Oversized Weapons in Dnd 5e are fun! 

Hehe, that was funny. Take a like.

Sometimes, even the players :P

jokes like this stopped being funny when i found out half of the parties that play "call of the netherdeep" kill the emerald pact cause "rival = kill" then bitch when the campaign breaks or when they just die cause emerald pact isnt ment to be fought at third level

mine are 100% are monsters...

Any cleric who doesnt heal is a monster.

You would still be unable to ever have advantage on those rolls because disadvantage.

@@sariourlecai1561 If you really are worried about hitting something drop the great sword and attack them with something else then, but in most situations its hard to argue with +10 damage per hit. :P Not to mention hitting them with something that weighs more than you do.

@@sariourlecai1561 advantage and disadvantage effects stack so if you had pact tactics wielding a heavy weapon it would be a straight roll but if you're flanking your enemy or the enemy has faerie fire on for example it would become advantage

@@lucasramey6427 no they dont, a single disadvantge cancel out all advantges

@@snowyowl7991 And vice versa too... If you have multiple Dis Adv stacked on your PC, then one Adv will make the dice roll, flat.

Come on once or twice is no big deal :)

I won't sit at your table.

I think this is something that had to be determined by RAI, instead of RAW. Since you're actively attacking with it instead of just setting the weapon down or throwing it aside, I think it makes sense that it stays at the enlarged size until it stops, at which point it would return to normal size.

@@sagatario58 RAI is that players don't use these rules. Players who are enlarged by some means use the extra damage as specified in the effect that has enlarged them, if any. The info presented here, in this video, is pulled from the section on making monsters in the DMG and is not applicable to players. Players and monsters don't use the same rules.

I think it would be cool to say "yes", not because it disallows larger ranged weapons, but because then you have to science that shit to figure out a way to make it work. Like, perhaps casting Enlarge on the ammunition, or a Contingency spell that makes ammo Enlarged when it hits a target... just a little something you have to think about, you know?

Scientifically when then arrow size shrinks it would accelerate. The energy put in to the oversized arrow is still present but now the arrow is easier to move because it has less mass. I would say you keep the extra damage.

@@Emohawk707 Typically, the attack action would conclude 1st as they are usually unable to be interrupted. For example, a 1 HP Goblin hits a PC who uses Hellish Rebuke. The hit & damage are still rolled, but only after those the Goblin get hit & die. So with that precedent, I could see the round of ammunition shrinking AFTER the round hits & damage as calculated. QCreyton is right in that these are MONSTER rules, not PC rules. While I see Kobold's case, I think he's stretching both RAI & RAW past their limits here when he claims PCs are Monsters. There might not be a disclaimer line that says 'PCs aren't Monsters', but does there really need to be? The "What is a Monster?" paragraph already goes as far as to mention that Monsters might be Friends or Rivals to the PCs, but still separates them. I'm certain that was reserved for things like Dragons, Archdruids & Priests in the Monster Manual who are literally sentient & capable of both good & evil. However, they are not necessarily built around the same rules as PCs.

Doesn't, I think it's called Divine Weapon, add a d4 and it's a first level spell? Does that make it OP?

sums it up quite nicely.

But what if you were to enlarge both the weapon and the player separately, like enlarge/reduce on a medium weapon to be used by a large rune knight?

@@mythicalthings1796 fair enough I missed that particular one. Still it is giving damage per hit plus an extra (adv on str check/save) which is comparable to a 3rd level spell. All of this could say they are bad spells but when compared in context of the type of spell they are enlarge reduce its probably one of the best in category (low spell level that buffs per hit damage, not a 1 time burst line a smite) The point being of it doubled your weapon dice as well not only would it massively out class the similar (and even higher level spells) when as explicitly written or is already best in category? That clearly shows the design intent. As has been pointed out by others I think this is a case of the specific description is what you get. Specific over general.

