I have been looking for some information but have been unable to find it so I will ask you all. Can the larger 'medium sized' playable races like Goliaths and Firbolg use two-handed weapons one-handed or is it just a black and white interpretation of the rules. If a character whatever the race is medium-sized then a great sword or axe is a two-handed weapon. I was wondering because of the large difference in the size of the species. Sorry if this has been asked before.
The races with powerful build get what the rules say they do; the ability to count as one size larger for determining carrying capacity. There's nothing mentioned about two-handed weapons or the like.
Technically, even a Gargantuan creature with a greatsword still needs two hands to use it because they use Gargantuan greatswords that do more damage. There is absolutely nothing RAW that will allow any creature to use a Two-Handed weapon with only one hand. You would need something homebrewed.
Technically, even a Gargantuan creature with a greatsword still needs two hands to use it because they use Gargantuan greatswords that do more damage.
Can you tell me where the rules are located saying that? I'm still learning all the finer points of 5e rules for such things but (unless you're referring to something from an NPC/monster stat block) I was under the impression that 5e does not have "weapon sizes" like 3.5 does. Because it sounds like you're describing the 3.5 rules when you say "gargantuan greatsword."
5e has the "heavy" quality which means small characters can't use them. And as already noted, Goliaths and Firbolgs are still medium sized creatures, not large. If you're the DM you can of course houserule whatever you want but RAW the same rules apply to them as do any other medium creatures, including everything having to do with weapons, aside from the extra carrying capacity granted by Powerful Build.
I don't belive it is explicitly stated that there are weapons sizes, but more so implied by the fact that certain creatures of varying sizes have weapons in their stat blocks that require two hands.
For example: a giant with a greatsword. The greatsword does more damage then a normal greatsword and because of what we know about a greatsword it requires two hands. There for the giant would be using a greatsword designed to be used by a giant, hence a giant greatsword.
I thought I saw someplace a rule about using a weapon of a larger size someplace but I don't have the time right now to search for that so I'll have to update you later on that front.
Edit: there is an optional rule in the DMG about it. Page 273 I believe.
I have been looking for some information but have been unable to find it so I will ask you all. Can the larger 'medium sized' playable races like Goliaths and Firbolg use two-handed weapons one-handed or is it just a black and white interpretation of the rules. If a character whatever the race is medium-sized then a great sword or axe is a two-handed weapon. I was wondering because of the large difference in the size of the species. Sorry if this has been asked before.
I'd allow two-handed weapons to be used one-handed by stronger members of larger races but with, say, longsword or battleaxe one-handed damage.
Technically, even a Gargantuan creature with a greatsword still needs two hands to use it because they use Gargantuan greatswords that do more damage.
Can you tell me where the rules are located saying that? I'm still learning all the finer points of 5e rules for such things but (unless you're referring to something from an NPC/monster stat block) I was under the impression that 5e does not have "weapon sizes" like 3.5 does. Because it sounds like you're describing the 3.5 rules when you say "gargantuan greatsword."
5e has the "heavy" quality which means small characters can't use them. And as already noted, Goliaths and Firbolgs are still medium sized creatures, not large. If you're the DM you can of course houserule whatever you want but RAW the same rules apply to them as do any other medium creatures, including everything having to do with weapons, aside from the extra carrying capacity granted by Powerful Build.
Like ConalTheGreat mentioned, it isn’t expressly stated as such per se, but it is “explained by example” in a number of various instances.
For example, each weapon has its own rules, so since the rules for a greataxe or greatclub say that they are two-handed weapons, every greataxe and greatclub in 5e is going to be a two-handed weapon by default.
All PC races are only either Medium or Small, never Tiny, nor Large or larger. Since the greatace has the heavy property we know that Small or smaller creatures cannot wield them at all. But we also know that every greataxe proportioned for a Medium creature will all be the same in terms of damage/hit at 1d12 damage. The greatclub does not have the heavy property, so we know that a greatclub’s 1d8 damage is the same whether wielded but a Small or Medium creature. So even though there isn’t a “Medium greatclub” and a “Small greatclub,” it doesn’t matter because a Halfling’s greatclub is just as damaging as a Goliath’s, 1d8/hit.
