PDA

View Full Version : Making Rediculous swords make sense



Closet_Skeleton
2006-08-08, 08:46 AM
Many people on these boards are pretty vocal on their opinion of "over-compensating" and "rediculous" swords. The largest usuable sword is only 8 pounds in weight, shorter than the tallest person and no way near as wide.

This was my attempt to make a gigantic sword that made sense. The concept was based of logic worthy of an orc;

Q: "Why would you make a huge sword?"

A: "To cut huge enemies."

Dragonslayer Sword

Proficiency Exotic
Cost 400 GP
Dmg (S) 2d8
Dmg (M) 2d10
Critical x3
Weight 18 lb
Type Slashing

A character wielding a Dragonslayer Sword suffers a -4 penalty on attack rolls at all times. This stacks with the nonpreficiency penalty for a total -8 modifier when wielding by a non-proficient character. However the weapon's large mass and armour cutting edge allow it to ignore up to 8 points of natural armour. A Dragonslayer sword has 10 ft. reach and cannot be used against an adjacent foe except as a crude bludgeoning weapon (count as an improvised greatclub).

Due to the advanced forging techniques involved in creating a sword of this size, a Dragonslayer Sword always counted as masterwork but does not receive the standard +1 attack bonus for being masterwork. Can however be enchanted although it was a masterwork weapon and magical Dragonslayer Swords found as treasure have a 50% chance of having the Bane (Dragons) property.

In additon, the Dragonslayer sword is specially designed to be usable as a shield. As an attack action the wielder may imbed the weapon in the ground (assuming the flooring is not made from some inpenetraterble substance). Until he pulls the weapon from the ground as another attack action he may not use the weapon offensively but gains a +4 stability bonus against being tripped or bull rushed and counts as having 1/4 cover. The wielder may draw and use a light weapon whilst fighting in this manner but must use the fight defensively option.

Dragonslayer Sword Ranger Combat Style
The Rangers of the Western forests frequently have to deal with dragons attempting to raid human lands. Rangers from these areas have invented a fighting style specialised for using a Dragonslayer Sword. A Ranger may choose this style instead of archery or two-weapon style as long as he has chosen dragons as one of his favoured enemies.

2nd level: Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Dragonslayer Sword

6th level: Improved Dragonslayer sword defence. When the Ranger imbeds his sword in the ground, he gains a bonus on reflex saves against the breath weapon of a dragon equal to his favoured enemy bonus. This superciedes the normal bonus to reflex saves from having cover.

11th level: The Ranger becomes a master of mazimising the momentum of his sword through optimum use of the swords long grip. He adds 2x his strength bonus to damage rather than the normal x1.5 bonus from a normal two-handed weapon.

martyboy74
2006-08-08, 11:12 AM
That's one helluva sword. Might give people a non-RPing incentive to play rangers. Cool.

You may want to give the rangers the ability to, at some level, reduce or eliminate the -4 penalty for using it.

kailin
2006-08-08, 01:48 PM
What do you mean the largest usable sword weighs just over 8 lbs? I'm no ancient weapons expert, but have you heard of a claymore?

I like the sword, though.

Dan_Hemmens
2006-08-08, 02:00 PM
What do you mean the largest usable sword weighs just over 8 lbs? I'm no ancient weapons expert, but have you heard of a claymore?

I like the sword, though.

It is an inevitable and immutable rule that, whenever something is frequently overestimated, people will overestimate the amount by which it is overestimated.

Swords, real historical swords, were by and large lighter than you might think they would be. The thing is that swords have been made all over the world, for approximately ten thousand years, so making any generalisations about them is difficult. Or more precisely making accurate generalisations about them is difficult.

Swords were lighter than you might think, but not as light as some people claim they were. Furthermore, "swords" as a whole possess about as much uniformity as "fish" or "books".

RoboticSheeple
2006-08-08, 02:09 PM
Why does it have a bonus to cut through just Natural Armor when the flavor text says both natural and normal armor?

... And realistically, if someone wanted have a big huge blade on a stick wouldn't it just be an axe?

martyboy74
2006-08-08, 02:13 PM
Why does it have a bonus to cut through just Natural Armor when the flavor text says both natural and normal armor?

... And realistically, if someone wanted have a big huge blade on a stick wouldn't it just be an axe?
Yeah...
So?

Fualkner Asiniti
2006-08-08, 03:18 PM
Nice, I like how it isn't freaking overpowered. like how you keep the penelty for wielding such a freakin' huge sword.

