Just a quick query, my party just killed a giant that was trained as a figher / champion. He was wielding a larger than normal magic halberd
The dwarven fighter is naturally interested in the weapon however I don't imagine something that's nearly 20ft tall would be able to be wielded by someone less that 5ft tall. How would you guys rule on this as I don't think weapon size is part of the PHB
Have the weapon magically shrink to the appropriate size. The Dungeon Master's Guide talks about magical items meant to be worn adjusting themselves to the wearer: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/treasure#WearingandWieldingItems But it does not specifically mention weapons meant to be wielded doing the same, so you would have to house rule it.
Let the player wield the weapon, but all attacks made with it are at disadvantage. This is the same solution given to when a small race wants to wield a heavy weapon.
+1 to the disadvantage with it. But I’d add, you could say he can use it at disadvantage, until he can find someone who is capable of re-sizing it for him and turn that into a personal side quest.
Also, please note that there are no rules in 5E for over-sized weapons granting any bonus damage. The Enlarge/Reduce spell adds 1d4 damage to attacks, but that's from the entire creature and its equipment growing. The enlarge-type abilities used by monsters works completely differently, such as the Duergar or Huge Gray Ooze, doubling its weapon damage dice while enlarged.
The RAW-est rule is probably that over-sized weapons simply can't be used, especially if they're really big (for say a creature two or more sizes larger?). But I like Jesse's suggestion, that they simply provide disadvantage to attacks made with them, as if they were a Heavy that the PC is too small to satisfy.
Looking at Gurt's Greataxe as an example we don't see any new weapon properties added, but its already a heavy weapon. I agree that adding the Heavy is a valid idea, but wouldn't impose disadvantage on a Dwarf since they're medium sized creatures despite being on the smaller end of the scale for medium. The thing I wanted to bring up though is Gurt's Greataxe specifically notes the weight of the axe as being 325lbs, a weight too heavy for a medium sized creature (even with 20 strength) to carry let alone wield effectively unless they had the powerful build feature.
The evidence for large weapons is that base damage is multiplied by 2 for Large and 3 for Huge (e.g. all the weapons used by giants), but things like Mattock of the Titans didn't make it into 5e, so there's no standard. It seems consistent with existing rules to just copy heavy and say:
Large: Medium creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls with large weapons, and Small or smaller creatures are unable to use them at all. A large weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Medium creature to use effectively.
Huge: Large creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls with huge weapons, and Medium or smaller creatures are unable to use them at all. A Huge weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Large creature to use effectively.
Again, large weapons for monsters seem to often have base damage multiplied by 2 when wielded by large monsters, I'm not sure there's any example (other than the Gurt's Greataxe linked above) that creates an implication that the juice is in the weapon and not the wielder.
But other than that, agree with Pantagruel's recommendation.
Looking at Gurt's Greataxe as an example we don't see any new weapon properties added, but its already a heavy weapon. I agree that adding the Heavy is a valid idea, but wouldn't impose disadvantage on a Dwarf since they're medium sized creatures despite being on the smaller end of the scale for medium. The thing I wanted to bring up though is Gurt's Greataxe specifically notes the weight of the axe as being 325lbs, a weight too heavy for a medium sized creature (even with 20 strength) to carry let alone wield effectively unless they had the powerful build feature.
Gurt's Greataxe is also an exceptional case as being both an NPC specific weapon (you have to go way off-script in the adventure to have a chance at acquiring it), and a legendary weapon. It's not something a PC is ever meant to acquire, much less actually use.
RAW, weapons do not resize themselves in the way that wearable equipment does. If the weapon follows the template of a normal weapon (same base damage die & properties), but has the dimensions of a larger version, I'd just say it resizes to be in line with the "normal" version. If it is does not follow the template (such as Gurt's Greataxe being 3d12 slashing instead of 1d12 normally) then I would not allow it to resize as the whole thing is a special case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Volume and mass increase with the cube of height, so treating large weapons for medium creatures as equivalent to heavy weapons for small creatures isn’t entirely sensible.
Even though dwarves are medium, I wouldn’t let a dwarf use a giant’s weapon at all. There’s no physically sensible means for such a character to use such a weapon; the size different is simply too great. A taller medium-sized creature I would allow to use it with disadvantage, provided they meet some minimum strength requirement (maybe 18, which strength-based classes can easily have by 4th level).
