Talk:Gigantic Weapon (3.5e Feat)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


This feat is similar to monkey grip, just a hell of alot better. I'd say its overpowered for that reason.

I would have to agree. If you would like to fix it just tell me what to fix on this page and I would be very happy to fix it (Because the page is locked). Thanks. --Green Dragon 21:57, 21 September 2006 (MDT)
Statistically, it's better than Weapon Specialization. A longsword does 4.5 points of damage on average. A large longsword does 7 points of damage on average; a difference of 2.5, and this feat has more lenient prereqs.
Also, the example is a bit off. With the feat, Hakkem Thru, the sample fighter, can wield weapons as large creature, but large creatures can't wield huge two-handed weapons. —Sledged (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2007 (MST)
I agree that this is overpowered, however this is NBoF so it cannot be changed... If you think this is bad bring the balance problem up with the people over at the NBoF. Sorry however D&D Wiki cannot change OGL content because of the restrictive OGL license. --Green Dragon 20:02, 5 February 2007 (MST)
Actually, by the OGL, we're able to modify it however we want so long as it stays under the OGL. However, I think modifying it would ruin the spirit of why the NBoFs were added, so I sent them an email explaining the issue. —Sledged (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2007 (MDT)
I hope they make this better, and thanks for taking the initiative to help make this better. --Green Dragon 22:59, 13 March 2007 (MDT)
This is overpowered a Homebrew rewrite should require Monkey Grip and a Strength of +5 or something --Omegaxicor 20:23, 11 November 2011 (GMT)
Overpowered? Seriously? Is this really more powerful than a core wizard or cleric? Something tells me we're experiencing ye olde "fighters can't have nice things" once again. Sigh. Also, "This is more powerful than Weapon Specialization" is like complaining that a rogue is better than a commoner. --Scryer's Eve (talk | contribs) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (MST)


Since there /is/ discussion on this feat, I'd offer that it's unrealistic. A look at the picture on page 150 of the 3.5 PHB shows that there's no effing way a Medium-sized creature could even /hold/ a Huge-sized longsword, let alone greatsword. Both of which are two-handed. And yes, a Large creature still cannot use a Huge-sized weapon. Guard #1: "A five-ounce bird cannot carry a one-pound coconut." 'Nuff said. -- 21:25, 13 July 2007 (MDT)

"Realism" ... you're talking about realism in a game where terrorists need bat guano, sulfur and some undescribed words and hand gestures to blow something up??? Where veteran fighters can just walk through an army, shrug off their hits and slash people until they run out of enemies within range? Where you open a Gate to the abyss and call in the most powerful demons to do your bidding? Where all it takes to bring someone back to life is a diamond and a bishop?
RIGHT. --Mkill 00:58, 14 July 2007 (MDT)
"Realism" is right, fantasy has rules (I don't mean RAW) magic simply bends those rules, but remember that a Huge Greatsword is a medium sized weapon (so the blade is about 6" in length) which bends belief but I think it is plausible --Omegaxicor 20:26, 11 November 2011 (GMT)
For anyone complaining about realism of using gigantic weapons, I just want you to check out the carrying capacity (specifically the "push/drag" entry) for an epic-level strength-based character.
Or that you can shoot an arrow over 1500 ft in 6 seconds. -- 00:00, 15 July 2012 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!