I know that this is an old post, but I wanted to respond. First, since this section of the DMG is called "Base the damage on the weapon" and the paragraph right before the ones in question says that if the monster is using a manufactured weapon, then the damage should be the same as the base weapon that a PC would get, and the paragraph says that a large CREATURE gets double damage dice. This would make it seem that it would apply to the PC, and that it doesn't matter if the PC isn't a monster and is irrelevant. Second, crusader mantle is a 3rd level spell and can choose the damage type, so if you think that the enemy is vulnerable to a certain damage type, you get double that 1d4 (or 2d4) per hit. Elemental weapon, once again, 3rd level spell and can choose the damage type, so if you think that the enemy is vulnerable to a certain damage type, you get double that 1d4 (of 2d4) per hit. So a 2nd level spell that does +1d4 is not that OP on its own and only becomes OP if you can buff the base damage dice. If it doesn't buff the base damage, you haven't proven that, because it does NOT say that it replaced the increased damage dice. It DOES say that it does "1d4 extra damage" which would make it look like it would addon to an increased base damage dice, RAW. If I'm wrong, I would like to know the rule, RAW, that says that it would replace the damage dice increase. Third, as for the Rune Knight, their Giant Might ability says that it only increases the size of what you are wearing, not carrying (unlike enlarge/reduce that includes what you are carrying and specifically says that the weapon damage increases), so you might have to go out of your way to get a large weapon or find a way to enchant it to enlarge it with you. And the 1d6 once on your turn, looks like it can still be added on, sense it can be added even if you don't become large and can be added to an unarmed attack. The Rune Knight's damage potential is higher, but the Battlemaster gets to do things like push, topple or increase their to-hit chances to hit more often, that help offset at least some of the reduced damage (and I will admit that it might not offset all of the lower damage potential). I do admit that some of the other subclasses to need a boost. Now that 48d6 damage with a Rune Knight, I think, is a little disingenuous. To get that number requires a few things, 1) You need to get to Level 20. 2) You need to go straight fighter without multiclassing. 3) You need to use your action surge, which you only get 2 of per short rest and can only use one per turn. and 4) You have to succeed at 8 attack rolls in a row. You are not getting that anywhere near that 48d6 each round. Most rounds (if you don't get to level 20 or the fighter decides to multiclasses), you will be getting (with the extra 1d6/turn, and not accounting for misses and critical hit which offset each other) 19d6 (66.5 ave dam) if you hit all 3 times (and 37d6 (129.5 ave dam) with action surge if you hit all 6 times), instead of 6d6 (or 12d6 with action surge). Which doesn't sound to overpowered. Now let's look at the Paladin. A 19th level Paladin gets improved divine smite at level 11 that adds 1d8 to each hit and can choose to smite after he rolls a 20 on a d20 attack roll, which means that he can get 4d6 +12d8 (68 ave dam) (+2d8 if the enemy is a fiend or undead) in a single hit, 5 times a day and 10 time a day at lower damage (between 4d6 +6d8 and 4d6 +10d8 (+2d8 if the enemy is a fiend or undead)) without accounting for recovering spell slots of 3rd level or lower from the optional ability "Harness Divine Power". And this is on top of his regular attack rolls, proving always on Aura of Protection and any Chanel of Divinity from the subclass. Plus, if he picks up the Arcana skill and allowed to make "spell scrolls of holy weapon" during down time, can do 2d8 extra damage per hit (4d8 with critical hits) without using up spell slots. So, no, I don't think that the oversized weapons are OP.

Player characters can be friends or rivals to each other. The point still stands.

@@inquisitorkobold6037 you clearly haven't read the comment you're responding to.

@@KommandoCraftLP check magic weapon "Gurt’s Greataxe", lol

@@Bam_Byk it is an interesting item but the extra dice are very obviously part of the balancing as a legendary item, therefore a specific note rather than a general rule.

Yea, Enlarge/Reduce and Rune Knight are clearly not intended to be used with the oversized weapon rules. Not super game breaking if you want to do that, though.

Exactly

Ah but wait, many spells explicitly state targets as ‘creatures’ and can target Player Characters. So dividing the monster definition off by saying players aren’t creatures doesn’t work. Further, the monster definition is a clarification, to inform the reader that yes NPCs and civilized humanoids are also monsters. It doesn’t negate the previous statement that a monster is any creature, it just clarifies that yes even your NPCs are monsters.

Given older Editions about Large+ Weapons... Why did WotC leave that behind? It's a miss step on their part. Just like 5e Spelljammer, recently.

​@Stefan Erwin Baumer There's no reason he couldn't combine PAM and runeknight... it would give a weaponized bonus action to use on subsequent rounds and make the damage dice of that extra hit bigger too... If he takes a two level dip into hexblade he could also just buy an oversized weapon and summon it on demand and then no wizard needed. Or idk buy a pack horse and get a custom sheath. The problem is that there's no tradeoff here in actuality. He can do it all on his own if he were only willing to try to be as busted as possible. And at level 5 It gets more gross... What if the caster has metamagic and twins it? What if he has an easy way to get himself advantage on every turn like a familiar or something? What if he does it all on his own and the wizard casts web anyway?

@Stefan Erwin Baumer I totally agree, that's why I allow the "gary stu" fighter subclass in my game It adds 1000 damage to every attack, and 10 to your AC, it's balanced, since after all, since you're playing this, you're not playing a battlemaster shit man, show me a fighter subclass that adds this much damage and maybe you'd have a point But hell, it doesn't even matter, this was clearly not intended, PC's are not monsters, kobold is just plain wrong, and using the worst of RAW lawyering to justify it yes, I think enlarge should be better than it currently is, and I'm not stoked about the fighter feature either, buffing both is a good idea, this isn't a good idea though, at all. All you're doing is invalidating everyone who deigned to play a martial and didn't exploit this horribly lawyered rule

Takes up the wizard's concentration, it's fine.

