jokes like this stopped being funny when i found out half of the parties that play "call of the netherdeep" kill the emerald pact cause "rival = kill" then bitch when the campaign breaks or when they just die cause emerald pact isnt ment to be fought at third level
My favorite part of the original kobold was using a greatsword as a small creature, literally all of the Dark Souls meme's. As long as you are attacking with an ally, its straight rolls.
@@sariourlecai1561 If you really are worried about hitting something drop the great sword and attack them with something else then, but in most situations its hard to argue with +10 damage per hit. :P Not to mention hitting them with something that weighs more than you do.
@@sariourlecai1561 advantage and disadvantage effects stack so if you had pact tactics wielding a heavy weapon it would be a straight roll but if you're flanking your enemy or the enemy has faerie fire on for example it would become advantage
Adventurer 1: "Is that a giant flying sword?" Adventurer 2: "I think theres a kobold attached to it. . .Oh -shi" Kobold: "...rrrrrRRRRREEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!"
The funny thing about this is that even in the most wild exploitation possible of this ruling, it has been *severely nerfed* from how oversized weapons worked in 3.5e.
Actually... Not on a per size basis. In 3.5, it was double damage dice every TWO size categories. Once you get to five or more size increases yeah 3.5 is going to pull ahead, but for all but the craziest examples you're going to be better off with 5e size increases. Example: Greatsword, 3.5/5e Medium: 2d6 Large: 3d6/4d6 Huge: 4d6/6d6 Gargantuan: 6d6/8d6 Colossal: 8d6/10d6 Colossal+1: 12d6/12d6 Colossal+2: 16d6/14d6 See how big it needs to get for 3.5 to win out? The reason why 3.5 would look crazy is because there were ways to increase the effective size of weapons without actually increasing their size, and there were exceptionally large base weapons like Bastard Swords and fullblades. Mighty Whallop comes to mind... Even then, it required the GM to allow effective sizes larger than colossal, which was far from a guarantee.
@@RequiemRelentless I know that looks ridiculous but if you look up what people can do in 3.5 that is not really that impressive. The record for movement speed in a turn is faster than the speed of light. You could literally walk every 5 foot square in the United States in a turn. Getting 6 (or 5 really cause 3.5 didnt make every race medium) is almost nothing in that game.
@@RequiemRelentless I was pretty sure it just followed the damage die steps that they published in a few places. You also had Heavy weapons that got the same kind of boost to damage, though for a penalty to attack.
Gurt’s Greataxe from Storm King’s Thunder actually supports this breakdown. As it is equipment that a Sufficiently strong PC can wield. It is sized for a Giant and deals 3d12 damage, and that’s before going into what actually makes it Magic.
Also from SKT, the Potion of Giant Size follows these rules exactly- it makes you huge upon drinking it, and triples the damage dice for your enlarged weapons
@@kori228 this is about oversized weapons, not weapons that have been enlarged. The reason he brings up weapons that have been enlarged is for the sake of oversizing them, so it very much is the same thing.
@@yeanalac but if that reading was expected, why is it not also the way Enlarge is written? The potion specifies the 3x damage, Enlarge only says extra d4.
I like the fact that he is saying "player" rather than "player character". I just imagine Jeff sitting at the table with a buster sword swinging it at the dragon mini on the table
I think this would only work if you got your hands on a larger weapon, such as a Fire Giant's longsword. The extra damage from the spell/feature is probably intended to be the extra damage from being larger.
Natural Large+ Weapons are not the same as magically/otherwise enlarged+ Weapons, in 5e, RAW. Just buy your Large Sword at the Shop behind the Storage Boxes...
I’ve always wanted to combine this concept with a longbow. By combining enlarge with giants might I could be shooting massive ballista arrows for at least 3d8 damage plus bonuses. It would be a lot of fun.
I’d love to hear the explanation from the guard who has to somehow explain that the gates of the keep were breached by a flying tree that then vanished into nothing…
I have to disagree with the interpretation of the interaction between Enlarge/Reduce and the DMG rules on oversized weapons. Specific rules supercede general rules, and because Enlarge specifies the additional damage, you wouldn't be able to double dip. However, if you were holding an oversized weapon before receiving Enlarge, then the advantage from Enlarge would cancel out the disadvantage from the oversized weapon, and you at least get straight rolls.
Disagree with you absolutely, Enlarge/Reduce is an additional magical affect. Giant's Might extra damage does not require you to become large first before gaining the benefits of the damage. An oversized weapon does not lose its damage simply because it was due to a magical affect. This is clearly seen in previous editions where the rules were better written.
