So I'm just creating my first character and I was wondering what class/race would be best if I want to use giant great swords I would really appreciate it if someone could help me with this
Halforc barbarian. The game is full of races and classes, but you really only need halforc barbarian. While raging, you have advantage on everything that counts, take half damage from everything that counts, do more damage, shout louder and look cooler. A barbarian needs boots and a greatsword to be ready to fight dragons. All other gear is strictly optional. Sure, you can get dressed, but you really don't need to. A kilt is recommended though. Still optional, but recommended. Because jealousy is such an ugly thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It depends on how you envisage the rest of the character.
If you're envisaging Conan, Highlander, the kind of warrior that doesn't wear a suit of armour, then Barbarian is the way to go. Perhaps Path of the Berserker or Path of the Totem Warrior, depending on your specific concept.
If you're thinking more of a knight in armour, then either Fighter (subclass really depends on the specific concept) or Paladin (again, subclass varies) and you can flavour the Smites as particularly powerful blows.
A Ranger could be a compromise between the two concepts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It depends on how you envisage the rest of the character.
If you're envisaging Conan, Highlander, the kind of warrior that doesn't wear a suit of armour, then Barbarian is the way to go. Perhaps Path of the Berserker or Path of the Totem Warrior, depending on your specific concept.
If you're thinking more of a knight in armour, then either Fighter (subclass really depends on the specific concept) or Paladin (again, subclass varies) and you can flavour the Smites as particularly powerful blows.
A Ranger could be a compromise between the two concepts.
While this is a much better, nuanced, balance and well put together reply than mine ... mine is still the best =D
But no, seriously, Geralt also uses 2-handed swords, and could well be something like an Eldritch Knight. There's numerous things beside barbarian. But I love barbarians.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It depends on how you envisage the rest of the character.
If you're envisaging Conan, Highlander, the kind of warrior that doesn't wear a suit of armour, then Barbarian is the way to go. Perhaps Path of the Berserker or Path of the Totem Warrior, depending on your specific concept.
If you're thinking more of a knight in armour, then either Fighter (subclass really depends on the specific concept) or Paladin (again, subclass varies) and you can flavour the Smites as particularly powerful blows.
A Ranger could be a compromise between the two concepts.
While this is a much better, nuanced, balance and well put together reply than mine ... mine is still the best =D
But no, seriously, Geralt also uses 2-handed swords, and could well be something like an Eldritch Knight. There's numerous things beside barbarian. But I love barbarians.
Lol to be honest, I think you probably have the right answer for the question (and it's definitely more colourful!)...I just wanted to cover more bases. Generally though, people who want to centre their character around a great sword do want Conan, or similar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Just to clarify, there are no “giant” greatswords. There’s just greatswords. They are the same size for all PCs. If you are talking about a greatsword wielded by a giant so it’s extra big, once a PC picks it up it would generally just be treated the same as a standard greatsword. If you’re talking about an anime-style oversized sword, they don’t really exist. However, you could probably just describe yours are comically large, and use the same stats as a normal greatsword. But that will depend on your DM.
dwarf samurai fighter. call the greatsword "my grandfather's axe" and always play up the blade's heritage and history and how no it is definitely not small for an axe. some other dwarves may try to poke fun at how small your axe is (tell the dm a dwarf would never mistake it for a sword) but as a samurai you are naturally an elegant courtier. non-dwarves, on the other hand, get one warning and then they can kiss their kneecaps goodbye.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I tend to prefer a greataxe for a barbarian and a greatsword for a fighter. The swingy nature of the greataxe’s 1d12 and its higher probability to roll 10+ for damage compared to the greatsword feels like it is better suited to a barbarian to me and the d12 works better with the barbarian’s Brutal Critical when you eventually get it too. The greatsword’s 2d6 is far more reliable and consistent on damage rolls than the greatsword which I feel better suits the practiced discipline of a fighter.
