----------



## Shin Okada (Jun 18, 2004)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> Well, as a simple power analysis, we can see that the average base damage increases by 2 points, compared to the greatsword.
> 
> So in essence it's comparable to Weapon Specialization in terms of return on the investment of the EWP feat.  (but available to all classes right from the outset)
> 
> IMO it would be at the powerful end of ok, and I'd like to see it playtested for a while before I'd allow it more freely.  (I can imagine it becoming the only weapon the 2h fighters & barbs ever take, and that would be bad)




If I were you, I will allow it if the campaign is using CW prestige classes. A Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe often do more damage than a greatsword if Exotic Weapon Master class is available.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 18, 2004)

I've always been under the assumption, especially since that weapon wasn't updated in Complete Warrior, that it was just a large bastard sword.

If a player wants to use it in my campaign at all, he has to get Monkey Grip. If he wants to use it one handed, he has to take Exotic W.P. Bastard Sword. Still gets the -2 penalty thought unless he gets the epic feat.


----------

