Oversized weapons

[Jlooney]

So I've been looking over the PHB and I cant find any rules about using large weapons. Have I overlooked this or is this just another topic that we hope the dmg covers?

Incase there is nothing and it isn't me just being a retard, Does anyone have some guidance? I was thinking of making it a feat requirement but suffering a -2 to the roll as well as not giving the disadvantage. As far as base damage goes, I was thinking of just adding another die of the same type. As far as the heavy quality goes, I.E. greatsword is 2d6 it would move to 3d6 . Any sort of advice on this would be much appreciated.

[Rhaegar14]

So I've been looking over the PHB and I cant find any rules about using large weapons. Have I overlooked this or is this just another topic that we hope the dmg covers?

Incase there is nothing and it isn't me just being a retard, Does anyone have some guidance? I was thinking of making it a feat requirement but suffering a -2 to the roll as well as not giving the disadvantage. As far as base damage goes, I was thinking of just adding another die of the same type. As far as the heavy quality goes, I.E. greatsword is 2d6 it would move to 3d6 . Any sort of advice on this would be much appreciated.

Flat adding another die would screw with weapon balance. Suddenly you have large greataxes doing significantly more damage than large greatswords (2d12 for an average of 13 vs. 3d6 for an average of 10.5), as an example. I might increase the size of dice instead.

[Jlooney]

Flat adding another die would screw with weapon balance. Suddenly you have large greataxes doing significantly more damage than large greatswords (2d12 for an average of 13 vs. 3d6 for an average of 10.5), as an example. I might increase the size of dice instead.

I thought about that as well. theproblem I see is that 2d6=12, 2d8=16. I don't feel that -2 to hit and 4 potential damage isn't worth the feat I want to require. Any other ideas?

[Maxilian]

So I've been looking over the PHB and I cant find any rules about using large weapons. Have I overlooked this or is this just another topic that we hope the dmg covers?

Incase there is nothing and it isn't me just being a retard, Does anyone have some guidance? I was thinking of making it a feat requirement but suffering a -2 to the roll as well as not giving the disadvantage. As far as base damage goes, I was thinking of just adding another die of the same type. As far as the heavy quality goes, I.E. greatsword is 2d6 it would move to 3d6 . Any sort of advice on this would be much appreciated.

I would use the Enlarge spell rule:

"While these weapons are enlarged, the target’s attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage."

Note : Have in mind that Small creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively.

So... you will get the same disadvantage that the small races get for using a heavy weapon unless you increase your size to be able to use that weapon properly.

[Perseus]

Ok so this is where rule of cool comes in.

And where people need to realize there is much easier and better ways to deal damage than with weapons.

Just allow the player to use the oversized weapon (2 handed or 1 handed... Whatever) and increase the dice size by one step (like 3.5).

One of my favorite Tales of Symphonia characters used an oversized Axe and it was amazingly awesome visual. In 5e the extra damage really won't break anything and if a player wanted to break the game thee are far safer ways than wading into melee.

The image of a dwarf duel wielding two large battleaxes is pretty sweet you know.

[Eslin]

So I've been looking over the PHB and I cant find any rules about using large weapons. Have I overlooked this or is this just another topic that we hope the dmg covers?

Incase there is nothing and it isn't me just being a retard, Does anyone have some guidance? I was thinking of making it a feat requirement but suffering a -2 to the roll as well as not giving the disadvantage. As far as base damage goes, I was thinking of just adding another die of the same type. As far as the heavy quality goes, I.E. greatsword is 2d6 it would move to 3d6 . Any sort of advice on this would be much appreciated.

We've seen how much damage large weapons do in the monster manual, a large greataxe does 2d12 for instance. I'd either reduce their damage, though that doesn't make a lot of sense, or require your characters to be large size in order to wield them.

[Shadow]

I would use the Enlarge spell rule:

"While these weapons are enlarged, the target’s attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage."

Note : Have in mind that Small creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively.

So... you will get the same disadvantage that the small races get for using a heavy weapon unless you increase your size to be able to use that weapon properly.

This.
+1d4 damage
Disadvantage unless you are appropriately sized for the weapon.

Do not use the MM stuff as some other have and/or will say. Those are not in fact weapon stats, they're monster attack stats, which are two different things.

[Eslin]

This.
+1d4 damage
Disadvantage unless you are appropriately sized for the weapon.

Do not use the MM stuff as some other have and/or will say. Those are not in fact weapon stats, they're monster attack stats, which are two different things.
They are weapon stats, the monster attack stats are the 'does 3d6 poison damage with all attacks' parts. Subtract those and the strength values and you have the weapon's stats.

[Jlooney]

This.
+1d4 damage
Disadvantage unless you are appropriately sized for the weapon.

Do not use the MM stuff as some other have and/or will say. Those are not in fact weapon stats, they're monster attack stats, which are two different things.

Like I said in the op I want the feat to remove the disadvantage but balances it by giving -2 to hit

[Shadow]

Like I said in the op I want the feat to remove the disadvantage but balances it by giving -2 to hit

In the case of using +1d4 damage, that would be reasonable. Not intended, as those weapons weren't intended for PCs. But reasonable.
In the case of using the non-existant weapon stats from the MM, -2 isn't enough of a penalty.

[Jlooney]

We've seen how much damage large weapons do in the monster manual, a large greataxe does 2d12 for instance. I'd either reduce their damage, though that doesn't make a lot of sense, or require your characters to be large size in order to wield them.

There was another thread where everyone agreed monster manual weapons only did more damage in the hands of that monster like the bone Devils spear because of the lack of rules on it.

I was trying to avoid adding an extra die of damage that was different type to avoid clunkyness but I suppose adding dice is adding dice.

[Giant2005]

Like I said in the op I want the feat to remove the disadvantage but balances it by giving -2 to hit

If you want to replace disadvantage with a numerical penalty, -2 probably isn't enough. I'd go with +5 for advantage and -5 for disadvantage much like they do in regards to passive skills.

[Jlooney]

If you want to replace disadvantage with a numerical penalty, -2 probably isn't enough. I'd go with +5 for advantage and -5 for disadvantage much like they do in regards to passive skills.

Passive skills start at 10 plus modifiers instead of 8. So there are two points negated plus the minus two I suggested plus a feat that gives asi can gain you plus one hit and damage.

The only thing I've seen that has a -5 is sharpshooter which bumps your damage by 10. That's more than doubling your damage per hit.

I see what you mean but I really don't feel a d6 and not ever being able to gain advantage on an attack is worth -5 to hit. That's a negative to hit for almost all characters until level 7. Perhaps a str requirement would be worth it? I don't know cause anyone taking it would probably be maxing str asap

[Shadow]

Honestly, if you're concerned with balance, then you shouldn't even be considering allowing PCs to use weapons sized for large creatures.
There's a reason that there aren't any rules for it in the PHB, and that's because they weren't intended for PC use. Allowing them throws off the balance to begin with, no matter what you do to try to rectify it.
If you allow it you're basically throwing that balance out the window to start. Why break the system and then try to fix it again when it didn't need fixing in the first place?

[Jlooney]

Honestly, if you're concerned with balance, then you shouldn't even be considering allowing PCs to use weapons sized for large creatures.
There's a reason that there aren't any rules for it in the PHB, and that's because they weren't intended for PC use. Allowing them throws off the balance to begin with, no matter what you do to try to rectify it.
If you allow it you're basically throwing that balance out the window to start. Why break the system and then try to fix it again when it didn't need fixing in the first place?

Lol magic items aren't in the phb and either are rules for not sleeping.

On a less childish note I can see what you mean and i suppose you're right.

[NeoSeraphi]

You don't need to put a feat here. The guy wants to use a larger weapon, so let him use the larger weapon. Don't give him a penalty, don't touch the damage. Give him a small non damage mechanical bonus to make it feel different (advantage on OAs because of a longer reach but not enough to give actual reach, for example)

[SliceandDiceKid]

Honestly, if you're concerned with balance, then you shouldn't even be considering allowing PCs to use weapons sized for large creatures.
There's a reason that there aren't any rules for it in the PHB, and that's because they weren't intended for PC use. Allowing them throws off the balance to begin with, no matter what you do to try to rectify it.
If you allow it you're basically throwing that balance out the window to start. Why break the system and then try to fix it again when it didn't need fixing in the first place?

A double helping of this.

[Shadow]

You don't need to put a feat here. The guy wants to use a larger weapon, so let him use the larger weapon. Don't give him a penalty, don't touch the damage. Give him a small non damage mechanical bonus to make it feel different (advantage on OAs because of a longer reach but not enough to give actual reach, for example)

I wouldn't even do this.
Why does a bigger sword need to be mechanically different from a regular sword? If the player want a giant axe, then give him a giant axe, with the exact same stats as a regular axe. The difference is purely visual/fluff. You can have your gigantic anime sword if you want, but it's still just a sword.