Just to clarify, there are no “giant” greatswords. There’s just greatswords. They are the same size for all PCs. If you are talking about a greatsword wielded by a giant so it’s extra big, once a PC picks it up it would generally just be treated the same as a standard greatsword. If you’re talking about an anime-style oversized sword, they don’t really exist. However, you could probably just describe yours are comically large, and use the same stats as a normal greatsword. But that will depend on your DM.
3e has a weapon called the Fullblade whose nickname is "Ogre's Greatsword". It is one size up from the standard greatsword and can also be made mercurial. It needed at least two feats if not more to be able to wield at all by a medium-sized creature. A sword such as this can be homebrewed back into 5e if one really wanted to.
A normal greatsword wielded by a creature of size large or larger would be treated by it as either a longsword or perhaps a 'hand-and-a-half' sword rather than a greatsword, though it would deal a greatwsword's damage to a medium sized creature.
I tend to prefer a greataxe for a barbarian and a greatsword for a fighter. The swingy nature of the greataxe’s 1d12 and its higher probability to roll 10+ for damage compared to the greatsword feels like it is better suited to a barbarian to me and the d12 works better with the barbarian’s Brutal Critical when you eventually get it too. The greatsword’s 2d6 is far more reliable and consistent on damage rolls than the greatsword which I feel better suits the practiced discipline of a fighter.
I would agree; for two-hand focused fighters vs. Barbarians. I still prefer shield wielding fighters though and so tend to stick greatsword on certain barbarians instead of greataxe; typically ones who I'd take the martial adept feat with and so be more like a fighter multiclass barbarian versus a straight up barbarian.
Just to clarify, there are no “giant” greatswords. There’s just greatswords. They are the same size for all PCs. If you are talking about a greatsword wielded by a giant so it’s extra big, once a PC picks it up it would generally just be treated the same as a standard greatsword. If you’re talking about an anime-style oversized sword, they don’t really exist. However, you could probably just describe yours are comically large, and use the same stats as a normal greatsword. But that will depend on your DM.
3e has a weapon called the Fullblade whose nickname is "Ogre's Greatsword". It is one size up from the standard greatsword and can also be made mercurial. It needed at least two feats if not more to be able to wield at all by a medium-sized creature.
None of this aside from there having been a weapon called a Fullblade in 3E is true. The Fullblade was still considered sized for a medium character by default, and it could not be made mercurial, the Mercurial Greatsword was an entirely separate weapon and not some sort of weapon mod. Both were Exotic weapons so a feat was required to have proficiency with them regardless of the wielder's class, but only one was needed, not two.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Mercurial was applicable to longsword and greatsword. I thought to fullblade too, but perhaps that was just a homebrew. I'm not sure how you are applying what the size category of weapons actually means, but the point of the nickname "Ogre's Greatsword", is that a large creature can use it as a medium creature can a normal Greatsword without any additional feats for facilitation (Yes, it was more than just the exotic weapon proficiency you needed to use it, at least without large penalties i.e. ambidexterity etc.) Perhaps it was different at your table). Also a small creature would not be able to use a standard greatsword without the same feats a medium creature needed to use the fullblade. A B-sword counted as a greatsword for small creatures, a L-sword as a B-sword, etc. Like Biblo finding a dagger (sting) but for him it is a shortsword. The size of weapons were relative to the size of it's wielders. The damage etc. figures were standardized to the output of a medium-sized creature though and magic swords resized to suit their wielders as the appropriately described weapon..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Mercurial was applicable to longsword and greatsword. I thought to fullblade too, but perhaps that was just a homebrew.
Negative. "Mercurial longsword" and "mercurial greatsword" were specific individual exotic weapons, not modifications of standard longswords and greatswords, and any feats or other features a character might have with the standard swords didn't apply to the mercurial ones.
I'm not sure how you are applying what the size category of weapons actually means, but the point of the nickname "Ogre's Greatsword", is that a large creature can use it as a medium creature can a normal Greatsword without any additional feats for facilitation (Yes, it was more than just the exotic weapon proficiency you needed to use it, at least without large penalties i.e. ambidexterity etc.) Perhaps it was different at your table). Also a small creature would not be able to use a standard greatsword without the same feats a medium creature needed to use the fullblade. A B-sword counted as a greatsword for small creatures, a L-sword as a B-sword, etc. Like Biblo finding a dagger (sting) but for him it is a shortsword. The size of weapons were relative to the size of it's wielders. The damage etc. figures were standardized to the output of a medium-sized creature though and magic swords resized to suit their wielders as the appropriately described weapon..
