Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shirosai 11-11-05, 01:21 AM	A friend of mine is confused on how much a huge fullblade would do, it already being large. I'd assume it would do something around 2d10, possibly even 3d8, but he thinks that it would be more around 3d10, or 2d12. Which is it? If it is something else, what would it be? Thanks. Edit: Alright, well, I didn't notice that in 3.5e they are technically huge weapons, so I guess I want to know how much a gargantuan full blade would do? Thanks.
Sledged 11-11-05, 12:12 PM	I recommend you don't go by the FAQ. Everything about the 3.0 fullblade makes it fucntion exactly like 3.5 large bastard sword in the same way a 3.0 greatsword functions exactly like a 3.5 large longsword. However, the 3.0 greatsword also works like a 3.5 medium greatsword, so the 3.0 fullblade should work as a(n exotic) medium two-handed weapon. A large fullblade does 3d8 (page 114 in the PHB), a huge one does 4d8. Generally, (though not always) weapons two sizes larger do twice as much damage.
Wyrd Bearer 11-11-05, 12:41 PM	A fullblade deals exactly 0 damage, regardless of its imagined size, simply because it does not exist. It is a weapon that was not reprinted in 3.5 because there is no need for it, in addition to being an ill-concieved weapon in the first place. If you want a fullblade in 3.5, you're going to need to have a large bastard sword and the monkey grip feat just to wield it with only a -2 penalty to hit.
Shirosai 11-11-05, 12:49 PM	In 3.5e, check the arms and equipment guide. :tiphat:
Thorak 11-11-05, 12:53 PM	I recommend you don't go by the FAQ. Everything about the 3.0 fullblade makes it fucntion exactly like 3.5 large bastard sword in the same way a 3.0 greatsword functions exactly like a 3.5 large longsword. However, the 3.0 greatsword also works like a 3.5 medium greatsword, so the 3.0 fullblade should work as a(n exotic) medium two-handed weapon. Except that the 3.0 Fullblade was explicitly a weapon designed for an ogre, a Large creature in 3.5. So it's fairly clear that, given the change in weapon sizing in 3.5, it would have to be a Large weapon, not an exotic medium two-hander. For that matter, a 3.0 Greatsword doesn't work the same as a 3.5 large longsword. there's the -2 to hit with it because of the size difference that isn't there for the greatsword. Whereas the 3.0 Fullblade did have a -2 to hit due to being unwieldy. Just like any Large weapon in 3.5 does. statistically, it is the same as a large bastard sword. Exactly. Down to every detail. The only thing that would be different is the name, and frankly, it's a good thing if it's considered a bastard sword; it already exists in the random item tables, and the weapon-specific feats would work with it just fine.
Wyrd Bearer 11-11-05, 01:28 PM	In 3.5e, check the arms and equipment guide. :tiphat:A&E is a 3.0 book that contains many erroneous weapon entries that were based on standards for 3.0 which do not translate well into 3.5. Given from what I've seen of A&E (orcish shotput, anyone?), the weapons are silly enough and unbalanced to the point where I don't even consider A&E to be usable in a 3.5 game (as opposed to, say, Savage Species or the Fiend Folio, both of which are perfectly fine with minor tweaking). Anyway, as both Thorak and I have mentioned, the full-blade is simply a large bastard sword in 3.5. The fullblade as you know it from A&E just doesn't exist anymore, as there is no need for it. Take exotic weapon proficiency (bastard sword) and wield a large bastard sword (2d8 damage) in two-hands with a -2 penalty. Take monkey grip and you can wield it one-handed with the same damage and same penalty to hit. Call it a fullblade if you wish. Then pat youself on the back for spending two feats to deal a whole 2 more damage on average then you could with a normal greatsword.
