Large(r) Creatures, Weapons, & the Enlarge/Reduce Spell: Settle an argument, please?

[Rhocian Xothara]

So a friend of mine and I are debating the DMG rule on Large creatures and weapon dice, shown here:



"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 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12.

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."

I asked the question: "So what if a Medium-size creature increases to Large size. The weapon also increases to match the creature's new size, so does this mean it deals a multiple of its damage dice as per the DMG?

Now: Regardless of this, neither of us as DMs would allow it at the table anyway. An easy exploit would be a Goliath Rune Knight using Giant Might, then having 'Enlarge' cast on him to grow to Huge size; his Maul dealing 6D6+strength modifier damage to some unfortunate soul. It's more about whether an argument could be legitimately made for it, based on RAW.

Friend's argument is: No. It does not. Because the weapons grow in size but not weight, and it's the weight that matters.

I disagree because there's nothing in the RAW about the damage output being based on weight. But even if we were to assume both dimensional size and the weight has to match, the only reason why the RAW specifies what happens to the weight of a creature that has doubled in size to a new size category is because not everyone understands Cube-Square Law (which basically means an object doubling in size is 8x heavier, assuming the density remains the same).

Furthermore, my interpretation of the spell's description ("The target's weapons also grow to match its new size.") suggests it grows in both size and weight. "To match" being the qualifier here.

So, TL;DR: Assuming that Large-size weapons benefit from the weapon dice multiplier in the DMG, is this dependent on both size and weight, and in the event of an Enlarge spell, does the target's weapon increase in weight to match the target's new size, too?

[Khrysaes]

So a friend of mine and I are debating the DMG rule on Large creatures and weapon dice, shown here:



I asked the question: "So what if a Medium-size creature increases to Large size. The weapon also increases to match the creature's new size, so does this mean it deals a multiple of its damage dice as per the DMG?

Now: Regardless of this, neither of us as DMs would allow it at the table anyway. An easy exploit would be a Goliath Rune Knight using Giant Might, then having 'Enlarge' cast on him to grow to Huge size; his Maul dealing 6D6+strength modifier damage to some unfortunate soul. It's more about whether an argument could be legitimately made for it, based on RAW.

Friend's argument is: No. It does not. Because the weapons grow in size but not weight, and it's the weight that matters.

I disagree because there's nothing in the RAW about the damage output being based on weight. But even if we were to assume both dimensional size and the weight has to match, the only reason why the RAW specifies what happens to the weight of a creature that has doubled in size to a new size category is because not everyone understands Cube-Square Law (which basically means an object doubling in size is 8x heavier, assuming the density remains the same).

Furthermore, my interpretation of the spell's description ("The target's weapons also grow to match its new size.") suggests it grows in both size and weight. "To match" being the qualifier here.

So, TL;DR: Assuming that Large-size weapons benefit from the weapon dice multiplier in the DMG, is this dependent on both size and weight, and in the event of an Enlarge spell, does the target's weapon increase in weight to match the target's new size, too?

RAW wise, I would argue no, since both the enlarge spell and giant size specify the increase in damage for the increase in size.

[Darth Credence]

In terms of RAW, there is no ambiguity - the spell does what it says it does, and it says that attacks with an enlarged weapon do an extra 1d4 damage. No matter what anything else says about sizes and how weapons do damage, the spell is clear. The weight change doesn't matter, so there is no need to attempt to explain it by saying that the weight of the weapons does or does not change.

In terms of would it make sense if that's what happened? Sure. But what makes sense and the way the game is played are not the same thing, and should not be the same thing. If they want to go down the road of making sense, then this is just one of many game conventions that could be argued would make more sense a different way.

For the TL;DR questions, I would answer that it does indeed depend on both size and weight, the enlarge spell does indeed increase both parts of the weapon along with the target, and in the end, that doesn't matter at all towards the new weapon damage.

[DarknessEternal]

No. It does exactly what the spell says and nothing else.

[Chronos]

Of course, the RAW means that anyone who regularly finds themselves enlarged has incentive to carry around larger versions of their weapons of choice (that is, weapons made to be larger), even though their own regular weapons would be superficially identical.

[Damon_Tor]

RAW: no. The DMG tells what is TYPICAL for a large-sized weapon, but specific beats general, and the spell constitutes a specific rule which overrides the general rule.

