The fullblade

[hushblade]

I see it brought up from time to time as a viable replacement for a great sword on a medium character. Its always been my interpretation that it was a large sized weapon and ill defined because of 3.0s wonky weapon rules on the subject. Can I get some clarification?

[Krazzman]

I see it brought up from time to time as a viable replacement for a great sword on a medium character. Its always been my interpretation that it was a large sized weapon and ill defined because of 3.0s wonky weapon rules on the subject. Can I get some clarification?

I'm AFB atm but AFAIR it is just an Exotic Medium Weapon with the stats of a Large Sized Greatsword.

[Eldariel]

I'm AFB atm but AFAIR it is just an Exotic Medium Weapon with the stats of a Large Sized Greatsword.

Large Bastard Sword, actually. Large Greatsword is 3d6 damage, Large Bastard Sword is 2d8 (Fullblade).

[Krazzman]

Large Bastard Sword, actually. Large Greatsword is 3d6 damage, Large Bastard Sword is 2d8 (Fullblade).

Ah I always calculated my damage wrong! Nooooooo.... so many dead warriors because of miscalculated average damage!^^

[Khedrac]

I see it brought up from time to time as a viable replacement for a great sword on a medium character. Its always been my interpretation that it was a large sized weapon and ill defined because of 3.0s wonky weapon rules on the subject. Can I get some clarification?
I am surprised by the above posts because I have always been exactly with your opinion on this one. It even gives the -2 offsize weapon penalty for wielding it which does not sound very "exotic weapon"-like to me. Ah well, I think we need one of the people with books to hand to give proper details...

Any takers?

[Darrin]

I see it brought up from time to time as a viable replacement for a great sword on a medium character. Its always been my interpretation that it was a large sized weapon and ill defined because of 3.0s wonky weapon rules on the subject. Can I get some clarification?

The problem with calling it a "large-sized" weapon is in 3.5, the weapon size penalty is almost impossible to get rid of, which wasn't the original intent behind the weapon. It should work like a two-handed version of the bastard sword: spend a feat to offset the -4 penalty.

Since the fullblade was never updated to 3.5, this falls under the "those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments" clause in the PHB. This means you have to ask the DM to clarify how it works for his game. My suggestion would be to reword it as so:

"A fullblade is longer than a greatsword and is too large for a creature to use with two hands without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. If the fullblade is wielded by a creature one size larger than the weapon (such as a large creature wielding a medium-sized fullblade), then the creature can treat it as an appropriately-sized two-handed martial weapon, and if proficient with martial weapons, it may ignore both the -4 nonproficienty penalty and the -2 size penalty."

[GenghisDon]

wouldn't EWP: Bastard sword let one use it? plus use a standard sized bastard sword in one hand?

I'm not a fan of & tend to ignore/ban the made up bull**** weapons of D&D, but simple size changes are pretty much mandatory to the game.

[Eldariel]

You can't use larger size weapons without penalties with a feat.

Here's all the important stuff:
"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-size creatures cannot use a fullblade one-handed at all)
A Large creature could use the fullblade with one hand, but it would be assessed the standard -4 nonproficiency penalty on its attack rolls; Large creatures can use the fullblade in two hands as a martial weapon. A Large creature with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (fullblade) feat can use the fullblade in one hand, but a Medium-size creature must use both hands even if it has the relevant feat. A fullblade is also called an ogre's greatsword."

So basically, a medium creature can use it with EWP: Fullblade (it's an exotic weapon, as above). A medium creature can wield it two-handed at no penalties. You could add penalties based on the edition transition but that'd specifically be an addition that wasn't there originally; its written function is "Feat = no penalties".

[Gavinfoxx]

Oh just get a Large +1 Keen Kaorti Resin Jovar, and wield it with a pair of Strongarm Bracers.

3d6, 15-20/x4.

[Rhatahema]

Fullblades are strange. For large creatures, they function identically to bastard swords. For medium creatures, as mentioned above, it requires some DM interpretation. At any rate, despite the possibility of avoiding a -2 to hit, in 3.5 the rules are a mess. A far simpler solution is to take EWP:Bastard sword and wield a bastard sword one size category too large two-handed, taking the -2 penalty to hit along with it.