A dwarf's center of gravity is the soles of his feet, and they're thicc boys who swing things using muscle tension instead of limb motion :)
5E is supposed to be a straightforward rule system not a simulation, so drawing bright lines at creature size is probably nuanced enough without treating dwarves like small creatures and goliaths like large ones. Otherwise we start getting into the horror that is the fact that a 2 foot tall 25 lb kobold character is fully capable of grappling/lifting/dragging an 8 foot tall 340 lb goliath in a wrestling contest with good rolls, and careening down a slippery slope of trying to houserule some sort of height/weight based table to arbitrate things that the size categories are already fully addressing.
From a balance perspective, allowing wielding one size up with disadvantage isn't too bad -- it we look at a 6th level fighter with 20 Str, a +1 greatsword is +9/2d6+6 (average 13), a +1 Large greatsword is +9/4d6+6 (average 20) with disadvantage. Against an AC 17 target (65% hit chance normal, 42.25% with disadvantage) either one averages 8.45 per attack, at lower AC the large is better, at higher AC the normal is better. However, the large weapon is significantly better in cases where you already have disadvantage from another source (because disadvantage doesn't stack) or where you have advantage (dropping your hit chance from 87.75% to 65% isn't that big a loss) so I'd want to add another balancing option.
A possibility is that oversized weapons require Weapon Proficiency (Large) in addition to giving disadvantage, where that is probably a feat with a strength requirement.
This is exactly why things like Monkey Grip are not in this edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
A dwarf's center of gravity is the soles of his feet, and they're thicc boys who swing things using muscle tension instead of limb motion :)
5E is supposed to be a straightforward rule system not a simulation, so drawing bright lines at creature size is probably nuanced enough without treating dwarves like small creatures and goliaths like large ones. Otherwise we start getting into the horror that is the fact that a 2 foot tall 25 lb kobold character is fully capable of grappling/lifting/dragging an 8 foot tall 340 lb goliath in a wrestling contest with good rolls, and careening down a slippery slope of trying to houserule some sort of height/weight based table to arbitrate things that the size categories are already fully addressing.
Center of gravity of the dwarf isn't going to help them wield a weapon that is twice as tall as they are and with a handle as thick as their biceps. I agree that drawing a line at creature size is good enough for D&D as written, which is one reason D&D as written doesn't let anyone do what the OP is asking about. Things get blurrier once we start considering things the rules don't account for.
I would never suggest any kind of deterministic table for this sort of thing. I would advocate that the GM decide what does or doesn't make sense on a case-by-case basis (including your kobold vs. goliath example, although I personally find nothing problematic about it at all).
A halbred weighs 6 lbs. A giant is a huge creature so two size categories up from a dwarf. Going by the enlarge spell, that halbred should weigh 6x8x8 lbs or 384 pounds. What is the dwarf's strength? He would need a 26 to carry it unencumbered. He would need a 13 just to lift it.
Hi All,
Just a quick query, my party just killed a giant that was trained as a figher / champion. He was wielding a larger than normal magic halberd
The dwarven fighter is naturally interested in the weapon however I don't imagine something that's nearly 20ft tall would be able to be wielded by someone less that 5ft tall. How would you guys rule on this as I don't think weapon size is part of the PHB
Thanks!
I would suggest one of the following solutions:
+1 to the disadvantage with it.
But I’d add, you could say he can use it at disadvantage, until he can find someone who is capable of re-sizing it for him and turn that into a personal side quest.
Also, please note that there are no rules in 5E for over-sized weapons granting any bonus damage. The Enlarge/Reduce spell adds 1d4 damage to attacks, but that's from the entire creature and its equipment growing. The enlarge-type abilities used by monsters works completely differently, such as the Duergar or Huge Gray Ooze, doubling its weapon damage dice while enlarged.
The RAW-est rule is probably that over-sized weapons simply can't be used, especially if they're really big (for say a creature two or more sizes larger?). But I like Jesse's suggestion, that they simply provide disadvantage to attacks made with them, as if they were a Heavy that the PC is too small to satisfy.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Looking at Gurt's Greataxe as an example we don't see any new weapon properties added, but its already a heavy weapon. I agree that adding the Heavy is a valid idea, but wouldn't impose disadvantage on a Dwarf since they're medium sized creatures despite being on the smaller end of the scale for medium. The thing I wanted to bring up though is Gurt's Greataxe specifically notes the weight of the axe as being 325lbs, a weight too heavy for a medium sized creature (even with 20 strength) to carry let alone wield effectively unless they had the powerful build feature.
