Monkey Grip vs. Full Blade

[NOhara24]

Hello all,

So I was researching into the Full Blade and saw that it was listed as a huge weapon (I think, I don't have Arms & Equipment in front of me). I did some research online and the consensus seems to be that it wasn't converted over from 3.0 to 3.5 as far as sizing rules go. My question is this:

A medium character with EWP and a STR or DEX score of 16 or better can wield a normal (huge) full blade with no penalty to attack. I have the monkey grip feat. If I take EWP next time I get a feat, (considering my character has a STR of well above 16) could I wield a Full Blade of the next size up?

The discrepancy comes from the wording of Monkey Grip, as its description mentions weapons that are one size larger than the character in question. But considering a character without Monkey Grip can wield a full blade (huge) with no penalty, I think it all works out, rules-wise. Can you all confirm/deny?

[Big Fau]

Please note that the weapon sizes were abolished in 3.5. The Fullblade is merely a large bastard sword.

[Tyndmyr]

I would allow it. That said, the negatives to hit are probably not worth it.

[Eldariel]

Fullblade is a Large Bastard Sword that can be wielded without penalties with EWP as a Medium character. So yes, if you have Strongarm Bracers or Monkey Grip you could wield a Large Fullblade with the appropriate penalties (without penalties with Strongarm Bracers)

[MeeposFire]

Fullblade is a Large Bastard Sword that can be wielded without penalties with EWP as a Medium character. So yes, if you have Strongarm Bracers or Monkey Grip you could wield a Large Fullblade with the appropriate penalties (without penalties with Strongarm Bracers)

Actually since the fullblade wasn't updated we have to use the rules printed for it from 3.0 and go from there. If you notice it does not say anything about negating the size penalties so a medium creature using a standard full blade will take a -2 for using a weapon larger than he could normally wield. Of course the reason it doesn't say anything about that is due to the fullblade being designed before that sizing rule was created but if you decide to use old material you have to deal with the consequences. The fullblade is the same as a large bastard sword and does not have any special benefits in the end.

[Eldariel]

Actually since the fullblade wasn't updated we have to use the rules printed for it from 3.0 and go from there. If you notice it does not say anything about negating the size penalties so a medium creature using a standard full blade will take a -2 for using a weapon larger than he could normally wield. Of course the reason it doesn't say anything about that is due to the fullblade being designed before that sizing rule was created but if you decide to use old material you have to deal with the consequences. The fullblade is the same as a large bastard sword and does not have any special benefits in the end.

Huh? I don't think 3.0 had penalties for wielding weapons not designed for your size since weapon sizes were independent of the wielder sizes and each weapon basically only had one size category (save for IIRC Monk weapons which had a special Halfling-version for small creatures). Large weapons were two-handers, Small weapons were one-handers and you could wield anything outside those categories. There were no different sized versions of the same weapon either.

If there was a -2 it would never be worth wielding (since it's already only 1 damage category above Greatsword and costs you an EWP, a dubious trade). But I don't think there's one by RAW and there definitely should be none even if there is one.

[MeeposFire]

Huh? I don't think 3.0 had penalties for wielding weapons not designed for your size since weapon sizes were independent of the wielder sizes and each weapon basically only had one size category (save for IIRC Monk weapons which had a special Halfling-version for small creatures). Large weapons were two-handers, Small weapons were one-handers and you could wield anything outside those categories. There were no different sized versions of the same weapon either.

If there was a -2 it would never be worth wielding (since it's already only 1 damage category above Greatsword and costs you an EWP, a dubious trade). But I don't think there's one by RAW and there definitely should be none even if there is one.

you are right there weren't any in 3.0 but in 3.5 there are and if you look at the size conversions normal fullblades would be oversized for a medium creature and since you are playing 3.5 (which does have those penalties) they now apply to the fullblade. Since the fullblade does not have any stipulations about ignoring penalties they then still apply. The fact of the matter is it isn't worth wielding a fullblade (or should I say it is not worth any more than a large bastard sword that has the same stats and the same feat cost).

[Eldariel]

you are right there weren't any in 3.0 but in 3.5 there are and if you look at the size conversions normal fullblades would be oversized for a medium creature and since you are playing 3.5 (which does have those penalties) they now apply to the fullblade. Since the fullblade does not have any stipulations about ignoring penalties they then still apply. The fact of the matter is it isn't worth wielding a fullblade (or should I say it is not worth any more than a large bastard sword that has the same stats and the same feat cost).

...if we're using conversion to bestow those penalties we should also use the conversion to retain functionality, that is make those penalties not apply to when you have the EWP (e.g. when you can wield it)... Conversion should retain functionality.

As this deals with a part of the rules changed in the conversion and one without an update booklet, the DM should adjust accordingly. Since there's a functionality shift at works the item should be adjusted to cover for that.

[MeeposFire]

...if we're using conversion to bestow those penalties we should also use the conversion to retain functionality, that is make those penalties not apply to when you have the EWP (e.g. when you can wield it)... Conversion should retain functionality.

As this deals with a part of the rules changed in the conversion and one without an update booklet, the DM should adjust accordingly. Since there's a functionality shift at works the item should be adjusted to cover for that.

Proficiency just allows you to wield the weapon with no proficiency penalties which it still does. The size penalty is separate and was implemented in 3.5. When 3.5 it needs to be implemented and the old stuff would have to be updated to bypass that or it applies and it was never updated to bypass the restriction. Notice that it is just as functional as a large bastard sword with the same feat cost, damage, ad to hit penalty. It is still fully functional especially if you are a goliath or similar. The fullblade was designed to be a bastard sword for large size characters at a time when they had to design weapons to take that lace sine "large sized bastard swords" did not exist and this fully supports that.

Your way includes houserules while my way requires none and makes sure to keep everything less confusing in the end since you might as well call the full blade a "large bastard sword" like it really is and then nobody has to worry anymore.

[Eldariel]

When 3.5 it needs to be implemented and the old stuff would have to be updated to bypass that or it applies and it was never updated to bypass the restriction.

There is no official update for Fullblade. Fullblade deals with material that changed from 3.0 to 3.5. Ergo DM has to make the update; there's no RAW update for this matter.


Your way includes houserules while my way requires none and makes sure to keep everything less confusing in the end since you might as well call the full blade a "large bastard sword" like it really is and then nobody has to worry anymore.

My way maintains functionality, yours changes it. Given the whole weapon size categories matter requires changing things around anyways, I don't see a reason to change it in a way that changes functionality instead of changing it in a manner that maintains functionality; that is, to reflect what the 3.5 wording for the same functionality would be, which is what I believe is the purpose of updating (as opposed to errata). Errata changes things, update just changes wordings to match the new system.