@@PH03NIX96 I said nothing about the interaction with Giant's Might. This is the case of the specific rule (the effect of Enlarge/Reduce on your current weapon) versus the general rule (DMG paragraph on oversized weapons). As Jeremy Crawford has said many times before, specific rules override general ones, so the bonus damage, since it's already been factored into the spell's effect, is the 1d4. f the weapon is already oversized BEFORE the spell hits, then you get the original oversized weapon damage on top of the spell's effect, because the differing circumstances would invoke both rules separately. Giant's Might, on the other hand, specifies that it applies its damage to the attack, not the weapon, so the extra nd6 per turn would apply on top of all of this.
@@TheMountainLynx I'm with you on this. The specific feature (spell) states exactly what happens, there's no ambiguity. If the DM says you get double the weapon dice, that's their decision. I've considered this build and chose not to ask the question. I thought about what I would rule if one of my players tried this and I quickly said "the spell says how much extra damage" same for Giant's Might, it clearly states how much extra damage is done because you've grown in size. However... the new giant barbarian subclass ... doesn't? odd...
@@TheMountainLynx I don't care if you didn't say anything about GM, its still applicable. A magical affect does not negate a non magical affect unless specifically stated. Enlarge gives 1d4 extra damage RAW PLUS THE OVERSIZED WEAPON. It does not replace it JC has been wrong several times and has even went on record to say he purposely gives wrong rulings to stir shit up and make players think. He's a jackass and his rulings should never be taken into account.
5:00 My DM and I agreed that there is a difference between a Greatsword designed for Medium proportions and durability, and a Greatsword designed for Large. For us, any enlarged weapons only get the 1d4 boost, while naturally sized weapons only get their size multiplier. (To clarify, a Large Greatsword Enlarged to Huge is 4d6+1d4, while a Huge Greatsword is 6d6). I was roleplaying the -1 Wisdom as “I make mistakes once.” So when I shrunk from Huge to Small (Rune Knight Fairy), I let myself get crushed under the Greatsword and nearly begged the Goliath Barbarian for help.
So I can carry a true great sword (huge) and dual wield with it... Not optimal but its the concept. Or to put Stat Blocks on... Take any weapon from the shop and sell the Huge/Large etc. versions of it.
@@LocalMaple Your comment reminded my of Dark Souls... But in RAW... 5e doesn't have rules to support Large+ Weapons beyond the DMG. Even the Item Shop doesn't sell Large+ Weapons in 5e.
@@pinkliongaming8769 Anyone can Dual Wield anything. The "Light" Property is only mentioned in the Bonus Action Dual Wield Attack. Just ignore it and use the Fighter's Extra Attack to strike with your other weapon or fist etc. Remember to get Feats to add Proficiency to some types of attacks. And, in the optional rules, Improvised Weapon that are similar to your Proficient Weapons can apply your Proficiency Damage. Even in the Light Property. It doesn't rule out that this Property is the only way to dual wield. But if you want to use that specific Bonus Action, then take the Feats, Dual Wielder and Two Hand Weapon Fighter (Not the Fighting Style) in order to add your Proficiencies to the BA Attack and to ignore the Light Property part of the BA Attack rule... Oh... And get Unarmed Combat Fighting Style since it's great synergy with Dual Wielder. The Proficiency application of this Fighting Style is not negated by the BA Attack under Dual Wielder do to the fact that Unarmed Combat has it's own damage calculations.
I think you can easily read enlarge/reduce differently. In that the specific rules of the spell tell you that the only change to your ‘enlarged weapon’ is that it deals an additional 1d4 damage. I think that this is the way most people read it and it’s equally plausible. I especially imagine many DMs wouldn’t want to see weapon damage dies increase in addition to all the other benefits of the spell
I think the fact that they didn’t put enlarged weapons in the weapons section can support this reading But personally I would love if my DM reads enlarge reduce in the way that you mentioned
@@Gaichou here's why I'd allow it: 1. the spell says you add to the damage, not that the added damage becomes 1d4. Which is distinction WotC have used before to clear up certain interactions and as a result means that Gator is likely right about how these effects interact. 2. Giving weapons this extra damage makes it still an inefficient use of a spell slot a lot of the time, Because damage and mass control spells are just that much more powerful than weapons (also casters usually have access to all damage types where each weapon has 2 at most, making weapons drop in usefulness even more.) 3. +1d4 on a 2d6+4 doesn't really feel like it fits with the description of a weapon becoming double its original size, wouldn't you agree? For those worried about balance, I'd like to point out that a group of Shadows is a TPK machine, but RAW they're no more dangerous than a Swarm of Beetles.
@@Gaichoutrue, but there are legendary weapons that could count as over-sized such as Gruts Greataxe in which you’re only limited by your amount of strength to actually wield it (it weighs like 300~ lbs) since it’s originally meant for a frost giant
I always liked the idea of players keeping the large weapons they pry from the cold dead hands of their foes. It is hard to use but becomes a special weapon in a unique way that a +1 weapon just doesn't do.