When you look at the statblock for a Large creature that wields a greataxe, such as a minotaur or minotaur skeleton you can see right off the bat that a Greataxe wielded by a Large Creature does 2d12 damage. If you look at a Large creature that wields a greatclub on their statblock, such as an ogre, it’s greatclub deals 2d8 damage instead of 1d8. A quick check of an ogre zombie shows it’s morningstar does 2d8 damage, and when compared to a standard morningstar’s 1d8 damage, a pattern starts to emerge. Checking creatures like the planetar or solar shows they both wield greatswords that do 4d6 damage instead of the 2d6 that a standard greatsword deals. So it becomes apparent that Large creatures double the damage dice as the same weapon wielded by Medium creatures, so they must wield weapons of larger proportions than the ones Medium creatures wield.
It does break down a bit when you look at the “smaller Large creatures” like the centaur or drider, but that is just evidence that a creature’s “Size” really is just an indication of how many square-feet of area they occupy as the rules for size say. The reason they didn’t scale everything according to Size this edition is because behind the curtains over at WotC, they are considering both a creature’s mechanical “Size,” as well as it’s actual relative size referring to mass/volume as in the general use of the word. Things often don’t scale in any sort of linear progression the way games have traditionally done things, and WotC already knows that including two different methods of sizing creatures would be waaayy to confusing for everyone, so they kept the 3D “volume” sizing considerations out of the books away from easily confusable customers, and only included the 2D “area” Size since that’s the one most relevant when dropping minis on a battle map/board.
If you scale up further to Huge and look at the cloud giant’s 3d8 damage morningstar, the cyclops’ 3d8 greatclub, the fire giant’s 6d6 greatsword, and the frost giant’s 3d12 greataxe, you can see that the emergent pattern indicated by Large creatures continues to trend now into Huge creatures as well.
So while there isn’t really anything set to point to, that’s really because the “Size” categories really do only specifically address 2D area occupied. It’s with the unlisted 3D sizes where the evidence indicates that Large and larger creatures that have a height & mass that reasonably correlate to their listed 2D Size must by default be wielding Large or larger weapons. And it’s in the lack of any evidence whatsoever that would indicate a shift from two-handed to one-handed weapons that we know there isn’t one.
Now, moving out of the realm of evidentiary based deduction, and purely into the realm of speculation at this point:
As a DM I would rule the same as GergKyae: If a “large Large creature” picked up a Greatsword sized for a Medium creature, it would only be something about the effectiveness of a versatileLongsword to them. So while they would in fact likely be able to wield it with one hand, that’s because it wouldn’t count as a “greatsword” to that creature anymore. Instead of 4d6 damage then, it would only do 2d8/2d10 as a longsword in their hands.
I'm pretty sure the reason 5e doesn't include size scaling for weapons can be summarized in one word: simplicity. "This is a mace. It is a one handed weapon and does 1d6 bludgeoning damage." That's it. No extra rules to learn and factor in for "can a PC of x size use weapon y and how many hands do they need or do they get the benefit for it being a light weapon because they're big?" If it's heavy a small character can't use it. Otherwise it's exactly what it says on the weapons table.
This is also one of many game balance issues and general hassles that are avoided by not having playable races of tiny or large size. 3.0 rules had different size weapons that were treated differently for different size characters: a longsword was a two handed weapon for small creatures, medium (one handed) for medium, and light for large and it did the same 1d8 damage regardless. 3.5 changed it to each weapon type having different sizes with damage scaling, so a small longsword does 1d6 and a large dagger also does 1d6 but if a medium character wields either they take a -2 nonproficiency penalty to all attack rolls because the grip, balance, etc is not scaled to their size so it is explicitly different from a medium short sword that also deals 1d6 slashing damage. 5e rules just say "this is a short sword, it deals 1d6 damage."