Shirosai 11-11-05, 01:51 PM	Ah, my mistake. I was under the impression that it was a 3.5e book. Thanks for clearing that up. :D
Thorak 11-11-05, 04:00 PM	Ah, my mistake. I was under the impression that it was a 3.5e book. Thanks for clearing that up. :D It was sort of 3.25. They knew 3.5 was coming up and kept it in mind, but the mechanics are still solidly 3.0. You need to convert them to use the stuff in the book. One of the conversions is the fullblade = large bastard sword bit.
Sledged 11-11-05, 06:24 PM	Except that the 3.0 Fullblade was explicitly a weapon designed for an ogre, a Large creature in 3.5.No, it wasn't. The only thing explicit about it were the rules, which explained how it worked with both medium and large creatures. It did not say for which size creature it was designed. Generally speaking, the weapons presented in the A&EG are in the context of medium creatures. So, if anything, the fullblade was a weapon designed for medium creatures.So it's fairly clear that, given the change in weapon sizing in 3.5, it would have to be a Large weapon, not an exotic medium two-hander.Based on its huge size under 3.0 rules, it would either be a gargantuan light weapon, a huge one-handed weapon, or a large two-handed weapon when converted to 3.5 rules. However, since the rules governing the fullblade have it function exactly as a large bastard sword, there's the question as to why it was a huge weapon in the first place.For that matter, a 3.0 Greatsword doesn't work the same as a 3.5 large longsword. there's the -2 to hit with it because of the size difference that isn't there for the greatsword.If you go by that train of thought, a 3.0 Greatsword doesn't work the same as a 3.5 greatsword either. A large creature has a -2 to hit with it because of the size difference that isn't there for the 3.0 greatsword. 3.0 rules don't have the attack penalties based on weapon sizes, so when you convert a large longsword and a medium greatsword back into 3.0 rules, they become the exact same weapon.Whereas the 3.0 Fullblade did have a -2 to hit due to being unwieldy.And in what source was this stated? The A&EG says nothing of this about the fullblade, at least not on page 7 where the fullblade is described.Just like any Large weapon in 3.5 does. statistically, it is the same as a large bastard sword. Exactly. Down to every detail.Almost exactly. A large bastard sword translated to 3.0 rules becomes a large weapon, not a huge weapon as the fullblade is listed.
Thorak 11-12-05, 08:08 AM	No, it wasn't. The only thing explicit about it were the rules, which explained how it worked with both medium and large creatures. It did not say for which size creature it was designed. Generally speaking, the weapons presented in the A&EG are in the context of medium creatures. So, if anything, the fullblade was a weapon designed for medium creatures. While I don't have the A&EG, I do have the Sword and Fist Errata, which was the first printing of the Fullblade. Which conveniently, has the rewritten text for it in full; "A fullblade is18 inches longer than a greatsword, and is too large for a Medium-size creature to use at all. A Large creature could use the fullblade with one hand, but would suffer the standard –4 nonproficiency penalty to its attack rolls, or with two hands as a martial weapon. A Large creature with the Exotics Weapon proficiency could use the fullblade in one hand with no penalty. A fullblade is also called an ogre’s greatsword." I stand by my statement. Explicitly, it was designed for Large creatures, like Ogres. Based on its huge size under 3.0 rules, it would either be a gargantuan light weapon, a huge one-handed weapon, or a large two-handed weapon when converted to 3.5 rules. However, since the rules governing the fullblade have it function exactly as a large bastard sword, there's the question as to why it was a huge weapon in the first place.If you go by that train of thought, a 3.0 Greatsword doesn't work the same as a 3.5 greatsword either. A large creature has a -2 to hit with it because of the size difference that isn't there for the 3.0 greatsword. Right. The rules changed. Welcome to 3.5. 3.0 rules don't have the attack penalties based on weapon sizes, so when you convert a large longsword and a medium greatsword back into 3.0 rules, they become the exact same weapon.And in what source was this stated? The A&EG says nothing of this about the fullblade, at least not on page 7 where the fullblade is described. Right. I misspoke, as I don't have the book. Though, as I cite above, I suspect it says medium creatures can't use it at all. Almost exactly. A large bastard sword translated to 3.0 rules becomes a large weapon, not a huge weapon as the fullblade is listed. And, because the rules on how this stuff works changed completely, that's not surprising. It's a Large bastard sword. The FAQ is clear. Don't like it? Houserule. But it's not like, according to the S&F Errata, that a Medium character could wield it at all in 3.0, either.
