Can bladelocks summon oversized weapons?

[Klorox]

Page 278 of the DMG has rules for swinging oversized weapons.

Can a bladelock summon an oversized greatsword as her pact weapon?

[Dalebert]

I don't see why not, but disadvantage on all your attack rolls? I guess if you had some way to gain advantage to offset it like reckless attack it might be worthwhile.

[Klorox]

I don't see why not, but disadvantage on all your attack rolls? I guess if you had some way to gain advantage to offset it like reckless attack it might be worthwhile.

Darkness/ Devils sight

[gfishfunk]

"I summon a Giant Sized Maul for a gargantuan sized creature into my hand, angling it over the large wooden gate in front of us. As it appears, and being several tons, it immediately begins falling towards the gate, breaking through it."

[R.Shackleford]

I don't see why not, but disadvantage on all your attack rolls? I guess if you had some way to gain advantage to offset it like reckless attack it might be worthwhile.


Darkness/ Devils sight

Darkness/Devil Sight doesn't really work well with melee weapons. I guess you could summon an oversized bow... You already have Eldritch Blast, not sure why you would want an oversized bow (just fluff it at that point, arrows so big they count as a unit of force :p). Though I think Warlocks don't even get darkness so you have to pick that up somewhere else... I would just go with Barbarian.

The issue with darkness is that other creatures can walk right out of it., it's meant as a base of operations, so to speak, while you shoot your lazrs.

What you want would be Barabrain 3/ Fiend Warlock 3.

This gets you reckless attack (advantage), bear totem, armor, temp HP for making things die.

When you aren't raging you have some spells.

[dev6500]

What if you were to get yourself enlarged and then summon your large oversized weapon? Would it use the rules found in the MM for large weapon damage (2x the weapon dice) or would it use the rules in enlarge? I would think you wouldn't use the rules listed in enlarge since those rules only apply to weapons whose size are increased by the spell. If your weapon when you summon it is already large, then you should be able to pull out a 4d6 weapon damage greatsword.

[Easy_Lee]

This is tricky.

The ability suggests that you should consult the weapons table when forming a pact weapon from nothing. This may imply that the warlock can only create standard melee weapons as pact weapons.

However, it also says that you can make any magical melee weapon into your pact weapon. No restrictions are given, and you gain proficiency with that specific weapon (as opposed to its type, such as short sword, since the text doesn't make it clear whether you gain proficiency with all weapons of the selected type or with just the one weapon).

So, if you found an oversized weapon which was both magical and a melee weapon, then you could, in theory, make it your pact weapon and become proficient with it. In other words, no penalty for using it.

Obviously, this is up to your DM.

[Kryx]

So, if you found an oversized weapon which was both magical and a melee weapon, then you could, in theory, make it your pact weapon and become proficient with it. In other words, no penalty for using it.

Obviously, this is up to your DM.
If we're talking about things like Solar greatswords then that would be incredibly unbalanced compared to normal weapons.

[Easy_Lee]

If we're talking about things like Solar greatswords then that would be incredibly unbalanced compared to normal weapons.

Not arguing with that. Not even saying how the feature should work. Just trying to read it as it's written.

That said, I would certainly hope that any DM who lets the warlock pactify a Solar Greatsword would also let the paladin or fighter use one.

[Kryx]

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/08/giant-weapon-for-warlock/

"I would say that they could use a maul or a greatsword, but there's no "storm giant greatsword" to choose from in the game." - Rodney Thompson
"The feature specifically points you toward Chapter 5, indicating that the warlock chooses from the weapons normally available. Additionally, those are both intended for larger creatures (& are unwieldy for a normal PC) & have no stats of their own." - Rodney Thompson

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/18/warlock-with-a-pact-blade-too-big/
"The warlock is intended to use the weapon options in chapter 5 of the Player's Handbook" - Crawford


Just for information of anyone reading this. The two main rules guys (1 who is no longer with WotC) answered the intent very clearly and urged against allowing larger weapons.

[R.Shackleford]

Just for information of anyone reading this. The two main rules guys (1 who is longer with WotC) answered the intent very clearly and urged against allowing larger weapons.

I know what you meant, I'm no stranger to this type of thing myself, but this has a totally different meaning without the "no".

:smallbiggrin:

[Mr.Moron]

Be evil guy who wants to destroy world.
Can wield objects as improvised weapon.
Define sun as extraordinarly large improvised weapon.
Summon sun to your hand.
Incinerate planet.

[JellyPooga]

Can a bladelock summon an oversized greatsword as her pact weapon?

The question isn't so much "can" as it is "should". The rules are...not that specific on the subject, so my question to you in order to give you better advice, is why do you want to summon an oversized weapon? Is it to "break the game", as suggested by other posters (e.g. gfishfunk's "gatebreaker" maul), to "look cool" (which you won't...seriously), just to get a bit of extra damage, or some other reason?