Important thing to note, larger sizes from monsters do not duplicate dices. They add one die to the pool. So a large Greatsword would do 3d6, while a large Greataxe would do 2d12. It’s the same with brutal critical. A brutal critical from a Greatsword deals 3d6, not 4d6. That’s why barbarians favor axes and fighters (who can reroll 1’s and 2’s) favor swords.

@@firechaser4095 That's not correct. It specifically says "Double the weapon dice if a creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan." Brutal Critical specifies the exact number of dice you add on top of your critical hit, so you're correct there, but for oversized weapons it's a straight multiplication. If it's 2d6 and it says to double the weapon dice then it's now 4d6, similar to how a normal critical hit doubles all of the damage dice for the attack. So with the Ascendant Dragon's Wrath Maul, which is 5d6, oversized weapon rules for a Huge sized creature would triple the weapon dice, making it 15d6. Elemental Cleaver is an additional 2d6 but is not the weapon's inherent damage dice, so it stays the same. So in total that's 17d6. On a crit you double all the damage dice for that attack, making it 34d6, and with Brutal Critical that's an additional 3d6 damage dice added to the crit. Hence *37d6* damage.

True... That's WotC for ya... There are many Unspoken Rules in 5e. Like in Misty Step for example. It's assumed that you teleport with your stuff even though that spell doesn't mention it.

Monster Tag is one subject... Large+ Weapons for PCs is another... Why stop players from having Large+ Weapons when you have MAGIC that breaks DM more so than a bigger wack stick.

Enlarge/Reduce also gives you advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws, and nothing says you ignore the extra weapon dice from the size increase.

The term "monster" is never used in a definitive or semantic way in any sourcebook; they really are interchangeable. But it's less exciting if the book was called the "Creature Manual" or the spell was called "Hold Creature." If anything is referred to a "monster" instead of a creature or the like, it is solely for flavor.

@@Agamemnonoverhead When you make a term that's "monster" and it includes "creatures" in it, they are immediately non-interchangeable, also the monster description says monsters are creatures that may be allies or foes of the player characters, clearly stating them as NPCs

Ignore it... Spell Rules trumps Generic Rules. The Enlarge Spell or Portion doesn't say anything about Item Weight.

It doesn't

Technically, you don't need to be a monster to use a monsters weapon, so i think the whole point he's trying to make there misses the mark either way. I think that's also why the second paragraph talking about a "creature" is worded that way. I'd say it's at the DMs discretion to decide whether a PC is proficient with and/or strong enough to use such a weapon though.

For what reason would a mundane weapon shrink to your size

@@thebluerose9485 no I'm asking if you take a magic weapon

RAW, it wouldn't. "Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it’s Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it’s Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12." The requirement is the creature BEING Large, and creatures with Powerful Build are not: they count as Large for purposes that are not mentioned in the rules for oversized weapons.

​@@tibot4228 While I have my hang ups about how you described, and feel that something isn't correct there I do agree that it is not supposed to work rules as written. However, the rules as written in this case is shaky at best, and one could definitely say the opposite without being wrong since their isn't a lot of delineation or specificity between what requires a large character and what requires a character to be large. Mind you pushing, carrying, and lifting are very broad with lots of potential applications the rules did not account for. In the real world being able to lift a weapon doesn't mean you can wield it effectively, but even a small sized character can lift a huge weapon with enough points in strength so there is the question of whether powerful build would make a difference in wielding it effectively. I personally say no, viewing it as a matter of weight rather than carry capacity or strength.

Yes, that is how it works

@@haenhaen4282 No, it's not.

Kobold runs on the assumption of at least mid-high optimization in terms of game difficulty, which you obviously do not operate within (perfectly fine) considering you have multiple melee martials in your campaign. Echo knight is also still the strongest melee martial even with oversized weapons allowed....

@@geodude03 You appear to imply that any campaign that contains multiple melee martials cannot be difficult? Why do you think that?

@@masterfreeman117 it can't be difficult for both melee martials and actually optimised characters in the same campaign

If your deadly encounters can get stomped by players who roll every attack with disadvantage I don't know what to tell you. If a player dedicates at least 3 levels into fighter just to multi-class into Rune Knight, that's worthy of an extra 5-7 damage per hit.

@@geodude03 Your statement confuses me. Following this logic a campaign that is difficult for optimized character is not difficult for melee martials, since apparently it cannot be difficult for both at the same time.