So, as with many aspects of the game where somebody says "But it would make more sense if..." the proper response is "It sounds like you want to play 3.5/Pathfinder, which has all sorts of extra rules for exactly that sort of thing. 5e does not specifically for the purpose of having less rules to learn, keep track of in combat, and deal with in general." I played a lot of 3.5 "back in the day" but since coming back to the hobby after a long hiatus I've come to prefer 5e's more streamlined approach so I don't have to be doing complex multioperational algebra every time I swing a sword or remembering which of literally dozens of potential ability, skill, feat, equipment, status, and myriad situational modifiers apply to any and every roll that is made (and when I DMed for 3.5 I had all those rules memorized and could cite them word for word without needing to consult my books). Both systems have pros and cons, but I personally prefer the simpler approach.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have been looking for some information but have been unable to find it so I will ask you all. Can the larger 'medium sized' playable races like Goliaths and Firbolg use two-handed weapons one-handed or is it just a black and white interpretation of the rules. If a character whatever the race is medium-sized then a great sword or axe is a two-handed weapon. I was wondering because of the large difference in the size of the species. Sorry if this has been asked before.
The races with powerful build get what the rules say they do; the ability to count as one size larger for determining carrying capacity. There's nothing mentioned about two-handed weapons or the like.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yep, two handed weapons still need two hands even for a Goliath. They are still medium size and it’s probably a balance issue they wanted to avoid.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Technically, even a Gargantuan creature with a greatsword still needs two hands to use it because they use Gargantuan greatswords that do more damage. There is absolutely nothing RAW that will allow any creature to use a Two-Handed weapon with only one hand. You would need something homebrewed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Can you tell me where the rules are located saying that? I'm still learning all the finer points of 5e rules for such things but (unless you're referring to something from an NPC/monster stat block) I was under the impression that 5e does not have "weapon sizes" like 3.5 does. Because it sounds like you're describing the 3.5 rules when you say "gargantuan greatsword."
5e has the "heavy" quality which means small characters can't use them. And as already noted, Goliaths and Firbolgs are still medium sized creatures, not large. If you're the DM you can of course houserule whatever you want but RAW the same rules apply to them as do any other medium creatures, including everything having to do with weapons, aside from the extra carrying capacity granted by Powerful Build.
I don't belive it is explicitly stated that there are weapons sizes, but more so implied by the fact that certain creatures of varying sizes have weapons in their stat blocks that require two hands.
For example: a giant with a greatsword. The greatsword does more damage then a normal greatsword and because of what we know about a greatsword it requires two hands. There for the giant would be using a greatsword designed to be used by a giant, hence a giant greatsword.
I thought I saw someplace a rule about using a weapon of a larger size someplace but I don't have the time right now to search for that so I'll have to update you later on that front.
Edit: there is an optional rule in the DMG about it. Page 273 I believe.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I'd allow two-handed weapons to be used one-handed by stronger members of larger races but with, say, longsword or battleaxe one-handed damage.
Like ConalTheGreat mentioned, it isn’t expressly stated as such per se, but it is “explained by example” in a number of various instances.
For example, each weapon has its own rules, so since the rules for a greataxe or greatclub say that they are two-handed weapons, every greataxe and greatclub in 5e is going to be a two-handed weapon by default.
All PC races are only either Medium or Small, never Tiny, nor Large or larger. Since the greatace has the heavy property we know that Small or smaller creatures cannot wield them at all. But we also know that every greataxe proportioned for a Medium creature will all be the same in terms of damage/hit at 1d12 damage. The greatclub does not have the heavy property, so we know that a greatclub’s 1d8 damage is the same whether wielded but a Small or Medium creature. So even though there isn’t a “Medium greatclub” and a “Small greatclub,” it doesn’t matter because a Halfling’s greatclub is just as damaging as a Goliath’s, 1d8/hit.
When you look at the statblock for a Large creature that wields a greataxe, such as a minotaur or minotaur skeleton you can see right off the bat that a Greataxe wielded by a Large Creature does 2d12 damage. If you look at a Large creature that wields a greatclub on their statblock, such as an ogre, it’s greatclub deals 2d8 damage instead of 1d8. A quick check of an ogre zombie shows it’s morningstar does 2d8 damage, and when compared to a standard morningstar’s 1d8 damage, a pattern starts to emerge. Checking creatures like the planetar or solar shows they both wield greatswords that do 4d6 damage instead of the 2d6 that a standard greatsword deals. So it becomes apparent that Large creatures double the damage dice as the same weapon wielded by Medium creatures, so they must wield weapons of larger proportions than the ones Medium creatures wield.