Not quite how it actually worked. Weapons were sized based on the user: a human was a medium-sized creature and by default used medium-sized weapons. A small character like a halfling used small weapons, which were identical to medium-sized ones but dropped the damage dice down one size, while large sized creatures like ogres bumped the dice up one size. The fullblade was a medium-sized weapon. The part about it being called "Ogre's greatsword" was just fluff, because when using a weapon sized for a creature one size category larger or smaller than yourself you took a penalty on the attack roll due to the grip being off. It was a common house rule to allow, for example, a halfling to use a human shortsword as if it were a longsword, but that wasn't actually in the rules. Similarly, a human with proficiency in the fullblade could not actually use an ogre's greatsword as a fullblade, they used it as a greatsword with a size penalty. If a human character wanted to wield a greatsword sized for a large creature, they needed the Monkey Grip feat rather than Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Also, magic armor could resize to fit its wielder, but by default magic weapons did not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well, sounds like you are going barbarian, fighter, or paladin. For barbarian or fighter, try Goliath or half orc and minotaur. For Paladin, try Aasimar (Volo’s Guide to Monsters), Minotaur, Orc, Satyr, and Yuan-ti.
If a human character wanted to wield a greatsword sized for a large creature, they needed the Monkey Grip feat rather than Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Also, magic armor could resize to fit its wielder, but by default magic weapons did not.
Monkey Grip, that's the one I was I thinking of yes, thank you. I think I remember it was needed as well as not instead of the proficiency feet. Perhaps you are right about the raw vs the house rules, but from what I remember of the table, the fullblade was definitely treated as a large weapon, not a medium-sized one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Just to clarify, there are no “giant” greatswords. There’s just greatswords. They are the same size for all PCs. If you are talking about a greatsword wielded by a giant so it’s extra big, once a PC picks it up it would generally just be treated the same as a standard greatsword. If you’re talking about an anime-style oversized sword, they don’t really exist. However, you could probably just describe yours are comically large, and use the same stats as a normal greatsword. But that will depend on your DM.
3e has a weapon called the Fullblade whose nickname is "Ogre's Greatsword". It is one size up from the standard greatsword and can also be made mercurial. It needed at least two feats if not more to be able to wield at all by a medium-sized creature. A sword such as this can be homebrewed back into 5e if one really wanted to.
A normal greatsword wielded by a creature of size large or larger would be treated by it as either a longsword or perhaps a 'hand-and-a-half' sword rather than a greatsword, though it would deal a greatwsword's damage to a medium sized creature.
We are talking about a new player. An option that existed 20 years and 2 editions ago is not helpful, and is actively confusing the situation.
You can homebrew it for the here and now if what you want is one of those insensibly large anime style swords like that Final Fantasy character has, I forget which one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
You can homebrew it for the here and now if what you want is one of those insensibly large anime style swords like that Final Fantasy character has, I forget which one.
Again. A new player. Homebrew is just confusing. Let them figure out how the rules work before they start inventing their own.
A normal greatsword wielded by a creature of size large or larger would be treated by it as either a longsword or perhaps a 'hand-and-a-half' sword rather than a greatsword, though it would deal a greatwsword's damage to a medium sized creature.
Do you mean in this edition? Then not quite, no, I don’t think so. I believe you are quite correct that a greatsword sized for a Small/Medium creature would be treated as something akin to a longsword* when wielded by a Large creature. But that means it wouldn’t still do the same 2d6 damage a standard greatsword would do anymore. Instead it would do 2d8 (2d10) damage that a longsword sized for a Large creature would do, which would account for the Large creature’s size advantage. To continue the trend, a standard longsword would be treated as a shortsword when wielded by a Large creature and do 2d6 damage, a standard sized shortsword would be like a dagger for a Large creature and do 2d4 damage, and a standard sized dagger would be a small knife to a Large creature. *”Longsword” is a broad category in 5e that includes hand-and-a-half swords like bastard swords.