HOWEVER: An enlarged PC CAN ABSOLUTELY use their increased size to wield a what is ACTUALLY a typical large-sized weapon. You kill an Ogre and take his 2d8 large-sized greatclub, have another PC or hireling carry it (call him the "caddy" if you like) and then one E/R has been cast on the fighter or barbarian or whatever, hand off the large-sized weapon and break some faces.

[Khrysaes]

RAW: no. The DMG tells what is TYPICAL for a large-sized weapon, but specific beats general, and the spell constitutes a specific rule which overrides the general rule.

HOWEVER: An enlarged PC CAN ABSOLUTELY use their increased size to wield a what is ACTUALLY a typical large-sized weapon. You kill an Ogre and take his 2d8 large-sized greatclub, have another PC or hireling carry it (call him the "caddy" if you like) and then one E/R has been cast on the fighter or barbarian or whatever, hand off the large-sized weapon and break some faces.

If you are a warlock you can make it your pact weapon and summon it when needed. You would need to kale it magical first, but the magic weapon spell suffices for that. Or 2 arti.

[diplomancer]

RAW: no. The DMG tells what is TYPICAL for a large-sized weapon, but specific beats general, and the spell constitutes a specific rule which overrides the general rule.

HOWEVER: An enlarged PC CAN ABSOLUTELY use their increased size to wield a what is ACTUALLY a typical large-sized weapon. You kill an Ogre and take his 2d8 large-sized greatclub, have another PC or hireling carry it (call him the "caddy" if you like) and then one E/R has been cast on the fighter or barbarian or whatever, hand off the large-sized weapon and break some faces.

I don' think that's RAW, though a DM could rule it that way; but if he thinks it's unbalanced (I do), he could just as easily rule that the extra damage comes partly from the greater weight of the weapon, and partly from the experience the monster has fighting with it, so the monster knows better how to use its greater momentum properly.

[Chronos]

How much experience is needed? In the right party, or with the right racial or class features, a PC might spend most of their combat time, and hence earn most of their XP, while enlarged.

[diplomancer]

How much experience is needed? In the right party, or with the right racial or class features, a PC might spend most of their combat time, and hence earn most of their XP, while enlarged.

Sum all the rounds it takes to go from level 1 to level 20, and I'd be surprised if it reaches 24 hours, and very surprised if it reaches 48 hours. Compare that to a creature that's naturally Large.

[No brains]

BEWARE WHAT IS RAW WHEN DEALING WITH ENLARGE.

When any creature grows a size category, the weight of their gear quickly outstrips their carrying capacity. Weight multiplies by 8 and capacity only multiplies by 2. This practically makes Enlarge a trap option, especially on gear-laden PCs.

Theoretically, if one were to cast Enlarge on a basic Monster Manual Knight, the weight of its plate armor surpasses what its 16 strength can carry. (480 capacity vs 520 weight) This works on many creatures wearing scale mail or heavier, including Duergar- who would have the incredible psionic power to cripple themselves for a minute. (420 capacity in large form, with 360 lb scale mail, a 48 lb shield, 16lb war pick, and around 12lbs of javelins)

This even extends to creatures that are big without magic. A Fire Giant technically doesn't have enough strength to carry its huge plate armor. (A huge creature with 25 strength can carry 1500, but its plate armor weighs 4160!)

The house of Technical RAW Enlarge is not built on a foundation that can hold up the square-cube law.

[Valmark]

Personally I would say that it doesn't increase the weapon damage beyond the 1d4 since the text doesn't say that.

A rule in the DMG shouldn't be required to properly use something from the PHB unless otherwise specified.


BEWARE WHAT IS RAW WHEN DEALING WITH ENLARGE.

When any creature grows a size category, the weight of their gear quickly outstrips their carrying capacity. Weight multiplies by 8 and capacity only multiplies by 2. This practically makes Enlarge a trap option, especially on gear-laden PCs.

Theoretically, if one were to cast Enlarge on a basic Monster Manual Knight, the weight of its plate armor surpasses what its 16 strength can carry. (480 capacity vs 520 weight) This works on many creatures wearing scale mail or heavier, including Duergar- who would have the incredible psionic power to cripple themselves for a minute. (420 capacity in large form, with 360 lb scale mail, a 48 lb shield, 16lb war pick, and around 12lbs of javelins)

This even extends to creatures that are big without magic. A Fire Giant technically doesn't have enough strength to carry its huge plate armor. (A huge creature with 25 strength can carry 1500, but its plate armor weighs 4160!)