Some people probably would tell you that the RAI is that the damage bonus is a specific thing replacing the normal bonus of the weapon from being oversized. I don't agree with it but it could be something someone could say.
I’m reasonably certain that RaI, they meant for the extra die of damage for getting bigger to REPLACE the Double damage from bigger weapons instead of add to it, much like players’ pets are more or less forbidden from getting multi attack, even if they normally would.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 it’s based on the restrictions on early Beastmaster Rangers and the lack of the multi attack feature in the Tasha’s alternatives and subsequent pet classes. There are features designed to make monsters a bigger threat to the party that they don’t want PCs to use. I personally have no issue with this. Similarly, I would gladly let a PC use the Large Weapon rules in the monster creation section. As Kobold says, marginals could use the bump.
Giants might and Rage have a similar number of uses, and also both add some damage and advantage on Strength checks and saves. They’re also the main features of the class/subclass, meaning they should be comparable. The extra damage die is 1d6 on 1 attack per turn for the Giants Might feature. The specific benefits of Giants might end here unless you include Extra Dice from huge weapons. Zealot Barbarians get more damage than this from just their subclass. Add onto that that they also get Rage bonus damage and Resistances. I think of you include bonus damage, it’s mainly going to make your Rune Knight not feel worse than a Zealot on every occasion ever.
@@Janders797 Why not just combine the two? First round, Rage. Second round Giants Might. Greatsword of 2d6{3d6 for those who use the above mentioned rules]+strength + d6 + d6+half level + whatever else ya got.
@@DarkSoul620 My preferred option is just a couple of large/huge/gargantuan hand crossbows and the cbow expert/sharpshooter feat. 20 levels of fighter yields 10d6/15d6/20d6 + 1d10 + 75 damage before adding in magic weapons and/or ammunition. Now you are truly a ballista launcher.
odd ruling question at 10:26. seeing as any item you drop instantly looses it's size 3:46, would ranged weapons work seeing as you are shooting the ammunition and it's no longer on your person?
I think this is something that had to be determined by RAI, instead of RAW. Since you're actively attacking with it instead of just setting the weapon down or throwing it aside, I think it makes sense that it stays at the enlarged size until it stops, at which point it would return to normal size.
@@sagatario58 RAI is that players don't use these rules. Players who are enlarged by some means use the extra damage as specified in the effect that has enlarged them, if any. The info presented here, in this video, is pulled from the section on making monsters in the DMG and is not applicable to players. Players and monsters don't use the same rules.
I think it would be cool to say "yes", not because it disallows larger ranged weapons, but because then you have to science that shit to figure out a way to make it work. Like, perhaps casting Enlarge on the ammunition, or a Contingency spell that makes ammo Enlarged when it hits a target... just a little something you have to think about, you know?
Scientifically when then arrow size shrinks it would accelerate. The energy put in to the oversized arrow is still present but now the arrow is easier to move because it has less mass. I would say you keep the extra damage.
@@NumbSkull2602 Typically, the attack action would conclude 1st as they are usually unable to be interrupted. For example, a 1 HP Goblin hits a PC who uses Hellish Rebuke. The hit & damage are still rolled, but only after those the Goblin get hit & die. So with that precedent, I could see the round of ammunition shrinking AFTER the round hits & damage as calculated. QCreyton is right in that these are MONSTER rules, not PC rules. While I see Kobold's case, I think he's stretching both RAI & RAW past their limits here when he claims PCs are Monsters. There might not be a disclaimer line that says 'PCs aren't Monsters', but does there really need to be? The "What is a Monster?" paragraph already goes as far as to mention that Monsters might be Friends or Rivals to the PCs, but still separates them. I'm certain that was reserved for things like Dragons, Archdruids & Priests in the Monster Manual who are literally sentient & capable of both good & evil. However, they are not necessarily built around the same rules as PCs.
Specific trumps general, so I don't think the Oversized weapon rules should also apply to a creature that's been Enlarged, since that specific spell has its own rules for what damage the enlarged weapons do
@@simonfsson817 If you’re using enlarge reduce for the extra damage you’re doing it wrong. Get yourself a scroll of hunter’s mark and use enlarge reduce for what it was really made; Wrestling dragons and giants. There’s nothing more satisfying than proning those bitches
How can you be sure the 1d4 extra damage isn't ON TOP of the increased weapon size? I ask that, but there is probably sage advice on this. However, if the person drops their weapon, a sorcerer twins enlarge on them and their weapon, and then they pick it up, it should be the large sized weapon's double dice plus the 1d4.
I've used this rule for years as a DM, but every DM I've ever played under disagrees with it. I completely agree that it's balanced, because martials are inherently weaker than their caster counterparts, and this primarily benefits martials and even encourages the use of support spells (enlarge/reduce) which adds more synergistic cooperation to the game (one of the best feelings when fighting encounters as a player). I thought this would be the one rule we disagreed on, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see you cover it in this light. Thank you for giving me a popular and detailed video to point to whenever I have to broach this topic to any player or DM in my games.