[Knaight]

Honestly, if you're concerned with balance, then you shouldn't even be considering allowing PCs to use weapons sized for large creatures.
There's a reason that there aren't any rules for it in the PHB, and that's because they weren't intended for PC use. Allowing them throws off the balance to begin with, no matter what you do to try to rectify it.
If you allow it you're basically throwing that balance out the window to start. Why break the system and then try to fix it again when it didn't need fixing in the first place?

While using weapons of the wrong size as a main strategy is iffy in some subgenres, it still helps to have rules - say the PCs are attacked while unarmed for whatever reason, and end up picking up a clumsy, oversized sword because it's better than no sword at all. Now what?

Personally, I'd leave the damage the same and go with permanent disadvantage, on the basis of the extra mass not actually being useful for hurting people when getting the weapon up to speed is difficult. Still, more clarified rules here would be helpful.

[Perseus]

One of my favorite House rules over the years (multieditions) is that damage is not based on weapon but based on the class.

Example:

Fighter: Light Weapon: 1d8 damage, 1 Handed Weapon: 1d10 damage, 2 handed weapon: 2d6 damage.

In the hands of a fighter all weapons are a bit more dangerous than in the hands of normal folks.

So if the fighter grabs a boulder and chucks it at an enemy or grabs a donkey to beat someone to death with it... You know exactly what the weapon damage will be.

That same boulder or donkey will do less damage in the hands of someone else, say with a wizard the base damage could be something like...

Light: 1d4
1 handed: 1d6
2 handed: 1d8

[Jlooney]

One of my favorite House rules over the years (multieditions) is that damage is not based on weapon but based on the class.

Example:

Fighter: Light Weapon: 1d8 damage, 1 Handed Weapon: 1d10 damage, 2 handed weapon: 2d6 damage.

In the hands of a fighter all weapons are a bit more dangerous than in the hands of normal folks.

So if the fighter grabs a boulder and chucks it at an enemy or grabs a donkey to beat someone to death with it... You know exactly what the weapon damage will be.

That same boulder or donkey will do less damage in the hands of someone else, say with a wizard the base damage could be something like...

Light: 1d4
1 handed: 1d6
2 handed: 1d8

I actually had to figure out damage on a thrown Nightmare by a character with a 26 str in PF once. I know your pain.

[Perseus]

I actually had to figure out damage on a thrown Nightmare by a character with a 26 str in PF once. I know your pain.

If it was a fighter... Or similar...

2d6 + 8 damage + Nightmare makes attack on the target due to it flopping around and being thrown and junk.

[Maxilian]

I wouldn't even do this.
Why does a bigger sword need to be mechanically different from a regular sword? If the player want a giant axe, then give him a giant axe, with the exact same stats as a regular axe. The difference is purely visual/fluff. You can have your gigantic anime sword if you want, but it's still just a sword.

That's true, but is mainly to give the player a more unique feel to their character, in the end i agree with you (I'm not a fan of modifing rules or anything like that, but i like to search for ways to create unique character inside the oficial rules)

[unwise]

Similar to what Shadow said, in my games, Oversized, means "Too Big". If a weapon is oversized you simply can't wield it effectively. If a PC wants to use a weapon on the upper reaches of what a 20 str guy can wield, that is a style decision, but by definition it is not "Too Big" or he could not use it. If he wants to fluff a Savage Attack or Great Weapon Mastery style feat around using huge weapons, then that is cool, it does not need new rules though.

<edit> I do however let the 20 str barbarian use a weapon that is Too Big for less strong people. The only really mechanical difference is that if somebody else picks up his sword, they have to use it two-handed, it is not versatile for them. It doesn't come into play much, but makes his character feel like a badass when it does.

[eastmabl]

Like I said in the op I want the feat to remove the disadvantage but balances it by giving -2 to hit

So why not..

You can wield the weapon.
You are not proficient with it due to its size
Extra d4 damage like the Enlarge spell

The player gets to use his weapon, he's not at disadvantage when attacking, and damage isn't stupidly huge.

[Bellberith]

The MM seems to handle increased size categories on weapons very linearly.

Every time a weapon goes up in size category, the dice double.

Greatsword for example is....

2d6 medium
4d6 large
6d6 huge

look at the giants and a few other creatures and you will see this pattern with all weapons.

Edit: by double, i mean increase by 100% of the original dice.

[Maxilian]

The MM seems to handle increased size categories on weapons very linearly.

Every time a weapon goes up in size category, the dice double.

Greatsword for example is....

2d6 medium
4d6 large
6d6 huge

look at the giants and a few other creatures and you will see this pattern with all weapons.

Edit: by double, i mean increase by 100% of the original dice.

The main problem with that is... that it will be way too good for a player to use and you could say that there's already a rule about bigger weapons in the PHB with the Enlarge spell

[Bellberith]

The main problem with that is... that it will be way too good for a player to use and you could say that there's already a rule about bigger weapons in the PHB with the Enlarge spell

The phb is 1 case with a spell, whereas the MM is literally dozens of cases with unmodified weapons.

That may be your problem with it, but have you thought that those rules were intentionally left out because PC can no longer wield weapons a size category up?

(as a side note, the rule at my table always was that any large 1 hander needed 2 hands to wield by a medium creature. d8 and up weapons are too large to 2h. that way it is impossible to get a weapon stronger than the GS.)

[rlc]

is the +d4 from the enlarge spell or from the size change caused by the spell? this is kind of an important distinction.

[Shadow]

is the +d4 from the enlarge spell or from the size change caused by the spell? this is kind of an important distinction.

The answer to your question is Yes.
Those are the same thing.
The size change caused by the enlarge spell adds +1d4 damage.

The double damage dice that monsters have in the MM is, as I have repeatedly said in many threads, not indicitive of what PCs would be using because those aren't PC weapons. They aren't weapon stats at all. They're monster attack stats.

Anyone who disagrees is welcome to prove me wrong by showing me where they found the stats listed: weight, GP cost, special properties, damage listing, etc.
And I don't mean a mathematical equation removing this number and that number until you are left with what you believe to be the weapon's damage dice derived from a monster's stat block, I mean a weapon stat block/table with that particular weapon on it.
Until you can show me a table, like the one in the PHB for weapons, those are not weapons. Those are monster attack stats.

[Bellberith]

The answer to your question is Yes.
Those are the same thing.
The size change caused by the enlarge spell adds +1d4 damage.

The double damage dice that monsters have in the MM is, as I have repeatedly said in many threads, not indicitive of what PCs would be using because those aren't PC weapons. They aren't weapon stats at all. They're monster attack stats.

Anyone who disagrees is welcome to prove me wrong by showing me where they found the stats listed: weight, GP cost, special properties, damage listing, etc.
And I don't mean a mathematical equation removing this number and that number until you are left with what you believe to be the weapon's damage dice derived from a monster's stat block, I mean a weapon stat block/table with that particular weapon on it.
Until you can show me a table, like the one in the PHB for weapons, those are not weapons. Those are monster attack stats.

Until you can show me a table of bonuses weapons get based on size category, the MM is the closest reference we have. If anyone is looking for the stats of such weapons, as of right now we can only point him towards the MM as that has examples.

When the DMG comes out maybe it will have something on the matter, but right now we have nothing except the MM for the damage, and no rules period regarding the use of weapons based on size category. (A general assumption is that a medium PC cannot wield a large heavy weapon without disadvantage because a small PC cannot wield a medium heavy weapon without disadvantage.)

As a side note: i find it hard to believe they would pull random weapon damage dice out of nowhere. all base weapon damage from monsters is the same as in the phb or accounted for with the monster's size/stats/special abilities.

[thepsyker]

<edit> I do however let the 20 str barbarian use a weapon that is Too Big for less strong people. The only really mechanical difference is that if somebody else picks up his sword, they have to use it two-handed, it is not versatile for them. It doesn't come into play much, but makes his character feel like a badass when it does.

That is a neat way of doing it, kind of reminds me of Odysseus and his bow that only he was strong enough to string.

Another possibility could be to just give it the same damage, but have reach and disadvantage with the feat negating the disadvantage. You could say it is longer so he can reach farther, but it is unwieldy so he has to hold back with it a bit to maintain proper control. Maybe the feat on top of getting rid of disadvantage for normal use could provide the option to attack with disadvantage and a bonus to damage to represent him not trying to hold back and maintain as much control over the weapon. Given he already has reach with the weapon you probably don't want the boost to be too much, maybe 5 points setting it at a fixed damage so it is a little less swingy, but also doesn't explode on a crit.