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31
The evidence for large weapons is that base damage is multiplied by 2 for Large and 3 for Huge (e.g. all the weapons used by giants), but things like Mattock of the Titans didn't make it into 5e, so there's no standard. It seems consistent with existing rules to just copy heavy and say:
Again, large weapons for monsters seem to often have base damage multiplied by 2 when wielded by large monsters, I'm not sure there's any example (other than the Gurt's Greataxe linked above) that creates an implication that the juice is in the weapon and not the wielder.
But other than that, agree with Pantagruel's recommendation.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Gurt's Greataxe is also an exceptional case as being both an NPC specific weapon (you have to go way off-script in the adventure to have a chance at acquiring it), and a legendary weapon. It's not something a PC is ever meant to acquire, much less actually use.
RAW, weapons do not resize themselves in the way that wearable equipment does. If the weapon follows the template of a normal weapon (same base damage die & properties), but has the dimensions of a larger version, I'd just say it resizes to be in line with the "normal" version. If it is does not follow the template (such as Gurt's Greataxe being 3d12 slashing instead of 1d12 normally) then I would not allow it to resize as the whole thing is a special case.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Volume and mass increase with the cube of height, so treating large weapons for medium creatures as equivalent to heavy weapons for small creatures isn’t entirely sensible.
Even though dwarves are medium, I wouldn’t let a dwarf use a giant’s weapon at all. There’s no physically sensible means for such a character to use such a weapon; the size different is simply too great. A taller medium-sized creature I would allow to use it with disadvantage, provided they meet some minimum strength requirement (maybe 18, which strength-based classes can easily have by 4th level).
A dwarf's center of gravity is the soles of his feet, and they're thicc boys who swing things using muscle tension instead of limb motion :)
5E is supposed to be a straightforward rule system not a simulation, so drawing bright lines at creature size is probably nuanced enough without treating dwarves like small creatures and goliaths like large ones. Otherwise we start getting into the horror that is the fact that a 2 foot tall 25 lb kobold character is fully capable of grappling/lifting/dragging an 8 foot tall 340 lb goliath in a wrestling contest with good rolls, and careening down a slippery slope of trying to houserule some sort of height/weight based table to arbitrate things that the size categories are already fully addressing.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
From a balance perspective, allowing wielding one size up with disadvantage isn't too bad -- it we look at a 6th level fighter with 20 Str, a +1 greatsword is +9/2d6+6 (average 13), a +1 Large greatsword is +9/4d6+6 (average 20) with disadvantage. Against an AC 17 target (65% hit chance normal, 42.25% with disadvantage) either one averages 8.45 per attack, at lower AC the large is better, at higher AC the normal is better. However, the large weapon is significantly better in cases where you already have disadvantage from another source (because disadvantage doesn't stack) or where you have advantage (dropping your hit chance from 87.75% to 65% isn't that big a loss) so I'd want to add another balancing option.
A possibility is that oversized weapons require Weapon Proficiency (Large) in addition to giving disadvantage, where that is probably a feat with a strength requirement.
This is exactly why things like Monkey Grip are not in this edition.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
yeah, I played a lot of over-optimized Monkey Grip builds in 3.5, and it was kind of a relief to be able to step away from that in 5e :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Center of gravity of the dwarf isn't going to help them wield a weapon that is twice as tall as they are and with a handle as thick as their biceps. I agree that drawing a line at creature size is good enough for D&D as written, which is one reason D&D as written doesn't let anyone do what the OP is asking about. Things get blurrier once we start considering things the rules don't account for.
I would never suggest any kind of deterministic table for this sort of thing. I would advocate that the GM decide what does or doesn't make sense on a case-by-case basis (including your kobold vs. goliath example, although I personally find nothing problematic about it at all).
A halbred weighs 6 lbs. A giant is a huge creature so two size categories up from a dwarf. Going by the enlarge spell, that halbred should weigh 6x8x8 lbs or 384 pounds. What is the dwarf's strength? He would need a 26 to carry it unencumbered. He would need a 13 just to lift it.