RAW, it works for sure if the weapon was meant for a creature that was only 1 size larger than you, though you need to be able to carry and lift it in the first place.

So you become godzilla size and ypur dm just says: instead of step on them youll have to pick them with that toothpick that is your greatsword Sounds sad... This is why some subclases are kinda incomplete, like the thief with the bonus action item, some items can be usee as bonus action to attack, and the item itself didnt say it makes damage other than the one on the item, but also say 'make an attack as an improvised weapon and -add the item effect-' but on improvised weapons section it says that ANY improvised weapon deals a damage of 1d4+strmod, so a vial of oil or acid actually make that damage Is like a puzzle of finding rules that connect with each other like a conspiracy board

I don't agree with that but they could. Only chapter 9 of the DMG is relevant for DMs and magic items.

@@PackTactics i play a lot of different RPGs D&D is the only one that has esentially 2 different core books (3 if you count the monster manual) I just like that if im playing pathfinder for example that i can crack my book open and see all the down time activities, and the time/gold/material/skill cost/requirements for each, and any crafting skill has listed out requirements for making stuff. If the GM has different opinions on those then at least i some frame of refrence for similar activities. (I understand not wanting monster stat blocks in a player guide because meta gamers gonna meta and all but that could be gotten around by making it easier to home brew monsters in a way thats balanced... which is hard) Playing a wizard in one of my 5e groups and i keep having to look up online scroll crafting requirements any time i get even a hint of down time because i just cant find it in the DMG and im pretty sure its not in the PHB and i also know they changed it in one of the supliment books that the DM is using... every time i find i dont have enough gold despite having paper and a magic quill (order of scribes wizard). Also played a coffeelock in a ghosts of saltmarsh campaign and wanted to make a magic poison dagger with a wyvern tooth i acquired... the game stopped for like 20 minutes because the DM had to crack open the DMG and scour it for appropriate rules when i could have just found it my self while the game was in motion or before the session if it was in the PHB... i like crafting... and if im not planning on running a game i dont like looking in a Dungeon Masters guide because i dont want to be accused of metagaming or something

What eldritch shenanigans are you using to make your comment 2 weeks old?

@@BjornIdiottsonn probably early access (as from being a patrion-member) or actual eldritch magic.

@@BjornIdiottsonn 😈

@@BjornIdiottsonn he's got powers and you can to all you gotta do is sign on the dotted line...

*Pulls out comically large sword*

Actually... Not on a per size basis. In 3.5, it was double damage dice every TWO size categories. Once you get to five or more size increases yeah 3.5 is going to pull ahead, but for all but the craziest examples you're going to be better off with 5e size increases. Example: Greatsword, 3.5/5e Medium: 2d6 Large: 3d6/4d6 Huge: 4d6/6d6 Gargantuan: 6d6/8d6 Colossal: 8d6/10d6 Colossal+1: 12d6/12d6 Colossal+2: 16d6/14d6 See how big it needs to get for 3.5 to win out? The reason why 3.5 would look crazy is because there were ways to increase the effective size of weapons without actually increasing their size, and there were exceptionally large base weapons like Bastard Swords and fullblades. Mighty Whallop comes to mind... Even then, it required the GM to allow effective sizes larger than colossal, which was far from a guarantee.

@@RequiemRelentless I know that looks ridiculous but if you look up what people can do in 3.5 that is not really that impressive. The record for movement speed in a turn is faster than the speed of light. You could literally walk every 5 foot square in the United States in a turn. Getting 6 (or 5 really cause 3.5 didnt make every race medium) is almost nothing in that game.

@@RequiemRelentless I was pretty sure it just followed the damage die steps that they published in a few places. You also had Heavy weapons that got the same kind of boost to damage, though for a penalty to attack.

@@AzraelThanatos the table followed the math I outlined and yes, heavy was another way to effectively add size without actually adding size.

4th edition was even crazier. (×3) meaning a gigantic weapon did it's extra damage three times, then was multiplied by three again.

Also from SKT, the Potion of Giant Size follows these rules exactly- it makes you huge upon drinking it, and triples the damage dice for your enlarged weapons

@@BjornIdiottsonn so becomes 9dx?

Gurt's Greataxe is originally a giant's weapon, not a weapon englarged to be Giant-size (Huge), so it's not the same thing.

@@kori228 this is about oversized weapons, not weapons that have been enlarged. The reason he brings up weapons that have been enlarged is for the sake of oversizing them, so it very much is the same thing.

@@BjornIdiottsonn but if that reading was expected, why is it not also the way Enlarge is written? The potion specifies the 3x damage, Enlarge only says extra d4.