I think context is very important. First is the thing several here have pointed out that it seems to clarify a difference between monsters and players. Second compare enlarge reduce to other similar "buff my weapon spells"..... Enlarge is a 2nd level spell.... You get extra d4 per hit and advantage on str. Magic weapon just a +1 to damage (and hit), crusader mantle 3rd level...... Still only 1d4 per hit but for all allies in the aura. Elemental weapon still a 1d4 and +1 to hit. Arguably enlarge reduce is already over powered for its level since it also has non combat aspects in addition to providing multiple explicit benefits. I don't think it is supposed to then also buff the weapon cause of obscure rules. Third then compare rune knight to every other fighter subclass. I know there is always variety in abilities/damage and utility but this would mean by end game they are expected to have triple the damage output of every other pure fighter? Outside of explicit burst abilities (monks quivering palm?) this would mean the rune knight would have probably the largest gap in damage of any subclass to its other subclasses by a wide margin. Do while enlarging weapons makes sense logically I unfortunately don't think it works RAW. The benefits explicitly stated are to represent the benefits of becoming large.... Not in addition. I do think it is safe to rule that a weapon actually made at a large size that you somehow cart around (good luck..... At large a greatsword would be expected to be at least 10 ft long..... Getting worse from there on) should work RAW and is a sufficient reward for solving the issue of taking it with you. While your are right that systematically martials could use help I don't think this is it since it basically buffs explicitly 1 subclass to ludicrous levels over its peers. The difference between level 20 fighters (with no benefits other than the size buff and using a great sword) is the difference between 16d6 (normal 8 attacks cause action surge) and 48d6 (triple weapon dice cause huge size of rune knight). This is an enormous disparity. Not to mention critical hits. As much as I want this to be the case looking at it as a game I think it clearly shows that this unfortunately isn't how it works.
@@mythicalthings1796 fair enough I missed that particular one. Still it is giving damage per hit plus an extra (adv on str check/save) which is comparable to a 3rd level spell. All of this could say they are bad spells but when compared in context of the type of spell they are enlarge reduce its probably one of the best in category (low spell level that buffs per hit damage, not a 1 time burst line a smite) The point being of it doubled your weapon dice as well not only would it massively out class the similar (and even higher level spells) when as explicitly written or is already best in category? That clearly shows the design intent. As has been pointed out by others I think this is a case of the specific description is what you get. Specific over general.
I know that this is an old post, but I wanted to respond. First, since this section of the DMG is called "Base the damage on the weapon" and the paragraph right before the ones in question says that if the monster is using a manufactured weapon, then the damage should be the same as the base weapon that a PC would get, and the paragraph says that a large CREATURE gets double damage dice. This would make it seem that it would apply to the PC, and that it doesn't matter if the PC isn't a monster and is irrelevant. Second, crusader mantle is a 3rd level spell and can choose the damage type, so if you think that the enemy is vulnerable to a certain damage type, you get double that 1d4 (or 2d4) per hit. Elemental weapon, once again, 3rd level spell and can choose the damage type, so if you think that the enemy is vulnerable to a certain damage type, you get double that 1d4 (of 2d4) per hit. So a 2nd level spell that does +1d4 is not that OP on its own and only becomes OP if you can buff the base damage dice. If it doesn't buff the base damage, you haven't proven that, because it does NOT say that it replaced the increased damage dice. It DOES say that it does "1d4 extra damage" which would make it look like it would addon to an increased base damage dice, RAW. If I'm wrong, I would like to know the rule, RAW, that says that it would replace the damage dice increase. Third, as for the Rune Knight, their Giant Might ability says that it only increases the size of what you are wearing, not carrying (unlike enlarge/reduce that includes what you are carrying and specifically says that the weapon damage increases), so you might have to go out of your way to get a large weapon or find a way to enchant it to enlarge it with you. And the 1d6 once on your turn, looks like it can still be added on, sense it can be added even if you don't become large and can be added to an unarmed attack. The Rune Knight's damage potential is higher, but the Battlemaster gets to do things like push, topple or increase their to-hit chances to hit more often, that help offset at least some of the reduced damage (and I will admit that it might not offset all of the lower damage potential). I do admit that some of the other subclasses to need a boost. Now that 48d6 damage with a Rune Knight, I think, is a little disingenuous. To get that number requires a few things, 1) You need to get to Level 20. 2) You need to go straight fighter without multiclassing. 3) You need to use your action surge, which you only get 2 of per short rest and can only use one per turn. and 4) You have to succeed at 8 attack rolls in a row. You are not getting that anywhere near that 48d6 each round. Most rounds (if you don't get to level 20 or the fighter decides to multiclasses), you will be getting (with the extra 1d6/turn, and not accounting for misses and critical hit which offset each other) 19d6 (66.5 ave dam) if you hit all 3 times (and 37d6 (129.5 ave dam) with action surge if you hit all 6 times), instead of 6d6 (or 12d6 with action surge). Which doesn't sound to overpowered. Now let's look at the Paladin. A 19th level Paladin gets improved divine smite at level 11 that adds 1d8 to each hit and can choose to smite after he rolls a 20 on a d20 attack roll, which means that he can get 4d6 +12d8 (68 ave dam) (+2d8 if the enemy is a fiend or undead) in a single hit, 5 times a day and 10 time a day at lower damage (between 4d6 +6d8 and 4d6 +10d8 (+2d8 if the enemy is a fiend or undead)) without accounting for recovering spell slots of 3rd level or lower from the optional ability "Harness Divine Power". And this is on top of his regular attack rolls, proving always on Aura of Protection and any Chanel of Divinity from the subclass. Plus, if he picks up the Arcana skill and allowed to make "spell scrolls of holy weapon" during down time, can do 2d8 extra damage per hit (4d8 with critical hits) without using up spell slots. So, no, I don't think that the oversized weapons are OP.
