Talk:Buster Sword (3.5e Equipment)

I noticed this Weapon was recreated, however I noted some errors...

• Big error with the Damage. You should check the page Weapon Damage befor posting a weapon. There is a simular weapon as well, the Fullblade.
• If a Weapon is going to be both slashing and Bludgening you need to explane how it works in the text.
• The cost of the weapon sizes seems to be off, there needs to be a cost for the Med. sized charactors due to it being the primarry size of charactors used.
• You might also want to add in the Reach Weapon info to the main section as well as the catagory. Try looking at how the Spiked Chain is set up as a reference.
• Finally the text to discribe it's affects of use it hard to follow. You might want to brake it up as I broke up the points of this page.

--Korminor (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2012 (MST)

Some pointers:

• Physically, this best resembles a oversized fullblade. A fullblade causes 2d8 damage; a large fullblade does 3d8 damage and would have a -2 attack roll penalty for medium creatures.
• I don't like Strength requirements because they make little sense when you scale the weapon size up and down, and the penalty for large weapons is already inherent in wielding large weapons. (Instead, look at Weapon Trait Index (3.5e Other), in particular the Heavy and Slow Recovery traits.)
• By requiring the Monkey Grip feat, you're already admitting that this is a Large-sized weapon.
• Similarly, any traits you've added of the "due to it's size" variety would be a function of a Large weapon in Medium hands.
• Large weapons already get a +4 sunder bonus against Medium weapons.
• In conclusion, this weapon is still trying to describe a Large-sized Fullblade. Marasmusine (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2012 (MST)

Also, regarding using the flat of the blade to cause bludgeoning damage, would it not be better to use the existing rules for using the flat of a blade? And again, adding stuff like "+4 to intimidate" is a function of it actually being a Large weapon wielded by a Medium creature. Think of it this way: If a Large creature wielded a Medium buster sword (or a Medium creature wielded a Small buster sword), would this bonus still be appropriate? I reiterate that what's being described here is a specific example of a large-sized sword. If it must be in the wiki, it should be at least written up using the rules handed to us by D&D 3.5. Marasmusine (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2012 (MST)

I've just watched some videos of Cloud in action with the Buster Sword, and it isn't as large as I had imagined. It's no taller than the wielder himself. It really just looks like a masterwork greatsword with an exaggeratedly broad blade. Is there some other version I should be looking at? Marasmusine (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2012 (MST)

I was asked by my fellow local D&D players to try and refine this weapon idea. They wanted a way to reflect the unusual weight and thickness of the Buster Sword and how it would reflect in its use in combat. I have tried to refine it further... If it is still not acceptable feel free to continue with the deletion.--Korminor (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2012 (MST)

When deciding how to reflect its use in combat, don't get confused between what's inherent with the weapon and the skills of the wielder. What kind of thing do you have in mind? Marasmusine (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2012 (MST)

I did a few changes, but I am wondering if it properly reflects the affect that the large weight and thinkness has upon the weapon... --Korminor (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2012 (MST)

I will sound like a stuck record, but the best way to represent a large-sized sword is to have a Large-sized sword, as the to-hit penalty and sunder bonus continue to indicate. If we really want to try and have a base, mundane, buster sword, keep it simple. Start with 2d4 damage, 18-20/x2 crit (this is for a martial two-handed broad-bladed sword) and add just two traits that define it. Increasing the damage to 2d6 will up it to Exotic. "The buster sword can't be wielded at all unless you have Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Buster Sword)" will do for representing its excessive weight (like the greatspear). Now one other trait. Marasmusine (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2012 (MST)

So, to put in my two cents, the advice that's been given so far is dumb. You did not make a very large broad sword, instead you made an average greatsword except with it's threat range increased by 1, and asked people to burn a feat on that. That is, with out a doubt, a waste of a feat.

If you want to charge someone more character resources for something it has to be genuinely better. A buster sword is heavier than the average mace, so dealing lethal bludgeoning damage is not unreasonable in my book, the str requirement is fine, since the buster sword isn't crafted for large creatures, the balance and blade should be okay for a medium creature, but it IS very heavy so requiring a good amount of str is, again, not unreasonable, especially since fighter types should have that anyway, while wizards shouldn't be able to spend a feat and pick one up. The damage... eh, maybe have it hit the square adjacent to you and the one behind that and call it even? I mean, it's like you're attacking with an entire person.

Actually it is basically a great sword that is very heavy and thick. It has an increased threat range and deals the same damage as two longswords in two hands. Also if you noticed, it has more hitpoints then a greatsword making harder to brake with sunder attacks. As for the bludgening damage I keep pondering on it, but it is a bladed weapon so it does count as a slashing. Also take into concideration that if a mage wants to use it, he need to be able to carry it and if it makes him overweight then he won't be able to use it. Thus making a character require enough strength to carry it and their gear. Also Str requirements are not reasonable since langer creatures can meet the requirement easier, while smaller creatures almost impossible to use. Finally, this is just a mundane weapon, an enchanted version could have all kinds of additional properties. Just a few things to take into concideration. --Korminor (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2013 (MST)