I’d love to hear the explanation from the guard who has to somehow explain that the gates of the keep were breached by a flying tree that then vanished into nothing…

@@NINJAfries07 magic ez

In waterdeep dragon hiest one of the mercs that you fight literally has an oversized longbow or something like that, that does 2d6

Define Monster when PvP exists in 5e? Not to mention that Player Races are monsters too...

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 PCs are not monsters.

@@infinitedm5396 Then what's a DMPC??? Is that a Monster??? Or... When the DM controls another PC (not currently controlled by players) for story related reasons? Is that a Monster???

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 You answered your own question. PvP stands for player versus player. Even the loose logic used by Kobold and the tabletop site he quotes, that information comes from the DmG meant for DMs. Monsters are anyone/anything being played by the DM who is not explicitly taking over a PC. Players race =/= monsters. A player abjurer wizard has less HP potential than PC abjurer wizard. And given the recent release of MotM I doubt you want your spellcasters having "spell like abilities" that aren't spells. Well assuming you're a DM. A player maybe, this is an optimization channel but I think we know how much inherent magic like that would break the game.

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 DM PCs are not official. That is a homebrew idea

the Oversized Weapons are not even a rule, they are an alternative way to increase the damage of a creature to increase their CR in a "natural way" in the Create Monster section of the DMG. Like instead of saying the Large creature does 5d4 you say it does 2d12, almost same average damage but the 2d12 is more "justified" while 5d4 is more "gamey"

Magic items are in the exact same book, as are two subclasses

@@haenhaen4282 Those subclasses are an example of PC style enemies, not meant for the players, magic items are for the DM to place not for the players to choose. Both have a different place, neither is in the Monster Creation rules section

Natural Large+ Weapons are not the same as magically/otherwise enlarged+ Weapons, in 5e, RAW. Just buy your Large Sword at the Shop behind the Storage Boxes...

Disagree with you absolutely, Enlarge/Reduce is an additional magical affect. Giant's Might extra damage does not require you to become large first before gaining the benefits of the damage. An oversized weapon does not lose its damage simply because it was due to a magical affect. This is clearly seen in previous editions where the rules were better written.

The RAW could go either way, but RAI is clearly that the enlarged weapon gets ONLY the extra d4, not the multiplier.

@@PH03NIX96 I said nothing about the interaction with Giant's Might. This is the case of the specific rule (the effect of Enlarge/Reduce on your current weapon) versus the general rule (DMG paragraph on oversized weapons). As Jeremy Crawford has said many times before, specific rules override general ones, so the bonus damage, since it's already been factored into the spell's effect, is the 1d4. f the weapon is already oversized BEFORE the spell hits, then you get the original oversized weapon damage on top of the spell's effect, because the differing circumstances would invoke both rules separately. Giant's Might, on the other hand, specifies that it applies its damage to the attack, not the weapon, so the extra nd6 per turn would apply on top of all of this.

@@TheMountainLynx I'm with you on this. The specific feature (spell) states exactly what happens, there's no ambiguity. If the DM says you get double the weapon dice, that's their decision. I've considered this build and chose not to ask the question. I thought about what I would rule if one of my players tried this and I quickly said "the spell says how much extra damage" same for Giant's Might, it clearly states how much extra damage is done because you've grown in size. However... the new giant barbarian subclass ... doesn't? odd...

@@TheMountainLynx I don't care if you didn't say anything about GM, its still applicable. A magical affect does not negate a non magical affect unless specifically stated. Enlarge gives 1d4 extra damage RAW PLUS THE OVERSIZED WEAPON. It does not replace it JC has been wrong several times and has even went on record to say he purposely gives wrong rulings to stir shit up and make players think. He's a jackass and his rulings should never be taken into account.

This comment reminds me of getting loot in an MMO. You beat the boss and win their sword, but all of a sudden it's half the size and nerfed halfway to oblivion.

I’d be inclined to agree if not for the fact that on the very next page, they begin using the terms creature and monster interchangeably: “MODIFYING CREATURES Despite the versatile collection of monsters in this book, you might be at a loss when it comes to finding the perfect creature for part of an adventure. Feel free to tweak an existing creature to make it into something more useful for you, perhaps by borrowing a trait or two from a different monster or by using a variant or template, such as the ones in this book. Keep in mind that modifying a monster, including when you apply a template to it, might change its challenge rating. For advice on how to customize creatures and calculate their challenge ratings, see the Dungeon Master’s Guide.” The very thesis of this passage relies on monsters and creatures meaning the same thing. This works in both RAW and RAI. The passage Kobold sited doesn’t even say anything about needing to be a monster to wield and oversized weapon. The passage says “A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker,” which also fundamentally applies to all creatures including player characters and means they would be able to wield oversized weapons this way. It just means the players would need to obtain the weapon from an oversized monster.

