Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Master of the Wild 09-30-05, 07:45 AM	Ello, I'm thinking that my druidic avenger could purchase a large greatsword. My DM has told me I need wild armour to wear in dire ape form, but his weapon can be used as normal (without attack roll changed)... So, I thought: what if he buys a nice large greatsword? And then it hit me: a normal greatsword for a medium size creature is worn on the back and if I see it correctly about 3/4 of the size of a medium creature... So how could a 6' wood elf wear a 9' great sword?!? Nother related question: He can use a +4 falchion (yes, +4, don't ask me why) as a +x (1d4+x) weapon if he changes into a dire ape for example. Is it a better idea to take another weapon with him that starts as a +x-4 (3d6+x-4)? It seems doubtful... And if it is a bad idea and physically impossible... Well, we've had a small laugh about it, I guess.
hazardnwt 09-30-05, 05:32 PM	In DnD weapon size is generalized into the different catagories. Realisticly weapons are made for the wielder. a 6' man would have a 6'-8' great sword. a 5' man would have a 5'-7' great sword. But really such changes a don't effect machanics. In DnD a Greatsword could be a couple inches wide and 9' long, or 5" wide a 5' long, the important fact is it's a really big sword. The game gives you a weight for the weapon, and is doubled when made a size catagory larger, so work with that. As for your second question Nother related question: He can use a +4 falchion (yes, +4, don't ask me why) as a +x (1d4+x) weapon if he changes into a dire ape for example. Is it a better idea to take another weapon with him that starts as a +x-4 (3d6+x-4)? It seems doubtful... I can't figure out what your talking about lol but here's something that might help you, for a +1 enchantment you can get the sizing ability, it's from the serpent kingdoms book for faerun, that allows you to make your weapon any size. SO it's medium when you use it, large when you as an ape use it, and so on. Another option you have is to take the monkey grip feat, from Complete Warrior, which lets you use, with a -2 penalty, a larger weapon as if it were a weapon one size smaller. So when you wild shape it's proper for your size. Hope this helps you. ;) you should try explaining question 2 again.
Oliver D'Argent 09-30-05, 09:31 PM	So how could a 6' wood elf wear a 9' great sword?!? Historically, most, if not all, greatswords would have been carried over the shoulder rather than worn. Trying to wear even a normal-sized greatsword in any sort of holder would be problematic in anything but an open environment - you would constantly be getting hung up on doorways and branches. I own two historical reproductions of European greatswords - both of them are a little over 5 feet in length and weigh about eight pounds. Both of the examples that I have have an unsharpened portion just above the crossguard, called a ricasso, that could be used to carry them over the shoulder.
Karalyn the Sellsword 10-01-05, 05:49 AM	Large Two handed weapons are Large in size, so yes it would be difficult to carry, but strap it to an animal companion?
FlameLover 10-01-05, 05:56 AM	"how large is a large greatsword?" Too large, that is the first thought that crossed my mind. Seriously i am sick of people always wanting more, more, more. I would outlaw Monkey Grip or atleast make it give you a -6 penalty or something (make you take 3 feats to decrease it to -2 maybe). But a Greatsword is large enough. Since you're Medium and you'd be going to Large you would have a nive one-handed weapon when in ape form. Carry around a Tower shield and your set (i would rule a Medium tower shield functions as a Large light shield but check with your DM)
Master of the Wild 10-17-05, 07:44 AM	Nother related question: He can use a +4 falchion (yes, +4, don't ask me why) as a +x (1d4+x) weapon if he changes into a dire ape for example. Is it a better idea to take another weapon with him that starts as a +x-4 (3d6+x-4)? It seems doubtful... Hmm.. What did I mean? Well, assume he changes into a dire ape. He can still use his +4 falchion as normal, ie like he was an elf (DM's rule). So, dire ape form would attack with +15/+10 (2d4+13) with this falchion - called Sunrise. The idea was to bring a normal greatsword - but build for an ogre - let's call it Ogreblade. This means the dire ape form would swing it at +11/+6 (3d6+9). The problem with my DM's ruling is that Ogreblade would be better than Sunrise RAW :) I could sell Sunrise to buy Solstice (just another name): a +3 sizing greatsword. This means Solstice would do +14/+9 (3d6+12) in ape form and +12/+7 (2d6+7) in elf form. Compare this to Sunrise: +15/+10 (2d4+13) in ape, +13/+8 (2d4+8) in elf. averages for both: Solstice (ape) +14/+9 (22) and (elf) +12/+7 (14) Sunrise (ape) +15/+10(18) and (elf) +13/+8 (13) min damage and maximum for both: Solstice (ape) 15 - 30, (elf) 9 - 19 Sunrise (ape) 15 - 21, (elf) 10 - 16 Different threat ranges makes this even more complicated, but it means the difference will be smaller damagewise. For the time being sticking to my Falchion (Sunrise) would be the better idea, thanks to my DM. The only thing I don't like is that the damage roll doen't change. Then again, rolling 2d4+40 or 3d6+40 doesn't really matter much. Averages at 47 and 50,5, which means the latter is actually about 7 % more. By the way, the 2d4+40 damage is at power attack 6, in dire ape form, raging with bull's strength, nature's favour and animal growth. Even more gross is adding haste to this (wizzie: thanks) and casting lion's charge as a swift action... charging at +22/+22/+17 (2d4+40) seems deadly enough - and to think I've got cleave to go with that... I can't wait for those 3700 something XP to get to level 9... Druidic Avengers rock!