Fhaolan
2006-08-08, 03:28 PM
What do you mean the largest usable sword weighs just over 8 lbs? I'm no ancient weapons expert, but have you heard of a claymore?

I like the sword, though.

The 50 lb claymore of popular conception is a myth. No functional sword *ever* weighed the insane amounts people think they did. True claymores weighed between 4 and 6 lbs. There were some larger swords like the Schlachterschwerter (anglicized as 'Slaughter Sword') that weighed as much as 8 lbs. The only known swords heavier than that were execution swords designed specifically to swing once at a target that wasn't moving, and parade swords that were made to be visible during processions but not actually used in combat. These weighed up to 15 lbs and were useless in real combat as they were simply not constructed to be used as actual weapons.

Once you reach a certain size of weapon in RL, you switch to a polearm. There is *nothing* that a giant sword can do that a polearm can't while being easier to construct, require far less metal, and generally being lighter and therefore easier to use.

Sorry, bit of a rant, but I have to field questions about that blasted 50lb claymore every freaking time I do a library or school show. I can't beleive how easily people can be convinced that our ancestors were moronic midgets with the proportional strength of an ant. I actually had to deal with one guy who was *convinced* that the average person in ancient Rome was only 2' tall, because the armor he saw in a museum was short, so people must be shorter the farther back in history you go. *sigh*

Of course, this thing the OP has designed is a fantasy piece, and there's nothing wrong with fantasy swords. They can be a silly as you want to make it, because it's a fantasy. :)

RoboticSheeple
2006-08-08, 03:37 PM
Yeah...
So?


Ok, so once you get to the sort of sizes we are talking about (large enough for partial cover) then it CAN'T be a sword, it has become an axe.
So even though you say it's a sword, it really isn't, it's just a misnamed axe.

Closet_Skeleton
2006-08-08, 03:38 PM
What do you mean the largest usable sword weighs just over 8 lbs? I'm no ancient weapons expert, but have you heard of a claymore?

When I say the largest sword is 8 lbs, I'm talking about a Claymore.

Claymores are actually some of the shortest two-handed swords, the Swiss and German Bihander was actually larger and heavier. Most non-display swords were well under 6 lbs.

I know this 18 lb sword is rediculous, but its made to kill a 40 ft. lizard that can breath fire as well as support its own weight in the air.

If I let you bypass the -4 penalty then it would let you deal 2d10 damage to anything. The point was that against a large slow moving target then damage would be more important than acuracy.

You could make it ignore 8 points of natural and manufactured armour, it just wasn't part of my original concept. A problem with letting it bypass normal armour is that it is a lot easier to get a suit of +8 to AC non-magical full plate then it is to get a +8 dexterity bonus to AC. That would make the weapon pretty much decent against everything when the concept was that it was a weapon optimized against certain targets for logical reasons.

Fizban
2006-08-08, 08:05 PM
I like it. It's like an oversized fullblade (which itself is oversized :) ), normally I'd say that -4 is too much, but ignoring 8 natural armor gives you at net +4 againt large natural armored creatures, and -4 against anything else. It actually seems balanced. Nice job. The only other things I have to say are: I'd almost make it cost more, just cause it's ridiculous, and it reminds me of the swords felgaurds use in warcraft 3: big, axe like, but still a sword (nyah!).

Kevlimin_Soulaxe
2006-08-09, 04:55 PM
I would never let anyone use it in a game, but it is nonetheless balanced and fills a niche.

Good job.

Fax Celestis
2006-08-09, 05:17 PM
Instead of the -4, you could give it penalties and bonuses according to opponent size and speed.

For instance, it gets -3 against diminutive creatures, but +4 against gargantuan ones.

martyboy74
2006-08-09, 05:28 PM
Instead of the -4, you could give it penalties and bonuses according to opponent size and speed.

For instance, it gets -3 against diminutive creatures, but +4 against gargantuan ones.
Which makes it fit the name even more. This is crazy.

Closet_Skeleton
2006-08-09, 05:39 PM
Instead of the -4, you could give it penalties and bonuses according to opponent size and speed.

For instance, it gets -3 against diminutive creatures, but +4 against gargantuan ones.

I wanted to minimize calculations. Size already effects hitting things anyway. I tried to make it as simple as possible. Remember, in DnD; you get a -2 penalty to all attacks and armour class if you're huge, not a -2 penalty to attacking medium creatures. Making it reduce natural armour leaves it up to the DM (you is the only person who should know a monster's natural armour) and subracting 8 isn't that hard.