[Easy_Lee]

Be evil guy who wants to destroy world.
Can wield objects as improvised weapon.
Define sun as extraordinarly large improvised weapon.
Summon sun to your hand.
Incinerate planet.

The sun isn't magical =)

In all seriousness, I'd be totally cool with a PC using an Ice Devil Spear or Solar Greatsword as a pact weapon, if they found one. I would just stat it the same as a regular spear or greatsword, but magical and possibly with some added cold / radiant damage, or maybe a unique effect.

[Klorox]

The question isn't so much "can" as it is "should". The rules are...not that specific on the subject, so my question to you in order to give you better advice, is why do you want to summon an oversized weapon? Is it to "break the game", as suggested by other posters (e.g. gfishfunk's "gatebreaker" maul), to "look cool" (which you won't...seriously), just to get a bit of extra damage, or some other reason?

Merely theory crafting. Any DM worth his salt would tell the player to take a hike. Or, he'd stick many encounters inside where these weapons couldn't be used.

[Klorox]

Darkness/Devil Sight doesn't really work well with melee weapons. I guess you could summon an oversized bow... You already have Eldritch Blast, not sure why you would want an oversized bow (just fluff it at that point, arrows so big they count as a unit of force :p). Though I think Warlocks don't even get darkness so you have to pick that up somewhere else... I would just go with Barbarian.

The issue with darkness is that other creatures can walk right out of it., it's meant as a base of operations, so to speak, while you shoot your lazrs.
I'm confused.

I'm proposing you cast darkness on your helmet. Others can run from you, but you run up to them on your turn and hack away.

[Kryx]

The rules are...not that specific on the subject
The rules are pretty specific. They tell you to "see chapter 5 for weapon options".

[Shaofoo]

Merely theory crafting. Any DM worth his salt would tell the player to take a hike. Or, he'd stick many encounters inside where these weapons couldn't be used.

Any DM worth his salt wouldn't let the players try to use rules meant for monsters. Really anything that is in the DMG is meant for DM's only. The DMs could allow those rules to extend to the players but likewise the players have no recourse.

But regardless to get to the actual point, a bladelock can't summon an oversized weapon because the bladelock is limited to weapons that are found in Chapter 5 of the PHB, and that doesn't include Large weapons at all. If it was a 3.x style weapon chart then probably but if you take the pure RAW you can only make weapons that are found within the PHB, of course if you find an oversized magic weapon and make that your pact weapon then that is fine.

[JellyPooga]

The rules are pretty specific. They tell you to "see chapter 5 for weapon options".

True, but that's not *that* specific when you have the DMG giving you options to modify such things and further rules in the same Class Feature entry that are not so specific. "Options is as options does"...or, you know, something like that :smallconfused:

At the end of the day, it would be a GM call. Like many other rules; 5ed is good at punting things into the GM's court instead of trying to have a hard and fast rules for everything. It's one of its endearing qualities IMO :smallbiggrin:

[Klorox]

True, but that's not *that* specific when you have the DMG giving you options to modify such things and further rules in the same Class Feature entry that are not so specific. "Options is as options does"...or, you know, something like that :smallconfused:

At the end of the day, it would be a GM call. Like many other rules; 5ed is good at punting things into the GM's court instead of trying to have a hard and fast rules for everything. It's one of its endearing qualities IMO :smallbiggrin:

I agree that it would be the GM's call. But WotC pushes AL on the players, so specific is important.

[R.Shackleford]

The sun isn't magical =)

In all seriousness, I'd be totally cool with a PC using an Ice Devil Spear or Solar Greatsword as a pact weapon, if they found one. I would just stat it the same as a regular spear or greatsword, but magical and possibly with some added cold / radiant damage, or maybe a unique effect.

Well, maybe, I personally like the idea that the sun is either a portal to the elemental plane of fire or a *really fricken big* fire elemental that has been punished by being nailed to the sky....



True, but that's not *that* specific when you have the DMG giving you options to modify such things and further rules in the same Class Feature entry that are not so specific. "Options is as options does"...or, you know, something like that :smallconfused:

At the end of the day, it would be a GM call. Like many other rules; 5ed is good at punting things into the GM's court instead of trying to have a hard and fast rules for everything. It's one of its endearing qualities IMO :smallbiggrin:

Players don't have access to the Dungeons Master's Guide. The player has access to the Player's Handbook. It is specific enough.

[Kryx]

At the end of the day, it would be a GM call. Like many other rules; 5ed is good at punting things into the GM's court instead of trying to have a hard and fast rules for everything. It's one of its endearing qualities IMO :smallbiggrin:
It's a GMs call like everything in the game.

However the default rules are not ambiguous.

[Shaofoo]

True, but that's not *that* specific when you have the DMG giving you options to modify such things and further rules in the same Class Feature entry that are not so specific. "Options is as options does"...or, you know, something like that :smallconfused:

At the end of the day, it would be a GM call. Like many other rules; 5ed is good at punting things into the GM's court instead of trying to have a hard and fast rules for everything. It's one of its endearing qualities IMO :smallbiggrin:

As a player the DMG is not something that you can look into for options without the DM's permission. If as a player you want the Spell Point variant but the DM doesn't then you are stuck with the full spell slot system because as a player you have no say in the matter.