[Shadow]

Until you can show me a table of bonuses weapons get based on size category, the MM is the closest reference we have.

The designers have specifically stated that those weapons were not intended for player use.
We may get something in the DMG about it. But honestly, I doubt that we will.
The closest thing we have is not in fact the MM. It's the Enlarge spell. What happens when your weapon gets enlarged and the effects of that enlargement are detaild within the spell.
The reason that I doubt we'll get any rules for it in the DMG is because any rules about it, literally *any* rules they make about it, will be strictly better than the spell version, which will make the spell basically useless comparatively.

Q: Why would they design a spell to increase weapon size (and player size) to be strictly worse than simply using a larger weapon?
A: Because we weren't meant to use those larger weapons to begin with. Which is exactly what they have already said, and which I believe is the reason that we don't have any rules about it in the PHB.

[Bellberith]

The designers have specifically stated that those weapons were not intended for player use.
We may get something in the DMG about it. But honestly, I doubt that we will.
The closest thing we have is not in fact the MM. It's the Enlarge spell. What happens when your weapon gets enlarged and the effects of that enlargement are detaild within the spell.
The reason that I doubt we'll get any rules for it in the DMG is because any rules about it, literally *any* rules they make about it, will be strictly better than the spell version, which will make the spell basically useless comparatively.

Q: Why would they design a spell to increase weapon size (and player size) to be strictly worse than simply using a larger weapon?
A: Because we weren't meant to use those larger weapons to begin with (which is exactly what they have already said).

Players aren't meant to use them because there are no rules on them. derp derp. thats fairly obvious.

The OP wanted rules for them because of this. What i said still holds true. Closest rules we have is the MM, not enlarge.

[Shadow]

Closest rules we have is the MM, not enlarge.

On this we will have to agree to disagree.

[Jlooney]

Players aren't meant to use them because there are no rules on them. derp derp. thats fairly obvious.

The OP wanted rules for them because of this. What i said still holds true. Closest rules we have is the MM, not enlarge.

Shadow, enlarge is for more than damage. Ever needed to reach a top shelf before? Pass a handling off as a human without illusion magic?

Bellberith, thank you lol. I want the larger rules just to have them. What's the point of forums if you all you hear is optimization > all or that's silly to want that. This is a fantasy game after all

[MadBear]

Going to have to agree with Shadow on this one for a number of reasons.

1. The burden of proof of using the MM statistics lays squarely at those saying those are in fact the monsters weapon damage dice. Now, you might be able to make an inductive case for your argument, but I don't find it at all compelling.

2. The enlarge spell fits within the balance of the game itself. The spell increases a users size and the size of the weapon. If anything the damage dice increase might be too generous since the increased damage is coming from the creatures new muscles in addition to the bigger weapon.

3.Adding theoretical large MM creatures damage dice is a sure fire way to throw off game balance. That being said, if you like it, go for it, far be it for me to dictate how you play your game.

[rlc]

The answer to your question is Yes.
Those are the same thing.
The size change caused by the enlarge spell adds +1d4 damage.


they're not the same thing.
i'm asking because i don't have the book right now, so i don't have the wording of the spell, but if it says something along the lines of "your size increases by one category and you gain a 1d4 bonus to damage," then that's different than "...thus you gain..." or something else along those lines.

[Perseus]

Going to have to agree with Shadow on this one for a number of reasons.

1. The burden of proof of using the MM statistics lays squarely at those saying those are in fact the monsters weapon damage dice. Now, you might be able to make an inductive case for your argument, but I don't find it at all compelling.

2. The enlarge spell fits within the balance of the game itself. The spell increases a users size and the size of the weapon. If anything the damage dice increase might be too generous since the increased damage is coming from the creatures new muscles in addition to the bigger weapon.

3.Adding theoretical large MM creatures damage dice is a sure fire way to throw off game balance. That being said, if you like it, go for it, far be it for me to dictate how you play your game.

1: There is no burden of proof, this is the internet and not anything official. No one really has to give proof for anything. I can say I fart sunshine and rainbows and I don't have to give you proof unless I want to.

2: This game isn't balance to begin with.

3: This game isn't balanced to begin with.

[Shadow]

they're not the same thing.
i'm asking because i don't have the book right now, so i don't have the wording of the spell, but if it says something along the lines of "your size increases by one category and you gain a 1d4 bonus to damage," then that's different than "...thus you gain..." or something else along those lines.

They are exactly the same thing, and that kind of rules-lawyering nonsense has no place in 5e.
But to ease your mind:
The target’s weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target’s attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage.
The weapon grows and your attacks deal 1d4 extra damage due to the new size.
There are your rules for oversized weapons. It's implicit that if you were medium sized using a large weapon, you have disadvantage on attacks due to the weapon being too unwieldy for you.

[MadBear]

1: There is no burden of proof, this is the internet and not anything official. No one really has to give proof for anything. I can say I fart sunshine and rainbows and I don't have to give you proof unless I want to.

2: This game isn't balance to begin with.

3: This game isn't balanced to begin with.

1. Yes, if you want to make the claim that the damage increase is from the weapon and not inherently part of the monster, the burden of proof for this claim falls on you. As you pointed out, you're not obligated to give this proof, in which case my response it to dismiss your claim without any evidence to support it.

2/3. Way to not really address the argument. Furthermore, the game is balanced. Not perfectly balanced mind you, but it is balanced.

[Perseus]

1. Yes, if you want to make the claim that the damage increase is from the weapon and not inherently part of the monster, the burden of proof for this claim falls on you. As you pointed out, you're not obligated to give this proof, in which case my response it to dismiss your claim without any evidence to support it.

2/3. Way to not really address the argument. Furthermore, the game is balanced. Not perfectly balanced mind you, but it is balanced.

No. If someone makes a claim and you don't like it and want to refute it then that is on you. However there is never a time that anyone must give proof unless they feel like it. Burden of proof for things that actually matter does exist, however not on forums like this.

Crying burden of proof is like crying strawman, it just doesn't exist and is not a real thing outside of the confines of the system they are made for. There is no burden of proof because there are no rules for such a thing just like there are no rules against using strawmen arguments outside of debate club.

If this was a legal trial than the burden of proof comes up because you are screwed without the proof, but here on these old internets there just isn't any real incentive and thus no burden of proof. People act like forums are debate clubs or that they matter outside of what entertainment we get out of them but they are not.

My explanations here are exactly what I'm talking about. Because I feel the need to explain and give a sort of "proof", I do. However, there is nothing outside of that feeling that is forcing me to have a burden of proof.

It is kinda like watching political adds in America. Anything can be said no matter how crazy but proof is not needed. I could keep running a campaign based on gravity not existing and I never have to give proof as to why as long as I don't want to (and can twist it into a smear campaign against my opponent).

This game is nowhere near balanced at all. Granted it isn't the horrid monstrosity of unbalanced that we call 3.5 but it is quite unbalanced all the same. 5e so far is a watered down 3.5 but there are multiple items that certain classes and monsters have that shuts down certain other classes and yet not all the classes.

(Non casters got the short end of the stick again)

Giving PCs weapons that deal 4d6 + mod damage won't unbalance the game at all. Why? Because slicing through each enemy's HP is the least powerful thing you can do in a D&D world.

[rlc]

They are exactly the same thing, and that kind of rules-lawyering nonsense has no place in 5e.
But to ease your mind:
The target’s weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target’s attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage.
The weapon grows and your attacks deal 1d4 extra damage due to the new size.
There are your rules for oversized weapons. It's implicit that if you were medium sized using a large weapon, you have disadvantage on attacks due to the weapon being too unwieldy for you.

it's not rules lawyering, it's differentiating between words that mean completely different things. i mean, the actual wording you provided seems clear enough to me that a large weapon means +d4 damage, but saying "dese r da same n if u kweschun it den ur a lawyar LoL!" is a terrible argument (and yes, that was as annoying to type as it is to read).



My explanations here are exactly what I'm talking about. Because I feel the need to explain and give a sort of "proof", I do. However, there is nothing outside of that feeling that is forcing me to have a burden of proof.

nobody can force you to prove anything, but you can't force anybody to believe anything, either. of course, claiming that the burden of proof is always on only one party is also wrong. anybody who ever wants to convince somebody of anything has to prove it in some way, even if that proof is just "i have no idea what you're talking about, so i couldn't possibly be involved in that." some proof just has to be stronger than others by its nature.
we currently have medium weapons that are meant for players and large weapons that, according to the word of the game's developers, are not meant for players. anybody who says anything else will (and even this argument itself can) require proof.