Sledged 11-12-05, 04:11 PM	While I don't have the A&EG, I do have the Sword and Fist Errata, which was the first printing of the Fullblade. Which conveniently, has the rewritten text for it in full; "A fullblade is18 inches longer than a greatsword, and is too large for a Medium-size creature to use at all. A Large creature could use the fullblade with one hand, but would suffer the standard –4 nonproficiency penalty to its attack rolls, or with two hands as a martial weapon. A Large creature with the Exotics Weapon proficiency could use the fullblade in one hand with no penalty. A fullblade is also called an ogre’s greatsword." I stand by my statement. Explicitly, it was designed for Large creatures, like Ogres.Then by the S&F errata, you're right. It wasn't designed for medium creatures, because they can't even use it, and even if you convert it to 3.5 rules, it'd still be unusable by medium creatures (Monkey Grip, Wield Oversized Weapon, and powerful build notwithstanding). But if you go by the A&EG, the rules say otherwise: "A fullblade is 18 inches longer than a greatsword, and is too large for a Medium-size creature to use with two hands without special training; thus it is an exotic weapon. (Medium-sized creatures cannot use a fullblade one-handed at all.) "A Large creature could use the fullblade with one hand, but would suffer the standard –4 nonproficiency penalty to its attack rolls, or with two hands as a martial weapon. A Large creature with the Exotics Weapon proficiency could use the fullblade in one hand with no penalty. A fullblade is also called an ogre’s greatsword." I admit the name "Ogre's greatsword" suggests that it was designed for ogres and other large creatures, but suggesting something is not the same as explicitly saying it. I can find a couple of instances where the RAW suggests one thing, but closer inspection reveals it not to be the case. The name given to a weapon is not necessarily an indication for whom or what the weapon was designed. Especially when the name it's given is inaccurate. (If it should have been called an ogre's anything, it should have been called a ogre's bastardsword. And if it had been named by an ogre, it probably would have been called something like "elf skewer," "dispute settler," or "42.")Right. The rules changed. Welcome to 3.5.You've completely missed the point. Let's try a different angle: Generally speaking, you can take a one-handed weapon and create a new weapon that does comprable damage and has the same crit stats but is designed for creatures one size smaller by making it two-handed, with little or no extra modifications. Let's take a few existing weapons for example:size weapon type dmg critical dmg type ------ ------------- -------- ---- -------- -------- large longsword 1-handed 2d6 19-20/x2 slashing medium greatsword 2-handed 2d6 19-20/x2 slashing large battleaxe 1-handed 2d6 20/x3 slashing medium greataxe 2-handed 1d12 20/x3 slashing large scimitar 1-handed 1d8 18-20/x2 slashing medium falchion 2-handed 2d4 18-20/x2 slashingNow, let's apply this pattern to another large one-handed weapon, like a large bastard sword:large bastard sword 1-handed 2d8 19-20/x2 slashing medium fullblade 2-handed 2d8 19-20/x2 slashingRight. I misspoke, as I don't have the book. Though, as I cite above, I suspect it says medium creatures can't use it at all. And, because the rules on how this stuff works changed completely, that's not surprising.Yes, but even under 3.0 rules, the fullblade and the large bastard sword were not exactly the same. Table 1-1 on page 4 of the A&EG shows that a bastard sword one size larger than the standard does 2d8 points of damage and is a large weapon. The fullblade has the same stats and the same rules governing is use except that it is a huge weapon. This is going by only 3.0 rules.It's a Large bastard sword. The FAQ is clear.From the FAQ, page 24, Update 2005-10-27: "Although the fullblade is described in Arms and Equipment Guide as a “Huge” weapon, this is a reference to the 3.0 rules for weapon size. Using the 3.5 rules for weapon sizes, the fullblade used by Medium creatures is actually a Large two-handed weapon with a special rule that allows a Medium creature to wield it with two hands." Note that the FAQ does not say it is a large bastard sword--a large one-handed weapon--but a large two-handed weapon. You and the FAQ are not in agreement.Don't like it? Houserule.Do you not realize that's what I've been doing all along? Did I say at any point this was an official ruling? Are you yourself not house-ruling the fullblade to simply be a large bastard sword?But it's not like, according to the S&F Errata, that a Medium character could wield it at all in 3.0, either.If you're going by the FAQ, what the S&F errata says is irrelevent, because the FAQ is based on the A&EG fullblade.