Everything in the DMG is the DM's call because it is a book for DMs and DMs only. A DM can freely let the players have stuff from the DMG but that is at his discretion.


I agree that it would be the GM's call. But WotC pushes AL on the players, so specific is important.

Does WotC allow players to consult the DMG in AL? I thought they were pretty strict on what players can and can't have (including blanket ban on the flying races for starters).

[R.Shackleford]

For some reason I was thinking Darkness had the same limitations on casting as silence (which can't be out in items).

But the Barbarian is still my prefered way as it doesn't screw over your allies.




Does WotC allow players to consult the DMG in AL? I thought they were pretty strict on what players can and can't have (including blanket ban on the flying races for starters).

AL does not allow players options outside of PHB + specific things. The DMG has never been one of those options.

[Easy_Lee]

AL does not allow players options outside of PHB + specific things. The DMG has never been one of those options.

AL limits the players, but exerts little control over the DMs. And I don't mean that in a nice way. Some of the worst stories I've heard about crappy, inconsistent, or inexperienced DMs have come from AL.

Edit: point being, if you ask a handful of AL DMs about this thread, you'll likely get several answers as to what the blade pact feature allows. The answer should be, "players can only use weapons which are on the weapons table in the PHB." But not all AL DMs are gonna tell you that. They operate under few standards, and many of them have an incomplete understanding of the actual rules.

[Addaran]

Does WotC allow players to consult the DMG in AL? I thought they were pretty strict on what players can and can't have (including blanket ban on the flying races for starters).

If WotC allows player to consult the DMG or not for AL isn't very important. You only have to had read the "core" DMG rules once or be a DM in another game to know the rules. Not sure how super strick AL is to homebrew/house rules, but if the DM is supposed to fallow the rules, he can't change what's the RAW be it in the PHB or DMG. What is important is if the DM allow new options or variant rules, not where the RAW comes from.


ex: Ballista do 3d10 damage(DMG). Him changing the damage to 6d6 for a standard size ballista is the same as changing the damage of a standard size Glaive to 2d6. Either he can do both or he can't do both.

[Shaofoo]

If WotC allows player to consult the DMG or not for AL isn't very important. You only have to had read the "core" DMG rules once or be a DM in another game to know the rules. Not sure how super strick AL is to homebrew/house rules, but if the DM is supposed to fallow the rules, he can't change what's the RAW be it in the PHB or DMG. What is important is if the DM allow new options or variant rules, not where the RAW comes from.


ex: Ballista do 3d10 damage(DMG). Him changing the damage to 6d6 for a standard size ballista is the same as changing the damage of a standard size Glaive to 2d6. Either he can do both or he can't do both.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. I only bring up the AL because that is a rigid system in place to promote some semblance of progression and standard across all places (whether it actually works is another thing), if you are playing in the AL then you follow the AL standard. If you are outside the AL then of course it doesn't matter, I wouldn't think that would have to be said, would've thought it was obvious.

Yes a DM can change anything, he can make Glaives deal 100d6 and have Ballista deal 1d2 if he wants to although it isn't encouraged. He can leave the Glaive alone and change the Ballista or vice versa, there is no "Either he can do both or he can't" he can cherry pick what he wants and how much to change, of course some things shouldn't be changed if you expect to stick with some semblance of balance (basically anything that is in the PHB that isn't with a DM asking clause like feats and multiclassing should probably be left alone, so changing the Glaive is a bad idea but feel free to make the Ballista deal less damage than a dagger if that is what you want).

Of course the Dm can change anything, the book expects and even encourages such behavior, of course within reason but the most important thing is to have fun, a fun game need not be balanced after all.

[Addaran]

I am not sure what you are getting at here. I only bring up the AL because that is a rigid system in place to promote some semblance of progression and standard across all places (whether it actually works is another thing), if you are playing in the AL then you follow the AL standard. If you are outside the AL then of course it doesn't matter, I wouldn't think that would have to be said, would've thought it was obvious.

Yes a DM can change anything, he can make Glaives deal 100d6 and have Ballista deal 1d2 if he wants to although it isn't encouraged. He can leave the Glaive alone and change the Ballista or vice versa, there is no "Either he can do both or he can't" he can cherry pick what he wants and how much to change, of course some things shouldn't be changed if you expect to stick with some semblance of balance (basically anything that is in the PHB that isn't with a DM asking clause like feats and multiclassing should probably be left alone, so changing the Glaive is a bad idea but feel free to make the Ballista deal less damage than a dagger if that is what you want).

Of course the Dm can change anything, the book expects and even encourages such behavior, of course within reason but the most important thing is to have fun, a fun game need not be balanced after all.

