What Makes a Heavy Weapon Do More Damage?

[Gale]

The heavy weapon property has always confused me. To my understanding, it indicates two things: one, small creatures can't use them properly due to them being too large and unruly; and two, heavy weapons do more damage not only inherently but also extrinsically through the Great Weapon Master feat. Thus by this logic, a blacksmith could never craft a heavy weapon suitable for a halfling, because by definition a weapon suited for a halfling is not heavy.

Which raises the question, what is it about heavy weapons that causes them to do more damage? Why is a smaller version of a heavy weapon, suitable for a halfling, but no longer by definition, "heavy," incompatible with half the features of Great Weapon Master?

At first I thought it was due to the sheer weight of heavy weapons. But halflings are not inherently weaker than medium creatures. Thus, if this were the reason for a heavy weapon's damage than a halfling should not be excluded from wielding one properly.
Then I thought it may be due to the larger striking surface of heavy weapons. But a pike, despite having an exceptionally long shaft, does not seem to have a larger striking surface than a longsword.
The only other reason I can think of is that the longer handles possessed by heavy weapons enables the user to perform more lethal blows. I'm skeptical of that, but I'm by no means an expert on weapons and am simply trying to use my best judgement.

I suppose most of my confusion comes from the Great Weapon Master feat. I can understand that a smaller weapon does less damage. But I'm not sure what shared property heavy melee weapons have that not only makes them unwieldy to small creatures but also enables them to do more damage through this feat. I understand that they are physically too large for them, but I'm not sure how that translates to them being capable of brutal maneuvers irreplicable with an ordinary weapon.

(To postface, I understand that the heavy weapon property is largely a balancing mechanic. And while I take some issue with it, my main question here is not why it exists, but what is the underlying logic for it?)

[HappyDaze]

The logic for it was formed in an earlier edition. Somewhere in playtest, most of the reasons for it become moot, yet it remains.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Heavy weapons don't just weigh more, they're designed so they get a whole lot of momentum behind them when swung correctly. Small characters don't have enough body mass to offset the weight of the weapon's swing, so they're likely to be off balance and thus less accurate when using one. Making a smaller version of a heavy weapon isn't going to be able to get as much momentum behind a swing, so even if you're using it in the exact same way as a medium character would, it just doesn't accomplish the same thing.

[Bannan_mantis]

It's most likely due to A) how DND hit points aren't actually based on not just how tough you are but also how much stamina with a dodge that makes you expend stamina actually being a 'hit' in older editions. The extra weight of the greatweapon would make it harder to block/defend against and the size of it gives a reach advantage with these both playing into it. But also B) because that's what you'd expect from a great weapons, a great weapon is big so people would expect it to hit hard so gameplay wise it just makes sense for them to act like that. It doesn't always need to be from physics or to simulate accurate medieval combat but rather just from the fact that this is a fantasy story telling game so things might be designed to fit the ideas most people have about them (like how in 5e a longsword is a one handed strength weapon but in reality it's more of a two handed finesse weapon)

[DeadMech]

Heavier weapons have more mass and thus when they get moving have more inertia. Even if you blocked a greatsword or took in on an armored spot it would hit with allot of concussive force.

Small creatures can't use them well not because they are too much mass to lift but because the mass is too far from the weapon's grip. A small creature fully extending them out without leaning back away from the extension would shift the center of their mass too far and end up toppling over.

Gameplay balance wise heavy is a negative modifier. it does something to the weapon that makes it less desirable and that is balanced by scaling the damage die up one step. All negative weapons traits tend to come with a corresponding increase in damage. All positive traits come with reduced damage.

Heavy, Two Handed, Loading and Martial Melee Weapon are all negative and step up the damage die. Interestingly Martial ranged weapons don't get a step up in damage for being more restrictive.

Light and Reach are positive and step down the damage die. Except on the Hand Axe but I guess otherwise there would have been no 1d6 simple slashing weapon.

Finesse, Versatile, Thrown and Ammunition are neutral. Finesse ostensibly so that dex characters aren't penalized in damage when the point of the finesse ability is to allow dex characters to keep up in damage. Versatile when you use two hands increases damage die the same as two handed.