So I'm just creating my first character and I was wondering what class/race would be best if I want to use giant great swords I would really appreciate it if someone could help me with this
Halforc barbarian. The game is full of races and classes, but you really only need halforc barbarian. While raging, you have advantage on everything that counts, take half damage from everything that counts, do more damage, shout louder and look cooler. A barbarian needs boots and a greatsword to be ready to fight dragons. All other gear is strictly optional. Sure, you can get dressed, but you really don't need to. A kilt is recommended though. Still optional, but recommended. Because jealousy is such an ugly thing.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It depends on how you envisage the rest of the character.
If you're envisaging Conan, Highlander, the kind of warrior that doesn't wear a suit of armour, then Barbarian is the way to go. Perhaps Path of the Berserker or Path of the Totem Warrior, depending on your specific concept.
If you're thinking more of a knight in armour, then either Fighter (subclass really depends on the specific concept) or Paladin (again, subclass varies) and you can flavour the Smites as particularly powerful blows.
A Ranger could be a compromise between the two concepts.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
While this is a much better, nuanced, balance and well put together reply than mine ... mine is still the best =D
But no, seriously, Geralt also uses 2-handed swords, and could well be something like an Eldritch Knight. There's numerous things beside barbarian. But I love barbarians.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Lol to be honest, I think you probably have the right answer for the question (and it's definitely more colourful!)...I just wanted to cover more bases. Generally though, people who want to centre their character around a great sword do want Conan, or similar.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I agree Barbarian for the Greatsword.
You can do it with Fighter and Paladin too as mentioned but I prefer to play those with 1 handed weapons and a shield.
Goliath (half-giant of I forget which variety) is as good as H-orc for the race, also perhaps bugbear/half-bugbear.
I actually play them human for the greatsword as personal preference and give the other races greataxe instead.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Why did I read this as if you're a used car salesperson? :P
"Yeah, she aint much to look at, but she'll get you to where you need to go and then some."
Just to clarify, there are no “giant” greatswords. There’s just greatswords. They are the same size for all PCs. If you are talking about a greatsword wielded by a giant so it’s extra big, once a PC picks it up it would generally just be treated the same as a standard greatsword.
If you’re talking about an anime-style oversized sword, they don’t really exist. However, you could probably just describe yours are comically large, and use the same stats as a normal greatsword. But that will depend on your DM.
dwarf samurai fighter. call the greatsword "my grandfather's axe" and always play up the blade's heritage and history and how no it is definitely not small for an axe. some other dwarves may try to poke fun at how small your axe is (tell the dm a dwarf would never mistake it for a sword) but as a samurai you are naturally an elegant courtier. non-dwarves, on the other hand, get one warning and then they can kiss their kneecaps goodbye.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I tend to prefer a greataxe for a barbarian and a greatsword for a fighter. The swingy nature of the greataxe’s 1d12 and its higher probability to roll 10+ for damage compared to the greatsword feels like it is better suited to a barbarian to me and the d12 works better with the barbarian’s Brutal Critical when you eventually get it too. The greatsword’s 2d6 is far more reliable and consistent on damage rolls than the greatsword which I feel better suits the practiced discipline of a fighter.
3e has a weapon called the Fullblade whose nickname is "Ogre's Greatsword". It is one size up from the standard greatsword and can also be made mercurial. It needed at least two feats if not more to be able to wield at all by a medium-sized creature. A sword such as this can be homebrewed back into 5e if one really wanted to.
A normal greatsword wielded by a creature of size large or larger would be treated by it as either a longsword or perhaps a 'hand-and-a-half' sword rather than a greatsword, though it would deal a greatwsword's damage to a medium sized creature.