They are. He's a power gamer trying to double damage output with a 2nd level spell. If the justification is "you grow bigger, thus use X rules' it would tell you, or that would supercede the bonus 1d4 damage.
An enlarged weapon /= an oversized weapon. So in theory, you could pick up a giant's Large sword after being enlarged yourself and get that doubled dice, but you wouldn't get the extra 1d4/1d6 since that was not a weapon oversized as part of the spell. However, I personally think that as a DM I'd totally let the players have this because its not going to break the game in half, I can just throw more enemies at them.
I see a big challenge in this. There's more than enough examples to support both the idea that you could use the oversize weapon information from the DMG and that you should not for any class or spell effects on players (or enemies). Like so many things, there is no specific rule to support this, you will be at the whims and mercy of your dungeon master.
Just buy a Large weapon for the extra damage dice... Then Enlarge as you desire because that d4 for this Spell only applies to Medium and Small weapons. Since Large+ weapons covet a different damage calculation.
Kobold is wrong about pcs using the oversized weapons rule being RAW. The keyword is interact. Interact means to act upon one ANOTHER. Once again, that is another as in other, not oneself. Under this rule, a player character treats other pcs as monsters but does not treat itself as a monster and thus does not benefit from oversized weapons rule under the RAW. That said, there is no problem house ruling the oversized weapon rule to apply to pcs.
(I wanna preface this with i am a fan of oversized weapons, and am in favor of them being homebrewed in because martial do fall off hard after like level 7-10) Hear me out Kobold, 5:10, is it really that all of the people at WotC just forgot OS weapons rules at the release of the PHB and had too squeeze it into the DmG, or is it possible the oversized weapon rules are in the right section, because those rules are meant to be used specifically by the DM for monsters as part of a custom stat block. Don't get me wrong. I know WotC doesn't have the best track record but I can't think of an oversight this oversized (pun intended). Few spells and individual cases falling through the cracks sure but a whole section? The logic is as shakey as PCs are monsters logic and just makes more sense too Homebrew vs twisting rules so much. Especially since I think you're more likely too get a dm too agree with making a homebrew in good faith, vs rules lawyering too be "technically right" and get your way.
@@infinitedm5396 Then what's a DMPC??? Is that a Monster??? Or... When the DM controls another PC (not currently controlled by players) for story related reasons? Is that a Monster???
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 You answered your own question. PvP stands for player versus player. Even the loose logic used by Kobold and the tabletop site he quotes, that information comes from the DmG meant for DMs. Monsters are anyone/anything being played by the DM who is not explicitly taking over a PC. Players race =/= monsters. A player abjurer wizard has less HP potential than PC abjurer wizard. And given the recent release of MotM I doubt you want your spellcasters having "spell like abilities" that aren't spells. Well assuming you're a DM. A player maybe, this is an optimization channel but I think we know how much inherent magic like that would break the game.
I think the issue with Melee martials isn't that they're all weak. It's that if you don't pick the right subclass/multiclass combo, the right feats, you're kinda fucked and can't do much more than an animal conjured by a Druid. Whereas a spellcaster can easily pull their weight just by the base spells their class has access to and can use their feats on whatever. The martial has to take 18 levels and be affected by a *SPELL* , to do big boy damage and wrestle a Tarrasque. The Spellcaster can blast AOE's all over the place, while still taking utility spells to open a pickle jar
If you're talking about rune knight, because you can grapple a creature up to one size larger than you and in DnD there is no size category above gargantuan, you would only need enlarge before 18th level to wrestle with the tarrasque. And frankly being able to wrestle the tarrasque at 3rd level with the help of magic (which you can get from two races for free) is pretty damn bad ass XD But on the whole I do agree, martials really do need buffs. And not just straight damage buffs, although those would help. I personally feel martials need more options to do more interesting things in combat aside from spamming the attack action.