[GenghisDon]

wouldn't that be default 3.5? There is no "fullblade", it's just a large bastard sword?

[Eldariel]

Fullblades are strange. For large creatures, they function identically to bastard swords. For medium creatures, as mentioned above, it requires some DM interpretation. At any rate, despite the possibility of avoiding a -2 to hit, in 3.5 the rules are a mess. A far simpler solution is to take EWP:Bastard sword and wield a bastard sword one size category too large two-handed, taking the -2 penalty to hit along with it.

This does, however, make the whole item entirely worthless since the -2 To Hit just isn't worth the damage increase you get. Also, you could Monkey Grip a Large Greatsword for 3d6 with the same effect, but more damage. And that's still bad since you're still dealing on average less than the guy without the feat due to the To Hit penalty.

[Gavinfoxx]

This does, however, make the whole item entirely worthless since the -2 To Hit just isn't worth the damage increase you get. Also, you could Monkey Grip a Large Greatsword for 3d6 with the same effect, but more damage. And that's still bad since you're still dealing on average less than the guy without the feat due to the To Hit penalty.

You could instead of monkey gripping a Large Greatsword, use Strongarm Bracers on a Large Greatsword...

[Eldariel]

You could instead of monkey gripping a Large Greatsword, use Strongarm Bracers on a Large Greatsword...

Duh, but we're specifically talking about using a feat here. For the exact same cost as EWP: Fullblade (or rather, EWP: Bastard Sword and wield a large one), you could get a die larger weapon with otherwise the same stats, using a subpar feat no less. Which is why I find the only sensible option being allowing EWP: Fullblade to remove the penalties entirely if we want it to be an option balanced with the rest of the game.

[Gavinfoxx]

Nooo... EWP: Kaorti Resin Jovar. Like I said earlier... ;)

Provided the DM doesn't completely mess you over with some of the issues with Kaorti Resin...

[Rhatahema]

This does, however, make the whole item entirely worthless since the -2 To Hit just isn't worth the damage increase you get. Also, you could Monkey Grip a Large Greatsword for 3d6 with the same effect, but more damage. And that's still bad since you're still dealing on average less than the guy without the feat due to the To Hit penalty.

Totally. I didn't mean to imply that wielding an oversized bastard sword is actually worth it. Mostly I was suggesting that people simply not use fullblades. If you ignore the -2 attack penalty, they function in every way the same as a bastard sword, but with an additional option for wielders one size category smaller. This makes bastard swords obsolete. Not saying it would be overpowered, but it's bad design.



Provided the DM doesn't completely mess you over with some of the issues with Kaorti Resin...

Yeah, I mean, what kind of DM would deny their player a weapon crafted from a resin secreted by far realm horrors who seek to warp the material plane into a mockery of itself? Rogue Kaorti smiths are a dime-a-dozen. And it's web content. DMs love web content. ;D

[Darrin]

wouldn't that be default 3.5? There is no "fullblade", it's just a large bastard sword?

No. The default is all 3.0 materials are still legal for 3.5 play: "those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

Adjustment = a fullblade is bigger than a greatsword. You can use one without penalty by taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency. A creature one size larger than the weapon can use it without taking the feat.

[Cyphrus]

...Wouldn't it just be easier to say it's just a Exotic weapon that does 2d8 19-20 x2, is two handed, and add a special addendum at the end that just says it can be treated as bastard sword for larger creatures? Or just nix that silliness all-together? Just have it be a bigger greatsword for a feat?

[Thomasinx]

...Wouldn't it just be easier to say it's just a Exotic weapon that does 2d8 19-20 x2, is two handed, and add a special addendum at the end that just says it can be treated as bastard sword for larger creatures? Or just nix that silliness all-together? Just have it be a bigger greatsword for a feat?


Yes. It would.

If it were rereleased in 3.5, thats likely how they would list it.

[Keneth]

I treat it as a two-handed exotic weapon. With EWP you can wield it with no penalties, without EWP you can't wield it at all because its "handedness" is more than two-handed (kind of like a bastard sword becomes two-handed without EWP). I do not associate it with the bastard sword in any way. This got rid of all the problems.