The house of Technical RAW Enlarge is not built on a foundation that can hold up the square-cube law.

That's only true if you assume that the equipment becomes eight times as heavy, which isn't what the spell says.

[EggKookoo]

Two creatures, one Medium, one Large. Each with a longsword. The Medium creature does 1d8 (base) damage, the Large creature does 2d8 because the longsword is larger.

Cast enlarge on the Medium creature. The two creatures trade swords. What does their damage do?

[Valmark]

Two creatures, one Medium, one Large. Each with a longsword. The Medium creature does 1d8 (base) damage, the Large creature does 2d8 because the longsword is larger.

Cast enlarge on the Medium creature. The two creatures trade swords. What does their damage do?

I'd imagine the Enlarged creature deals 2d8 damage while the other deals 1d8 as the longsword goes back to it's normal size and damage.

[EggKookoo]

I'd imagine the Enlarged creature deals 2d8 damage while the other deals 1d8 as the longsword goes back to it's normal size and damage.

Ok, right, the weapon reverts. I wonder what would it would do it if the enlarge effect was rendered permanent (perhaps via wish).

[Segev]

While we're on the subject of just taking large creatures' weapons, remember that you can wield weapons meant for creatures one size larger than you at disadvantage.

I recommend large-sized ranged weapons for when firing at long range.

[diplomancer]

Two creatures, one Medium, one Large. Each with a longsword. The Medium creature does 1d8 (base) damage, the Large creature does 2d8 because the longsword is larger.

Cast enlarge on the Medium creature. The two creatures trade swords. What does their damage do?

I don't think there is a RAW answer to this question; different DMs will rule it differently. Another way of bringing balance is to rule "ok, you get the higher damage, but as you're not trained in the use of this weapon you don't get a proficiency bonus"


While we're on the subject of just taking large creatures' weapons, remember that you can wield weapons meant for creatures one size larger than you at disadvantage.

I recommend large-sized ranged weapons for when firing at long range.

Is there a rule on that, or is that a reasonable extrapolation of the Heavy property and Small creatures?

[Valmark]

Is there a rule on that, or is that a reasonable extrapolation of the Heavy property and Small creatures?

It's in the quote from the DMG in the first post.

[diplomancer]

It's in the quote from the DMG in the first post.

Thanks! Though that is still advice on making a new monster. A DM could use that rule for PCs, but one pretty clear design decision of 5E is that PCs and Monsters follow different rules.

[Angelalex242]

Sadly, I don't think Enlarge is intended to let you be Cloud Strife and swing that Buster Sword (Large Greatsword) around without penalty.

[Bjarkmundur]

Now what I really want to know is.

What's the most reliable way to have advantage in order to cancel out the disadvantage?

Can I make a character with a 2d12 weapon, that just accepts the disadvantage and is built to have ways to cancel out the disadvantage?

[Keltest]

Now what I really want to know is.

What's the most reliable way to have advantage in order to cancel out the disadvantage?

Can I make a character with a 2d12 weapon, that just accepts the disadvantage and is built to have ways to cancel out the disadvantage?

Be a rogue with a bow and use the Steady Aim extra class feature. Just make sure you dont have to move. Less reliable if you use a melee weapon and cant reach the entire battlefield without moving.

[Khrysaes]

Now what I really want to know is.

What's the most reliable way to have advantage in order to cancel out the disadvantage?

Can I make a character with a 2d12 weapon, that just accepts the disadvantage and is built to have ways to cancel out the disadvantage?

Barbarian reckless attack.

Warlock Devil's sight + Darkness

Prone enemies when you melee attack with the oversized weapon

I am sure there are more

[Bjarkmundur]

Barbarian reckless attack.



Vow of Enmity. As a bonus action, you can utter a vow of enmity against a creature you can see within 10 feet of you, using your Channel Divinity. You gain advantage on attack rolls against the creature for 1 minute or until it drops to 0 hit points or falls unconscious.


I'll make a Vengance Paladin with a giant 2d12 Greataxe on his back as an "oath weapon". It's going to be the "things are about to get real" moment for my character.