Honestly as a rune knight fighter you barely even need the spell, considering how powerful those rune abilities are And since you're getting bigger you can control a wider area, especially when utilizing a glaive Edit: forgot to mention that for solo tarrasque suplexing shenanigans you can be a Goliath rune knight
@@The_Crimson_Witch that is true, but it also makes you one size larger for pushing, pulling and lifting So as a Goliath rune knight you can push around the tarrasque and even lift it up and suplex it if the rolls allow it, because even in the early levels where giant's might makes you large you have the carrying capacity and push, pull, lift strength of a huge creature, but if that's not enough for you, when you can become huge you count as gargantuan for those attributes
@@fallenangeldraco3778 push drag and pull are extensions of carrying capacity. They have no mechanical effect on shoving or grappling, as stupid as that sounds
I think that the specific rule of those features would overwrite the general rule for oversized weapons. HOWEVER, you could simply find or commission an oversized weapon.
You could take inspiration from Barding costs of x4 to calculate the cost to commission an oversized weapon. So if you commission for a Greatsword: Greatsword: 50gp Greatsword (Large): 200gp
Still using any weapon that not an appropriate size already gives an disadvantage. As far as I know there's no class that allow anyone to use a larger category weapon
The oversized weapons rule is cool and fun for players and I am allowing it for my players in my games. However, the idea that it is RAI or even RAW is absurd. The definition of monsters makes the distinction between them and player characters in the third line of the passage and even if you still define player characters as monsters the entire section and surrounding passages are describing how a DM can make a nonplayer character. There is no indication that this passage would be referring to player characters. It was even said in the video if it was is the weapons section that would imply that its for everyone but its not. Its in the section for creating nonplayer characters. The second passage does say creatures, referring to everyone, for the disadvantage part which makes sense as that is the case outside of this section as well (heavy weapons and small creatures).
This comment reminds me of getting loot in an MMO. You beat the boss and win their sword, but all of a sudden it's half the size and nerfed halfway to oblivion.
I’d be inclined to agree if not for the fact that on the very next page, they begin using the terms creature and monster interchangeably: “MODIFYING CREATURES Despite the versatile collection of monsters in this book, you might be at a loss when it comes to finding the perfect creature for part of an adventure. Feel free to tweak an existing creature to make it into something more useful for you, perhaps by borrowing a trait or two from a different monster or by using a variant or template, such as the ones in this book. Keep in mind that modifying a monster, including when you apply a template to it, might change its challenge rating. For advice on how to customize creatures and calculate their challenge ratings, see the Dungeon Master’s Guide.” The very thesis of this passage relies on monsters and creatures meaning the same thing. This works in both RAW and RAI. The passage Kobold sited doesn’t even say anything about needing to be a monster to wield and oversized weapon. The passage says “A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker,” which also fundamentally applies to all creatures including player characters and means they would be able to wield oversized weapons this way. It just means the players would need to obtain the weapon from an oversized monster.
I am all for applying this rule for players too, martials need buffs, but cmon.... 3 lines bellow it says "...who might be friends or rivals to the Player Characters." It making the separation between PCs & Monsters Creatures = player tough. All those spells target creatures, who could be players.
Yeah, just the fact that the definition was longer than a sentence shows an obvious rules as intended and taking just that first sentence as proof of it being RAW isn't exactly what RAW means. That being said I don't think it's a bad change, so long as allowing it at any given table makes the martial more relevant as opposed to making one martial more relevant and any others that don't have growing mechanics even less so. A good tool in the DM arsenal to consider, but no way actually intended or should be used universally in my opinion.
Oh, so we're just gonna ignore the first half of the definition entirely? Where in the Oversized Weapons section it is specifically ruled for creatures?
@@Agamemnonoverhead Of course not, a Trade off of disadvantage for 6 or 7 extra or damage is fair enough and something that some characters would choose and something that some characters would not. More importantly for what we're talking about, it is also very explicitly and clearly stated in a seperate paragraph. We are objecting to the statement that sizing weapon damage is an accepted rule which he is presenting an argument for, Even as we also acknowledge that it could be a useful rule to allow despite that.
@@johnarnold8485 If we're working RAW, it would definitely apply otherwise the definition of "creature" becomes fluid. Either that or someone's got to admit this was written poorly
The problem in saying that pc = monsters, is that there are some rules specifically carved for monster. Like the one that says that a monster when reach 0 hitpoints usually are destroy (no death saves). As I said before, I am all for this being applied to players, and this is definitely poorly written, but if you define that moster = pcs, them..... as half-life once said it... "Prepare for unforseen consequences"
Giant's might only increases the size of what you are wearing, so anything you are carrying/your weapons don't grow. You can still carry around a larger sword to attack with though. (Enlarge reduce explicitly includes what you are carrying and your weapon, so that does work.)
