View Full Version : Oversized Weapon Question

2016-10-22, 02:13 PM
Forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong part of the forums, I just want to ask a technicality about the rules.

Can you wield a one-handed weapon (oversized), in two hands, and thus reduce the penalty for using an oversized weapon or something?

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

This would make for strange introversion since an oversized short-spear would practically just be a long-spear with more damage?

It would in no way be game breaking, compared to some of the really ridiculous things I've heard of, I just think it would be a nice and cheesy way of getting prettier damage roles on your weapon. (e.g. 2d6 Damage, instead of 1d8, for what would in practice be a greatsword (technically a oversized longsword))

P.S.: If I were ever to run a campaign I'd just say **** it, you want a "Greatsword" you get a "Greatsword", "Greatsword" says 1d12 damage, deal with it. I wouldn't allow a technicality destroy the immersion since the gameplay is about the game, not number whoring. I'm asking a strictly technical question about the rules.

P.P.S: You can imagine I wouldn't do well with powergamers in a group.

2016-10-22, 03:03 PM
Although we can interpret that this is about D&D 3.5 / Pathfinder, you should've mentioned what system you're talking about. This is also supposed to go in the D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 subforum.

Anyways, I haven't played Pathfinder in a while, but I believe there's a rule that states that a Large one-handed weapon can be used as a Medium two-handed weapon and vice-versa, as well as any other such combinations. (i.e. Small greatsword = Large dagger) However, the rule you quote still applies. So yes, a human could wield a Huge dagger as a two-handed weapon, but at a -4 penalty.

The only real advantage you can get out of this is that due to an intentional loophole you can wield a Large bastard sword in two hands for a 2d8 damage die, albeit at a -2 penalty.
Edit: If you have the exotic weapon proficiency.

Tiktik Ironclaw
2016-10-22, 03:23 PM
The 3.5 DMG had a variant rule for this that worked as the above poster mentioned, without a penalty. This is a variant rule though, so think about it before implementing it.

2016-10-23, 05:56 PM
The rule is that increasing the size of a weapon increases the "effort" required to wield it (light --> one-handed --> two-handed --> too large to wield) AND you take a -2 penalty for each size increase.

So for example, a human can wield a Large longsword but they have to use both hands and they take a -2 penalty because the weapon was designed for people with bigger hands or something. That same human could wield a Large short sword in one hand with a -2, but they couldn't apply Weapon Finesse because it's too big. If they instead used a Huge short sword, it would require both hands like the Large longsword, but the penalty would increase to -4 because they can barely wrap their fingers around the hilt.