Me DMing 3.5 when...
>Player 1: DM.
>me: Yes.
>Player 1: Player 2 uses a Glaive.
>me: True.
>Player 1: It's a 6 foot weapon that has reach.
>me: I am following you so far...
>Player 1: Why doesn't my 6 foot Greatsword have a reach option?
>me: Hmmmmm...
After a 10 min discussion No. 38. houserule of our group was born: Greatsword have reach but with a -2 penalty to all attacks made that turn.
Reasonable?
>inbf 3.5 suck you should play X
>>45234871
No. Glaive has its cutting point right at its tip, while a greatsword has edge for most of its length. Thus, only say a fifth of glaive's length needs to touch enemy to do its damage, while almost four fifths of the greatsword needs to become in contact with the enemy for it to deal damage. It's obvious how the greatsword cannot have reach while the glaive does.
Glaives were actually between 7-8 feet long, and greatswords were only rarely above 5, with most being at 4 and a half.
Giving the greatsword reach at a -2 penalty is a bit much, especially since they can also attack without reach. At best, you should offer them something like the pathfinder lunge feat.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/lunge-combat---final
Not for free, however. At the cost of a feat.
>>45234961
A zweihander can be used like a spear, and it's not like the tip is less sharp anyway.
However mechanically the greatsword doesn't really need to be stronger than it already is.
>>45234961
holy hristos
know your weapons
Historically Greatsword have been primarily used as polearms. Their edges where usually blunt and... wait you are arguing that for some reason Greatsword can not impale a guy?!?!?!?!
>>45234961
Dude, if you think that you need four fifths of a sword needs to touch an opponent to do damage you might want to read up on swordplay a bit.
>>45234992
The PHB describes both weapons as being 6 feet long.
Also to elaborate, the -2 penalty comes into play only if one or more attacks are made with reach
>>45234961
....How do you not know how edges work?
Are you a ghost, or just retarded?
>>45234992
>greatsword
>4.5 feet
No. That's long sword territory.
>>45234871
>Reasonable?
That depends on the other 37 houserules. This needs to be judged in the context.
>>45235201
The PHB also describes studded leather armor. How much verisimilitude you want to have is up to you, but if you want to apply logic to mechanics, you have to make sure the mechanics match up to some kind of reality.
Or you could just throw all that out the window and focus on having fun.
>>45235015
>>45235037
>>45235039
The differences are rather obvious if you count the dmg / blade length ratios of the weapons.
Both the greatsword and glaive are 6ft long.
Glaive does 1d10 damage, but its blade is only one fifth of the weapon's entire length, thus its ratio is
1d10 / (6ft / 5) = 1d10 / 1.2ft = 1d8.33/ft
Based on the picture above 4/7 of the greatsword is blade, and its damage is 2d6, thus
2d6 / 3.43ft = 2d1.75/ft
Thus, a greatsword used like a glaive and thus with reach, should only do 2d1.75 damage since both weapons would use one feet of cutting edge in that situation.
>>45235334
>>45235237
I assume that he's using the point in that case. But I mean is the blade 6ft or the whole sword? Most likely only 4 ft of the sword is blade which is still pretty fucking big.
And that's because you need it to counterbalance the weight.
If he wanted to make it realistic, he'd let the PC half-sword it for better armor penetration.
>>45235255
Gratswords are 180 centimeter which is around 5.9 feet.
>>45235389
Similarly, no one holds a glaive solely at its base.
The point we're all missing here is that 6 ft. swords were ceremonial in use - so if he wanted to knight someone with reach, by all means. But attacking with a parade sword is a whole other kettle of fish. This is basically another case of WotC not being the best historians.
>>45235201
That's the maximum length for the greatsword, and an extreme minimum length for the glaive.
Here are the weapon pictures in the book, with the swords rotated for the sake of easy comparison.
I suggest you recant the extreme bonus you granted your player, on the account of misinterpretation.
>>45235476
What's the difference between a glaive and a guisarme again?
>>45234871
They are absolutely not the same.
From the PHB.
Glaive
A glaive has reach. You can strike opponents 10 feet away with it, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe.
Remind your greatsword player and your glaive player of this fact.
>>45235621
The french like trip attacks and yanking knights off of horses.
>>45234871
3.5 sucks, you should play Fedora: The Tipping
>>45234871
You'd have to grasp the actual blade to wield it like that, which is a good way to lose fingers.
>>45236896
Grasping the blade (halfswording) is a legit way of fighting, that's what metal gauntlets are for.
>>45234871
>Greatsword have reach but with a -2 penalty to all attacks made that turn.
Lunge feat:
You have reach but with a -2 to AC till the start of your next turn.