I'm not sure how rigid the AL standard is. But what i'm saying is:

If the DM can change core rules from the DMG/MM/etc, he also can change core rule from the PHB. So if you're okay with him changing the Ballista damage, you can't object when he change the Glaive damage. If you're mad that he changed the Ballista damage, you can't be okay with him changing the Glaive.

Again, i'm not sure how rigid AL is. I've heard you can fill complain against DM, but i'm not sure if it's only for horrible DM/doesn't know the rules or if it's cause he's not sticking to strick RAW/RAI.

If a complain about a DM giving immunity necrotic damage to all undead (changing the rules) would be ignored, then a complain about a DM giving all his players immunity to necrotic (for whatever story reason) should also be ignored.

[R.Shackleford]

AL limits the players, but exerts little control over the DMs. And I don't mean that in a nice way. Some of the worst stories I've heard about crappy, inconsistent, or inexperienced DMs have come from AL.

Edit: point being, if you ask a handful of AL DMs about this thread, you'll likely get several answers as to what the blade pact feature allows. The answer should be, "players can only use weapons which are on the weapons table in the PHB." But not all AL DMs are gonna tell you that. They operate under few standards, and many of them have an incomplete understanding of the actual rules.

Oh yes, I'm pretty sure I'm the source on a lot of those horror stories lol.

I was just talking about players and what they can and can't use.

[Shaofoo]

I'm not sure how rigid the AL standard is. But what i'm saying is:

If the DM can change core rules from the DMG/MM/etc, he also can change core rule from the PHB. So if you're okay with him changing the Ballista damage, you can't object when he change the Glaive damage. If you're mad that he changed the Ballista damage, you can't be okay with him changing the Glaive.

This makes no sense at all. Why can't I object with him changing one part and not another, why does it have to be all or nothing? I can totally not want him to change the Glaive damage while I am okay with him changing the ballista damage mostly because as a player I don't know how much damage does a Ballista weapon does. I can't be mad at a Ballista change because Ballista information is not privvy to me, I can be mad if the Ballista deals 3d10 damage and later in the adventure they deal 1d2 because it is inconsistent but if it always dealt 1d2 then I can't be mad because that is how the DM ruled in this.

Of course if you don't like any change then feel free to walk out, you always have that option. The Dm can change anything but you don't have to be around to suffer for it either.


Again, i'm not sure how rigid AL is. I've heard you can fill complain against DM, but i'm not sure if it's only for horrible DM/doesn't know the rules or if it's cause he's not sticking to strick RAW/RAI.

If a complain about a DM giving immunity necrotic damage to all undead (changing the rules) would be ignored, then a complain about a DM giving all his players immunity to necrotic (for whatever story reason) should also be ignored.

I am not sure how it works exactly but if the complaint is that some monsters get immunities then I bet it will be ignored because it isn't saying the entire story (maybe the zombies are special zombies, maybe they are affected by an item, maybe countless reasons that can exists) and likewise the same reason with the players getting immunity. And yes you can be okay with zombies being immune and not with players being immune and vice versa, monsters and players are not one and the same.

[dev6500]

I do not see a reason you can't use a oversized pact weapon.
1. RAW, you can only create a pact weapon out of weapons from the phb weapons table but you can turn any magical weapon into a pact weapon. So have someone craft a large creature sized greatsword and then have a party member memorize 2 castings of magic weapon. Boom problem solved.

By the rules in the DMG (that do not appear to be listed with an optional tag) oversized weapons can be wielded with disadvantage and they have damage dice based off of the original weapons statistics. Large sized weapons double damage dice for example.

That is the RAW, but considering DMs are encouraged to change any rules they see fit, ymmv. Just because rules aren't in the PHB does not mean that players do not have access to them. Players will have access to them because a DM is encouraged to follow them just like they are encouraged to follow all other rules. The rules for oversized weapons are just as accessible as the rules for travel pace describing travel pace in a minute and in an hour,listed in the dmg on pg 242. These are the rules a player can expect a DM to follow.

It is a different matter over whether the DM will follow the rules or make their own judgment. But hypothetical DM rulings cannot really be determined and they really don't have a place in this discussion.

[Addaran]

. I can't be mad at a Ballista change because Ballista information is not privvy to me,

That's cause you choosed to not check the DMG. Nobody is forced in one role(player vs DM) or expected to not read some of the source books. (adventures is another story if you plan to play it eventually).



I am not sure how it works exactly but if the complaint is that some monsters get immunities then I bet it will be ignored because it isn't saying the entire story (maybe the zombies are special zombies, maybe they are affected by an item, maybe countless reasons that can exists) and likewise the same reason with the players getting immunity. And yes you can be okay with zombies being immune and not with players being immune and vice versa, monsters and players are not one and the same.
You can agree or not with the specific changes, but you can't say the DM is not allowed to change some rules, if you think he's allowed to change others. Either he have total control (and you can walk away if not happy) or he's bound by RAW/RAI.

You can't expect him to be bound by RAW for some things, and free style for others. (i.e. if the DM allows some homebrew in his game, it's pointless to argue with him that RAW allows the wish-simulacrum chains and he's obligated to let you do it. He's already proven he's not bound by RAW.)

[R.Shackleford]

I always liked the "unwieldy" part of oversized weapons to be shown in the damage side of things rather than the attack side.

A giant with a sword may deal 2d8 but your will still deal 1d8 with that sword. You attack as normal but you can't follow through with your hits or more hits become glancing blows.

[Kryx]

have someone craft a large creature sized greatsword
Herein lies the problem. See the Rodney Thompson tweet I quoted above - there is no such thing as a "giant greatsword".

[dev6500]

Herein lies the problem. See the Rodney Thompson tweet I quoted above - there is no such thing as a "giant greatsword".

How so? Therein lies no problem considering there is a table for the greatsword and there are rules for larger sized weapons in the DMG already mentioned. There exist rules for determining the stats for a greatsword.

This is not the same as saying, I want to make a flail and then the DM being forced to generate stats for the weapon if he so wishes. The players handbook has weapon stats for a greatsword and the DMG tells you how increasing the size of weapons modifies their stats. Ergo, giant greatswords exist in 5e.

DMs can veto your wish to have a giant greatsword but that is because DMs, due directly to them being DMs, can veto anything if they wish to.

[Kryx]

How so? Therein lies no problem considering there is a table for the greatsword and there are rules for larger sized weapons in the DMG already mentioned. There exist rules for determining the stats for a greatsword.
On what page are those rules?

Method for determine =/= large greatswords exist for PCs. As far as I'm aware the default rules do not allow for large greatswords wielded by PCs and the designers of the system have stated that a Warlock Blade Pact does not allow that either.

A GM, as always, is able to do whatever he wants.

[R.Shackleford]

On what page are those rules?

Method for determine =/= large greatswords exist for PCs. As far as I'm aware the default rules do not allow for large greatswords wielded by PCs and the designers of the system have stated that a Warlock Blade Pact does not allow that either.

A GM, as always, is able to do whatever he wants.

This is where people are getting confused. As you and others have said...

The DMG is not a player resource

[dev6500]

This is where people are getting confused. As you and others have said...

The DMG is not a player resource

Not sure that this means what you think it means.

Rules for dnd are generated in the phb, mm, and dmg. Regardless of whether the DMG is a "player" resource, it is a rules resource and unless a DM determines otherwise, the baseline assumption is that the DM follows the rules listed in the PHB, MM, and DMG.

Just like my already mentioned previous example of the DMGs rules for travel pacing. A player may not know about the travel pacing but the DMG gives rules for travel pacing and the baseline expectation is that the DM will follow that rule. So a player may not know what the DMG says on the matter, but the DMG still outlines that your movement speed over a minute is 10x your speed. So RAW, when a player asks, "how far do I travel in a minute", the RAW answer is still 10x your speed even though its in the DMG.

How is it any different with oversized weapons. A Player may not know the rules but he can still ask the DM and if the DM follows the RAW in the PHB and DMG, he will respond with the answer I have already outlined. He is also open to make a different ruling as DMs are repeatedly encouraged to do in the DMG. I am once again unsure what a myriad of possible DM rulings that could go any number of ways have to do with this discussion.

[Kryx]

What page are these rules that say there are large greatswords available for PCs?

[Addaran]

On what page are those rules?

Method for determine =/= large greatswords exist for PCs. As far as I'm aware the default rules do not allow for large greatswords wielded by PCs and the designers of the system have stated that a Warlock Blade Pact does not allow that either.

A GM, as always, is able to do whatever he wants.

He didn't say "for PCs" in the quote. He only said there was "giant" or "large" greatsword, wich is true. And there is rule for those oversized weapon damage. But nowhere does it say that a medium/small character can wield them normaly, that's where the DM decide how impossible and what penalities exist for doing so. (less damage, disadvantage, and/or just can't attack with it)

The rules are the rules, it doesn't matter where they come from. You read the stat block of a PC and an NPC the same way, it's just how the stat block came to be that is different.

[Kryx]

Are you talking about these rules that clearly specify monsters?


Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3dl2 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normally d12.

A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.

Ya, that doesn't apply to PCs at all. Monsters specifically do not follow the same rules as PCs in several areas in 5e. It doesn't require a DM to houserule anything away as the option isn't available for PCs.

Beyond that, as I've said several times now, the designers of the system have said it doesn't work.

[Easy_Lee]

Don't know about you guys, but if I see a giant with a maul dealing 3d6 damage, I assume that's because a giant is swinging the maul, not that there's something special about the maul itself. It would be an insult to Dwarven craftsmanship to suggest that giants make better mauls, if only some magic allowed the smaller races to use them.

Things get weird when weapon stats themselves are off, but a weapon just doesn't allow PCs to wield it effectively. To me, it's stupid that we even have examples of that.

Regarding DMG vs PHB, there are passages in the DMG which are necessary for players to know in certain situations. For example, the rules on the exact timing of reactions. 5e hasn't made the cleanest split in this regard.