White_Wizard 10-17-05, 08:09 AM	Try to search the net: there are many sites treating medieval weaponry, often for sale purposes. It is likely to find weapon measures along with the photos.
Az Reel 10-17-05, 09:30 AM	Isn't there some sort of magic item called a Trick Sheath? I can't recall the supplement it is in or the cost, but basically it works almost like a bag of holding for swords. Any sword you put in it looks like it is as long as a dagger, except for the hilt, which stays the same size. So with a large sized greatsword your weapon's hilt would look three times as long as the blade, but you could wear it without a problem. And I have to correct Hazard, the sizing enchantment is in Underdark, not Serpent Kingdoms. Along with morphing and metalline.
Master of the Wild 10-17-05, 11:11 AM	As I recall, it is also reprinted in Complete Adventurer :)
mvincent 10-17-05, 03:31 PM	how could a 6' wood elf wear a 9' great sword?!?Preferably in a handy haversack or glove of storing.
Colmarr 10-17-05, 10:16 PM	The problem with my DM's ruling is that Ogreblade would be better than Sunrise RAW Except that your DM's ruling isn't RAW. He is allowing a large creature to use a medium-sized weapon without suffering the -2 size penalty explicitly mentioned in the rules. As for Ogreblade being better than Sunrise, don't forget that the ape's attack modifiers with Ogreblade are 4 points worse than with Sunrise. That may or not make up for the increased damage depending on the nature of the opponent. It's certainly large enough that I'd be hesitant to use ogreblade except against low CR foes. Then again, if your DM removes his houserule, the difference is only -2 and the extra damage begins to look good.
Vahenir 10-18-05, 01:31 AM	Historically, most, if not all, greatswords would have been carried over the shoulder rather than worn. Trying to wear even a normal-sized greatsword in any sort of holder would be problematic in anything but an open environment - you would constantly be getting hung up on doorways and branches. I own two historical reproductions of European greatswords - both of them are a little over 5 feet in length and weigh about eight pounds. Both of the examples that I have have an unsharpened portion just above the crossguard, called a ricasso, that could be used to carry them over the shoulder. Couple things. 1.) Historically speaking, greatswords were not overly common -anyway-, so how they were carried "most often" is up for debate. It is known that both the Scots and the Irish -wore- their two-handers. There's also some indication that some Germanic warriors did as well. 2.) The ricasso is not above the guard. 3.) The ricasso has absolutely nothing to do with carrying the sword. To the OP: I agree with another poster -- at least in theory. The best way to look at it isn't in terms of size overall, but in relation to your character. A 'large' greatsword is simply a statistic. It can be 6 feet long if you want it to be. The -less- ridiculous it looks in your mind, the better. -- Because there's simply no way to rationalize strapping a 9-foot sword onto a 6-foot Elf.
Draco Strang 10-18-05, 03:02 AM	1.) Historically speaking, greatswords were not overly common -anyway-, so how they were carried "most often" is up for debate. It is known that both the Scots and the Irish -wore- their two-handers. There's also some indication that some Germanic warriors did as well. Indeed. I've a fully-functional claymore (similar to greatswords in many respects), and it's accompanying baldric. When you strap that puppy on it's easy to move around, walk, get through doors, etcetera. However, I've not tried sprinting over a mountain trail or doing somersaults while wearing it, so just how well a kit like that holds up is debatable. There were probably as many different slings/baldrics/carrying cases/sheathes/young boys to carry the damn thing as there were men who wielded the greatsword. Something like that just doesn't really get standardized and mass-produced. 2.) The ricasso is not above the guard. Vahenir, you and I agree so often that I'm a tick embarassed to bring this up, but here it is: Some greatswords/claymores had one above the guard, some below, and some none at all. Here's a picture of a claymore that's supposedly a replica of the one used by Robert the Bruce. Of course, he probably had about 20 different swords, but I've seen many others like this as well.* http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.imperialweapons.com/swords/Gen2/Ip-069a.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.imperialweapons.com/swords/Gen2/IP-069.html&h=420&w=221&sz=20&tbnid=PLBrZya_9OEJ:&tbnh=122&tbnw=64&hl=en&start=18&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dricasso%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN *Note, I'm not vouching for this company or this claymore's unerring historical accuracy. Not sure how spot-on it is, nor of the quality ofconstruction. This is merely an illustration. Now, here's another view of a zweihander (taken from the Tower of London collection, so we can assume it's historically accurate) that shows an unsharpened, fairly lengthy portion of the blade above the quillions and the tiny excuse for a guard farther up the blade. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.arador.com/gallery/et13.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.arador.com/gallery/et.html&h=444&w=267&sz=13&tbnid=5LTOmYQAX0oJ:&tbnh=124&tbnw=74&hl=en&start=18&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dzweihander%26svnum%3D10%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff 3.) The ricasso has absolutely nothing to do with carrying the sword.Nope, no it doesn't. The ricasso merely acts as a place for the wielder of the weapon to grip it farther up the blade so as to gain a better position of leverage. Those long heavy swords can get fairly cumbersome, and it's good to have the option of being able to whip it around a little faster, with a little more applied force. The ricasso basically lets your secondary arm act as a fulcrum to aid in manueverability. P.S.-Get your AIM working buddy, it's been too long!