The special property on the Lance negates the damage decrease for reach because it gains disadvantage on hit on targets directly next to the player and
requires two hands when not mounted so in effect increases the damage die three steps.

[Man_Over_Game]

Because it's not our physics.

You can get a Gnome Barbarian that can lose as much blood as a dragon, people being able to teleport through darkness, liches who create soul generators by murdering a ton of people, Wizards that stop time UNLESS something they do while time is stopped happens to cause someone to be harmed through an imaginary mortality system..

To me, questioning why heavier weapons deal more damage feels kinda....silly? Like that whole "Guy At The Gym" fallacy. Why question the boring physics when there's much weirder stuff going on?

Unless that's the point.

[Kane0]

Its a largely mechanical thing. You’re trading use of your other hand for things like a shield, items or casting in order to get some extra damage.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Characters with a shield get +2 AC or more if they pick up a magical one, which in the world of bounded accuracy is a significant bonus. Great Weapon Master only works for heavy weapons because sword and board is defensive while two-handed heavy weapons are offensive style.

If you want a mechanical explanation, a heavy weapon has leverage, mass and momentum. When you swing a pike around the axe head 8ft away is going to be traveling faster then the axe head was a foot passed your grip.
I'll let Clavin's dad explain the physics on this one.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/187qrwceew3p2jpg.jpg

[da newt]

F=MA

(must be a troll question, right?)

[Chronos]

There's more to strength than just the ability score. Halflings also have lower carrying capacities than humans. And just as being small reduces your carrying capacity, it also makes you less able to wield certain weapons.

[greenstone]

We can talk about leverage and weight all we want, but its pointless, because weapons are just sticks with numbers on the end.

A heavy weapon is just a stick with a bigger number on the end and a rule saying that gnomes and halflings can't use it, to give a disadvantage for playing a small race.

[Lunali]

There's more to strength than just the ability score. Halflings also have lower carrying capacities than humans. And just as being small reduces your carrying capacity, it also makes you less able to wield certain weapons.

Small and medium have the same carrying capacity calculation, it's only when you get to large or tiny that it changes.

[Tvtyrant]

The heavy weapon property has always confused me. To my understanding, it indicates two things: one, small creatures can't use them properly due to them being too large and unruly; and two, heavy weapons do more damage not only inherently but also extrinsically through the Great Weapon Master feat. Thus by this logic, a blacksmith could never craft a heavy weapon suitable for a halfling, because by definition a weapon suited for a halfling is not heavy.

Which raises the question, what is it about heavy weapons that causes them to do more damage? Why is a smaller version of a heavy weapon, suitable for a halfling, but no longer by definition, "heavy," incompatible with half the features of Great Weapon Master?

At first I thought it was due to the sheer weight of heavy weapons. But halflings are not inherently weaker than medium creatures. Thus, if this were the reason for a heavy weapon's damage than a halfling should not be excluded from wielding one properly.
Then I thought it may be due to the larger striking surface of heavy weapons. But a pike, despite having an exceptionally long shaft, does not seem to have a larger striking surface than a longsword.
The only other reason I can think of is that the longer handles possessed by heavy weapons enables the user to perform more lethal blows. I'm skeptical of that, but I'm by no means an expert on weapons and am simply trying to use my best judgement.

I suppose most of my confusion comes from the Great Weapon Master feat. I can understand that a smaller weapon does less damage. But I'm not sure what shared property heavy melee weapons have that not only makes them unwieldy to small creatures but also enables them to do more damage through this feat. I understand that they are physically too large for them, but I'm not sure how that translates to them being capable of brutal maneuvers irreplicable with an ordinary weapon.

(To postface, I understand that the heavy weapon property is largely a balancing mechanic. And while I take some issue with it, my main question here is not why it exists, but what is the underlying logic for it?)

Makes you wonder why there isn't a Massive Weapon property for giant weapons, and Massive Weapon Master feat. Giants swing weapons like tree poles that are less mechanically distinct then knives and swords that are nearly the same size. Such is gaming.