[dev6500]

What page are these rules that say there are large greatswords available for PCs?

Even the equipment section in the PHB does not outline that players can get these items? The PHB only describes the game statistics of these items. In fact, outside of starting equipment, a player might not be able to find a store that sells plate unless the DM decides to stock it. But even if the DM does not stock it, if he allows crafting as outlined in 187 of the phb, you should be able to make yourself a oversized weapon.

So if crafting is available, it is RAW possible for a player to craft a oversized weapon. If they craft an oversized weapon, there are RAW statistics outlined in the PHB and DMG for that weapon. Could a DM make a particular ruling stopping this? Sure but a DM could do the same with Plate but I have never seen anyone argue that one is making crazy assumptions that a player might find a way to get and use Plate.

[Kryx]

If they craft an oversized weapon, there are RAW statistics outlined in the PHB and DMG for that weapon. Could a DM make a particular ruling stopping this?
Please read above. What you are passing off a RAW is simply not true.

This isn't 3.5 where DMs have to restrict things. The option is plainly not available to PCs, at all. DMs are free to break their game if they wish, but they are not depriving PCs by not allowing oversized weapons by any reading of the rules.

Those rules, as I've clarified above, apply to monsters.

[Addaran]

A simpler exemple then.

By RAW, a Belt of Storm Giant Strength set the wearer's str at 29.

As a DM, you're fully allowed to think it's stupid and should be a +5 str belt that can go above 20 (so 25 or 29 in the rare case of a barbarian) and give one to your player. However, it's not a "RAW Belt of Storm Giant Strength".

If you tell your player he's getting a Belt of Storm Giant Strength, and he ask : "Cool, do you fallow RAW?" You can't answer "Yes, but it gives +5 str instead." That is the very definition of not RAW.

[dev6500]

Please read above. What you are passing off a RAW is simply not true.

This isn't 3.5 where DMs have to restrict things. The option is plainly not available to PCs, at all. DMs are free to break their game if they wish, but they are not depriving PCs by not allowing oversized weapons by any reading of the rules.

Those rules, as I've clarified above, apply to monsters.

They apply to creatures and humanoids are a type of creature that generally players make their characters from. So you are clearly asking a disingenuous question since you seem to know where the rule is in the dmg.

[Kryx]

you are clearly asking a disingenuous question since you seem to know where the rule is in the dmg.
I actually didn't know where the rules were, but I did find them.



They apply to creatures and humanoids are a type of creature that generally players make their characters from.
Please provide a quote that specifies that. If it's the quote I provided it only applies to monsters. The quote is literally under the section titled "Creating a Monster Stat Block".

I've provided designer quotes and DMG quotes. Please provide rules to backup your claims that this is RAW or even RAI.

[dev6500]

I actually didn't know where the rules were, but I did find them.



Please provide a quote that specifies that. If it's the quote I provided it only applies to monsters. The quote is literally under the section titled "Creating a Monster Stat Block".

I've provided designer quotes and DMG quotes. Please provide rules to backup your claims that this is RAW or even RAI.

The paragraph that refers to using a weapon larger than your size calls out creatures. All the player's play races that fall into the category of creatures so those rules apply to them. Its a pretty simple causal chain.

[Kryx]

Ok, so you're going to wilfully ignore that these rules are for creating a monster's stat block and specifically call out how to handle monsters? You're also going to wilfully ignore the designer tweets?

I guess we're done here. You have no ground to stand on. I don't need to keep reiterating myself.

[dev6500]

Ok, so you're going to wilfully ignore that these rules are for creating a monster's stat block and specifically call out how to handle monsters? You're also going to wilfully ignore the designer tweets?

I guess we're done here. You have no ground to stand on. I don't need to keep reiterating myself.

Could you quote for me a rule in the phb, dmg or mm that says that monsters or creatures operate under distinctly separate rules? If a player kills a storm giant, holds onto the storm giants super big sword, and later shapechanges into a storm giant and attacks with the weapon, what do you think is the RAW? Considering spells in the phb let you turn into monsters, it is abundantly clear that monster rules are not separate from player rules.

[RickAllison]

Ok, so you're going to wilfully ignore that these rules are for creating a monster's stat block and specifically call out how to handle monsters? You're also going to wilfully ignore the designer tweets?

I guess we're done here. You have no ground to stand on. I don't need to keep reiterating myself.

Pot, meet kettle. You have been either willfully disingenuous or oblivious to the rules on the page, considering that you are ignoring the rest of the information just south of your quotes. Just so you can't weasel your way out or be ignorant:


A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters

Can a fellow PC be interacted with? Can he be potentially fought and killed? Then a PC is, by the RAW definition that was carefully given, a monster. Thus, rules that apply to monsters also apply to PCs.


A creature gas disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.

