Large size spiked gauntlets on a medium creature

[Arts.Edge]

I'm playing a goliath, and if possible I'd like to take advantage of the powerful build ability* to use a large size spiked gauntlet instead of a normal sized one, which would allow me to deal 1d6 damage with it instead of 1d4.

I'm wondering if anyone has thought-out opinions on whether this is or should be legal, or better yet, specific evidence to point to in support of a ruling either way.

*which allows usage of weapons one size larger than normal for the creature without penalty, i.e. a medium sized goliath can use a greatsword (large-size longsword) one-handed without penalty

[Cog]

A gauntlet doesn't deal damage itself; it modifies your unarmed strike. Large gauntlets would gain you no benefit.

As for whether it should work... maybe, but I wouldn't let it stack with Improved Natural Attack.

[Daftendirekt]

A gauntlet doesn't deal damage itself; it modifies your unarmed strike. Large gauntlets would gain you no benefit.

As for whether it should work... maybe, but I wouldn't let it stack with Improved Natural Attack.

Spiked Gauntlets, however, are listed as a weapon in the PHB. More to the point, you threaten when you wear spiked gauntlets. So, yes, you can do large-sized spiked gauntlets with a goliath (or a half-giant, like my PBP character.)

[MeeposFire]

A gauntlet doesn't deal damage itself; it modifies your unarmed strike. Large gauntlets would gain you no benefit.

As for whether it should work... maybe, but I wouldn't let it stack with Improved Natural Attack.

spiked gauntlet not a regular gauntlet.

I would say yes this would work.

Though you have the rule wrong. Powerful build allows you to wield a weapon one size larger using the same rules. You do not use a greatsword one handed and that is not a large size long sword. A large long sword and a great sword have very similar stats but they are not the same. powerful build would allow you to wield a large longsword in one hand with no penalty (you could wield it two handed but that would offer no real benefit over using a medium greatsword unless you had something like a feat that only boosts long swords) or a large great sword in two hands without penalty (3d6 damage). It is a subtle difference your idea is closer to how 3.0 deals with weapon size.

[Cog]

Ah, yeah. Large spiked gauntlets are A-Okay, as stated.

[Arts.Edge]

spiked gauntlet not a regular gauntlet.

I would say yes this would work.

Though you have the rule wrong. Powerful build allows you to wield a weapon one size larger using the same rules. You do not use a greatsword one handed and that is not a large size long sword. A large long sword and a great sword have very similar stats but they are not the same. powerful build would allow you to wield a large longsword in one hand with no penalty (you could wield it two handed but that would offer no real benefit over using a medium greatsword unless you had something like a feat that only boosts long swords) or a large great sword in two hands without penalty (3d6 damage). It is a subtle difference your idea is closer to how 3.0 deals with weapon size.

I don't understand in what way large-size longswords are different from greatswords. When a weapon is scaled upward in size, the weight is doubled and the damage is increased as per a table available on the SRD, and the differences between a longsword and a greatsword follow this exactly.

I could imagine that you'd make a distinction between the two for the purposes of feats like weapon focus etc, however this seems to be drawing a distinction where no distinction exists in order to fit the rules more neatly. If a goliath wielded a sword that weighed 8lbs and did 2d6 / 19-20 x2 in one hand, who's going to say that it's not actually a greatsword sized for a medium creature, but a longsword sized for a large, and therefore his weapon focus (greatsword) feat doesn't apply?

If the only basis for claiming that a greatsword is not a large-size longsword is that certain feats apply, then the argument is circular:
Why don't the feats apply? Because they're two different types of weapons. Why are they two different types of weapons? Because the feats don't apply. But if you could point me to a difference between the two weapons beyond that weapons-specific feats apply to one and not the other, then I would accede the point to you.

As to "you do not wield a greatsword one-handed" the only direct evidence for that seems to be that greatsword in the 3.5 PHB are listed under "two handed weapons" in the table, though in the description nothing precludes my interpretation.

As further support, the entry under "monkey grip" from complete warrior states that without the feat, under "normal" conditions: "A larger light weapon is considered one-handed weapon, a larger one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon". Which clearly means that a large longsword is considered a two-handed weapon for a medium creature.

Maybe you'd insist on it as a fact with no explanation, they simply are two different kinds of weapons, but again, without there being any definable difference, I think this is an indefensible claim.

[Claudius Maximus]

It is a definable claim, because according to the rules they are different things. Most importantly:


A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

A goliath would take a -2 penalty on attack rolls with a greatsword in one hand, but would not take any penalty wielding a large longsword. There is also the matter of a greatsword costing 50 gp when a large longsword costs 30. There is thus a difference in the stats of the weapons.

[Cog]

I don't understand in what way large-size longswords are different from greatswords. When a weapon is scaled upward in size, the weight is doubled and the damage is increased as per a table available on the SRD, and the differences between a longsword and a greatsword follow this exactly.
The distinction is in their manufacture. A medium greatsword is designed to be held in no less than two human-size hands, while a large longsword is designed to be held in one larger hand while allowing two such hands. The proportions of the grips required for those situations would be different, meaning one would be awkward in the hands of a differently-sized creature.

As to "you do not wield a greatsword one-handed" the only direct evidence for that seems to be that greatsword in the 3.5 PHB are listed under "two handed weapons" in the table, though in the description nothing precludes my interpretation.
From the SRD: "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively." (Source. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons ))

As further support, the entry under "monkey grip" from complete warrior states that without the feat, under "normal" conditions: "A larger light weapon is considered one-handed weapon, a larger one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon". Which clearly means that a large longsword is considered a two-handed weapon for a medium creature.
Just because a human must wield a large longsword with both hands does not mean it's not inappropriately sized for them. It just means they are allowed to wield it at all.

[Knaight]

]If the only basis for claiming that a greatsword is not a large-size longsword is that certain feats apply, then the argument is circular:

Basis #2: They would have fundamentally different shapes for it to make sense to say they are the same. The great sword wouldn't have as wide of a blade, would have a longer handle to blade ratio, would have a handle with a lower circumference, and as such would in general be built for someone of a "medium" size to use in both hands, what with the taking advantage of leverage, half swording, and other options that are available. A large longsword would be shaped like an arming sword, and fundamentally work as a one handed weapon, as such its what would be used by the Goliath in one hand, as the long handle is completely worthless and a sword built for the types of swings and stabs a one handed sword involves would work better.

[Arts.Edge]

All right, I'm satisfied. Thank you for the quick, sourced and intelligent replies.

[MeeposFire]

All right, I'm satisfied. Thank you for the quick, sourced and intelligent replies.

Just to clarify you would be correct in 3.0 as that was how it worked then. This is why people get confused by fullblades.