Master of the Wild 10-18-05, 03:33 AM	Except that your DM's ruling isn't RAW. He is allowing a large creature to use a medium-sized weapon without suffering the -2 size penalty explicitly mentioned in the rules. Well, essentially he lets me use a medium greatsword as a large longsword as per the DM's optional rule in the DMG that rules that a medium dagger = small short sword. My party has a rogue and neither the player nor the character knows wether she's got two med. daggers or small sht swords. The catch is: a large scimitar deals 1d8 18-20/x2 damage and a medium falchion 2d4 18-20/x2... Well, that's just because were talking scimitar/falchion here and not longsword/greatsword. But we find it awfully weird that I could use a greatsword as a large longsword, but not a falchion as a large 'scimitarish' sword. Small spell question regarding this though: Animal growth (on the wildshaped druid - duh) says: 'all equipment worn or carried by an animal is [...] enlarged [...] though this change has no effect on the magical properties [of the items].' Wich means? Does the huge ape now carry a huge 'scimitarish' sword? And if so, does it deal 2d4 18-20/x2 (still same damage) or 2d6 18-20/x2 (2d4 large --> 2d6 huge) or 2d6 18-20/x2 (huge scimitar). As you'll notice, a huge scimitar would do 2d6 and not 2d4, and I do not think this is a magical property of the weapon, now does it?
Master of the Wild 10-18-05, 03:42 AM	Tata: a Renaissance two handed weapon - I'd say a greatsword in D&D terms: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights/renaissance_two-handed_sword.jpg So, could one strap it at their back? Yes, it seems viable. Strapping a large one would be problematic, I'd wager. Then again, renaissance didn't have magic bags, handy haversack and that item... a trick sheath Anyone recalling where this trick sheath is from?
Oliver D'Argent 10-18-05, 07:59 AM	1.) Historically speaking, greatswords were not overly common -anyway-, so how they were carried "most often" is up for debate. It is known that both the Scots and the Irish -wore- their two-handers. There's also some indication that some Germanic warriors did as well. 2.) The ricasso is not above the guard. 3.) The ricasso has absolutely nothing to do with carrying the sword. 1.) I will not argue this point other than to say that the highland claymore is a slightly smaller example of the the greatsword than what I am refering to. The examples that I have are more of the type used by the German Landsknechts (not the huge bearing swords that were really only used in parades, but a smaller version of that). 2.) Perhaps we are differing on the definition of "above". When I spoke of that, I was looking at the sword point up. Blade Extra hand guard Ricasso crossguard Grip Pommel Looking at it this way, the ricasso is above the guard. 3.) I never said that the ricasso was only for carying the weapon, simply that it would provide a place to rest it on one's shoulder. I am perfectly aware that it's primary pupose was as an additional place to grip the sword. I am certain that I have seen pictures of Landsknechts carrying two-handed swords in the manner I described, but I don't have time to look up links at the moment.