I would agree; for two-hand focused fighters vs. Barbarians. I still prefer shield wielding fighters though and so tend to stick greatsword on certain barbarians instead of greataxe; typically ones who I'd take the martial adept feat with and so be more like a fighter multiclass barbarian versus a straight up barbarian.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
None of this aside from there having been a weapon called a Fullblade in 3E is true. The Fullblade was still considered sized for a medium character by default, and it could not be made mercurial, the Mercurial Greatsword was an entirely separate weapon and not some sort of weapon mod. Both were Exotic weapons so a feat was required to have proficiency with them regardless of the wielder's class, but only one was needed, not two.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Mercurial was applicable to longsword and greatsword. I thought to fullblade too, but perhaps that was just a homebrew. I'm not sure how you are applying what the size category of weapons actually means, but the point of the nickname "Ogre's Greatsword", is that a large creature can use it as a medium creature can a normal Greatsword without any additional feats for facilitation (Yes, it was more than just the exotic weapon proficiency you needed to use it, at least without large penalties i.e. ambidexterity etc.) Perhaps it was different at your table). Also a small creature would not be able to use a standard greatsword without the same feats a medium creature needed to use the fullblade. A B-sword counted as a greatsword for small creatures, a L-sword as a B-sword, etc. Like Biblo finding a dagger (sting) but for him it is a shortsword. The size of weapons were relative to the size of it's wielders. The damage etc. figures were standardized to the output of a medium-sized creature though and magic swords resized to suit their wielders as the appropriately described weapon..
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Negative. "Mercurial longsword" and "mercurial greatsword" were specific individual exotic weapons, not modifications of standard longswords and greatswords, and any feats or other features a character might have with the standard swords didn't apply to the mercurial ones.
Not quite how it actually worked. Weapons were sized based on the user: a human was a medium-sized creature and by default used medium-sized weapons. A small character like a halfling used small weapons, which were identical to medium-sized ones but dropped the damage dice down one size, while large sized creatures like ogres bumped the dice up one size. The fullblade was a medium-sized weapon. The part about it being called "Ogre's greatsword" was just fluff, because when using a weapon sized for a creature one size category larger or smaller than yourself you took a penalty on the attack roll due to the grip being off. It was a common house rule to allow, for example, a halfling to use a human shortsword as if it were a longsword, but that wasn't actually in the rules. Similarly, a human with proficiency in the fullblade could not actually use an ogre's greatsword as a fullblade, they used it as a greatsword with a size penalty. If a human character wanted to wield a greatsword sized for a large creature, they needed the Monkey Grip feat rather than Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Also, magic armor could resize to fit its wielder, but by default magic weapons did not.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well, sounds like you are going barbarian, fighter, or paladin. For barbarian or fighter, try Goliath or half orc and minotaur. For Paladin, try Aasimar (Volo’s Guide to Monsters), Minotaur, Orc, Satyr, and Yuan-ti.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
Monkey Grip, that's the one I was I thinking of yes, thank you. I think I remember it was needed as well as not instead of the proficiency feet. Perhaps you are right about the raw vs the house rules, but from what I remember of the table, the fullblade was definitely treated as a large weapon, not a medium-sized one.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
We are talking about a new player. An option that existed 20 years and 2 editions ago is not helpful, and is actively confusing the situation.
You can homebrew it for the here and now if what you want is one of those insensibly large anime style swords like that Final Fantasy character has, I forget which one.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Again. A new player. Homebrew is just confusing. Let them figure out how the rules work before they start inventing their own.
Do you mean in this edition? Then not quite, no, I don’t think so. I believe you are quite correct that a greatsword sized for a Small/Medium creature would be treated as something akin to a longsword* when wielded by a Large creature. But that means it wouldn’t still do the same 2d6 damage a standard greatsword would do anymore. Instead it would do 2d8 (2d10) damage that a longsword sized for a Large creature would do, which would account for the Large creature’s size advantage. To continue the trend, a standard longsword would be treated as a shortsword when wielded by a Large creature and do 2d6 damage, a standard sized shortsword would be like a dagger for a Large creature and do 2d4 damage, and a standard sized dagger would be a small knife to a Large creature.
*”Longsword” is a broad category in 5e that includes hand-and-a-half swords like bastard swords.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting