Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 The_White_Sorcerer Sep 28, 2003 18:57:47	The most basic stats of the Brightblade, from Sturm's original stats: Two-handed sword +3 So that would be, what, a +3 greatsword in 3rd Edition, right? Then why is Sturm always pictured as wielding a longsword and a shield? In every picture I've seen of Sturm, the Brightblade is a longsword. A one-handed sword, although it is clearly described in the beginning of the Chronicles as a two-handed sword? What's up with that? I don't get it.
#2 zombiegleemax Sep 28, 2003 19:18:37	In the Tales of the Lance box set, they listed the Brightblade as a two handed sword +3, resistant to rust and corrosion, its edges never losing their sharpness. The swords runes of freindship and peace grant the weilder a +2 to all response checks from others. It also has the speed and swiftness of a longsword, and can summon light and protection from evil 1/day. so, roughly, I would make it a Keen Bastard sword +3, which does greatsword damage if weilded two handed, and is able to cast light and protection from evil 1/day, and shatters if weilded by one whose intentions are Dark, have weak beliefs, or are evil of heart. It also grants a +2 bonus on determining peoples reaction to you (i.e. friendly, hostile, trusting...) but that is a rough guess.
#3 zombiegleemax Sep 28, 2003 19:23:35	I got out of hand It is the magic nature of the sword or its forging that allow it to be weilded one handed by sturm. But its pictures do display a sword too short to be a Great Sword, which is why I tend to think of it as a bastard sword. even in chronicles they mention it is a twohanded sword, but they also have sturm weilding it onehanded, a sheild in the other.
#4 The_White_Sorcerer Sep 28, 2003 19:24:10	It's not the powers of the sword I'm curious about, it's the type of the sword. It should be a two-handed sword, but it's always pictured as a longsword. How exactly did one wield a two-handed sword in the earlier editions?
#5 zombiegleemax Sep 28, 2003 19:31:00	two handed. It could not be weilded onehanded because of its great size and weight. when weilding a Two handed sword (or axe, or polearm, or staff) you cannot bear a shield. the next size down, the bastard could be weilded either way. Admittedly all the pictures I have seen of the Brightblade show it to be unussually wide for a sword, so it may be a two hander by sheer mass instead of size/length. Historically i can't think of anything similar, though cinematically, i would point to Conan and the sword he weilds as a comparison.
#6 zombiegleemax Sep 28, 2003 21:41:14	In third edition it would be a bastard sword that way he can carry his damn sheild
#7 zombiegleemax Sep 29, 2003 13:16:51	in 2e it should have been a bastard sword so he could carry his damn shield.
#8 slwoyach_dup Sep 29, 2003 13:51:05	I thought the runes only identified the wielder as a dwarf-friend. I don't think it gives a bonus to reactions with all races.
#9 zombiegleemax Sep 29, 2003 13:55:32	I am going by the description in the ToTL 2e rules. That is what they describe, and they specifically said a +2 bonus on other peoples responses. I haven't seen the weapon listed for 3/3.5e yet, but I assume it will be in the War of The Lance supplement.
#10 brimstone Sep 29, 2003 14:05:18	Well, there are two suggestions here: 1) I believe in 2e it was a two-handed sword, but either because of its weight, or magical properties (the later, I am sure) it could be wielded in one hand. 2) Make it a bastard sword in 3e. Of these two, I opted for choice two when I generated my 3rd edition stats for it (which can be found here) But that's just a shamless self-promotion plug. heh heh Either way...the 3rd edition Great Sword does not fit the description of the Brightblade at all, in my opinion. The 3e great sword I picture more like a Scottish claymore sword...which is much larger than your typical two-handed war sword.
#11 zombiegleemax Sep 29, 2003 14:19:04	actually, the claymore is fairly light weight for a greatsword. I got to play with one at the highland games in Queche, Vermont one year. What really fits the greatsword is the Flamberge, a sword that is like six feet long, designed for the purposes of breaking pikes. but either way, neither really fit the description of the Brightblade. It does seem more of a bastard sword.
#12 shugi Sep 29, 2003 15:27:24	I'm 90% sure that Sturm did not carry a shield in Chronicles (I'd double-check but I don't have the Chronicles on me -- I did just finish rereading them with an eagle's eye though). On the other hand, Caramon was loaded with weapons -- I think he had two different swords, a shield, a bow, and the requisite dagger.
#13 The_White_Sorcerer Sep 29, 2003 15:31:28	Originally posted by Shugi I'm 90% sure that Sturm did not carry a shield in Chronicles (I'd double-check but I don't have the Chronicles on me -- I did just finish rereading them with an eagle's eye though). On the other hand, Caramon was loaded with weapons -- I think he had two different swords, a shield, a bow, and the requisite dagger. He used a shield during the battle at the Tower of High Clerist, at least I think he did. And you forgot Caramon's spear.
#14 cam_banks Sep 29, 2003 15:37:34	Originally posted by Shugi I'm 90% sure that Sturm did not carry a shield in Chronicles (I'd double-check but I don't have the Chronicles on me -- I did just finish rereading them with an eagle's eye though). Did you notice the artwork? In almost every painting with Sturm in it, he's carrying a shield. Granted, it's not mentioned so much in the books, but then a lot of those sorts of things get left out of the text. Cheers, Cam
#15 shugi Sep 29, 2003 16:04:51	That's definitely true - the portraits almost always show him carrying a shield. I attribute that to the sword/shield archetype that is so popular amongst artists when drawing knights. Many people envision an armoured sword-wielding warrior as a warrior or fighter, but put a shield in his hand and shine up the armor and Whoa! he's a knight.
#16 daedavias_dup Sep 29, 2003 16:06:59	Not to mention his description in the Inn says he has a gianormous shield. Not to mention, Steel also used it in one hand. Look at the cover of Dragons of a Summer Flames, and you can't even try to dispute that one. Technically a bastard sword is a two-handed sword in the first place, only those with training can use it otherwise(i.e. Sturm, Steel, etc). {edit} Seems I was a tad too late with my response, so it was more or less rubbing it in. My, apologies, Shugi.:D
#17 brimstone Sep 29, 2003 16:11:54	Originally posted by Winterknight actually, the claymore is fairly light weight for a greatsword. But even the claymore is large for a two handed sword...probably at least a half a pound or more heavier than your standard two-handed war sword. Which is quite a bit heavier. Your typical bastard sword is going to be between 2.7 and 3.2 pounds, usually, with a typical two-handed war sword around 3.5 to 4.0. And I thought the claymores were closer to 4.5 pounds...but I may be mistaken about that.
#18 zombiegleemax Sep 29, 2003 22:06:15	Well, he may have been described as using a shield in the books(but I don't remember it), but in the gaming products(and keep in mind, I've only seen a few), he never had a shield listed in his equipment...although the damage is listed as doing 1d10 damage. How I'm playing it is a +2 Greatsword...it's hard to explain, but I had to trade off the other +1 for the extra damage in my conversion of Sturm, so that he fits correctly into the Knight class.
#19 zombiegleemax Sep 29, 2003 22:58:35	I may be wrong, but i think i read in TotL that as part of its echantments, the wielder was allowed to use the brightblade as if it was a longsword (but it had to do with the swiftness, the speed factor was reduced to 5, like a long sword).
#20 darthsylver Sep 29, 2003 23:53:21	First off, I do not have my books handy so please bear in mind that everything is from memory, which can be a little hazy at times. (Ha rooks beat ya to it :D :D.) Well from the description in the tales of the lance we can rule out it being a longsword as it says “has the speed and swiftness of a longsword” and it would not say this it the sword was a longsword. It says two-handed so the sword must be capable of being wielded with two hands. On the cover of DL 8 Dragons of War is a picture of presumably Sturm facing off against Skie and Kitiara. It shows him holding a sword (presumablt the brightblade) in his right hand and a shield on his left. So the brightblade should be able to be wielded by only one hand. In 2e a 2-handed sword did 1d10 (sm target)\ 3d6 (l target) points of damage, so in 3e the brightblade should be a sword that does the same damage. In the description of a two-handed sword in the 2e arms and equipment guide it specifically states that the 2-handed sword cannot be wielded one-hand, and that a shield cannot be used at the same time regardless of strength. So this is where you make a decision, either you decide that to go with the vast amount of equipment descriptions given for Sturm that state the brightblade is a two-handed sword and therefore cannot be wielded in one hand or with a shield and that the pictures were just that, good pictures without stats to back them up. Or you go with the pictures and decide that the sword could be wielded one-handed and forgo the stats for Sturm. If you go with the pictures (sword and shield) then the sword would be a bastard as the bastard sword can be wielded 1-handed and the great sword cannot. Or you go with the stats and choose a greatsword which cannot be wielded one-handed period. The problem, in 2e a 2-handed sword did 1d10\3d6. In 3e a bastard does 1d10, and a greatsword does 2d6. Me personally, I believe that the brightblade is a greatsword made from the finest steel and was enchanted to beform as a longsword. Remember, the brightblade has the speed and swiftness of a longsword. If the brightblade was a bastard sword, then it would automatically have the swiftness (being able to be wielded in 1 hand, IMO) and this would not need to be stated. This is the way I see the Brightblade. Greatsword +3, Keen, good (don't remember exactly the right term for that one right now), improves attitudes of others by one category closer to friendly, due to magical nature can be wielded in 1 hand by medium sized creatures, sheds light (must be summoned), the wielder may cast prot from evil 1\day (duration is an equal amount of rounds to character level unless the character is disarmed). After all, we can discuss the realities of weights and measurements of real swords, but the one thing we cannot account for is, the magic in the sword. (Unless there is a real life wizard out there who will get involved in this discussion).
#21 zombiegleemax Sep 30, 2003 6:47:42	The only way to keep the brightblade as a greatsword is by giving Sturm the "Monkey Grip" feat (from S&F). This would allow him to use a great sword one-handed.
#22 darthsylver Sep 30, 2003 7:12:14	Actually you could simply say that it is a property of the sword. Just as some short sword (I cannot recall the exact magic swords) that could be wielded as a dagger but still inflicts the same damage as a short sword. These swords were created for the gnomes or halflings of some world. Just remember that dwarves have been crafting weapons for a long-long time and therefore could possibly pull this off. I mean come on, you got a dwarf (Bruenor) in FR that created a magical warhammer and as far as I know he does not know any kind of magic whatsoever, and so should not be able to do this.
#23 cam_banks Sep 30, 2003 8:30:20	The Brightblade is best presented as a bastard sword. It allows the weapon to be represented as the large, dangerous looking sword that it is, while still allowing Sturm and Steel to weild it one-handed as they were known to do. Giving it a magical property of "swift as a long sword" (which is worth how much, exactly, in terms of weapon value?) is much more of a kludge than simply going ahead and making it a bastard (or hand-and-a-half) sword. Cheers, Cam
#24 The_White_Sorcerer Sep 30, 2003 9:07:58	Heh. Making it a bastard sword fits Steel better than Sturm. ;) I think I'll be waiting for some official stats for the sword. Until then, I'll be treating the Brightblade as a +3 greatsword with some special abilities that I'll do research on at a later point of time.
#25 shugi Sep 30, 2003 10:20:55	Originally posted by Shugi I'm 90% sure that Sturm did not carry a shield in Chronicles (I'd double-check but I don't have the Chronicles on me -- I did just finish rereading them with an eagle's eye though). Apparently the 10% just bit me in the butt, and I was actually holding an eagle's eye in the way while I was reading. He does indeed carry a shield, but it's only referenced 3-4 times in Chronicles (once at the Inn, one passing reference that Flint was holding Sturm's shield during the knighting, and a reference on the High Clerist's Tower).
#26 zombiegleemax Oct 04, 2003 8:41:39	Speaking of this particular sword, when is it that Sturm in the novel gets his hands on it (under what circumstances)? George
#27 The_White_Sorcerer Oct 04, 2003 8:44:02	Originally posted by Giorgio Speaking of this particular sword, when is it that Sturm in the novel gets his hands on it (under what circumstances)? George He inherited it from his father before the novels even started.
#28 zombiegleemax Oct 04, 2003 22:19:31	Why not just make it a Sunblade?
#29 plexor Oct 07, 2003 7:47:12	According to the original 1ed DL1-16 series of adventures he carries a two handed sword +3 with no special abilities, he also does not carry a shield in any of the pre generated char sheeets, altough he is often shown with a long sword and a small shield on many pics. So if you want to keep your 3.5 sturm as close to the original 1ed sturm made by Tracy Hickman give him a Two handed sword +3 and no shield.
#30 zombiegleemax Oct 07, 2003 11:47:31	While I personally would use a bastard sword as the base weapon, if you really want it to be a greatsword it can be a +2 keen greatsword of balance. (Balance is a +1 weapon special ability in the Arms and Equipment Guide. It allows a weapon to be treated as though it were one size category smaller for the purposes of wielding it). And besides, the 2nd Ed stats are 1d10 damage.. which is bastard sword damage ;)
#31 plexor Oct 07, 2003 12:53:45	Yeah but in 2nd ed a basterd sword only does 2d4 damage and the two handed sword does 2d6 damage vs anything larger then a human a.k.a. dragons. ;)
#32 shugi Oct 07, 2003 16:13:38	While we're at it: In 2nd edition, a two-handed sword dealt 1d10 / 3d6 damage; a bastard sword (in one hand) dealt 1d8/1d12 damage; a bastard sword (in both hands) dealt 2d4 / 2d8 damage. The two theories for a 3.5 conversion of the Brightblade are that A) it's a bastard sword, or B) it's a greatsword that can be wielded one-handed (a la the sunblade). My question seems to be this: would the weapon's creator have magically enchanted a greatsword (meant to be wielded two-handed) to be used with one hand, and arguably provide an unfair advantage in honorable combat? Of course, this depends on whether you feel such a thing is considered dishonorable, or (for that matter) if the weapon's creator thought it was dishonorable. The board are filled with advocates as of late, so I guess I'm playing Kiri-Jolith's advocate. I see the Brightblade as a bastard sword.
#33 zombiegleemax Oct 08, 2003 10:02:57	This was always one of the wierd DL questions. I think whoever actually did the wordsmithing for the novels (Margaret Wiess, I believe) had a different picture in mind of what a two-handed sword was. I tend to think that, staying close to the novels it might have to be a bastard sword. ("Two-handed" meaning the hilt was extra long.) In the novels, Sturm did carry a shield, but, more importantly, he wore the sword on a swordbelt on his hip, which would cause a greatsword to drag the ground, even if it was "Specially balanced." Also, I'm not sure of this, but I believe Wyrmslayer was also described as a two-handed sword, but was wielded one-handed by Tanis, and worn on a hip sheathe as well.
#34 brimstone Oct 08, 2003 10:45:48	Yes, Wyrmslayer and Wyrmsbane are both two-handed swords (D&D wise). But really...when was the last time you saw an elf with a two-handed sword. heh heh I think Wyrmslayer was a +2 or +3 and Wyrmsbane was a +1 or +2. What ever it is...Redeemer was one less than Wyrmslayer.
#35 zombiegleemax Oct 08, 2003 14:07:57	+3, +2, and in 3e they are both listed as longswords.
#36 brimstone Oct 09, 2003 9:32:32	Originally posted by Winterknight +3, +2, and in 3e they are both listed as longswords. That's better anyway, I think. It matches the novels, and is much more appropriate for elven swords. 'Cause really, who's ever heard of an elven two-handed sword? ;)
#37 daedavias_dup Oct 09, 2003 10:02:51	Originally posted by Brimstone That's better anyway, I think. It matches the novels, and is much more appropriate for elven swords. 'Cause really, who's ever heard of an elven two-handed sword? ;) Lost Star
#38 brimstone Oct 09, 2003 10:05:54	Originally posted by Daedavias Lost Star I can't debate with you on that one...cause I don't remember enough about it. Give me a day or two, though.
#39 daedavias_dup Oct 09, 2003 10:22:43	Originally posted by Brimstone I can't debate with you on that one...cause I don't remember enough about it. Give me a day or two, though. It's a bastard sword, but it was probably used in two hands... I think in the novels (ONCE AGAIN ) it was listed as a two-handed sword.
#40 zombiegleemax Oct 09, 2003 14:04:50	well, you can give any sword a long enough hilt to grasp in two hands (look at Strider's longsword), so I suppose you could brush aside the novels' descriptions by saying the elven swords simply have longer hilts than normal. If you flip through some of those fantasy catalogs you see both accurate reproductions of weapons, as well as fantasy weapons. I think I remember seeing a Two-handed shortsword in one once, a few years ago.