a4igeek 11-12-05, 06:46 PM	Wow you guys seem to be in some heated discussion. Since you guys are on the topic of full blade. I use a full blade. 2d8 19 20Critical/X2 and use the Exotic Weapon Feat(Full Blade) to weild it in two hands. I am wondering if I have been using this Full Blade(Large Bastard) without the requirements? Why would you need a gargantuan full blade?
Thorak 11-12-05, 07:08 PM	Then by the S&F errata, you're right. It wasn't designed for medium creatures, because they can't even use it, and even if you convert it to 3.5 rules, it'd still be unusable by medium creatures (Monkey Grip, Wield Oversized Weapon, and powerful build notwithstanding). But if you go by the A&EG, the rules say otherwise: "A fullblade is 18 inches longer than a greatsword, and is too large for a Medium-size creature to use with two hands without special training; thus it is an exotic weapon. (Medium-sized creatures cannot use a fullblade one-handed at all.) "A Large creature could use the fullblade with one hand, but would suffer the standard –4 nonproficiency penalty to its attack rolls, or with two hands as a martial weapon. A Large creature with the Exotics Weapon proficiency could use the fullblade in one hand with no penalty. A fullblade is also called an ogre’s greatsword." I admit the name "Ogre's greatsword" suggests that it was designed for ogres and other large creatures, but suggesting something is not the same as explicitly saying it. I can find a couple of instances where the RAW suggests one thing, but closer inspection reveals it not to be the case. The name given to a weapon is not necessarily an indication for whom or what the weapon was designed. Especially when the name it's given is inaccurate. (If it should have been called an ogre's anything, it should have been called a ogre's bastardsword. And if it had been named by an ogre, it probably would have been called something like "elf skewer," "dispute settler," or "42.")You've completely missed the point. Let's try a different angle: It still clearly says "too large to use in two hands without special training". The implication beign that, absent special training, the weapon's too big for a Medium creature, even in 3.0. Generally speaking, you can take a one-handed weapon and create a new weapon that does comprable damage and has the same crit stats but is designed for creatures one size smaller by making it two-handed, with little or no extra modifications. Let's take a few existing weapons for example:size weapon type dmg critical dmg type ------ ------------- -------- ---- -------- -------- large longsword 1-handed 2d6 19-20/x2 slashing medium greatsword 2-handed 2d6 19-20/x2 slashing large battleaxe 1-handed 2d6 20/x3 slashing medium greataxe 2-handed 1d12 20/x3 slashing large scimitar 1-handed 1d8 18-20/x2 slashing medium falchion 2-handed 2d4 18-20/x2 slashingNow, let's apply this pattern to another large one-handed weapon, like a large bastard sword:large bastard sword 1-handed 2d8 19-20/x2 slashing medium fullblade 2-handed 2d8 19-20/x2 slashingYes, but even under 3.0 rules, the fullblade and the large bastard sword were not exactly the same. Table 1-1 on page 4 of the A&EG shows that a bastard sword one size larger than the standard does 2d8 points of damage and is a large weapon. The fullblade has the same stats and the same rules governing is use except that it is a huge weapon. This assumes a fullblade is the equivalent of a Medium bastard sword, which it is not.