Given the Player Races... Monsters = Creatures = Player Character. Especially in PvP...

It defines monsters in opposition to player characters, 5e is not a simulation an npc elf is not the same as avpc elf

@@JustLooking1996 Then what is PvP in 5e? Even in the new Spelljammer. Some PC Races are considered as Monstrosities and Constructs etc. instead of Humanoids. Not to mention that there is an official Large+ Weapon in one of the adventure books that PCs can use. And then... There are DMPCs, for better or worst. Since DMs can play as other PCs for story related reasons.

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 5e isn't built around pvp, and even then player characters are player characters. You shouldn't use rules for npcs on pcs and expect the results to make any sense.

@@JustLooking1996 That's true... A Monster who throws a massive boulder will do a lot of damage, based on the DMG. While a Monk will reflect that boulder back to the Monster but with far less damage dice in comparison. As for Large+ Weapons... There's already an official Large+ Weapon in one of the adventure books. It's a shame that 5e (or OneDnD) may never expand in its many mechanics and content. But that said... Let PCs use Large+ Weapons instead of enlarging their usual weapons. And give it 1 extra damage dice based on the weapon with +5ft of more melee range (grid map). Instead of what the DMG gives to NPCs for Large+ Weapons. It's just odd that NPCs can wield Large+ Weapons but PCs cannot, outside of that one Large+ Weapon in the official adventure book.

Gurt’s Greataxe

Yeah, just the fact that the definition was longer than a sentence shows an obvious rules as intended and taking just that first sentence as proof of it being RAW isn't exactly what RAW means. That being said I don't think it's a bad change, so long as allowing it at any given table makes the martial more relevant as opposed to making one martial more relevant and any others that don't have growing mechanics even less so. A good tool in the DM arsenal to consider, but no way actually intended or should be used universally in my opinion.

Oh, so we're just gonna ignore the first half of the definition entirely? Where in the Oversized Weapons section it is specifically ruled for creatures?

@@Agamemnonoverhead Of course not, a Trade off of disadvantage for 6 or 7 extra or damage is fair enough and something that some characters would choose and something that some characters would not. More importantly for what we're talking about, it is also very explicitly and clearly stated in a seperate paragraph. We are objecting to the statement that sizing weapon damage is an accepted rule which he is presenting an argument for, Even as we also acknowledge that it could be a useful rule to allow despite that.

@@johnarnold8485 If we're working RAW, it would definitely apply otherwise the definition of "creature" becomes fluid. Either that or someone's got to admit this was written poorly

The problem in saying that pc = monsters, is that there are some rules specifically carved for monster. Like the one that says that a monster when reach 0 hitpoints usually are destroy (no death saves). As I said before, I am all for this being applied to players, and this is definitely poorly written, but if you define that moster = pcs, them..... as half-life once said it... "Prepare for unforseen consequences"

Technically, it says "the attack deals 1d4 extra damage", and not the weapon, so I think it is still legit.

2.5 extra damage from becoming 8(?) Times larger feels bad man. Mans made of helium

@@simonfsson817 If you’re using enlarge reduce for the extra damage you’re doing it wrong. Get yourself a scroll of hunter’s mark and use enlarge reduce for what it was really made; Wrestling dragons and giants. There’s nothing more satisfying than proning those bitches

How can you be sure the 1d4 extra damage isn't ON TOP of the increased weapon size? I ask that, but there is probably sage advice on this. However, if the person drops their weapon, a sorcerer twins enlarge on them and their weapon, and then they pick it up, it should be the large sized weapon's double dice plus the 1d4.

@@maitrecorbeau_gm yeah but it's "the attacks with them", meaning the weapon. So it wouldn't apply for unarmed strike for example.

ikr I've been trying to figure out how to make this viable RAW for ever since I have a pc like this

@@TheFigandro Play the original Kobold. If you’re attacking with an ally and not in sunlight your attacks are straight rolls with a heavy weapon.

@@lancey_1680 even in sunlight as long as you are next to an ally one advantage cancels all disadvantages

@@TheFigandro or play Barb, or samurai fighter... or you prolly have flanking rules at your table since they are used a bunch

The Heavy Property is not connected to the Size Property, in 5e. It's a separate mechanic that only affects small creatures/players. Unless you upscale the weapon into a Heavy + Huge Weapon etc.

If you're talking about rune knight, because you can grapple a creature up to one size larger than you and in DnD there is no size category above gargantuan, you would only need enlarge before 18th level to wrestle with the tarrasque. And frankly being able to wrestle the tarrasque at 3rd level with the help of magic (which you can get from two races for free) is pretty damn bad ass XD But on the whole I do agree, martials really do need buffs. And not just straight damage buffs, although those would help. I personally feel martials need more options to do more interesting things in combat aside from spamming the attack action.

