Me DMing 3.5 when...
>Player 1: DM.
>Player 1: Player 2 uses a Glaive.
>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?
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.
>inbf 3.5 suck you should play X
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.
Not for free, however. At the cost of a feat.
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?!?!?!?!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What's the difference between a glaive and a guisarme again?
They are absolutely not the same.
From the PHB.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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
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.
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.
>6 ft. swords were ceremonial in use
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.
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.
>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.
>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?