[/quote] Yep. It's the equivalent of a large bastard sword. We already said that, didn't we? The difference being that, in 3.5, there's no such thing as a "fullblade". It's a relic of the non-relative sizing in 3.0. This is going by only 3.0 rules.From the FAQ, page 24, Update 2005-10-27: "Although the fullblade is described in Arms and Equipment Guide as a “Huge” weapon, this is a reference to the 3.0 rules for weapon size. Using the 3.5 rules for weapon sizes, the fullblade used by Medium creatures is actually a Large two-handed weapon with a special rule that allows a Medium creature to wield it with two hands." Note that the FAQ does not say it is a large bastard sword--a large one-handed weapon--but a large two-handed weapon. You and the FAQ are not in agreement.Do you not realize that's what I've been doing all along? Did I say at any point this was an official ruling? Are you yourself not house-ruling the fullblade to simply be a large bastard sword?If you're going by the FAQ, what the S&F errata says is irrelevent, because the FAQ is based on the A&EG fullblade. Right. I am perhaps houseruling. But, why bother with the fullblade at all in 3.5, if it is the exact equal of a Large bastard sword, which would be a more standard weapon? You wouldn't bother designing a "arming sword" weapon with the exact same stats as a longsword, you'd just call it a longsword. Weapon equivalency rules. If it's the same, statistically, it is.
Lord Schpungus 11-12-05, 10:23 PM	The fullblade doesn't exist in 3.5. Ignore the FAQ on that ruling.
Sledged 11-13-05, 02:26 AM	It still clearly says "too large to use in two hands without special training". The implication beign that, absent special training, the weapon's too big for a Medium creature, even in 3.0.And the discriptive text of the bastard sword clearly says "too large to use in one hand without special training." The implication being that the phrasing used in the fullblade text had absolutely nothing to do with what size creature for which the weapon was designed, but that it was just a convenient copy & paste of the bastard sword's text with the phrase "one hand" replaced with "two hands."This assumes a fullblade is the equivalent of a Medium bastard sword, which it is not.No, this is not based on any assumptions. This is based on what the A&EG rules say about the stats of a large bastard sword and the comparison of one to a fullblade. As I said, this is going by only 3.0 rules. There's no assumptions being made.Yep. It's the equivalent of a large bastard sword. We already said that, didn't we?We sure did. And, by the same token, a 3.0 greatsword is the equivalent of a 3.5 large longsword.The difference being that, in 3.5, there's no such thing as a "fullblade". It's a relic of the non-relative sizing in 3.0. Right. I am perhaps houseruling. But, why bother with the fullblade at all in 3.5, if it is the exact equal of a Large bastard sword, which would be a more standard weapon? You wouldn't bother designing a "arming sword" weapon with the exact same stats as a longsword, you'd just call it a longsword.Depends. If I were using 3.0 rules, I would just use the standard longsword. Of course if I had a small-sized character wielding it, I'd probably rename it to "halfling's greatsword." Now if I were using 3.5 rules, and I had that same small-sized character, I'd want to avoid that pesky -2 attack penalty for being small-sized and using a medium weapon. So I'd design a weapon with the exact same stats as a medium longsword, but make it a small weapon instead of medium. I'd probably call it something like "gnome's bastard sword."Weapon equivalency rules. If it's the same, statistically, it is.There's a nifty little varient rule at which I haven't looked before. I'll have to remember it next time I run into someone that's upset about the difference between 3.0 and 3.5 weapon sizing rules and the -2 penalty per size difference that the 3.5 rules impose. By this variant rule, I could just call a large bastard sword a medium fullblade and avoid that -2 penalty.