There.
>>45237053
Sorry, You "might" choose to have reach...
>>45237053
Why not just make it a combat maneuver so everyone can do it, then have the lunge feat so you can do it without taking the penalty to AC?
Similarly how you should be able to short-haft a polearm with a penalty to AC too, and feats to make up for this style of combat.
>>45236971
You don't even need gauntlets, gloves will do. Get a strong grip and you can do it barehanded as long a the blade's not unusually sharp.
>>45235334
Your math only makes sense if blade length is directly responsible for damage, which hasn't been established. Your math is based off of "given" facts that were never given.
>>45236971
The inside of the gauntlet isn't metal, so leather gloves work just as well. On top of that, if you're gripping the blade properly you don't even need gloves.
>>45234961
>>45235334
7/10 bait. The first one was hilarious. You went too far with the second one and most of the anons who replied to you initially figured it out. If you hadn't added the second post this would have been true bait artistry.
>>45234871
There's also the option of Mordschlag (Murder Strike), where you hold the blade and use the crossguard as a mace or pick for greater armor penetration. Of course you want to have gauntlets on yourself if you try this.
>>45235460
>The point we're all missing here is that 6 ft. swords were ceremonial in use
This has nothing to do with anything.
Players have options to use spiked chains as weapons. Real life feasibility doesn't enter into it; nobody in real life gets past level 5 anyway.
>>45234871
At 2:30 he starts using one-handed for greater reach.
I hope it helps for something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbNL_At0IVw
>>45235476
Those are some stubby lances.
>>45235476
>>45235621
I'm certainly no expert on pole weapons, but the one in that pic doesn't look like what my concept of a guisarme is. I thought a guisarme was marked by a prominent hook with a forward spike to spear people with.
>>45234871
no one even knows why greatswords existed or how they were even used outside of the immediatly obvious.
They are too slow and bulky for duels and use less against spears.
probably just ceremonial
>>45237053
Lunge requires a +6 BAB, and there's a good chance the campaign will never even make it that far.
>>45234871
First of go with realistic weapon lenghts:
Longsword - 3.5 ft
Dagger - 1 ft
Greatsword - 4 to 5 ft
Quarterstaff,Spear,Halberd,Glaive - 7 to 9 ft
Pike -12 ft
Basically reach should be pole-arms only.
If you allow for hueg swords let them have a Str reqirement of 15 or better just give them a -2 to Str mod while wielding it.
>>45248805
D&D weapons are inaccurate as fuck. No use trying to understand any of it beyond "lol I'm using cool crazy shit to fight!"
>>45234871
3.5 does suck though, and claymores do have +1 reach in Fantasycraft.
>>45235460
This is a case of wotc inheriting material from TSR, which did do its research.
It's just that in those days, there was no HEMA, no ARMA, and no John Clement. Historians went off source material written in the 19th century, much of which was uninformed armchair speculation and ra-ra trumpeting of the smallsword sport fencing which was in vogue among academics.
Until the late 90s, people who did their research and used reputable sources ended up with something like D&D.
And the modern scholarship that overthrew that conventional wisdom was spurred by people who had been inspired by D&D.
So yeah it is out of date, but NOT shoddily researched.
>>45235460
>6 ft. swords were ceremonial in use
Absolutely not.
For most of history, such a weapon would have been useless, HOWEVER for a brief spell in the 16th-century they did have a very specific and important role in central Europe for breaking up heavy pike formations as shock troops.
Mexican and tlascalan troops also used massive 6'+ swords; in one battle a horse was decapitated in a single swing.
>>45235037
>Their edges where usually blunt
>>45256078
It's certainly inaccurate to say they were blunt, but swords weren't as sharp as most would probably expect. And with heavier swords they would be a bit less sharp still.
A far cry from blunt, though.
>>45257314
>swords weren't as sharp as most would probably expect. And with heavier swords they would be a bit less sharp still.
Right, because if you made them fedora-sword sharp, they would get nicks in them. If someone swings a giant steel club at you, its going to cut you open, so swords needed very little edge to be terrific at cutting people open.
>>45235037
>Historically Greatsword have been primarily used as polearms. Their edges where usually blunt...
Depends on the weapon and the wielder in question, seems as though there is no real fixed description of what a great sword actually is.
Yes there have been long bladed swords used for dehorseing your opponent or for close combat with a hand on the blade, but there have also been sharpened ones used for executions or slicing through leather armour etc.
Gotta love it when 17 year old yanks act like they completely understand our medieval history.
Plus remember we’re almost certainly talking about a fictitious setting here so who the fuck cares about the historical precedence?