[Shadow]

it's not rules lawyering, it's differentiating between words that mean completely different things. i mean, the actual wording you provided seems clear enough to me that a large weapon means +d4 damage, but saying "dese r da same n if u kweschun it den ur a lawyar LoL!" is a terrible argument (and yes, that was as annoying to type as it is to read).

Reading a sentence in a vaccuum, and then splitting that sentence up into two parts, and then interpreting those two parts differently based on which conjunction is used is basically the friggin definition of rules-lawyering.
So yes, those two things are exactly the same thing unless you're rules-lawyering.

[MadBear]

No. If someone makes a claim and you don't like it and want to refute it then that is on you. However there is never a time that anyone must give proof unless they feel like it. Burden of proof for things that actually matter does exist, however not on forums like this.

Crying burden of proof is like crying strawman, it just doesn't exist and is not a real thing outside of the confines of the system they are made for. There is no burden of proof because there are no rules for such a thing just like there are no rules against using strawmen arguments outside of debate club.

If this was a legal trial than the burden of proof comes up because you are screwed without the proof, but here on these old internets there just isn't any real incentive and thus no burden of proof. People act like forums are debate clubs or that they matter outside of what entertainment we get out of them but they are not.

My explanations here are exactly what I'm talking about. Because I feel the need to explain and give a sort of "proof", I do. However, there is nothing outside of that feeling that is forcing me to have a burden of proof.

It is kinda like watching political adds in America. Anything can be said no matter how crazy but proof is not needed. I could keep running a campaign based on gravity not existing and I never have to give proof as to why as long as I don't want to (and can twist it into a smear campaign against my opponent).

This game is nowhere near balanced at all. Granted it isn't the horrid monstrosity of unbalanced that we call 3.5 but it is quite unbalanced all the same. 5e so far is a watered down 3.5 but there are multiple items that certain classes and monsters have that shuts down certain other classes and yet not all the classes.

(Non casters got the short end of the stick again)

Giving PCs weapons that deal 4d6 + mod damage won't unbalance the game at all. Why? Because slicing through each enemy's HP is the least powerful thing you can do in a D&D world.


I'm sorry but you are just in fact wrong. If you make a claim you have in fact assumed a burden of proof. It's not incumbent upon me to prove you wrong, it's up to you to prove what you've said is correct. What you've said is just plain silly. If I told you that I have a space laser ready to blast you into oblivion, you are in no way required to prove that my space laser doesn't exist. That's what we'd call asinine.

More to the point, if you just want to make a claim but don't care if others listen to you, that's fine. However, when your response to someone challenging a claim of yours is to say that they need to prove your unfounded claim wrong, you have made an error in thinking.

With that being said, had you said something actually convincing (which you haven't), that I could assume a burden of proof to try and convince others that you are in fact wrong (which as rlc said, is true of anyone trying to convince anyone else of anything).

[eastmabl]

I would question the presumption as to whether monsters work the same as characters do.

If monsters work the way characters do, then it seems logical that the large weapons should deal the same damage for characters as monsters.

If monsters work differently than characters, then it stands to reason that large weapons deal different types of damage in the hands of characters. Consequently, rules which operate like the character rules would be more appropriate.

Reviewing the Monster Manual, it looks like monsters operate on similar but different rules than characters. Most notably, the HD to proficiency bounds is out of whack once you get past 8hd.

I would conclude that monsters operate differently from characters, and that different balancing factors are at play which makes the analogy inappropriate. Consequently, I would rule in favour of d4 damage, not MM damage.

But rulings, not rules, and your mileage may vary.

[MinaBee]

At my table, I'd rule a Medium creature could use Large weapons that were Light or one-handed & non-Heavy. Any weapons larger than Large size are right out.

And then, they could only attack with them at disadvantage.

[Perseus]

At my table, I'd rule a Medium creature could use Large weapons that were Light or one-handed & non-Heavy. Any weapons larger than Large size are right out.

And then, they could only attack with them at disadvantage.

Then what's the point?

If the option sucks why give the option at all? You might as well just say that you don't want them usingnit straight up instead of saying its ok but mechanically making it well...suck.

[MinaBee]

Then what's the point?

If the option sucks why give the option at all? You might as well just say that you don't want them usingnit straight up instead of saying its ok but mechanically making it well...suck.

Because that's how I run my games.

The point of that ruling is that it reasonably models what my player is trying to do. It has a certain amount of verisimilitude, a certain amount of consequence, and yeah, it's a sub-optimal mechanical choice, but certain folks at my table would still go for it because F— YEAH.

The ruling then becomes an opportunity for my player to demonstrate her strengths by finding a way to make a challenging option work. That's the style of play that my players and I enjoy.

[NeoSeraphi]

At my table, I'd rule a Medium creature could use Large weapons that were Light or one-handed & non-Heavy. Any weapons larger than Large size are right out.

And then, they could only attack with them at disadvantage.

Okay, but with such harsh penalties, what would the mechanical advantage be? What kind of damage would these Large daggers and longswords be dealing?

[Shadow]

Okay, but with such harsh penalties, what would the mechanical advantage be? What kind of damage would these Large daggers and longswords be dealing?

I think you're missing the point.
There shouldn't be a mechanical advantage to using gear that was never intended for player use.
There should be a mechanical disadvantage to using that gear, which is slightly but not completely offset by higher damage.
Like 1d4 extra damage, just like the Enlarge spell.

[Giant2005]

Okay, but with such harsh penalties, what would the mechanical advantage be? What kind of damage would these Large daggers and longswords be dealing?

If there was a mechanical advantage, they wouldn't be known as "oversized weapons" they would just be known as "weapons".
Any smith that forged a sword that wasn't oversized would call it a failure, melt it down and try again. If oversized weapons are better, there is no reason for regular weapons to even exist. If oversized weapons are better and regular weapons no longer exist, what is the point in any of the changes at all? You have just reset the standard pointlessly - you may as well just call all of the existing weapons oversized and call it a day.

[Knaight]

Then what's the point?

If the option sucks why give the option at all? You might as well just say that you don't want them usingnit straight up instead of saying its ok but mechanically making it well...suck.


Okay, but with such harsh penalties, what would the mechanical advantage be? What kind of damage would these Large daggers and longswords be dealing?

The option is relevant if you compare it to more than just the standard weapons. Say a martial character is disarmed, and their weapon goes somewhere irretrievable (at least in the short term) - it makes sense to use an over sized weapon if it is any better than being completely unarmed. The only option removed is using an over sized weapon as a standard weapon and having it work as well as one made to fit.

[Shadow]

The only option removed is using an over sized weapon as a standard weapon and having it work as well as one made to fit.

Right. And in that case, just fluff it.
OK, great, you have your giant ridiculous anime sword. It looks beautiful and everyone that sees it is terrified. Wonderful. But mechanically it's still just a greatsword.

[Perseus]

I think you're missing the point.
There shouldn't be a mechanical advantage to using gear that was never intended for player use.
There should be a mechanical disadvantage to using that gear, which is slightly but not completely offset by higher damage.
Like 1d4 extra damage, just like the Enlarge spell.

Have you never watched a Jackie Chan movie in your life?

If you practice with gear, such as large weapons like say a ladder, you can learn to use said item. Just because it wasn't intended by the creators doesn't mean it is unbalanced or undoable.

The creators already made a horribly unbalanced game so I wouldn't trust their judgment on balance all that much.

Your argument also incalidates not only large weapons but improvised weapons. Are you really going to say that hitting someone over the head with a wooden chair (say bar stool) should give no mechanical advantage and thus do piddly squat damage?




Because that's how I run my games.

The point of that ruling is that it reasonably models what my player is trying to do. It has a certain amount of verisimilitude, a certain amount of consequence, and yeah, it's a sub-optimal mechanical choice, but certain folks at my table would still go for it because F— YEAH.

The ruling then becomes an opportunity for my player to demonstrate her strengths by finding a way to make a challenging option work. That's the style of play that my players and I enjoy.

What a horrible way to run a game... You aren't allowing a player to demonstrate anything, you are giving them a horrible trap option if they go outside of your perception of fantasy. It's like dangling a carrot in front of a horse but never allowing the horse to eat it, even after the horse takes you where you need to go.


So I see the problem here. Two things really. Large weapons breaks people's minds and they can't wrap their head around a fantasy character being able to effectively use said weapon and the misconception that a little more damage is unbalanced.

Players who play non-casters shouldn't be punished for wanting to be cool and awesome, we have been through that edition and we shouldn't go back.