[Luccan]

Makes you wonder why there isn't a Massive Weapon property for giant weapons, and Massive Weapon Master feat. Giants swing weapons like tree poles that are less mechanically distinct then knives and swords that are nearly the same size. Such is gaming.

Do you mean something like 3.5s Wield Oversized Weapons feat? Or do you mean a feat that would only be useful to NPCs, which are built differently than PCs by default, and thus don't use feats?

[Tvtyrant]

Do you mean something like 3.5s Wield Oversized Weapons feat? Or do you mean a feat that would only be useful to NPCs, which are built differently than PCs by default, and thus don't use feats?

Either or. The point I was making is that the mechanics aren't physics based, they are gamist constructs. So the rules allow a 1mm knife to deal the same damage as a foot long dirk, and a 3ft humanoid can't use a big sword for gamist reasons.

[Greywander]

Makes you wonder why there isn't a Massive Weapon property for giant weapons, and Massive Weapon Master feat. Giants swing weapons like tree poles that are less mechanically distinct then knives and swords that are nearly the same size. Such is gaming.
DMG, page 278, fifth paragraph.

But yeah, to the OP, it's apparently something that I heard they ended up regretting later. I always thought it was kind of weird that Small and Medium creatures didn't follow the same rules as other sizes, almost as if Small and Medium were actually the same size category split into two. I'm not sure what you'd want to do to fix it, aside from just outright ignoring the penalty for using heavy weapons.

If I were to go back and rewrite the rules for heavy weapons, what I might do is just make them "oversized" weapons. For example, a two-handed greatsword for a Medium creature is actually just a shortsword or longsword for a Large creature. Increase your size, and suddenly you can wield that two-handed weapon in one hand. Conversely, go down a size, and certain weapon now require two hands where they didn't before. Not sure how well this would actually work, but it's an idea.

[Mad_Saulot]

5e makes many assumptions about weapon lethality and armour restrictions that are, in reality completely arbitrary and unrealistic, a dagger is as lethal as a battle axe, only the skill of the user matters and luck in battle of course.

DnD weapon weighting is completely unrealitic, a two-handed sword can be just as easily weilded by a child as by an adult yet the game makes them unrealistically heavy (remember that in ancient times conscription age was ten and no one lived past thirty).

Armour is another falsehood that sometimes gets to me, for instance chainmail is way way heavier than plate armour, and plate does not inhibit ones agility, an armoured warrior that can do backflips without plate can do backflips with plate, and the stealth penelty doesnt make sense, armour in reality did not rattle, if it did it meant it wasnt fitted properly, likewise don and doff times are also arbitrary and have no bearing in reality.

I suppose these falsehoods are maintained partly for balance but mostly, i suspect, out of tradition, DnD was invented by college nerds with no knowledge of actual warfare or actual ancient weapon skills, the entire game is contrived, but this is not a bad thing, realism afterall gets in the way of fantasy, all such things are contrivances when you get down to it.

The Heavy trait can be done away with though as it serves no purpose and doesnt seem to affect balance at all, there is no reason to forbid small creatures from using two-handed weapons except from some twisted (and false) logic.

[micahaphone]

Gonna be a pedant and point out that most people lived past 30 in the medieval ages - average life expectancy was much lower due to infant/child mortality rates. If you made it to your teen years you'd probably live to old age.



As to the OP, the watsonian reason is torque. T=Force times* length of lever arm.
*technically a cross product but we'll ignore for now.

Small people have small arms and low body weight. They can't maneuver an unwieldy big weapon in such a way as to generate torque properly. If you gave a really buff 8 year old a polearm, they'd still struggle with it despite having the muscles to hold it.

[Nifft]

Heavy contains both v and y, which are sharp and pointy. This means more damage.

Light, on the other hand, has both g and t, which provide hand-guards to defend the wielder. This means a better defense.

[Dienekes]

5e makes many assumptions about weapon lethality and armour restrictions that are, in reality completely arbitrary and unrealistic, a dagger is as lethal as a battle axe, only the skill of the user matters and luck in battle of course.