[Segev]

If - and I repeat, "if" - you want to try to make this a parity thing, you should ignore enlarge/reduce's rules on +1d4 or -1d4 damage, and instead just use the "up the size of the weapon" rules. Whether you want to do this or not depends heavily on how delicate your dpr balance already is in your game.

[Chronos]

If you enlarge a creature (and their gear with them), then the gear reverts if they hand it off. But remember, you can also cast Enlarge directly on an object. What happens if you cast Enlarge on a human's sword (but not on the human), and then hand it to a stone giant?

For that matter, what happens if you cast Enlarge on a human's sword (but not on the human), and the human just keeps on wielding it?

[Valmark]

If you enlarge a creature (and their gear with them), then the gear reverts if they hand it off. But remember, you can also cast Enlarge directly on an object. What happens if you cast Enlarge on a human's sword (but not on the human), and then hand it to a stone giant?

For that matter, what happens if you cast Enlarge on a human's sword (but not on the human), and the human just keeps on wielding it?

The clause about equipment shrinking is only applied when Enlarge is cast on a creature, so the sword would stay enlarged (also remember that to cast it on a object it mustn't be worn or carried at the time of casting).

[stoutstien]

What happens if you ready an action to enlarge a thrown weapon mid flight?

I love weird interactions like this.

[Zhorn]

What happens if you ready an action to enlarge a thrown weapon mid flight?

I love weird interactions like this.
There was a greentext story a while back, where someone for a campaign made a ring of anti-magic / dispel magic (effect area was inside the loop of the ring) and slid that over the front of a firearm. then loaded it with cannon balls under the Reduce spell (there might have been an order of loading then putting the ring in place).
The reduced cannon ball was fired through the ring, reverting into a full sized cannon ball, and was being ruled to deal damage appropriate for a cannon (8d10).
Total houseruled cheese, but it's the type of answer you'd expect from the scenario you are putting forward :smallwink:


If - and I repeat, "if" - you want to try to make this a parity thing, you should ignore enlarge/reduce's rules on +1d4 or -1d4 damage, and instead just use the "up the size of the weapon" rules. Whether you want to do this or not depends heavily on how delicate your dpr balance already is in your game.
Agreed.
Given the DMG being released just shy of 4 months after the PHB, I'd not be surprised if the rule of weapon sizes was similarly designed later than Enlarge/Reduce from the PHB.

My general table ruling is when a creature is Enlarged, carried the weapons and armor only increase in size as much as needed to be wielded/worn, but otherwise confer no special property alteration, and the +1d4 damage is solely a function of the creature being magically bigger and hitting harder. If the weapon though was the target of the spell, then it does go up in size and weight as per the spell text, and the damage dice used follow the rules as per the DMG, though if you are trying to wield the oversized weapon without being of the appropriate size, then the penalties from the same section of the DMG also apply.

I have considered changing the spell to just have the weapon dice go by the DMG rule for when the creature is enlarged (eg; your 1d10 glaive is a 2d10 glaive while enlarged), and the 1d4 is only called on when there's no weapon object (ie; unarmed strikes, natural weapons).
Yet to try that one out though.

[Segev]

I have considered changing the spell to just have the weapon dice go by the DMG rule for when the creature is enlarged (eg; your 1d10 glaive is a 2d10 glaive while enlarged), and the 1d4 is only called on when there's no weapon object (ie; unarmed strikes, natural weapons).
Yet to try that one out though.

It's worth noting, for your experimental design purposes, that the rules for larger weapons refer to die types. So it would be easy enough to translate that to unarmed strikes and natural weapons that deal dice of damage. A 5th level monk thus enlarged would deal, if I am remembering the formula correctly, 2d8+(str or dex) damage, rather than 1d6+(str or dex).

[Zhorn]

It's worth noting, for your experimental design purposes, that the rules for larger weapons refer to die types. So it would be easy enough to translate that to unarmed strikes and natural weapons that deal dice of damage. A 5th level monk thus enlarged would deal, if I am remembering the formula correctly, 2d8+(str or dex) damage, rather than 1d6+(str or dex).