A player on the fly needs to use a weapon they never used before? Sure they don't have proficiency in it and don't add it to their attack roll.

A player builds his character around using this big old sword or axe? Why wouldn't that character be just as good with his weapon of choice as a rogue with a dagger? This isn't the real world (and even if it was... Ladder-fu exists) so people need to stop judging fantasy martials by our rules.

How about we start saying that if you use a spell in a higher level spell slot than it was originally made for you gain disadvantage on any attack roll or the target gains advantage on their saves? Oh wait, magic can be flexible and not be punished but anything that isn't magic has to adhere to strict rules and if you think outside of this small little box then bad bad you!

[Giant2005]

A player builds his character around using this big old sword or axe? Why wouldn't that character be just as good with his weapon of choice as a rogue with a dagger? This isn't the real world (and even if it was... Ladder-fu exists) so people need to stop judging fantasy martials by our rules.
If your character trains for it (And you build him right) he can get away with using over-sized weapons quite well without being too penalized for it. All he needs is the level 2 Barbarian ability or any other means of getting Advantage reliably and both his disadvantage and advantage counter each other, rendering him just as competent as anyone else (Only with an over-sized weapon). It isn't even a terrible idea really - not only will his attacks do 1D4 extra damage but he can never be disadvantaged again (Due to already being disadvantaged and compensating for it).

[Perseus]

If your character trains for it (And you build him right) he can get away with using over-sized weapons quite well without being too penalized for it. All he needs is the level 2 Barbarian ability or any other means of getting Advantage reliably and both his disadvantage and advantage counter each other, rendering him just as competent as anyone else (Only with an over-sized weapon). It isn't even a terrible idea really - not only will his attacks do 1D4 extra damage but he can never be disadvantaged again (Due to already being disadvantaged and compensating for it).

See, you are still penalizing a player for a concept they want to play.

Badwrongfun is no way to play a game.

All because a very popular fantasy idea pushes the boundaries just a little bit.

People need to stop thinking "that's not realistic" and start thinking "he/she is just that damn good".

[MadBear]

What a horrible way to run a game... You aren't allowing a player to demonstrate anything, you are giving them a horrible trap option if they go outside of your perception of fantasy. It's like dangling a carrot in front of a horse but never allowing the horse to eat it, even after the horse takes you where you need to go.



You know a person is out of good arguments when they resort to insulting how other people run their games..... just saying. (especially when said person's players seem to be ok with it).

[Giant2005]

See, you are still penalizing a player for a concept they want to play.

Badwrongfun is no way to play a game.

All because a very popular fantasy idea pushes the boundaries just a little bit.

People need to stop thinking "that's not realistic" and start thinking "he/she is just that damn good".

No. I'd happily allow a player to do whatever he want as long as there was no mechanical advantage. It is only when he starts asking for advantages for his concept that he reveals his munchkinism.

[Shadow]

Your argument also incalidates not only large weapons but improvised weapons.

My argument indicates no such thing. It doesn't need to, because improvised weapons are intended, which is why there are rules for them.
And if you're trying to compare what your characters can do to the garbage in japanese martial arts movies, then it's no wonder why you're unhappy with the rules, and D&D probably isn't the game that you should be playing.

[Perseus]

You know a person is out of good arguments when they resort to insulting how other people run their games..... just saying. (especially when said person's players seem to be ok with it).

Riiiiiight....

The problem with the game play is different from the oversized weapon debate. The game play method is giving players options that suck ad an illusion of giving players options.

It is like 3.5 Bows versus Crossbows. Crossbows for the most part are just so inferior to bows that it isn't funny. Giving players a choice is fine. But if they are punished for making that choice then that is a horrible way to play a game.

5e has gone away from that method for the most part. You don't see a lot of abilities that say stuff like "You may use this ability, roll with disadvantage" whereas in 3.5 you could do things but get a bunch of penalties. There as some exception (-5 attack +10 damage) but the base rules do not use this method.

Punishment hidden within an option is playing g the game with the idea of badwrongfun, which is a horrible way to play a fantasy game.

Could you imagine if Tolkien had someone telling him that the stuff in his books couldn't happen cause it wasn't realistic? Or if anytime someone did something without magic he wrote it as if they had disadvantage on their action? How many times would Legolas have fallen on his face trying to do something half way awesome?

[Perseus]

My argument indicates no such thing. It doesn't need to, because improvised weapons are intended, which is why there are rules for them.
And if you're trying to compare what your characters can do to the garbage in japanese martial arts movies, then it's no wonder why you're unhappy with the rules, and D&D probably isn't the game that you should be playing.

Invalidates.

My phone does weird things with my words.

Question: Is D&D a fantasy game? Answer: Yes.

Question: Why are people afraid of allowing non-caster to be fantasy? Are they fantasy only because they are in a setting or are they fantasy because of what they can do?

Answer: Non casters are fantasy within this game only because they are in the setting not what they can do. A fantasy non-caster isn't fantasy because of their abilities (unlike magic users).

I have no clue why people freak out when other people want non casters to actually have fantasy abilities (the basic one being a big weapon, never mind all the other cool stuff a non-caster could do).

And don't tell me what to play, 5e has the core to do what I want it to do and foundation to be something fantastic (all PCs being fantasy).

If I compare the game to another fantasy genre and see D&D being restrained then that doesn't mean I should give up on D&D but try to make it unrestrained and better. The "love it or leave it" attitude has never been something I supported.

[MinaBee]

What a horrible way to run a game... You aren't allowing a player to demonstrate anything, you are giving them a horrible trap option if they go outside of your perception of fantasy. It's like dangling a carrot in front of a horse but never allowing the horse to eat it, even after the horse takes you where you need to go.

Well then, by all means, don't come to play at my table.

You already know what you want, dude. You've gotten enough feedback from us to put together a ruling on your Buster Sword concept. You are now just keeping this thread alive so you can be combative and rude with anyone who disagrees with your specific style of play.

It's time to log off.

[Perseus]

Well then, by all means, don't come to play at my table.

You already know what you want, dude. You've gotten enough feedback from us to put together a ruling on your Buster Sword concept. You are now just keeping this thread alive so you can be combative and rude with anyone who disagrees with your specific style of play.

It's time to log off.

Saying someone's DM style is a horrible way to play due to badwrongfun is not being rude. I may not be sugar coating it but it is not rude.

At least I'm not the one telling others to sign off from giantitp, talk about the pot calling the kettle right there.

[Sidmen]

Saying someone's DM style is a horrible way to play due to badwrongfun is not being rude. I may not be sugar coating it but it is not rude.
Yes, yes it is rude.

If you think it isn't, you may consider looking up what rude means.

Anyway, as to the OP:

I'd give it +1d4 damage, disadvantage on attacks. I'd also create a feat to cancel that disadvantage; with a +1 to STR (a half-feat, as they say).

[JoeJ]

Disadvantage is a good idea. It parallels the fact that small characters have disadvantage using Heavy weapons. And making the disadvantage an effect of being too small means that it goes away if the character has Enlarge cast on them, which also makes sense.

[Perseus]

Yes, yes it is rude.

If you think it isn't, you may consider looking up what rude means.

Hmm better not criticize anything ever again or else I'm being rude, my old car's electrical system didn't work and I said so so I guess I better write Ford a letter of apology.

There is a difference from attacking someone and being rude to just flat out telling them that their style is horrid. Saying something is horrible is not rude, especially when what they are proposing is playing a game based on the premise of badwrongfun on the players and pretending to give them an option when you are just giving them a trap in order to keep them from actually being able to play their character.

I never said that the person should stop being a DM (and I certainly not the one that told another to log off giantitp), I don't really care about their game. But I do find it quite horrid to do such a thing to players. Like a DM who has a DMNPC who can do anything but PCs will be penalized if they attempt it, that is another type of DM rule/action that is simply horrible.



Disadvantage is a good idea. It parallels the fact that small characters have disadvantage using Heavy weapons. And making the disadvantage an effect of being too small means that it goes away if the character has Enlarge cast on them, which also makes sense.

The base rule of disadvantage for a small creature wielding a heavy weapon is also horrible. You are essentially saying that a halfling with 20 strength is not equal to a human with 20 strength. The game is bringing in realism (where in the real world you need leverage to do things) when they don't need too.

This would be like saying that Half-Orcs who have 20 Int are not allowed to cast spells above level 6 because they don't have the mental stamina (or leverage) to do so. Even though that Half Orc has 20 Int and a Human has 17 Int, the human can cast any spell they please but the Half Orc can't.

[Sidmen]

Hmm better not criticize anything ever again or else I'm being rude, my old car's electrical system didn't work and I said so so I guess I better write Ford a letter of apology.