Honestly as a rune knight fighter you barely even need the spell, considering how powerful those rune abilities are And since you're getting bigger you can control a wider area, especially when utilizing a glaive Edit: forgot to mention that for solo tarrasque suplexing shenanigans you can be a Goliath rune knight

@@fallenangeldraco3778 Goliath increases your carrying capacity but doesn't let you grapple creatures two sizes larger than you.

@@The_Crimson_Witch that is true, but it also makes you one size larger for pushing, pulling and lifting So as a Goliath rune knight you can push around the tarrasque and even lift it up and suplex it if the rolls allow it, because even in the early levels where giant's might makes you large you have the carrying capacity and push, pull, lift strength of a huge creature, but if that's not enough for you, when you can become huge you count as gargantuan for those attributes

@@fallenangeldraco3778 push drag and pull are extensions of carrying capacity. They have no mechanical effect on shoving or grappling, as stupid as that sounds

You can do it in 1 turn. Giants might is a bonus action and the spell an action. Works great for intimidation;)

​@@woutvanostaden1299 yup i put 2 or 1 if you skip a attack. ty for the reply

So I can carry a true great sword (huge) and dual wield with it... Not optimal but its the concept. Or to put Stat Blocks on... Take any weapon from the shop and sell the Huge/Large etc. versions of it.

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 I don’t see how your reply corresponds to my comment. Did you accidentally reply to the wrong person?

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 They didn't mention anything about dual wielding?

@@LocalMaple Your comment reminded my of Dark Souls... But in RAW... 5e doesn't have rules to support Large+ Weapons beyond the DMG. Even the Item Shop doesn't sell Large+ Weapons in 5e.

@@pinkliongaming8769 Anyone can Dual Wield anything. The "Light" Property is only mentioned in the Bonus Action Dual Wield Attack. Just ignore it and use the Fighter's Extra Attack to strike with your other weapon or fist etc. Remember to get Feats to add Proficiency to some types of attacks. And, in the optional rules, Improvised Weapon that are similar to your Proficient Weapons can apply your Proficiency Damage. Even in the Light Property. It doesn't rule out that this Property is the only way to dual wield. But if you want to use that specific Bonus Action, then take the Feats, Dual Wielder and Two Hand Weapon Fighter (Not the Fighting Style) in order to add your Proficiencies to the BA Attack and to ignore the Light Property part of the BA Attack rule... Oh... And get Unarmed Combat Fighting Style since it's great synergy with Dual Wielder. The Proficiency application of this Fighting Style is not negated by the BA Attack under Dual Wielder do to the fact that Unarmed Combat has it's own damage calculations.

Not really... It could be both meanings for giant damage. And for multi attacking PC Pets... Is that a RAW or Homebrew???

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 it’s based on the restrictions on early Beastmaster Rangers and the lack of the multi attack feature in the Tasha’s alternatives and subsequent pet classes. There are features designed to make monsters a bigger threat to the party that they don’t want PCs to use. I personally have no issue with this. Similarly, I would gladly let a PC use the Large Weapon rules in the monster creation section. As Kobold says, marginals could use the bump.

Giants might and Rage have a similar number of uses, and also both add some damage and advantage on Strength checks and saves. They’re also the main features of the class/subclass, meaning they should be comparable. The extra damage die is 1d6 on 1 attack per turn for the Giants Might feature. The specific benefits of Giants might end here unless you include Extra Dice from huge weapons. Zealot Barbarians get more damage than this from just their subclass. Add onto that that they also get Rage bonus damage and Resistances. I think of you include bonus damage, it’s mainly going to make your Rune Knight not feel worse than a Zealot on every occasion ever.

@@Janders797 Why not just combine the two? First round, Rage. Second round Giants Might. Greatsword of 2d6{3d6 for those who use the above mentioned rules]+strength + d6 + d6+half level + whatever else ya got.

@@DarkSoul620 My preferred option is just a couple of large/huge/gargantuan hand crossbows and the cbow expert/sharpshooter feat. 20 levels of fighter yields 10d6/15d6/20d6 + 1d10 + 75 damage before adding in magic weapons and/or ammunition. Now you are truly a ballista launcher.

How? None of these features are relevant, as far as I see

What determines the weapons you can wield without disadvantage is determined by your size capacity. Goliath is literally stated to count as one size larger in terms of carrying capacity. Ego, Goliaths can weird Large weapons.

@@BoomDriveProductions I don’t think that’s right, but I can understand why you might come to that conclusion. It never states carrying capacity has anything to do with weapon size, only that creature size matters, and Goliath’s are still medium creatures.