And it isn't an axe in anyway what so ever, axe heads are small than sword blades. You might be right in that its not really be a sword. You can call is a double-edged oversized chisel on a stick if you like.

Perhaps 'Dragonslayer Blade' would be more correct. Possibly 'Instrument for the brutal slaughter of unusally sized reptillian pests'.

RoboticSheeple
2006-08-09, 07:13 PM
And it isn't an axe in anyway what so ever, axe heads are small than sword blades. You might be right in that its not really be a sword. You can call is a double-edged oversized chisel on a stick if you like.


You can call it a sword all you want but that doesn't change the basic fact that it's more axe than sword. Axe heads are small(er) than sword blades? What's that really even mean? An ax blade will typically be heavier than a sword blade because an axe directs its force downward. Swords usually are piercing weapons, they need to be lighter to direct their force outward.

For a blade of this size think about how long the haft would have to be, thing about where positioned. I bet you squared of the lower bladed corner like Cloud's Buster "sword" in FFVII, well for fun round out that coner. What do you have? undeniably an Axe. Call it a sword for flavor and what not but that doesn't change what it really is (including physically impossible to use ^_~)

martyboy74
2006-08-09, 07:19 PM
*Swords usually are piercing weapons, they need to be lighter to direct their force outward.
Do you really think so? I always saw claymores as more a hack'n'slash type weapon. ::)

Beelzebub1111
2006-08-09, 07:41 PM
Could you immagine how much damage a large creature weilding it would do? Can anyone say goliath barbarian? :o

Hario
2006-08-09, 07:45 PM
Could you immagine how much damage a large creature weilding it would do? Can anyone say goliath barbarian? :o
Can you say Hulking hurler PrC? already done ;) I do think there should be a MINIMUM Str needed to weild this though... I'd say at least an 18...

martyboy74
2006-08-09, 07:49 PM
Can you say Hulking hurler PrC? already done ;) I do think there should be a MINIMUM Str needed to weild this though... I'd say at least an 18...
Nah, that's being too nice. Does anyone know of a race with no ECL that has a +3 bonus to strength? If not, 21 strength is where the limit is.

Dan_Hemmens
2006-08-09, 07:51 PM
Swords usually are piercing weapons, they need to be lighter to direct their force outward.


Umm ... are you genuinely trying to claim that there are no cutting swords?

Matthew
2006-08-09, 08:28 PM
Totally crazy. Swords are generally built to be a compromise between cut and thrust. This sword is totally unrealistic, being heavier than most parade built Zwei Handers, but an Axe is an Axe and a Sword is a Sword; this is a Sword, not a misnamed Axe...

...at least that's what I think...

Some reasonable definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe

RoboticSheeple
2006-08-09, 11:49 PM
WE ARE ARGUING OVER WHAT TO CALL A WEAPON THAT CAN'T PHYSICALLY EXISIT.

The caps were nessacary there. telling me I'd be wrong is one thing, but to call me crazy or say I said all swords are for piercing is just insulting.

I'm done with this thread. The "sword" is a spiffy and balanced sounding weapon. But either any sort of flavor text will be impossible (countered by wah wah wah D&D physics is different that normal physics wah) or the flavor text will describe what is better known as an Axe.

So, interesting Crunchy there, but I could of done with out the flaming in this thread.

chionophile
2006-08-10, 12:45 AM
Hm.. I don't know much about this kind of stuff, but would it be unbalanced to allow the character to make attacks with a small (or tiny, or whatever) weapon while this one is embedded? Like, he can't whip out a greatsword or anything, but maybe a dagger so he's not just fodder. Or bait. Unless that's what you're going for...

Regardless, cool weapon.

Dan_Hemmens
2006-08-10, 05:14 AM
WE ARE ARGUING OVER WHAT TO CALL A WEAPON THAT CAN'T PHYSICALLY EXISIT.

Yes. Yes we are. Things that can't physically exist are quite a big part of D&D. I've heard an unconfirmed rumour that Dragons would be physically incapable of true flight.


The caps were nessacary there. *telling me I'd be wrong is one thing, but to call me crazy or say I said all swords are for piercing is just insulting.

You didn't say all swords were piercing, but you did say that swords were usually for piercing, and had to be light in order to "direct their force outwards". I can only assume that you have never heard of ... well ... half the swords that got ported into D&D for a start. Longswords, scimitars, katanas and ... well pretty much everything you get in D&D except the rapier were primarily cutting weapons.


