Disadvantage cancellations

[foREVer_Lawliet]

My brute of a barbarian has recently taken to using a large great axe, and I was wondering how the rules would work regarding this.

Using an oversized weapon = Disadvantage
Using reckless attack = Advantage
Flanking = Advantage

So would that total up to me having advantage back on my attack, or will it only cancel out and stay as a normal attack?

[Socratov]

as per the rules of the PHB disadvantage and advantage stack only once to produce either one of 3 states:


advantage (when you only have any number of situations giving advantage and only advantage)
none/regular for situations that either involves no (dis/)advantage or involve both advantage and disadvantage, for whatever numbers of sources you can get (dis/)advantage
disadvantage (when you only have any number of situations giving disadvantage and only disadvantage)


By RAW advantage and disadvantage only cancel each other out completely and not one-for-one. Wether it should is a whole different discussion

[Madbox]

As socratov said, it doesn't quite work that way.

That being said, talk to your DM. Houseruling something might be an option.

[Zejety]

As socratov said, it doesn't quite work that way.

That being said, talk to your DM. Houseruling something might be an option.
It's not even house ruling per se. I think the DMG lists a couple variants regarding this.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think the DMG lists a couple variants regarding this.

I think it doesn't. On the contrary, it reiterates the practicality of not having to count instances.

But then, I think PC rules for oversized weapons is also a house rule.

[Socratov]

I think it doesn't. On the contrary, it reiterates the practicality of not having to count instances.

But then, I think PC rules for oversized weapons is also a house rule.

I'd rule that you don't get to add disadvantage, as it is not an environmental effect but weapon specific. Obviously I'd say the player wouldn't be able to add proficiency. Which hurts enough IMO

Also, the flanking rule is also a variant rule... Just saying...

[Joe the Rat]

Oversized Weapon Disadvantage is a reasonable extension, based on Heavy Weapons disadvantage for small creatures.
(Raging halfling with greataxe, you will see the light of day...)
If I were to formalize this, I'd add "Oversized" or "Large" as a weapon property - Medium sized creatures wield at disadvantage, small cannot at all.

[Segev]

Yeah, sorry, per the RAW, if you have at least one source of Disadvantage and at least one source of Advantage, you have neither. No matter how many sources beyond "one" you have for each, in absolute or relative quantities.

So if you want to be able to get Advantage with your big weapon, talk to your DM about ways to eliminate the Disadvantage it automatically imposes.

[N810]

Get the wizard to cast enlarge on you,
now your weapon is the right size.
and you can get advantage the usual ways.
(reckless or flanking)

[R.Shackleford]

If your group ever decides to use stacking advantage/disadvantage then invest in some blue and red poker chips.

Stack them up and the higher stack gives you advantage or disadvantage.

[Giant2005]

Oversized Weapon Disadvantage is a reasonable extension, based on Heavy Weapons disadvantage for small creatures.
(Raging halfling with greataxe, you will see the light of day...)
If I were to formalize this, I'd add "Oversized" or "Large" as a weapon property - Medium sized creatures wield at disadvantage, small cannot at all.

I agree with all of this, but I think I'd take it a step further.
An oversized Greatsword would be as different to a Greatsword, as a Greatsword is to a Longsword. Which means it would also have its own weapon proficiency too.

[Lombra]

In this specific case: having an ally helping distracting the creature doesn't make the weapon you are using easier to handle, and attacking careless of your own safety doesn't either, so in this case stacking advantage wouldn't make sense anyways.

[R.Shackleford]

In this specific case: having an ally helping distracting the creature doesn't make the weapon you are using easier to handle, and attacking careless of your own safety doesn't either, so in this case stacking advantage wouldn't make sense anyways.

Yes it would.

If an enemy is distracted then your lack of ability doesn't matter as much. Sure you aren't swinging a weapon at full potential but they aren't defending at full potential either.

You are even going all out for offense when you do this and not caring if you leave yourself open for attacks.

Advantage Attacker

[Lombra]

Yes it would.

If an enemy is distracted then your lack of ability doesn't matter as much. Sure you aren't swinging a weapon at full potential but they aren't defending at full potential either.

You are even going all out for offense when you do this and not caring if you leave yourself open for attacks.

Advantage Attacker

I think that there was a thread on these arguments, don't know if it's the case to discuss them here, but still I think that cleaving a large weapon isn't made too easier by having the opponent distracted and by going all in for offense, it still is better than nothing since you get to be as effective as a normal attack, which is a huge (pun semi-intended) improve from the disadvantage position. In fact it's two times better than nothing for math's sake.
Since it's so easy to get advantage I personally find myself reluctant in stacking it with disadvantage, it would create unrealistic and maybe too-easy combat scenarios.

