Talk:Fullblade, Variant (3.5e Equipment)

This needs some polish

-6 to attacks? I strongly disagree. There are already rules for not be proficient and or big enough to wield weapon effectively, you do not need to add more in the description. The weapon itself is worse than a greatsword. Lower average damage, same crit, and it requires a feat and has atrociously high prereqs. --Ganre 00:30, 4 October 2010 (MDT)

Just wanted to point out that the average damage of the greatsword is about 7 damage and this fullblade has an average of about 10 damage, so it doesn't have a lower average damage than a greatsword. Kuraku 17:35, 2 December 2010 (MST)

Good call, but it is still a terrible weapon. --Ganre 23:05, 2 December 2010 (MST)

I agree! Kuraku 00:03, 3 December 2010 (MST)

Looks fine to me, it's almost too good actually. In effect it converts exotic weapon proficiency into weapon specialization. And who is going to want to wield a 40-pound sword if they don't already have high strength? Halforc Barbarian could take it level 1 and really kick some ass with it. Sossen 21:55, 31 March 2011 (MST)

Yeah. If you make a fighter building a specialization in the thing you basically are only taking one more feat than necessary. Might as well since fighters are just swimming in feats. Take wield oversized weapon and monkey grip and you can go bigger or even dual-wield if you can convince the DM (and honestly if you have all the feats to wield equally classed weapons in the same situation there's no reason to object unless the DM has a grudge against you).

Image

The weapon in the image, with its long handle, is more akin to a polearm - especially with its hooked tip that looks designed for disarming foes or dislodging riders. If this statblock is meant to represent that image, then it's way off, otherwise I recommend a different image. Marasmusine (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2012 (MDT)