DnD weapon weighting is completely unrealitic, a two-handed sword can be just as easily weilded by a child as by an adult yet the game makes them unrealistically heavy (remember that in ancient times conscription age was ten and no one lived past thirty).

Armour is another falsehood that sometimes gets to me, for instance chainmail is way way heavier than plate armour, and plate does not inhibit ones agility, an armoured warrior that can do backflips without plate can do backflips with plate, and the stealth penelty doesnt make sense, armour in reality did not rattle, if it did it meant it wasnt fitted properly, likewise don and doff times are also arbitrary and have no bearing in reality.

I suppose these falsehoods are maintained partly for balance but mostly, i suspect, out of tradition, DnD was invented by college nerds with no knowledge of actual warfare or actual ancient weapon skills, the entire game is contrived, but this is not a bad thing, realism afterall gets in the way of fantasy, all such things are contrivances when you get down to it.

The Heavy trait can be done away with though as it serves no purpose and doesnt seem to affect balance at all, there is no reason to forbid small creatures from using two-handed weapons except from some twisted (and false) logic.

Eh. So there are some things kind of wrong about this. One, of course people lived past 30. Mid-30s was the average life expectancy because death in childbirth and as a baby-child were so much higher than they are today. But after you get past that hump, it wasn’t really that bad. More likely to die early in your old age due to disease, but less likely to die in adulthood do to diabetes, obesity, and the like.

Second thing. While it’s true that a knife can kill you in one hit just like a battleaxe. It is much, much easier to get a killing blow with a battleaxe than a dagger. One thing can hack off someone’s arm or split a person from neck to hip in one strike the other is really unlikely to. That I think is fair to represent as more damage per hit. Of course daggers had other benefits like being able to thrust into the weak points of armor where an axe can’t. But that’s more about precision and size.

With all that said, even if they were of equivalent strength. A person of 3.5 feet trying to use a large two handed mass weapon like a greataxe will have difficulty being able to maneuver it because of weight distribution. That said a lot of the weapon table is a bit nonsensical. For instance the greatsword despite being very long has a good chunk of the weight rather close to the guard, which would make it easier. I don’t know how much easier, because to test that out I’d need a bodybuilder little person who wished to learn swordsmanship and I haven’t seen that.

And while D&Ds weapon weights have been historically bad. 5e is doing ok. A greatsword is listed at 6 lbs, a battle zweihander/montante ranged from 4 to 10 lbs. A longsword is a 3 lbs, when they ranged from 2 to 4 lbs. They even finally correctly made it a versatile weapon. Great axe is a bit heavy at 7 lbs, when the Dane Axe and kern axe were closer to 3-6, most hovering around 4.5. But people seem to always think those weapons are heavy when the point was more that the majority of the weight was put at the far end of it making it difficult to wield, not that they were particularly heavy in and of themselves.

Of course that’s still much better than 3.5s ridiculous 12 lbs.

And lastly 10 year old conscripts weren’t given two-handed swords. Those things are expensive. They were given a spear a shield and maybe a dagger if for some strange reason they didn’t have an eating knife and were told to hold the line and not retreat. If they were from a wealthy enough family they might have their father’s one-handed sword or could afford some padded armor. But the two-handed sword was always the purview of people that wore enough armor they didn’t have to hold a shield anymore. And a boy conscript is not that guy.

[Falconcry]

So I found Gurt’s Greataxe on D&D Beyond. This is snipped from the description “ You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. It is sized for a giant, weighs 325 pounds, and deals 3d12 slashing damage on a hit, plus an extra 2d12 slashing damage if the target is human.”

[Nero24200]

Eh. So there are some things kind of wrong about this. One, of course people lived past 30. Mid-30s was the average life expectancy because death in childbirth and as a baby-child were so much higher than they are today. But after you get past that hump, it wasn’t really that bad. More likely to die early in your old age due to disease, but less likely to die in adulthood do to diabetes, obesity, and the like.