Didn't bother looking up what rude means, did ya? Offensively impolite or ill-mannered. That's the key description, and yes - telling someone that something they enjoy and probably commit a lot of time and effort toward is horrible is offensively impolite and ill-mannered.

[JoeJ]

The base rule of disadvantage for a small creature wielding a heavy weapon is also horrible. You are essentially saying that a halfling with 20 strength is not equal to a human with 20 strength. The game is bringing in realism (where in the real world you need leverage to do things) when they don't need too.

They don't need to restrict humans by not letting them fly under their own power, either. It's not horrible that they do, however. If you don't like either of those rules you're free to house rule something different.


This would be like saying that Half-Orcs who have 20 Int are not allowed to cast spells above level 6 because they don't have the mental stamina (or leverage) to do so. Even though that Half Orc has 20 Int and a Human has 17 Int, the human can cast any spell they please but the Half Orc can't.

And that would be bad, why? Since we're talking about magic, it's neither realistic nor unrealistic to put limits on certain races. As long as the players know what the limits are when they create their characters, I don't see any inherent problem with it.

[Knaight]

Question: Is D&D a fantasy game? Answer: Yes.

Question: Why are people afraid of allowing non-caster to be fantasy? Are they fantasy only because they are in a setting or are they fantasy because of what they can do?

Fantasy is a broad genre which covers a lot of material, and meeting your generic "fantasy appropriate" concept pretty much requires taking anything appropriate in any fantasy subgenre, and allowing it in any other fantasy subgenre. That's ridiculous.

I mean, I might as well say that I want my fighter to have access to space ships, with lasers. They're appropriate to space fantasy, where the fighter pilot is a veritable martial archetype. Obviously the people opposed to sticking it in D&D are opposed to allowing non-casters to be fantasy.

[JoeJ]

I mean, I might as well say that I want my fighter to have access to space ships, with lasers. They're appropriate to space fantasy, where the fighter pilot is a veritable martial archetype. Obviously the people opposed to sticking it in D&D are opposed to allowing non-casters to be fantasy.

Would you settle for space ships with ballistae?

[Knaight]

Would you settle for space ships with ballistae?

I'd consider those just as out of place an unacceptable in a number of fantasy settings, though there are those where it works just fine.

[Jlooney]

I think this thread has officially made me decide that posting anything on the 5E forums isn't really a good idea. My OP was pretty clear and it devolved into name calling, finger pointing and "if you don't think my way you're awful".

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The big issue here is what really makes said fighter fantasy.

Is it just because the setting around the fighter is a fantasy setting or is it because the things the fighter can do is fantasy?

So far in 5e the reason Non-Casters are fantasy is because they happen to be in a setting which is fantasy not because they have fantasy abilities.

Casters however get both. They are in a fantasy setting and they have abilities in which make them fantasy.

The Non-Casters are limited to such a high degree is a bit weird for a fantasy game. People actually straight up freak out if you suggest they do anything that bends real world reality and yet don't bat an eye at a warlock casting a spell. You aren't allowing them to play on the same playing field. You are holding one group back, saying that they must conform to real world physics while the other group can play by fantasy setting physics.

So no, the non-caster classes aren't fantasy classes.... They just happen to be put in a fantasy world with wizards AMD clerics and junk.

Saying "that's impossible due to leverage" but "its ok to magically turn bat poo into a fireball" is working off two separate principals and is quite unfair.

[Knaight]

Saying "that's impossible due to leverage" but "its ok to magically turn bat poo into a fireball" is working off two separate principals and is quite unfair.

It's working off the exact same principle - adherence to genre standards. The entire point of magic is that it breaks the rules of physics and is exceptional for doing so, the inclusion of that for everything doesn't make sense. As for unfairness, given that the appreciation for a marginally more realistic approach tends to come from a lot of the same people who drastically favor martial characters it seems unlikely.

Essentially, there are points within a setting that are major and deliberate departures from reality. There are also points which don't depart from reality to an extreme extent. The existence of things in the first category doesn't mean that there shouldn't be those in the second, and it's the coexistence of those two categories being deemed unfair. As for what goes into which category - that depends on genre. If magic fits in the game at all it's always in the first. Sometimes the presence of very, very exceptional people which just aren't threatened by normal people is appropriate to the genre (putting martial skills in the first category for some characters and the second for others). Sometimes extreme athletic feats like running on water, jumping such as to basically glide, and similar are appropriate, putting movement in the first category. Sometimes they aren't. So on and so forth.

[Giant2005]

The big issue here is what really makes said fighter fantasy.

Is it just because the setting around the fighter is a fantasy setting or is it because the things the fighter can do is fantasy?

So far in 5e the reason Non-Casters are fantasy is because they happen to be in a setting which is fantasy not because they have fantasy abilities.

Casters however get both. They are in a fantasy setting and they have abilities in which make them fantasy.

The Non-Casters are limited to such a high degree is a bit weird for a fantasy game. People actually straight up freak out if you suggest they do anything that bends real world reality and yet don't bat an eye at a warlock casting a spell. You aren't allowing them to play on the same playing field. You are holding one group back, saying that they must conform to real world physics while the other group can play by fantasy setting physics.

So no, the non-caster classes aren't fantasy classes.... They just happen to be put in a fantasy world with wizards AMD clerics and junk.

Saying "that's impossible due to leverage" but "its ok to magically turn bat poo into a fireball" is working off two separate principals and is quite unfair.
Fighters are plenty fantastical in DnD. The fact that a level 18 Champion could casually live his life unimpeded, while being constantly stabbed by a knife-wielding commoner for an infinite amount of time, is obviously a massive step away from reality. The difference is, that is fine within the DnD setting - the books tell us so. Those same books also tell us that wielding over-sized weapons isn't easily done for even a Fighter and you need specialized training (level 2 Barbarian or something else which guarantees advantage) to be able to do so competently.
Mundanes are quite capable of stretching the bounds of reality as we know it but they have their limits - even mages have limits.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's working off the exact same principle - adherence to genre standards. The entire point of magic is that it breaks the rules of physics and is exceptional for doing so, the inclusion of that for everything doesn't make sense. As for unfairness, given that the appreciation for a marginally more realistic approach tends to come from a lot of the same people who drastically favor martial characters it seems unlikely.

Essentially, there are points within a setting that are major and deliberate departures from reality. There are also points which don't depart from reality to an extreme extent. The existence of things in the first category doesn't mean that there shouldn't be those in the second, and it's the coexistence of those two categories being deemed unfair. As for what goes into which category - that depends on genre. If magic fits in the game at all it's always in the first. Sometimes the presence of very, very exceptional people which just aren't threatened by normal people is appropriate to the genre (putting martial skills in the first category for some characters and the second for others). Sometimes extreme athletic feats like running on water, jumping such as to basically glide, and similar are appropriate, putting movement in the first category. Sometimes they aren't. So on and so forth.

That's fine and dandy for a book or movie, but we have a game in which a player takes control of a character. They go into a game with the thought "I'm playing a fantasy game" and the actual experience is not always that. They get to play a fantasy character if they play a magic user and they get to play a non-fantasy character if you don't.

The problem here is that this is a game in which people spend their time controlling a character within a fantasy world and what they can or can not do is reflected by the rules. With a book or movie it isn't YOU making decisions and trying to do cool things but characters within a narrative and there is a disconnect between you and the character. However in a game there is a connection between yourself and your character.

Non-Casters are created as a trap. They can kill things sure, when could they not, but they kill things in such a mundane way and they don't have anything beyond that... Well its a trap.

Its like saying if you take "Awesome Grapple Feat" and it doesn't make you an awesome grappler, or specifically makes you worse at grappling than other feats, it is a trap. Just like that, choosing non-casters in a fantasy game is a trap. You are sold that you will be a fantasy character in a fantasy world. However what you get is a realistic character in a fantasy world.

And what's messed up is that it is easy to fix, but a subset of the gaming world (partially people who can't get their head out of Tolkien's books) who lose their minds when a non-caster can be awesome outside of directly causing death by way of sharp/blunt stick.

Fantasy books and movies are all about DM Fiat to make those realistic non casters fit into the fantasy world, do we really want to go down that road where casters can do anything via class but Non-Casters must ask the DM for special rules every time they try to do something? Sounds like a crappy way to make a game.

[Giant2005]

SpawnOfMorbo, what specifically is it you would have wanted?
If I understand you right, essentially you would like your martial characters to be superheroes.
If that is correct, what sort of scale are we talking? Are we talking superman scale, Spiderman scale or Daredevil scale?