No, specific *overrides* general. So, in the case of the extra damage from enlarge/reduce, the 1d4 supplants the default oversize weapon die doubling. Similarly, giant's might specifically *doesn't* mention making your weapon larger. It's not all your equipment that scales up, just your clothing. So, if you giant's might + enlarge, you get the 1d6 + 1d4 extra, but not the additional 2 base weapon dice. HOWEVER. If you carry around a huge weapon on a horse drawn carriage, you could enlarge and giant's might, then PICK UP that huge weapon, AND THEN you would get the two extra damage dice from the weapon, plus the 1d6 from giant's might, since that damage is due to *your* additional size, not the weapon's. In short, the exploitable power from enlarge/reduce and giant's might, both, is the ability to *wield* larger weapons; but neither *creates* larger weapons. Enlarge mechanically adds less than a full tier larger to your weapon, and giant's might only makes *you* larger, not your weapons. So, it allows for some beautiful synergies, but is not the all-in-one that you present.
There is nothing stating that the extra damage from Enlarge/Reduce replaces the oversized weapon rule. While I agree that it probably does RAI, it just gets added ontop RAW.
In this case specific does not affect general. Enlarge makes no mention of the normal oversized weapon rules so those rules remain in place. It’s kinda like arcane recovery, it tells you what happens when you complete a rest but does not replace the normal short rest benefits.
Enlarge/Reduce says specifically the weapon gets bigger and Giant's Might says along with anything you are wearing. So that would mean my clothes, armor, backpack, but if you want to be technical, if your holding your weapon it wouldn't get bigger, but I sheathed it so I'm now wearing it before I get larger, now it gets bigger. I think it's pedantic to think the weapon wouldn't get bigger using Giant's Might and the upgrade to it, but your armor, clothes, sheaths, and things you might wear around you, like a bow in some cases or a jewelry, magically would. And a huge creature swinging a tiny weapon sounds ridiculous. But to each their own in this world of make believe.
Since the additional damage that Enlarge/Reduce gives is only a d4, I think it overrules the damage for oversized weapons... HOWEVER, you easily could grab a large longsword, drag it around and when the battle begins, you drop it, then you enlarge yourself (so the weapon doesn't enlarge with you) and then grab the giant sword like an anime transformation. You could do the same with giant's might with even greater weapons. Only that you might not get the extra damage for those features, since the d4 for enlarge is if the weapon was enlarged, which we aren't looking for
The Heavy Property is not connected to the Size Property, in 5e. It's a separate mechanic that only affects small creatures/players. Unless you upscale the weapon into a Heavy + Huge Weapon etc.
A monster is defined as "any creature who might be interacted with and potentially fought and killed ... who might be friends or rivals to the player characters." This indicates it's meant only for NPCs. But I agree that the part talking about creatures attacking with weapons sized for creatures larger than they are attack with Disadvantage means that PCs can absolutely pick up that Giant's 3D12 Greataxe and attack with it as long as the DM has determined it's not too large for them to use at all.
hmm I would think that they did not intend the Players to be Monsters. Would be interesting to have some kind of official clarification on that. My opinion (but not a dnd lawyer) is that RAI PC should not be monsters, but it's just my interpretation
@@JustLooking1996 Then what is PvP in 5e? Even in the new Spelljammer. Some PC Races are considered as Monstrosities and Constructs etc. instead of Humanoids. Not to mention that there is an official Large+ Weapon in one of the adventure books that PCs can use. And then... There are DMPCs, for better or worst. Since DMs can play as other PCs for story related reasons.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 5e isn't built around pvp, and even then player characters are player characters. You shouldn't use rules for npcs on pcs and expect the results to make any sense.
@@JustLooking1996 That's true... A Monster who throws a massive boulder will do a lot of damage, based on the DMG. While a Monk will reflect that boulder back to the Monster but with far less damage dice in comparison. As for Large+ Weapons... There's already an official Large+ Weapon in one of the adventure books. It's a shame that 5e (or OneDnD) may never expand in its many mechanics and content. But that said... Let PCs use Large+ Weapons instead of enlarging their usual weapons. And give it 1 extra damage dice based on the weapon with +5ft of more melee range (grid map). Instead of what the DMG gives to NPCs for Large+ Weapons. It's just odd that NPCs can wield Large+ Weapons but PCs cannot, outside of that one Large+ Weapon in the official adventure book.
It seems like this would run into considerable balancing trouble if you allow a player character to be of a large race. While not vanilla, it would allow the character to use double dice weapons at no resource cost.