So there we go. By RAW, PCs are monsters. Good thing too, or we would have ridiculous consequences like Hold Monster failing where the much lower-level Hold Person succeeds. Now, the PHB seems to treat monsters as simply being any creatures that aren't the PCs. This is... Problematic. Outright ridiculous, actually. If we insist on this distinction, it means that the 24 Strength barbarian is unable to wield the Large greatsword that the feeble peasant next to him is capable of wielding. Creating that distinction forces a situation that is completely meta-game; the laws of the universe say that this PC should be able to wield the weapon, but the laws of the game at that he can't. Even more oddly, he is only under this restriction when under the control of the player. If the DM takes the exact same character, he magically gains the ability to wield a Large weapon again. Ridiculous.

Because PCs are monsters (unless you wish to establish a ridiculous world. Sorry, but that is the only way to describe such a world), they may make use of the rules on page 278. Not only this, but the rules explicitly state the restrictions on wielding of these oversized weapons, that the DM may rule on banning weapons two sizes larger.

Thus, to prevent a PC from wielding an oversized weapon, a DM must either create an arbitrary restriction that makes little sense in- or out-of-universe, or he must explicitly violate the RAW of the books.

[R.Shackleford]

Pot, meet kettle. You have been either willfully disingenuous or oblivious to the rules on the page, considering that you are ignoring the rest of the information just south of your quotes. Just so you can't weasel your way out or be ignorant:



Can a fellow PC be interacted with? Can he be potentially fought and killed? Then a PC is, by the RAW definition that was carefully given, a monster. Thus, rules that apply to monsters also apply to PCs.



So there we go. By RAW, PCs are monsters. Good thing too, or we would have ridiculous consequences like Hold Monster failing where the much lower-level Hold Person succeeds. Now, the PHB seems to treat monsters as simply being any creatures that aren't the PCs. This is... Problematic. Outright ridiculous, actually. If we insist on this distinction, it means that the 24 Strength barbarian is unable to wield the Large greatsword that the feeble peasant next to him is capable of wielding. Creating that distinction forces a situation that is completely meta-game; the laws of the universe say that this PC should be able to wield the weapon, but the laws of the game at that he can't. Even more oddly, he is only under this restriction when under the control of the player. If the DM takes the exact same character, he magically gains the ability to wield a Large weapon again. Ridiculous.

Because PCs are monsters (unless you wish to establish a ridiculous world. Sorry, but that is the only way to describe such a world), they may make use of the rules on page 278. Not only this, but the rules explicitly state the restrictions on wielding of these oversized weapons, that the DM may rule on banning weapons two sizes larger.

Thus, to prevent a PC from wielding an oversized weapon, a DM must either create an arbitrary restriction that makes little sense in- or out-of-universe, or he must explicitly violate the RAW of the books.

DMGs are for DMs and not for Players.

You are taking rules made for the Dungeon Master and applying them to players. Nothing in the PHB tells the players to use the DMG.

Hell, the DMG didn't even exist for a few months so there is no way you could even argue that the PHB was refering to the DMG.

Plane and simple, the Player's Hand Book is the only resource for players (untill specific player splat came out) that calls out being a player's resource). The Dungeons Master's Guide is not a player option. The Monster's Manual is also Not a player's resource.

Read the PHB and the DMG. They are written for a different audience.

There is no "by RAW use rules in the DMG" and there is certainly no RAI as it has been specifically told to us.

[RickAllison]

DMGs are for DMs and not for Players.

You are taking rules made for the Dungeon Master and applying them to players. Nothing in the PHB tells the players to use the DMG.

Hell, the DMG didn't even exist for a few months so there is no way you could even argue that the PHB was refering to the DMG.

Plane and simple, the Player's Hand Book is the only resource for players (untill specific player splat came out) that calls out being a player's resource). The Dungeons Master's Guide is not a player option. The Monster's Manual is also Not a player's resource.

Read the PHB and the DMG. They are written for a different audience.

There is no "by RAW use rules in the DMG" and there is certainly no RAI as it has been specifically told to us.

So the counterargument to my citing of the rules is to claim that they aren't valid rules? The player doesn't need to know that they are defined as monsters in the Monster Manual for it to be true. If the fighter picks up a Large bow from a monster, he doesn't need to know that the DMG clarifies the rules for him using it to do so; as far as he knows, the DM could have made it up on the spot. That, however, has nothing to do with what the rules actually say.

The players don't need to know that they are allowed to wield oversized weapons at disadvantage for it to be true. Unless a DM is going against RAW (which he is allowed to do), there is no difference between a fighter forging an oversized bow knowing he can use it or a fighter who picks up an oversized bow without knowing that fact.

[Kryx]

If a player kills a storm giant, holds onto the storm giants super big sword, and later shapechanges into a storm giant and attacks with the weapon, what do you think is the RAW? Considering spells in the phb let you turn into monsters, it is abundantly clear that monster rules are not separate from player rules.
If you Shapechange into a monster then you have the stats of that monster, as the spell states.