[Maxilian]

Until you can show me a table of bonuses weapons get based on size category, the MM is the closest reference we have. If anyone is looking for the stats of such weapons, as of right now we can only point him towards the MM as that has examples.

When the DMG comes out maybe it will have something on the matter, but right now we have nothing except the MM for the damage, and no rules period regarding the use of weapons based on size category. (A general assumption is that a medium PC cannot wield a large heavy weapon without disadvantage because a small PC cannot wield a medium heavy weapon without disadvantage.)

As a side note: i find it hard to believe they would pull random weapon damage dice out of nowhere. all base weapon damage from monsters is the same as in the phb or accounted for with the monster's size/stats/special abilities.

Well you're right per RAW but it doesn't make sense in RAI, is the same as a small PC using a medium heavy weapon, cause you will be a medium creature using a large heavy weapon...

[Knaight]

That's fine and dandy for a book or movie, but we have a game in which a player takes control of a character. They go into a game with the thought "I'm playing a fantasy game" and the actual experience is not always that. They get to play a fantasy character if they play a magic user and they get to play a non-fantasy character if you don't.

They get to play a character who's capabilities are less inherently restricted to the fantasy genre, sure. That's not only a known for a bunch of us, it's a large part of the appeal of those characters. It would be one thing if we were talking about a genre where there's a reasonable expectation of egregiously physics breaking effects even among martial characters (e.g. wuxia), where a genre convention is being flagrantly ignored. There's tons of fantasy out there which has the convention of reasonably down to earth characters and magic that breaks the rules though, the actual experience is as expected for a lot of people. Clearly it doesn't work for you, but that's a matter of subgenre preference and not game quality.

[Maxilian]

I think this thread has officially made me decide that posting anything on the 5E forums isn't really a good idea. My OP was pretty clear and it devolved into name calling, finger pointing and "if you don't think my way you're awful".

Don't think like that, IMHO these are the things that make a forum be a forum, i know is annoying... but it happens every now and then, not always

[MadBear]

Non-Casters are created as a trap. They can kill things sure, when could they not, but they kill things in such a mundane way and they don't have anything beyond that... Well its a trap.


I agree with alot of what you've said, but at this point I think you've gone off the rails.

In a game I'm currently DMing I don't see the lvl 12 assassin rogue as a trap option for that character (and they don't see it that way either). In the fantasy setting they're essentially exactly what you'd expect an assassin to be. They can sneak into just about any place with ridiculous stealth (double proficiency), they can murder just about anyone they can get the drop on (alert feat + assassinate=win), which also prevent most combats from escalating (if no one alerts the guards there's a problem then major battles get pushed back), then he moves so dang quick and are so slippery you can't touch him (cunning action, + halfing damage as a reaction).

Outside of combat and dungeon situations, he's the party face and an absolute charmer. Due to reliable talent, he never rolls lower then a 10 on any ability check, which is just ridiculous. With his ability to create disguises he's pretty much James Bond in Faerun. I'm actually excited what he does when he gets the impostor ability.

Now that doesn't mean I think martials are on par with the power of full spell casters (they aren't), but I don't think it's close to a fair comparison to call it a trap option.

[Nargrakhan]

If I understand you right, essentially you would like your martial characters to be superheroes.

While this is a directed question to a specific person, I couldn't help but take notice. This sounds like a loaded statement. Superhero brings the image of Marvel and DC characters. A guy or gal wearing tights. Why word it that way?

PC's in DnD are ALREADY superheroes -- except they don't wear tights. There are NPC heroes who do things like catch petty criminals, keep the low level monsters out of town, and put out ordinary fires. Then there are the PC's. They kill dragons, push back the infinite vampire spawn horde, and put out fires that come from Hell itself. That's superheroic stuff.

So in that frame of mind... yes... martials should be superheroes (like the casters already are) and not just heroes (like the NPC's are).



If that is correct, what sort of scale are we talking? Are we talking superman scale, Spiderman scale or Daredevil scale?

Personally for me, it's because of what introduced me to fantasy that riles me about how DnD treats martials. I'm old enough to remember using a typewriter for submit my grade school essays, but I was never a fan of traditional western literature. I read them, but I wasn't drawn into them. It was manga and anime that got me into fantasy. My first love was Dai no Daiboken... my most recent is Sword Arts Online... and I'm sure there will be more in the future.

Now the things anime martials can do are not exclusive to anime... He-man was shooting energy beams out of the Power Sword long before I saw anime swordsmen throw air slashes, but it was there I saw the greatest concentration of martials beating casters: mostly because martials were the oversized sword carrying hero, and casters were the oversized cloak wearing overlords. I'm not asking DnD to inject anime into martials, because these are not feats anime invented. They've always been there in western entertainment - but not worded or visualized as cool. The Power Sword beam He-man used didn't look as cool as the air slash technique Dai used, although both served the same purpose in combat. Also He-man needed a magic sword to use his, whereas Dai could use his with an ordinary stick (though that's because for He-man the sword is a plot device). I could expand this on any number of things anime martials pull, and find a western comparison who did it as well.

Point is this: I wanna be that swordsman in DnD. It's not overboard or stupid. It fits thematically and is totally badass. It's not making DnD a comic or anime. It's well within the realm of fantasy and always been there... but for some reason DnD refuses to go there. I think this is a huge mistake and wasted potential.

[Maxilian]

I agree with alot of what you've said, but at this point I think you've gone off the rails.

In a game I'm currently DMing I don't see the lvl 12 assassin rogue as a trap option for that character (and they don't see it that way either). In the fantasy setting they're essentially exactly what you'd expect an assassin to be. They can sneak into just about any place with ridiculous stealth (double proficiency), they can murder just about anyone they can get the drop on (alert feat + assassinate=win), which also prevent most combats from escalating (if no one alerts the guards there's a problem then major battles get pushed back), then he moves so dang quick and are so slippery you can't touch him (cunning action, + halfing damage as a reaction).

Outside of combat and dungeon situations, he's the party face and an absolute charmer. Due to reliable talent, he never rolls lower then a 10 on any ability check, which is just ridiculous. With his ability to create disguises he's pretty much James Bond in Faerun. I'm actually excited what he does when he gets the impostor ability.

Now that doesn't mean I think martials are on par with the power of full spell casters (they aren't), but I don't think it's close to a fair comparison to call it a trap option.

I never roll over 10 T.T (At least not in attack rolls, at least i'm the healer and tank, so i'm always doing something else but not attacking)

O.T: I think that both types of classes have their flavors and have their strengths

[SpawnOfMorbo]

SpawnOfMorbo, what specifically is it you would have wanted?
If I understand you right, essentially you would like your martial characters to be superheroes.
If that is correct, what sort of scale are we talking? Are we talking superman scale, Spiderman scale or Daredevil scale?

You are talking about a game where these murderhobos are, narratively speaking, super heroes.

With enough work you can make any caster into a psuedo superman (do note though, superman couldn't originally fly but had great strength that allowed him to "leap tall buildings with a single bound"), spiderman, or daredevil... Though these casters will far out pace those characters by miles even under the nerfed casting system.

So yeah, let the Non-Casters be superheroes too. Because what we have is Thor on one side (Tempest Cleric) and Pre-Accident Flash on the other side. One is a superhero and the other had the potential to be a superhero but just isn't there yet.

What I want is the freedom to have a non-caster to be awesome. Not just with a pointy/blunt stick by swinging it a bunch of times or just a bit harder than the average person. Everything with Non-Casters have a restriction. You can do X but... You can do Y but... It would be like saying a caster can cast fly on themselves but then they lose the ability to cast feather fall.

I need to get to work but I'll finish this thought later.

[Giant2005]

Personally for me, it's because of what introduced me to fantasy that riles me about how DnD treats martials. I'm old enough to remember using a typewriter for submit my grade school essays, but I was never a fan of traditional western literature. I read them, but I wasn't drawn into them. It was manga and anime that got me into fantasy. My first love was Dai no Daiboken... my most recent is Sword Arts Online... and I'm sure there will be more in the future.

Now the things anime martials can do are not exclusive to anime... He-man was shooting energy beams out of the Power Sword long before I saw anime swordsmen throw air slashes, but it was there I saw the greatest concentration of martials beating casters: mostly because martials were the oversized sword carrying hero, and casters were the oversized cloak wearing overlords. I'm not asking DnD to inject anime into martials, because these are not feats anime invented. They've always been there in western entertainment - but not worded or visualized as cool. The Power Sword beam He-man used didn't look as cool as the air slash technique Dai used, although both served the same purpose in combat. Also He-man needed a magic sword to use his, whereas Dai could use his with an ordinary stick (though that's because for He-man the sword is a plot device). I could expand this on any number of things anime martials pull, and find a western comparison who did it as well.