[R.Shackleford]

The biggest issue here is that we aren't taking the strength score into account and we aren't giving the player character the same benefit of a doubt that we give other aspects of D&D.

Want to bring in "realistic problems with being oversized"?

Well anything that is large or bigger is dead (if it isn't a magical beast or something) because they are too oversized to live...

A dude with an oversized sword is a main staple in a lot of fantasy, punishing a player for emulating that is not a good way to DM.

If you don't question it with magic then don't question it when someone is being a BAMF.

[Lombra]

The biggest issue here is that we aren't taking the strength score into account and we aren't giving the player character the same benefit of a doubt that we give other aspects of D&D.

Want to bring in "realistic problems with being oversized"?

Well anything that is large or bigger is dead (if it isn't a magical beast or something) because they are too oversized to live...

A dude with an oversized sword is a main staple in a lot of fantasy, punishing a player for emulating that is not a good way to DM.

If you don't question it with magic then don't question it when someone is being a BAMF.

I just try to apply the game's mechanics at their best in order to enjoy it more. Sorry for using "realistic" out of context, it was my intention t imply it in the fantasy setting of D&D. The mechanics as they are allow a barbarian to use an oversized weapon efficietly by himself, so there's no fantasy trope issue here, plus someone could use mythril weapons to gain in size but keeping them at a normal weight, but this is kind of homebrewish, so instead I just try to use the rules as intended because I find the design of this edition pretty good by itself.

P.S: what does BAMF stand for?

[Socratov]

I just try to apply the game's mechanics at their best in order to enjoy it more. Sorry for using "realistic" out of context, it was my intention t imply it in the fantasy setting of D&D. The mechanics as they are allow a barbarian to use an oversized weapon efficietly by himself, so there's no fantasy trope issue here, plus someone could use mythril weapons to gain in size but keeping them at a normal weight, but this is kind of homebrewish, so instead I just try to use the rules as intended because I find the design of this edition pretty good by itself.

P.S: what does BAMF stand for?

Bad Bottom Mother Fornicator

[R.Shackleford]

Bad Bottom Mother Fornicator

Big Assaulting Man Fists

Is what I use for D&D when around younger players

[N810]

Barely
Arguing
Meh
Forgetaboutit

[Lombra]

Big Assaulting Man Fists

Is what I use for D&D when around younger players

I still feel that I'm missing part of it's significate but I love how it led others to other interpretations xD

[Giant2005]

I still feel that I'm missing part of it's significate but I love how it led others to other interpretations xD

He was joking. Socratov gave you the right answer while substituting out the curse words... Is the A one really bad enough to really need a substitution?

[Socratov]

He was joking. Socratov gave you the right answer while substituting out the curse words... Is the A one really bad enough to really need a substitution?

Yes, if I recall correctly it's asterisked on these forums

[Lombra]

He was joking. Socratov gave you the right answer while substituting out the curse words... Is the A one really bad enough to really need a substitution?

Oh. Now I see. Thanks, I have an hard time catching those hidden meanings on the fly since english isn't my first language xD

[Lombra]

Bad As Mindless Fürhers characters are anyways very possible with the default ruling of the game xD

[Socratov]

Bad As Mindless Fürhers characters are anyways very possible with the default ruling of the game xD

As are Brutishly Antisocial Murder Forces

[Lombra]

As are Brutishly Antisocial Murder Forces

Now that's on point, so on point that it almost stings xD

[Kurt Kurageous]

If you don't question it with magic then don't question it when someone is being a BAMF.

This. It's always the mundanes that get all these questions, never the magic users. The mundanes suffer under enough restrictions that have no equivalent for magic users. Consider the following non-rule.

"A caster regardless of level must identify in advance the three spells they will use in combat, and can never cast any other as long as the combat continues."

After all, a fighter can only use the weapons they carry despite knowing EVERY weapon of all categories.

Do we really want to go here? I don't think so...

[Lombra]

This. It's always the mundanes that get all these questions, never the magic users. The mundanes suffer under enough restrictions that have no equivalent for magic users. Consider the following non-rule.

"A caster regardless of level must identify in advance the three spells they will use in combat, and can never cast any other as long as the combat continues."

After all, a fighter can only use the weapons they carry despite knowing EVERY weapon of all categories.

Do we really want to go here? I don't think so...

I'm pretty sure that stacking advantage won't ease your problems friend. Martials are indeed less poeerful than casters, an what do you expect? A level 20 wizard can create an army by himself with little effort, cast a meteor swarm or bend the very existance of the multiverse. How are you going to put in perspective wirh that a martial class that doesn't cast spells? You can't, because magic is a thing in this setting and it's pretty damn powerful. It's silly to compare two different roles in terms of efficiency, each tool has its job, and classes are no more than mere tools in the hands of the players.