Second thing. While it’s true that a knife can kill you in one hit just like a battleaxe. It is much, much easier to get a killing blow with a battleaxe than a dagger. One thing can hack off someone’s arm or split a person from neck to hip in one strike the other is really unlikely to. That I think is fair to represent as more damage per hit. Of course daggers had other benefits like being able to thrust into the weak points of armor where an axe can’t. But that’s more about precision and size.

To kind of add to this Hit Points are very abstract in D&D. A few months ago a friend talked me into trying Sekiro and it enabled me to explain an interpretation of hit points I've had for years but couldn't quite put into words.

The game has a "Posture" mechanic in which, when taking a hit or blocking a blow your "Posture Meter" fills up. If it reaches it's maximum limit the next hit breaks your guard and leaves you vulnerable. If you perform this correctly on enemies it allows you to take one of their "lives" (the game has a story based mechanic around characters needing to be killed multiple times).

Using Posture to represent things like Hit Points means that heavy weapons dealing more damage also makes more sense. Pushing a dagger thrust aside doesn't strain the body the way that blocking a heavy great-axe swing might. Rolling a natural 1 on the damage could easily represent being able to block the blow by deflecting the axe-head before it really builds any momentum.

[kazaryu]

The heavy weapon property has always confused me. To my understanding, it indicates two things: one, small creatures can't use them properly due to them being too large and unruly; and two, heavy weapons do more damage not only inherently but also extrinsically through the Great Weapon Master feat. Thus by this logic, a blacksmith could never craft a heavy weapon suitable for a halfling, because by definition a weapon suited for a halfling is not heavy.

Which raises the question, what is it about heavy weapons that causes them to do more damage? Why is a smaller version of a heavy weapon, suitable for a halfling, but no longer by definition, "heavy," incompatible with half the features of Great Weapon Master?

At first I thought it was due to the sheer weight of heavy weapons. But halflings are not inherently weaker than medium creatures. Thus, if this were the reason for a heavy weapon's damage than a halfling should not be excluded from wielding one properly.
Then I thought it may be due to the larger striking surface of heavy weapons. But a pike, despite having an exceptionally long shaft, does not seem to have a larger striking surface than a longsword.
The only other reason I can think of is that the longer handles possessed by heavy weapons enables the user to perform more lethal blows. I'm skeptical of that, but I'm by no means an expert on weapons and am simply trying to use my best judgement.

I suppose most of my confusion comes from the Great Weapon Master feat. I can understand that a smaller weapon does less damage. But I'm not sure what shared property heavy melee weapons have that not only makes them unwieldy to small creatures but also enables them to do more damage through this feat. I understand that they are physically too large for them, but I'm not sure how that translates to them being capable of brutal maneuvers irreplicable with an ordinary weapon.

(To postface, I understand that the heavy weapon property is largely a balancing mechanic. And while I take some issue with it, my main question here is not why it exists, but what is the underlying logic for it?)

honestly, the heavy weapon interaction with small creatures is one of the biggest things that annoys me about 5e.

small creatures in 5e get kinda screwed. they get locked out of heavy weapons, they have reduced speed, and they don't get anything to compensate for it. there's no mechanical reason why a small creature shouldn't be able to wield a heavy weapons.

narratively, i get it though. as has been mentioned, smaller weapons are...well smaller. they can't swing as quickly. they don't have as much mass. realistically speaking they're less lethal.

[Joe the Rat]

Kind of makes me miss the 1st/2nd ed style weapon sizes: weapons of your size can be wielded effectively in one hand. One size larger requires two hands, one size lower can dual wield. two sizes larger is Too Big. Net result is versatile weapons have to be two-handed by small creatures... And locks halflings out of paired shortswords without feat support. Hrm.


In base form, Heavy's a size and leverage thing. based on weapon design, the extra force (through weight, or longer tensors in the case of the longbow) generates +1 die size of damage. Being small, you can't manage the momentum, or get enough pull without being somewhat ungainly - Disadvantage on attacks. Your halfling is quite capable of weilding a greataxe, and using GWM. It's going to be clumsy and ungainly, or you can still get the "Cleave" Bonus Action attack with any melee attack. Half the feat is always on, the other half require suboptimal shenanigans.