I was looking at using the +1d4 as a default fallback for unarmed strikes and natural weapons as those don't consistently follow the same scaling rules the same way weapon objects do.
Flipping through the monster manual, you can easily find things that;

Scale number of dice, but not with the predicted rate

Crocodile (Large) - Bite: 1d10
Giant Crocodile (Huge) - Bite: 3d10

Don't scale at all

Young Green Dragon (Large) - Claw: 2d6
Adult Green Dragon (Huge) - Claw: 2d6

Scale by dice size but not number of dice

Adult Green Dragon (Huge) - Tail: 2d6
Ancient Green Dragon (Gargantian) - Tail: 2d8

Wolf (Medium) - Bite: 2d4
Dire Wolf (Large) - Bite: 2d6

Scale both size and number of dice

Hunter Shark (Large) - Bite: 2d8
Giant Shark (Huge) - Bite: 3d10

Ape (Medium) - Fist: 1d6
Giant Ape (Huge) - Fist: 3d10

So in lieu of having those inconsistencies to wade through; I opt for the more simple "weapon (objects) damage scales as per DMG rules, other attacks stick with the dice suggested by the original spell text (1d4)"

[greenstone]

So a friend of mine and I are debating the DMG rule…

The simple answer to all of those questions is "No, because monsters and PCs use different rules."

Monster damage is based on the Offensive Rating part of the OR/DR/CR calculation.
PC damage is based on spells and features and items.

Two different sets of rules that don't interact with each other.

The enlarge/reduce spell has all the rules for what happens when a PC changes size.

[Chronos]

So the simple answer to "What if a human and a giant trade weapons?" is "No, they're different"? I don't think that's much of an answer.

[No brains]

That's only true if you assume that the equipment becomes eight times as heavy, which isn't what the spell says.

That is... very technically correct. It's theoretically possible to parse the fact that the equipment grows with the creature and the effects of that growth as independent clauses. Although I would never count on anyone else reading it that way.

I wonder how that interpretation can be exploited? If a creature picks up a log that it would need to make a bridge, but is too heavy to really move with, the creature can be enlarged so that it can not only double its capacity without increasing its load, but the log could grow to twice the size that was needed. If the creature stays in contact/ possession of the log, they can make it across their bridge and then have it shrink back to a natural, unusable size. It could make for a very Baron Munchausen/ Looney Tunes escape.

I'm still curious about the secrets of Fire Giant plate armor. They must be really good craftsmen.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the most honest thing is to assert that the square cube law is not a fundamental property of reality in D&D worlds. It happens if and only if a particular effect says it does. Because otherwise we've got a lot more issues with all those megafauna. Even giants aren't looking so hot.

[Valmark]

That is... very technically correct. It's theoretically possible to parse the fact that the equipment grows with the creature and the effects of that growth as independent clauses. Although I would never count on anyone else reading it that way.

I wonder how that interpretation can be exploited? If a creature picks up a log that it would need to make a bridge, but is too heavy to really move with, the creature can be enlarged so that it can not only double its capacity without increasing its load, but the log could grow to twice the size that was needed. If the creature stays in contact/ possession of the log, they can make it across their bridge and then have it shrink back to a natural, unusable size. It could make for a very Baron Munchausen/ Looney Tunes escape.

I'm still curious about the secrets of Fire Giant plate armor. They must be really good craftsmen.
Eh, it's honestly the most straightforward way to read it- size and weight are two separate categories, so what increases one doesn't automatically increase the other. In addition, it could potentially make the spell unusable to make all equipment multiply its weight by 8, so I'd expect it to be the most shared interpretation.

The log thing wouldn't work as you'd need to be able to carry the log before casting the spell and would never be able to stop carrying it before it shrinks back. It's the 'you need to keep carrying it' that stops most shenanigans, I expect.
Exact interpretation of 'carry' and 'drop' will greatly change how the spell works.

I think the most honest thing is to assert that the square cube law is not a fundamental property of reality in D&D worlds. It happens if and only if a particular effect says it does. Because otherwise we've got a lot more issues with all those megafauna. Even giants aren't looking so hot.

Agreed. I think someone upthread even noted that fire giants can't lift their armor.

[Lord Vukodlak]

If - and I repeat, "if" - you want to try to make this a parity thing, you should ignore enlarge/reduce's rules on +1d4 or -1d4 damage, and instead just use the "up the size of the weapon" rules. Whether you want to do this or not depends heavily on how delicate your dpr balance already is in your game.
I agree, the limitation on enlarge is a balancing issue. Rather then find a loophole to cheat just change the rules.