______________________________________



Can a fellow PC be interacted with? Can he be potentially fought and killed? Then a PC is, by the RAW definition that was carefully given, a monster. Thus, rules that apply to monsters also apply to PCs.
Once again I'd point you to page 274 of the DMG where these rules start. These rules are for creating a stat block for a monster. Creating a stat block for a monster has nothing to do with PCs and the weapons that they can obtain.


So there we go. By RAW, PCs are monsters.
They most certainly are not. Read the quote you provided again:


A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters
You'll notice that player characters are specifically called out as a different entity. On Page 11 of the PHB you'll see rules for creating a Player Character. Those rules are very different from the rules on DMG 274 which give you rules for creating a Monster.

You'll also notice a direct differntiation between Monsters and PCs:

Monsters, like player characters, have the six ability scores. A monster can't have a score lower than 1 or higher than 30 in any ability.
By your logic PCs are no longer bound to 20 in an ability score because they are monsters.
By that same logic shouldn't even PC of medium size (pretty much all) have a d8 hd? See DMG 276.

PCs are not monsters. They have different rules and different methods for creation. If you are creating a PC as a monster than you could potentially use these rules, but that is not how the game is designed to work.


See Enlarge/Reduce for how the designers intended PCs to change based on size. That is 1d4 extra/less damage.




I really don't understand why we're even debating this. The designers have made it very clear the intention of the warlock ability. That has been clearly stated as "it doesn't work".

[Socratov]

The question isn't so much "can" as it is "should". The rules are...not that specific on the subject, so my question to you in order to give you better advice, is why do you want to summon an oversized weapon? Is it to "break the game", as suggested by other posters (e.g. gfishfunk's "gatebreaker" maul), to "look cool" (which you won't...seriously), just to get a bit of extra damage, or some other reason?

Is becoming Cloud with his Buster Sword not cool enough for you? maybe Sephiroth with Muramasa? I can find lots of reasons to do this.

[Merellis]

Is becoming Cloud with his Buster Sword not cool enough for you? maybe Sephiroth with Muramasa? I can find lots of reasons to do this.

You're thinking too small.

I'd personally go with Jack Rakan and his Warship Breaker.

https://kokuun.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/negima-202.jpg

I'd let a player get away with this.

[Socratov]

You're thinking too small.

I'd personally go with Jack Rakan and his Warship Breaker.

https://kokuun.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/negima-202.jpg

I'd let a player get away with this.

Good one. Though personally I'd also allow multiple weapons to be summoned (though maybe allow only 2 initially and end up releasing more as the pact of the blade warlock progresses to lvl 14, including past magic weapons seen) only to enable Unlimited Blade Works form Fate/Stay night.

[Merellis]

Good one. Though personally I'd also allow multiple weapons to be summoned (though maybe allow only 2 initially and end up releasing more as the pact of the blade warlock progresses to lvl 14, including past magic weapons seen) only to enable Unlimited Blade Works form Fate/Stay night.

Funny enough, he does that too.

Jack Rakan, the most broken character in existence through sheer power and will. :smallbiggrin:

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/mahousenseinegima/images/a/ac/Jack_Rakan.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100506012108

[Socratov]

Funny enough, he does that too.

Jack Rakan, the most broken character in existence through sheer power and will. :smallbiggrin:

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/mahousenseinegima/images/a/ac/Jack_Rakan.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100506012108

please tell me what shounen hero isn't... I'll wait while you search the books.

[RickAllison]

If you Shapechange into a monster then you have the stats of that monster, as the spell states.

______________________________________



Once again I'd point you to page 274 of the DMG where these rules start. These rules are for creating a stat block for a monster. Creating a stat block for a monster has nothing to do with PCs and the weapons that they can obtain.


They most certainly are not. Read the quote you provided again:


You'll notice that player characters are specifically called out as a different entity. On Page 11 of the PHB you'll see rules for creating a Player Character. Those rules are very different from the rules on DMG 274 which give you rules for creating a Monster.

You'll also notice a direct differntiation between Monsters and PCs:

By your logic PCs are no longer bound to 20 in an ability score because they are monsters.
By that same logic shouldn't even PC of medium size (pretty much all) have a d8 hd? See DMG 276.

PCs are not monsters. They have different rules and different methods for creation. If you are creating a PC as a monster than you could potentially use these rules, but that is not how the game is designed to work.


See Enlarge/Reduce for how the designers intended PCs to change based on size. That is 1d4 extra/less damage.




I really don't understand why we're even debating this. The designers have made it very clear the intention of the warlock ability. That has been clearly stated as "it doesn't work".

Those creation rules for PCs are exceptions to the general rules. The general rule is that monsters are created according to the rules in the DMG, but the specific rules for PCs trump that. But by all means, ruin all sense of reality in your world by creating arbitrary boundaries between PCs and NPCs. Hold Monster can't affect PCs, a barbarian can pick up a Large greatsword only when he isn't controlled by the player, and so on.

Making PCs a specific subset of monsters not only makes sense with the rules, it makes sense with the game world.