I'm done with this thread. *The "sword" is a spiffy and balanced sounding weapon. * But either any sort of flavor text will be impossible (countered by wah wah wah D&D physics is different that normal physics wah) or the flavor text will describe what is better known as an Axe.

D&D physics *is* different to normal physics.

Hell, this is a world where *giants* exist. Where it is completely possible for you to be attacked by a monster wielding a Huge Greatsword.

The only argument you have to support your completely irrelevant assertion that this weapon is "really an axe" is "because swords were usually thrusting weapons", which they weren't and "because swords were usually lighter than this" which they were, but I think you'll find that axes are usually pretty light too.


So, interesting Crunchy there, but I could of done with out the flaming in this thread.

Telling you that you're wrong isn't flaming.

Matthew
2006-08-10, 06:03 AM
The caps were nessacary there. *telling me I'd be wrong is one thing, but to call me crazy or say I said all swords are for piercing is just insulting...

...So, interesting Crunchy there, but I could of done with out the flaming in this thread.

I certainly never meant to indicate you were crazy, only that the statement 'this is an axe, not a sword' concerning a weapon the Original Poster has described as a sword is crazy, in the nicest possible sense.

Sorry if you think I was flaming or insulting you, that certainly wasn't my intention. Dan pretty much says all else I have to say on the subject. You are wrong, what the Original Poster is describing is a Sword.

Closet_Skeleton
2006-08-10, 07:44 AM
:-/

What a load of yelling about nothing.

You can call it what you want, but if you think its an axe you're using a broader definition of axe then I'd ever use.

I'd estimate that is sword only has a 220 cm (about 12 ft) long blade which is 25 cm (less than 1 foot)) wide at it's widest point and has a handle of about 60 cm (about 2 feet)... I also planned to give it a secondary grip as part of the blade. Yeah, it's impossible in real life.

If you want you can give a strength requirement to the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat. I would suggest Str 15 but maybe 17. All feat prequisites appear to be odd numbered. Rangers probably wouldn't need 15 strength to get the style since the don't need 15 dex for two weapon style.

NullAshton
2006-08-10, 09:13 AM
It seems like it would be fun to do whirlwind attacks with this. Oddly enough it wouldn't get range, though, even though you are making a 24 foot in diameter circle of death.

Closet_Skeleton
2006-08-10, 10:31 AM
It probably should have reach... Since large monsters have reach anyway it wouldn't be a problem.

4Dsheep
2006-08-10, 06:14 PM
On the whole axe/sword thing, it depends on what this thing looks like. I've drawn a simple picture on the possibilites.

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/1059/swordls6.png

The left one more closely resembles a sword. It's got a blade and a hilt, with a nice cross-gaurd. It's an awfully broad sword, and the handle would probably snap off, but it's a sword.

The right one could resemble some kind of axe. Axes, by definition, are composed of a stick and a head on top with an edge (actually, it's closer to an halberd but with a shorter stick as it 'curves' into a tip).

It could, however, be a really big knife. Or a cleaver. Or a grosses messer. Or a falchion. Hell, it could be a glaive brevemente. It might as well be a swe'mg-drl'fdjh'el-iel, roughly translated as 'ornamental toothpick for a really big giant in the position of hugely, absolutely and extraneously reverend grandmaster of the seven holy aquatic mammals'.

But in the end, everyone will just call it 'that bloody huge sword'.

It's a nice addition to the arsenal, though.

Behold_the_Void
2006-08-10, 06:30 PM
One of the few "big sword" concepts that I've actually liked. This is a good weapon, and it helps with the utter lack of exotic weapons that have a whole lot that make them special enough to warrant a feat.

Adeptus
2006-08-11, 11:33 AM
What do you mean the largest usable sword weighs just over 8 lbs? I'm no ancient weapons expert, but have you heard of a claymore?

I like the sword, though.

Even a two handed sword that weighs five pounds is a lemon, and you should get your money back from the smith. Eight pounds is insane.

Matthew
2006-08-11, 03:11 PM
Not necessarily. There is an article on the Arma website that puts the weight range for very large swords at 5-8 lbs. I don't know the truth of it, but I imagine, having read something similar, that is why the 3.5 Designers cut the weight of a Great Sword from an outrageous 15 lbs to a more credible (if you lend credance to the article) 8 lbs.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html