It does break down a bit when you look at the “smaller Large creatures” like the centaur or drider, but that is just evidence that a creature’s “Size” really is just an indication of how many square-feet of area they occupy as the rules for size say. The reason they didn’t scale everything according to Size this edition is because behind the curtains over at WotC, they are considering both a creature’s mechanical “Size,” as well as it’s actual relative size referring to mass/volume as in the general use of the word. Things often don’t scale in any sort of linear progression the way games have traditionally done things, and WotC already knows that including two different methods of sizing creatures would be waaayy to confusing for everyone, so they kept the 3D “volume” sizing considerations out of the books away from easily confusable customers, and only included the 2D “area” Size since that’s the one most relevant when dropping minis on a battle map/board.
If you scale up further to Huge and look at the cloud giant’s 3d8 damage morningstar, the cyclops’ 3d8 greatclub, the fire giant’s 6d6 greatsword, and the frost giant’s 3d12 greataxe, you can see that the emergent pattern indicated by Large creatures continues to trend now into Huge creatures as well.
So while there isn’t really anything set to point to, that’s really because the “Size” categories really do only specifically address 2D area occupied. It’s with the unlisted 3D sizes where the evidence indicates that Large and larger creatures that have a height & mass that reasonably correlate to their listed 2D Size must by default be wielding Large or larger weapons. And it’s in the lack of any evidence whatsoever that would indicate a shift from two-handed to one-handed weapons that we know there isn’t one.
Now, moving out of the realm of evidentiary based deduction, and purely into the realm of speculation at this point:
As a DM I would rule the same as GergKyae: If a “large Large creature” picked up a Greatsword sized for a Medium creature, it would only be something about the effectiveness of a versatile Longsword to them. So while they would in fact likely be able to wield it with one hand, that’s because it wouldn’t count as a “greatsword” to that creature anymore. Instead of 4d6 damage then, it would only do 2d8/2d10 as a longsword in their hands.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hello IamSposta,
Beautifully said.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I'm pretty sure the reason 5e doesn't include size scaling for weapons can be summarized in one word: simplicity. "This is a mace. It is a one handed weapon and does 1d6 bludgeoning damage." That's it. No extra rules to learn and factor in for "can a PC of x size use weapon y and how many hands do they need or do they get the benefit for it being a light weapon because they're big?" If it's heavy a small character can't use it. Otherwise it's exactly what it says on the weapons table.
This is also one of many game balance issues and general hassles that are avoided by not having playable races of tiny or large size. 3.0 rules had different size weapons that were treated differently for different size characters: a longsword was a two handed weapon for small creatures, medium (one handed) for medium, and light for large and it did the same 1d8 damage regardless. 3.5 changed it to each weapon type having different sizes with damage scaling, so a small longsword does 1d6 and a large dagger also does 1d6 but if a medium character wields either they take a -2 nonproficiency penalty to all attack rolls because the grip, balance, etc is not scaled to their size so it is explicitly different from a medium short sword that also deals 1d6 slashing damage. 5e rules just say "this is a short sword, it deals 1d6 damage."
So, as with many aspects of the game where somebody says "But it would make more sense if..." the proper response is "It sounds like you want to play 3.5/Pathfinder, which has all sorts of extra rules for exactly that sort of thing. 5e does not specifically for the purpose of having less rules to learn, keep track of in combat, and deal with in general." I played a lot of 3.5 "back in the day" but since coming back to the hobby after a long hiatus I've come to prefer 5e's more streamlined approach so I don't have to be doing complex multioperational algebra every time I swing a sword or remembering which of literally dozens of potential ability, skill, feat, equipment, status, and myriad situational modifiers apply to any and every roll that is made (and when I DMed for 3.5 I had all those rules memorized and could cite them word for word without needing to consult my books). Both systems have pros and cons, but I personally prefer the simpler approach.