a4igeek 11-13-05, 04:25 AM	Hm... I don't have the Arms and Equipment book with me but assuming the Full Blade falls under Exotic Weapon for a Medium Creature and can be used with just the Exotic Weapon Feat. So the question I think needs to be asked is: Is the cons of the Full Blade worth the pro of the lack of the Monkey Grip?? I.e. Heavy as can be.. 23lbs. if my memory serves me. That easily encumbers me and slow down my movement speed. Where a Greatsword would weight about 8lbs. So increased mass of the 18 inches longer than a greatsword. That is fifthteen extra pounds as well as the inabiliity to use a shield or other weapon. So Pro. 2d8 damage with one feat Con. Slows you down and can't use shield and second weapon Then again.. these are just assumptions. I would really like to know if we had an expert. Also.. I would love to see a book with All the possible Weapon Types, Magic Prefixes and Suffixes. I wouldn't mind if it was 23lbs either
Thorak 11-13-05, 08:52 AM	And the discriptive text of the bastard sword clearly says "too large to use in one hand without special training." The implication being that the phrasing used in the fullblade text had absolutely nothing to do with what size creature for which the weapon was designed, but that it was just a convenient copy & paste of the bastard sword's text with the phrase "one hand" replaced with "two hands." Well, except that the A&EG text also references that it's too big for a medium creature to wield in two hands, rather than the bastard sword's wording, which doesn't reference creature size. And what weapon would be too large for a 3.5 Medium creature to wield in two hands without special training? A Large bastard sword. We sure did. And, by the same token, a 3.0 greatsword is the equivalent of a 3.5 large longsword.Depends. If I were using 3.0 rules, I would just use the standard longsword. Of course if I had a small-sized character wielding it, I'd probably rename it to "halfling's greatsword." Welcome to 3.5. The rules have changed. In 3.0, a greatsword was the same as what 3.5 calls a Large longsword. Things changed in 3.5, though. Now if I were using 3.5 rules, and I had that same small-sized character, I'd want to avoid that pesky -2 attack penalty for being small-sized and using a medium weapon. So I'd design a weapon with the exact same stats as a medium longsword, but make it a small weapon instead of medium. I'd probably call it something like "gnome's bastard sword." Or you could just use a Small greatsword. Since that's how the 3.5 rules work. There's a nifty little varient rule at which I haven't looked before. I'll have to remember it next time I run into someone that's upset about the difference between 3.0 and 3.5 weapon sizing rules and the -2 penalty per size difference that the 3.5 rules impose. By this variant rule, I could just call a large bastard sword a medium fullblade and avoid that -2 penalty. Well, except that a fullblade doesn't exist in 3.5. It has been equated to a Large weapon. Which is unsurprising, since the original weapon was designed for an Ogre, a Large creature.
Sledged 11-14-05, 12:11 AM	Well, except that the A&EG text also references that it's too big for a medium creature to wield in two hands, rather than the bastard sword's wording, which doesn't reference creature size.First, the A&EG text also references how large creatures use the fullblade, and it doesn't use any of the bastard sword's wording at all. In fact there's even a slight difference between how a fullblade works with a large creature and how a bastard sword works with a medium creature; Even if a large creature isn't proficient with a fullblade, it can still use a fullblade one-handed with the standard -4 non-proficiency penalty. The bastard sword offers no such option for medium creatures. Second, The only reason the text references medium creatures is because under normal 3.0 rules, medium creatures cannot use huge weapons. For whatever reasons, the designers decided to make an exception for the fullblade. In fact, it's the only huge weapon under 3.0 rules that a medium creature can use. Which begs the question, if, in fact, it was designed for large creatures, why it would even matter whether or not a medium creature could wield it? Last, and admittedly least, weapons designed for a specific sized creature typically have the rules governing the usage of the weapon for whatever-sized it was intended preceding the rules for any other-sized creatures.And what weapon would be too large for a 3.5 Medium creature to wield in two hands without special training? A Large bastard sword.And, of course, a medium fullblade, too.Welcome to 3.5. The rules have changed. In 3.0, a greatsword was the same as what 3.5 calls a Large longsword. Things changed in 3.5, though.And in 3.0, a fullblade was the same as what 3.5 calls a Large bastard sword (though technically, it was never even that), but as you said, things changed in 3.5.Or you could just use a Small greatsword. Since that's how the 3.5 rules work.And I was so sure you'd pick up on that little bit of subtlety. Though I probably