Point is this: I wanna be that swordsman in DnD. It's not overboard or stupid. It fits thematically and is totally badass. It's not making DnD a comic or anime. It's well within the realm of fantasy and always been there... but for some reason DnD refuses to go there. I think this is a huge mistake and wasted potential.

I haven't seen that anime but you haven't really described anything that can't be done in DnD. They just can't be done by generic Fighters (Although Kirito from SAO would be a generic Fighter). If you want to be doing wind slashes or whatever, you need to be a Monk, Eldritch Knight, Bard, Ranger or Paladin (Or even some kind of arcane or divine/martial multiclass). The tools to be an empowered, martially inclined character already exist without needing to remove the option of more mundane (Kirito) martial types for those that prefer it.

[Giant2005]

You are talking about a game where these murderhobos are, narratively speaking, super heroes.

With enough work you can make any caster into a psuedo superman (do note though, superman couldn't originally fly but had great strength that allowed him to "leap tall buildings with a single bound"), spiderman, or daredevil... Though these casters will far out pace those characters by miles even under the nerfed casting system.

So yeah, let the Non-Casters be superheroes too. Because what we have is Thor on one side (Tempest Cleric) and Pre-Accident Flash on the other side. One is a superhero and the other had the potential to be a superhero but just isn't there yet.

What I want is the freedom to have a non-caster to be awesome. Not just with a pointy/blunt stick by swinging it a bunch of times or just a bit harder than the average person. Everything with Non-Casters have a restriction. You can do X but... You can do Y but... It would be like saying a caster can cast fly on themselves but then they lose the ability to cast feather fall.

I need to get to work but I'll finish this thought later.

I'm still not really understanding what it is exactly you want.
I mean you can create a Superman-esque character that can jump a tall building in a single bound if you like, you can make a Batman-esque super-skilled character that has an answer for every challenge while still kicking butt in a fight. Sure these things aren't the norm but neither is Superman or Batman and for good reason - both Superman and Batman would have absolutely failed as characters if they existed in a setting where they weren't at all special and everyone possessed those same traits.
I love that those feats take some serious planning and time to accomplish. I'm not sure I'd want to play at all if everyone could do everything without effort.

[Nargrakhan]

They just can't be done by generic Fighters (Although Kirito from SAO would be a generic Fighter).

Exactly! Kirito can do all those things, and he's JUST a fighter. Other anime martials are mostly in the same boat: SAO isn't revolutionary for what those kind of swordsmen can do. Asuna and Klein were also fighters, but their abilities were of a different stock from Kirito. They too were badass.

I can't create an anime martial using DnD because the "melee abilities" are overwhelmingly compartmentalized. I CAN create an anime caster using DnD because the spells are so numerous and versatile. Martials are overwhelmingly specialized in what they do and lack the wealth of options like spells to bend the barriers.

Yes... DnD was intended to have character specialization so no one steals the spotlight 100% of the time. Yet because of their catalog of spells, casters consistently break this mold (the degree of how far depends on the edition). Martials need a greater range of abilities (not in a single package as that would be OP) from a selection to choose from like casters have spells.

[Giant2005]

Exactly! Kirito can do all those things, and he's JUST a fighter. Other anime martials are mostly in the same boat: SAO isn't revolutionary for what those kind of swordsmen can do. Asuna and Klein were also fighters, but their abilities were of a different stock from Kirito. They too were badass.

I can't create an anime martial using DnD because the "melee abilities" are overwhelmingly compartmentalized. I CAN create an anime caster using DnD because the spells are so numerous and versatile. Martials are overwhelmingly specialized in what they do and lack the wealth of options like spells to bend the barriers.

Yes... DnD was intended to have character specialization so no one steals the spotlight 100% of the time. Yet because of their catalog of spells, casters consistently break this mold (the degree of how far depends on the edition). Martials need a greater range of abilities -- not in a single package, as that would be spotlight stealing and OP -- from a selection to choose from like casters have spells.

It has been ages since I saw SAO but what could Kirito do other than fight and dual-wield? I don't remember him doing anything particularly awesome.

[Nargrakhan]

It has been ages since I saw SAO but what could Kirito do other than fight and dual-wield? I don't remember him doing anything particularly awesome.

SAO was originally a light novel, which I believe has begun publication in English. Because of the target market and limited air time, most of the show was combat focused... a lot was cut to keep within that scope. They totally ignored a lot of good material. Also remember that Kirito was using a min-max combat build that was specifically engineered for soloing battle focused content. This was a feature that side stories would show biting him in the ass frequently (he devoted no points to cooking or crafting for example). All that aside though...

Outside of combat his reconnaissance skills were exceptional: especially those for detecting hidden objects and identifying enemies (but not identifying objects or detecting hidden enemies; SAO made them distinct). He also boosted his detection range and could hear and see farther out than Asuna or Klein (though he wasn't the highest; a rouge classer did better). His reaction rate was insane, which in SAO had more applications beyond combat, but this was more of a plot point for why he got the exclusive dual wielding. Beyond the game skills he had a great judge of character (knew who to trust and who to keep a suspicion on) and enjoyed challenging mysteries and riddles (unlocking secret dungeons/items/quests; also unraveling the Titan's Hand murder spree).

Obviously Charisma wasn't a dump stat -- or he at least maxed out his Pretty Boy and Harem Collection skills. :smallwink:

It really depends which version of Kirito we're going with too. He evolved after SAO. He was combat focused, no doubt about that, but he wasn't limited to only the battlefield.

***EDIT***
Now that I think back a little further and recall more of the novels... while most of his techniques were battle related, he had a lot of them.

He had a technique that would throw up environmental debris (snow, dirt, rocks, etc) to create something of a smokescreen. He could intercept attacks and cancel them before they struck (this included spells). He could run up walls for a short distance. His movement rate was faster than any non-boss monster, mostly to maneuver on the field, but also to just outrun in case things went wrong. He used techniques to mitigate damage by dodging or deflection because he didn't wear metal armor (would have penalized his attack speed). He could pinpoint "weak points" in an enemy to bypass their defenses. One time he MADE a weak point in an otherwise invincible enemy... though that was probably plot device, more than a true technique.

And of course his Dual Wielding -- in any incarnation -- was always his trademark DPS specialty.

[Knaight]

I can't create an anime martial using DnD because the "melee abilities" are overwhelmingly compartmentalized. I CAN create an anime caster using DnD because the spells are so numerous and versatile. Martials are overwhelmingly specialized in what they do and lack the wealth of options like spells to bend the barriers.

It depends on the martial and the caster. Getting the martial side of Edward Elric is easy, getting casting to work properly is a gigantic pain. Balsa from Seirei no Moribito is easily represented with existing fighting classes.

On top of that, D&D is clearly not meant to be a Shonen game, and failing to work for Shonen characters is not a failure of the system. If BESM couldn't handle it there would be a problem, if Legends of the Wulin couldn't handle similar feats there would be a problem, so on and so forth. D&D pulls from different source material which it emulates a lot better.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It depends on the martial and the caster. Getting the martial side of Edward Elric is easy, getting casting to work properly is a gigantic pain. Balsa from Seirei no Moribito is easily represented with existing fighting classes.

On top of that, D&D is clearly not meant to be a Shonen game, and failing to work for Shonen characters is not a failure of the system. If BESM couldn't handle it there would be a problem, if Legends of the Wulin couldn't handle similar feats there would be a problem, so on and so forth. D&D pulls from different source material which it emulates a lot better.

D&D can't handle giving non-caster awesome things?

I'm sorry I remember ToB, 4e, and a plethora of homebrew that says otherwise.

Just because you don't want D&D to be able to handle something doesn't mean it can't. That's like saying D&D can't handle magic!

[Nargrakhan]

On top of that, D&D is clearly not meant to be a Shonen game, and failing to work for Shonen characters is not a failure of the system. If BESM couldn't handle it there would be a problem, if Legends of the Wulin couldn't handle similar feats there would be a problem, so on and so forth. D&D pulls from different source material which it emulates a lot better.

It's not a Shonen thing... anime isn't inventing powerful martial characters. He-man (fighter) was an overpowered martial beating the snot outta Skeletor's (wizard) spellcraft with literally his fists. He's not Shonen by a long shot. I just used anime examples because I can more immediately call detailed examples of them.

What I'm getting at is this: casters have vastly more options, flexibility, features, and utility than martials in DnD. That's the reason why they are so limited. It's not rules. It's really not the magic. It's not realism. It's not anime. It's that martials don't have the open range of stuff to pick from, that casters always have.