Snowlilly |
A huge greatsword would be between 16' and 32' long. Big anime swords are one thing but a sword 3-5 times as big as you is definitely something that won't work simply on muscle power. I'd also expect some problems dealing with that big a weapon.
The builds that would use such a weapon usually have the physical strength to pick up and throw a small bus. e.g. The last character I built to use an oversized weapon had a 50 strength and could carry ~10 tons as a heavy load.
This is a fantasy setting. There are many things that do not follow real world physics, including the physical capabilities of the characters.
Philo Pharynx |
Philo Pharynx wrote:A huge greatsword would be between 16' and 32' long. Big anime swords are one thing but a sword 3-5 times as big as you is definitely something that won't work simply on muscle power. I'd also expect some problems dealing with that big a weapon.The builds that would use such a weapon usually have the physical strength to pick up and throw a small bus. e.g. The last character I built to use an oversized weapon had a 50 strength and could carry ~10 tons as a heavy load.
This is a fantasy setting. There are many things that do not follow real world physics, including the physical capabilities of the characters.
Oh, I accept that there are many things in the world that do not follow physics. Some are magical, some are based on games rules. But saying that that means that all physics must go out the window all the time is a different story.
If wielding a weapon were simply a matter of strength, then we wouldn't have any penalties for size of weapons, just strength requirements.
Leverage is another issue. Physical dimensions another. If you have a huge greatsword and come to a U-turn in a 5' long corridor, you are screwed. Unless all of your weapons have convenient hinges that don't affect how they are wielded.
-----
As for the rules-as-written argument, that's why I love 4e. It was written very technically and all rules went through the same team of designers.
Chris Lambertz Community & Digital Content Director |
Murdock Mudeater |
Philo Pharynx wrote:A huge greatsword would be between 16' and 32' long. Big anime swords are one thing but a sword 3-5 times as big as you is definitely something that won't work simply on muscle power. I'd also expect some problems dealing with that big a weapon.The builds that would use such a weapon usually have the physical strength to pick up and throw a small bus. e.g. The last character I built to use an oversized weapon had a 50 strength and could carry ~10 tons as a heavy load.
This is a fantasy setting. There are many things that do not follow real world physics, including the physical capabilities of the characters.
Yeah, fantasy setting. If you get into the physics too much, the game disintigrates.
Regarding your 32' greatsword, remember that you can still only attack enemies within your normal reach, as the reach of weapons is determinted by the wielder, not the size of the weapon.
I keep disputing the idea of a two weapon fighter that has an undersized longspear as their main weapon, and a normal reach light weapno for their secondary. You'd be able to threaten both ranges at once.
thaX |
If you have thunder and fang yoi can wield a huge two handed earthbreaker.
This is incorrect, based on the false belief that the weapon changes designations because of the feat.
The Earth Breaker is still a Two Handed weapon, despite the character being able to wield it One Handed, and continues to be so when adjusted for the Titan Maulers class ability. The Huge sized weapon is still beyond the character's ability to wield.
PFS clarification aside, the rules in the Core Rulebook still considers the weapon the designation that the weapon is, it only changes for the character when the weapon is of an inappropriate size, not when the character is using it differently than what is normally possible. It is the same as a character using a Light weapon One Handed, or a One Handed weapon with Two Hands.
Even when the character is using the Inappropriate sized weapons, it still keeps it's own designation for characters of the appropriate size, the adjustment is for the larger/smaller character that is using the off sized weapon, not for the weapon itself.
thaX |
thaX is incorrect, based on the false belief that he has that is contrary to every ruling and example in the game.
Is there something I missed? Is there something you can add that would dispute anything I have said in this and other posts?
I only responded specifically to this because it is a mis-reading of the rules that is repeated often and told to others as RAW, when it is not even close to it.
Taking the clarification of the Thunder and Fang feat in the PFS campaign clarifications, the feat was never intended to use the EB as others have seem to want. The overall point of my post, one that isn't in dispute in this thread, is that the weapon itself doesn't change it's own designation. It isn't even changed for the creatures it is sized to when wielded by a larger or smaller character. It is how the character can effectively wield the weapon that changes, not the weapon itself.
Kalindlara Contributor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Loath as I am to involve myself in the Unending Thunder And Fang Squabble...
ThaX, you mention PFS's Campaign Clarifications document. If you look there, you'll notice that they change the text of Thunder and Fang to get the interpretation they intended. They don't just tell you how the existing text works, they rewrite it.
This suggests that the printed text (intended or not) is in line with everyone else's interpretation - if it really said what you claim to begin with, they wouldn't have had to rewrite it entirely.
Does this make sense?
Chess Pwn |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn wrote:thaX is incorrect, based on the false belief that he has that is contrary to every ruling and example in the game.Is there something I missed? Is there something you can add that would dispute anything I have said in this and other posts?
Yes, and I have done so in many other threads. Since you wont change your mind it's not worth discussing it with you and derailing every thread you enter.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Kalindlara Contributor |
I'm confident it's supposed to have been interpreted how the PFS document rewrote it to be, but will need errata to shore up that change. YMMV aka Expect Table Variance on the Earthbreaker in one hand ruling.
Yeah, I don't think anyone's ever been unclear on the intention. ^_^
Unfortunately, that product line doesn't get errata any more. I was hoping they'd reprint it properly in the Crimson Throne hardcover (since that's where it originated, and its 3.5 wording prevented this).
As it is? PFS is the only place where RAW is immutable. Anywhere else, it's up to the GM to do what they want.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
thaX |
thaX wrote:Yes, and I have done so in many other threads. Since you wont change your mind it's not worth discussing it with you and derailing every thread you enter.Chess Pwn wrote:thaX is incorrect, based on the false belief that he has that is contrary to every ruling and example in the game.Is there something I missed? Is there something you can add that would dispute anything I have said in this and other posts?
You have often repeated the same incorrect misinterpretations and cited the very rules that support the conclusion that I have proffered.
To be sure, one can not wield a Huge Earth Breaker in this case, though the reason why not can be one of three reasons, only one of which comes from the core reason of not counting the weapon itself as a One Handed weapon in the first place.
I just point this out when others try to say otherwise.
Dallium |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn wrote:thaX wrote:Yes, and I have done so in many other threads. Since you wont change your mind it's not worth discussing it with you and derailing every thread you enter.Chess Pwn wrote:thaX is incorrect, based on the false belief that he has that is contrary to every ruling and example in the game.Is there something I missed? Is there something you can add that would dispute anything I have said in this and other posts?You have often repeated the same correct interpretations and cited the very rules that directly contradict the conclusion that I have proffered.
FTFY