Goliaths were large in previous editions iirc. WoTC has been extremely reluctant to give players large races because 5th edition is based on the premise that players are stupid and everything has to be simple. FOR EXAMPLE PLAYER VS MONSTER CENTAURS

@@PH03NIX96 I assumed it had more to do with published dungeons, since there are some where Large creatures would have to keep squeezing the whole way through and may be unable to access some vital areas.

This!

Too bad thats not anywhere in writing

They are. He's a power gamer trying to double damage output with a 2nd level spell. If the justification is "you grow bigger, thus use X rules' it would tell you, or that would supercede the bonus 1d4 damage.

I disagree, the d4 represents the extra strength mod damage a creature would have by becoming larger

An enlarged weapon /= an oversized weapon. So in theory, you could pick up a giant's Large sword after being enlarged yourself and get that doubled dice, but you wouldn't get the extra 1d4/1d6 since that was not a weapon oversized as part of the spell. However, I personally think that as a DM I'd totally let the players have this because its not going to break the game in half, I can just throw more enemies at them.

As a dm I'd personally react a lot better to, "Yo I think this shit would be fun and not unbalance things that much..." than "THIS IS RAW. Look it's in there. Players are monsters despite this definition only enumerating non-player entities as monsters. and another thing, ignore the principle that specific trumps general it should get an additional d4 and double the damage dice because...??? I think I made my point."

I think the fact that they didn’t put enlarged weapons in the weapons section can support this reading But personally I would love if my DM reads enlarge reduce in the way that you mentioned

Also on page 7 of the phb is the “Specific Trumps General” rule

@@Gaichou here's why I'd allow it: 1. the spell says you add to the damage, not that the added damage becomes 1d4. Which is distinction WotC have used before to clear up certain interactions and as a result means that Gator is likely right about how these effects interact. 2. Giving weapons this extra damage makes it still an inefficient use of a spell slot a lot of the time, Because damage and mass control spells are just that much more powerful than weapons (also casters usually have access to all damage types where each weapon has 2 at most, making weapons drop in usefulness even more.) 3. +1d4 on a 2d6+4 doesn't really feel like it fits with the description of a weapon becoming double its original size, wouldn't you agree? For those worried about balance, I'd like to point out that a group of Shadows is a TPK machine, but RAW they're no more dangerous than a Swarm of Beetles.

@@Gaichoutrue, but there are legendary weapons that could count as over-sized such as Gruts Greataxe in which you’re only limited by your amount of strength to actually wield it (it weighs like 300~ lbs) since it’s originally meant for a frost giant

@Stefan Erwin Baumer Do you want rule books that are a thousand pages?? Or would you rather just apply common sense occasionally??

Human NPC Human PC Both are monsters...

​@Stefan Erwin Baumer They are guidelines in the DMG on how one might create or modify a monster from the Monster Manual. The section heading these "rules" are found in is "Creating a Monster Stat Block." Player characters don't have stat blocks. These guidelines on size and weapon damage are written within the context of creating balanced stat blocks for monsters and NPCs. It is _irrelevant_ that they use 'creature' instead of 'monster' in the description, because the _entire section_ it is written in isn't defining rules or guidelines for player characters; it's for creating monster stat blocks. If player characters are monsters, then we should be able to apply anything and everything that applies to monsters to Player Characters as well. So players must also have Challenge Ratings because monsters have Challenge Ratings. If I do a CR calculation on my PC and find my CR is higher than my character level, well then I need to roll more hit die because CR is intrinsically tied to hit die. And oh look, a monster's size also determines which die a monster uses for it's HP calculation. Medium monsters use a d8 hit die, so all the characters that don't use a d8 aren't following monster rules. Weird. Monsters can also have base stats up to 30 without any special rules or magic items. I should also be able to determine the creature type of my PC by looking through the Monster Manual and picking one that suits my idea for my character as is described in the paragraph about determining monster type. Heck, it even says "Make the monster whatever size you want". Great! Heck we don't even need the PHB because all the rules for creating monsters and similar creatures are all right here. Or maybe, just maybe, cherry picking a few sentences from the section of the _Dungeon Masters' Guide_ that provides guidelines on how to create or modify monster and npc stat blocks and applying it out of context to anything that could be considered a monster based on a vague definition of monster found in the _Monster Manual_ is an extraordinarily bad faith argument.

@Stefan Erwin Baumer The size of the weapon doesn't grant the extra damage as per the description. A large greataxe still does 1d12. All the features that increase a player character's size explicitly state what happens as a result. They do get extra damage, but not the same damage bonus that is relegated for balancing monster stat blocks. The entire video conflates 'guidlelines for DMs regarding monster stat blocks' with 'rules for players' which makes any implication you draw from them useless as they are vacuously true.

@Stefan Erwin Baumer The implication of your entire argument is based on the same premise of this video, but good try.