But what I am getting is this is less about not having easy use of the Big Toys, but not having use for the Big Toy Feat, which represents a sizeable boost to melee combat (almost brokenly so). I'd say the problem lays in the Feat. Instead of Heavy, what if we went Two-handed? Power attack can be used with any two handed melee weapon, or any versatile weapon wielded in two hands?

PHB only, this adds greatclub, quarterstaff, spear, the Martial Trinity, and trident to our options. If that's too much, Make Martial a qualifier. (Two-hands, Martial)
Now we have Power attack Kensei, using Dex. If we don't want that, require Strength to hit, a la Reckless Attack. (Two hands, martial, attack needs to be Strength based)
Now Hexblades can't use Charisma to hit and Great Weapon Master. That's fine.

[stoutstien]

the heavy weapon tag is roughly worth 1 size increase in damage die size. as characters progress the base weapon damage becomes increasingly less important. a halfling barb using a G club and GWM and a half orc barn using a G axe and GWM will be so close to each other as far as damage is concerned.

the real issue is the lack of heavy one handed options.

[Hael]

DnDs weapon system is a complete mess that doesn’t even try to approximate reality.

In so far as reality is concerned the damage an object does, is, in general a rather complicated function of its lever arm, mass distribution and how it’s swung. A short sword might weigh approximately the same as a maul, but the latters mass is all in the head, so the impact is much heavier when struck there. Meanwhile, the swords balance is centered so as to provide a more maneuverable weapon.

Anyway most of the speed ratings are all wrong, the damage ratings are all wrong, what it does to armor is all wrong, etc

Of course reality doesn’t necessarily make for a fun game either. Someone walking around in full plate is essentially invulnerable to anything that isn’t specialized to take it out (hammers, poleaxes etc)

[ezekielraiden]

Ironically, this is one of the few areas where D&D physics do align with IRL physics, to some limited extent. It has to do with moments of inertia.

A heavy weapon that has been correctly balanced will be equivalent to a rod with a weight at one end, preferably rotating around its center of mass or the base of the rod that isn't for hitting people with. Swords, polearms, axes, all of them work this way--they're designed to maximize the force at which a blunt, pointed, or bladed surface strikes the enemy, with pointed weapons having the most potential for injury but the least ability to heavily injure, and (AIUI) vice-versa for totally blunt weapons, with bladed weapons (swords and axes) as a middle-ground.

The moment of inertia for any rod-like structure is proportional to the total mass of the rod times the length of the rod squared. So while increasing the mass is definitely beneficial, it is the length which has the greatest impact. Problem is? If you're the tallest default halfling at only 3'3" tall (~1 m), that severely limits your options in terms of how long a lever-arm you can wield effectively. Consider that a glaive, just as one example, will have a blade about 1.5 feet (~.46 m) long and a pole about 6 feet (~1.9 m) long. That's 7.5 feet (~2.3 m), well over twice as tall as our hypothetical halfling glaive-waver. Any really sizable polearm like a pike could push six times the height of our unusually-tall halfling. That's just not practical for them to wield.

So yeah. It all has to do with moments of inertia (I = k*m*L2, where k is a proportionality constant, usually between 1/3 and 1/12 for rods depending on the precise mechanics of their rotation). Bigger weapons are heavier, sure, but that provides only a linear growth term; it's longer weapons that have the most impact, being a quadratic term, and length is precisely what "I'm a little halfling, short and stout" will have problems with. Of course, the lines drawn are somewhat arbitrary--dwarves should probably also have problems wielding certain polearms, while dragonborn, who are naturally around 8 in (20.3 cm) taller than humans on average, should have a moderately easier time of it. But because that level of granularity is a bit tedious to track, we make the reasonable but very coarse binning of "medium vs small" and call it a day.

[Nifft]

So while increasing the mass is definitely beneficial, it is the length which has the greatest impact. Problem is? If you're the tallest default halfling at only 3'3" tall (~1 m), that severely limits your options in terms of how long a lever-arm you can wield effectively.

Stilty McSpearfoot looks down upon this argument.