was a bit too vague. If you had bothered to check your sources before posting, you'd know that a small greatsword does 1d10 points of damage. It's the small bastard sword that does 1d8, hence the "gnome's bastard sword" comment. My point was that if I wanted to wield a weapon that is similar to a medium longsword in terms of damage and crit stats, but doing so would incur an attack penalty (e.g. a gnome using a medium longsword), I'd just rehash it so it works with my character's size without the penalty. In many cases, I don't have to go through all that trouble because the work has already been done for me. As a gnome, I can use a small bastard sword instead of a medium longsword, as an ogre, I can use a large scimitar instead of a medium falchion, as a cloud giant, I can use a huge handaxe instead of a large battleaxe, and as a human I can use a medium fullblade instead of a large bastard sword.Well, except that a fullblade doesn't exist in 3.5. It has been equated to a Large weapon.Which is partly why I offer an alternative.Which is unsurprising, since the original weapon was designed for an Ogre, a Large creature.Given that you've yet to prove this, and evidence exists that says otherwise, this is merely speculation.
Thorak 11-14-05, 12:55 AM	I'm just going to cut it down to this; Given that you've yet to prove this, and evidence exists that says otherwise, this is merely speculation. The text you cited. Says it's an "ogre's greatsword". An ogre is a Large creature, in both versions. The weapon is also explicitly too big for a Medium character to typically use. It's been proven fairly conclusively.
Sledged 11-14-05, 10:08 PM	I'm just going to cut it down to this; The text you cited. Says it's an "ogre's greatsword".No, it does not say it's an "ogre's greatsword." It says it's called an "ogre's greatsword." Just because something is given a moniker does not mean that the moniker is accurate. Pidgeons are called "rats with wings," and just as sure as we know that pidgeons aren't really rats, we know that a fullblade is not really a greatsword--ogre's or otherwise.An ogre is a Large creature, in both versions.That's merely because there's a shortage of ogrelings, tiny-sized ogres. That and when they are sighted, they're commonly mistaken for underpants gnomes. It's quite tragic really.The weapon is also explicitly too big for a Medium character to typically use.The key word being "typically." The bastard sword is explicitly too big for a medium character to typically use one-handed. However, it was still designed to be used one-handed by a medium character. A fullblade is a huge weapon, which under normal 3.0 rules can't be used by a medium character. So if the fullblade wasn't designed for medium creatures, why bother putting in a rule that explicitly allows them to use it? They could have just simplified things by removing that entire first paragraph. It's almost as if they designed it to be used by medium creatures.It's been proven fairly conclusively.Not if you're basing on an inaccurate alias and an explicit rule that allows medium creatures to use a weapon that under normal circumstances they would not be able to.
Thorak 11-14-05, 10:54 PM	No, it does not say it's an "ogre's greatsword." It says it's called an "ogre's greatsword." Just because something is given a moniker does not mean that the moniker is accurate. Pidgeons are called "rats with wings," and just as sure as we know that pidgeons aren't really rats, we know that a fullblade is not really a greatsword--ogre's or otherwise. Is your argument honestly "They call it that, but it isn't that, because I say so"? That's merely because there's a shortage of ogrelings, tiny-sized ogres. That and when they are sighted, they're commonly mistaken for underpants gnomes. It's quite tragic really.The key word being "typically." Ahh. So you are just going to make things up. The bastard sword is explicitly too big for a medium character to typically use one-handed. However, it was still designed to be used one-handed by a medium character. A fullblade is a huge weapon, which under normal 3.0 rules can't be used by a medium character. So if the fullblade wasn't designed for medium creatures, why bother putting in a rule that explicitly allows them to use it? They could have just simplified things by removing that entire first paragraph. Or, they wanted a weapon that bridged the two-handed Medium-one handed Large difference the same way a bastard sword bridged the one-handed Medium-two handed Medium difference. Nothing about this makes it designed for a Medium creature. It's almost as if they designed it to be used by medium creatures.Not if you're basing on an inaccurate alias and an explicit rule that allows medium creatures to use a weapon that under normal circumstances they would not be able to. So, if they didn't mean "ogres" when they said "ogres", and if you don't read the rules as saying that it isn't normally useable by a medium creature, which is what they say, then you can interpret it to be a Medium weapon. Thanks, I prefer logic and sense to flights of ridiculous fancy.