Vahenir 10-18-05, 12:43 PM	1.) I will not argue this point other than to say that the highland claymore is a slightly smaller example of the the greatsword than what I am refering to. The examples that I have are more of the type used by the German Landsknechts (not the huge bearing swords that were really only used in parades, but a smaller version of that). And the Highland Claymore isn't the only sword style I mentioned.. I do believe I said "Germanics and Irish" as well. And there are some examples of the Landsknechts wearing their swords. But because the baldrics are sometimes difficult to get off, it's most likely that they would have removed their swords and carried them if battle was imminent. How that relates to D&D.... well it doesn't. An adventurer simply cannot afford to be carrying his sword everywhere. He also can't afford taking a long time to ready his weapon since he always has to be on guard for attack. To be perfectly frank, I find that true greatswords are extremely impractical for an adventurer. 2.) Perhaps we are differing on the definition of "above". When I spoke of that, I was looking at the sword point up. The proper definition of 'top' on a sword is the pommel. That's the academic way to view it, and thus the proper way. So the pommel of the sword is the top.. therefore the ricasso, by its very definition (blunted portion of the blade) is always below the guard. I never said that the ricasso was only for carying the weapon, simply that it would provide a place to rest it on one's shoulder. Actually, it wouldn't. You don't rest a sword edge-down against your shoulder, so whether the sword is blunted or not is meaningless. When you carry a sword at your shoulder, you lay the FLAT of the blade against your body. Some period illustrations may -appear-, at a glance, to contradict this fact. But we must remember the lesser skill of period artists, who would often take artistic shortcuts. At the angle we usually see soldiers from, a sword would simply be a long line when carried over the shoulder properly. In order for the artists of the time to make it clear that the object is a sword, they had to reposition it to be edge-down. This type of artistic license is similar to 'mail hauberks' being pictured as shirts with giant eyeballs on them, or more important people being larger than less important people. Vahenir, you and I agree so often that I'm a tick embarassed to bring this up, but here it is We don't disagree. I was referring to the 'quillions' -- a term I don't like to use, myself. The only difference we're actually having is 'guard.' You seem to be used to using Renaissance definitions while I use practical definitions. What you're calling the guard, I assume, is what I would call the 'lower guard' or the 'guard' that's forged as part of the blade to protect the second hand-hold provided by the ricasso, which could run past the lower guard in some instances. Yep.. so we don't disagree, we're just using different terms which caused a bit of confusion. When I said 'guard' - I was referring to the 'crossguard' - -not the 'lower guard.' We're both right. And my AIM works fine.. whenever I get on, you're away. Probably swilling beer and having pre-marital sex. Sinner. ;)
Draco Strang 10-18-05, 02:28 PM	And my AIM works fine.. whenever I get on, you're away. Probably swilling beer and having pre-marital sex. Sinner. ;) Actually no, I'm sort of on hiatus from that kind of stuff. I only go out but once or twice a week, and I'm coming home alone every night (due to both choice and bad luck...depends on the night) to my computer and my D&D books. Damn shame, eh? Plus I have to study every now and again....studying is dumb.
striderII 10-19-05, 12:09 PM	Actually no, I'm sort of on hiatus from that kind of stuff. I only go out but once or twice a week, and I'm coming home alone every night (due to both choice and bad luck...depends on the night) to my computer and my D&D books. Damn shame, eh? Plus I have to study every now and again....studying is dumb. Yes, studying is dumb...glad I never had to do that. But don't worry - Vahenir doesn't talk to me on AIM, either. I think we should gang up on him and complain that he needs to remember to sign on more often. ;-) On that note...dude, Draco, you've got AIM? IM me sometime - anubisfirewalker. To all others: Vahenir is right. And so is Draco. So there. strider
Oliver D'Argent 10-20-05, 10:34 PM	Since I cannot substantiate my claim, I withdraw it. I do, however, have a issue with this statement: Some period illustrations may -appear-, at a glance, to contradict this fact. But we must remember the lesser skill of period artists, who would often take artistic shortcuts. At the angle we usually see soldiers from, a sword would simply be a long line when carried over the shoulder properly. In order for the artists of the time to make it clear that the object is a sword, they had to reposition it to be edge-down. This type of artistic license is similar to 'mail hauberks' being pictured as shirts with giant eyeballs on them, or more important people being larger than less important people. This varies greatly depending on the time period in question. Your reference to the depiction of mail hauberks sounds like the images from the Bayeux "Tapestry". If this is the case, that work was produced in the mid to late 11th century. If you look at the works of Albrecht Duerer and Hans Holbein, who were both artists in the Landsknecht period, I think you will find that the style is quite a bit more realistic.
Vahenir 10-21-05, 12:43 AM	This varies greatly depending on the time period in question. Your reference to the depiction of mail hauberks sounds like the images from the Bayeux "Tapestry". If this is the case, that work was produced in the mid to late 11th century. If you look at the works of Albrecht Duerer and Hans Holbein, who were both artists in the Landsknecht period, I think you will find that the style is quite a bit more realistic. You are certainly correct (not that you need me to tell you that). But even in the 'Landsknecht period' artists would still be struggling with finding expediant and easily-deciphered ways of representing various concepts. Like I said, a sword over the shoulder flat-down would just be a line... not very conductive to people figuring out what it is easily. And of course there are still plenty of oddities in period artwork. Look at some of the positions in European fighting manuals from the 1500s.. positions that no human being could ever get into. However you slice it, medieval artwork was highly stylized.