LaoKhanWei 11-15-05, 01:34 AM	Why don't you just use a large size greatsword? Your goal is the biggest weapon possible, right? If you happened to have the powerful build ability you could use a huge size greatsword, something that would really, truly dwarf you and everyone else around you.
Sledged 11-15-05, 09:54 PM	Is your argument honestly "They call it that, but it isn't that, because I say so"?No, my argument is honestly "They call it that, but it isn't that, because the 3.0 rules say so." Table 1-1 on page 4 of the A&EG shows that a true "ogre's greatsword" (i.e. a greatsword sized for a large creature) does 3d6 points of damage, and is a huge martial weapon. The fullblade does 2d8 points of damage and is a huge exotic weapon, with an explicit rule that allows medium creatures to wield what would otherwise be an unwieldly weapon for them and another explicit rule that allows large creatures to wield it in one hand which would otherwise require two hands from them. So despite what it's called, a fullblade is not really a greatsword--ogre's or otherwise.Ahh. So you are just going to make things up.Actually, that comment was just for the sake of silliness... which isn't to say I won't sometime in the future create these little critters to harass my players.Or, they wanted a weapon that bridged the two-handed Medium-one handed Large difference the same way a bastard sword bridged the one-handed Medium-two handed Medium difference.First, let's point out when the fullblade was designed it was under 3.0 rules, so terms like "two-handed Medium" didn't really exist yet. The 3.0 equivalent of "two-handed Medium" is simply "Large." Second, the 3.0 equivalent of "one handed Large" is also "Large." So the phrase "two-handed Medium-one handed Large" becomes "Large-Large."Nothing about this makes it designed for a Medium creature.On the contrary, nothing about your "Large-Large" statment on which you're basing this conclusion has anything to do with a fullblade because it's a huge weapon.So, if they didn't mean "ogres" when they said "ogres", and if you don't read the rules as saying that it isn't normally useable by a medium creature, which is what they say, then you can interpret it to be a Medium weapon.Well, that's not my train of thought, but if it's yours, run with it. Personally, I prefer not to leave out neither those particular details nor the context in which they lie. However, if you ignore the fact that the name "ogre's greatsword" is inaccurate, which it is, and if you ignore the fact the rules explicitly allowing medium creatures to use what would otherwise be an unusable weapon, which is what the rules do, then you can conclude it was not designed for medium creatures.Thanks, I prefer logic and sense to flights of ridiculous fancy.Sounds like D&D is not really your game then. Personally, I prefer the last tempered with the first two.Why don't you just use a large size greatsword? Your goal is the biggest weapon possible, right? If you happened to have the powerful build ability you could use a huge size greatsword, something that would really, truly dwarf you and everyone else around you.Because if you convert the fullblade into an exotic medium two-hander, it becomes the biggest sword a medium character could wield in two hands without penalty (in pretty much the same fashion that a bastard sword is the biggest sword a medium character can wield in one hand without penalty). And with a large character with powerful build or Wield Oversized Weapon, a huge fullblade becomes be the biggest.
Waterhammer 11-15-05, 10:17 PM	Everyone wants to tote around a sword the size of a Mack truck. Instead of that;would it not be better to be able to slash with a shortsword(as well as stab) You can do it IRL why not D&D?