It's not that bad... In fact... It's weaker compared to older Editions. But in 5e... A Medium size PC can dual wield two Large Swords at a Dis Adv, but no larger. Or do people want to go down the "Ego DM" side of the game??? It will end badly. (I'll ignore the Monster stuff... That's just Coding written poorly for the Users.)
Regarding the definition of monster: The paragraph of the definition is longer than the first sentence, so it doesn't end there and there is more information to consider. The definition goes on to explicitly mention player race options (dwarves and elves), but talks about them as separate to PCs - monsters are creatures that might be friends or rivals to the players, which semantically separates them as groups, which heavily implies that players are not creatures. It seems very clear to me that when they are talking about monsters, they are referring to any creature BUT PCs. Of course a player can still wield a monster's weapon, but to say that PCs are monsters doesn't seem like what the definition actually says.
Ah but wait, many spells explicitly state targets as ‘creatures’ and can target Player Characters. So dividing the monster definition off by saying players aren’t creatures doesn’t work. Further, the monster definition is a clarification, to inform the reader that yes NPCs and civilized humanoids are also monsters. It doesn’t negate the previous statement that a monster is any creature, it just clarifies that yes even your NPCs are monsters.
A rune knight can also drink a potion of growth (yes it sacrifices the first turn) and bypass the concentration issue. The "catch" is that it last 1d4 hour, which is great to finish the dungeon crawl but also prevents you to repeat the combo untill it last
One of my player's characters fought a Balor. It was a loong fight, and after it had downed three other characters, I figured they earned the right to its sword. Not even just the strength the weapon gives by itself but the RP value it's created is amazing. It's really inspired them and has made supercool moments down the road too
2:38 the following sentence does state that it is a friend or foe of the players, not a player but I wouldn't harp over it. It did seem like you chose not to acknowledge that section
The tricky thing is that players don't (or shouldn't) have access to the DMG rules. The even trickier bit is that the DMG and PHB have different rules for players vs. creatures. For example, an Abjuration Wizard has a d6 hit die, but an Abjurer [VGM p.209]/Abjurer Wizard [MPMM p. 260] has d8 hit dice. Monsters are not player characters, and they use different rules. I applaud the DMs who allow stuff like this, but it has wild implications at a table of people who know how to use or abuse it.
Hard disagree. Many rules that the players NEED to know re only in the DMG. A specific (and egregious) one is for the Thief Rogue with Fast Hands, which lets them Use An Item as part of their Cunning Action. Sounds AWESOME right? Get a wand of magic missile or something and have a bonus action attack! Feed players potions to be the ultimate utility with only a bonus action! Strong class feature! Except.... No. Magic Items, potions included, the PHB Potion of Healing ALSO included, SPECIFICALLY don't benefit from Fast Hands as outlines SPECIFICALLY in the DMG ONLY. If the players don't have access to the DMG rulings then a player could think of doing that build, drop ALL their resources into potioncrafting (Tasha's has rules) and suddenly be shut down by a rule they had NO WAY of even knowing about. Bad rule, and Bad DM for hiding it from the player. That will make that player feel terrible and likely walk from the table
I don't think any DM should be promoting players to be ignorant about game rules. And just because a monster's name and a subclass look and sound similar it doesn't mean you are obliged to limit that monster to player character creation rules. Abjuration has existed before any 5e wizard thought to specialize in it!
No it doesn't. There are nearly zero implications for abuse because Wizards, Druids, and Clerics exist. These 3 classes are so fundamentally broken compared to every other class it makes me want to un-exist people for claiming that X or Y thing that Martials could do will break the game. It won't fucking break the game and any claims to the contrary are simply, factually, and MATHEMATICALLY WRONG.
Kobold, i present to you: Monkey Grip Monkey Grip ( Complete Warrior, p. 103) [General] You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size. Prerequisite Base attack bonus +1, Required for Wield Oversized Weapon (CW) , Benefit You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change. For instance, a Large longsword (a one-handed weapon for a Large creature) is considered a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat. For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered a one-handed weapon. You can wield a larger light weapon as a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands. You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand, and you cannot use this feat with a double weapon. Normal You can use a melee weapon one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, and the amount of effort it takes to use the weapon increases. A larger light weapon is considered a one-handed weapon, a larger one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon, and you cannot use a larger two-handed weapon at all. as always, 3.5 saves the day
"You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift." + "Natural Athlete You have proficiency in the Athletics skill." Golaiths are just barely short of RAW allowed to use oversized weapons without disadvantage.
What determines the weapons you can wield without disadvantage is determined by your size capacity. Goliath is literally stated to count as one size larger in terms of carrying capacity. Ego, Goliaths can weird Large weapons.
@@BoomDriveProductions I don’t think that’s right, but I can understand why you might come to that conclusion. It never states carrying capacity has anything to do with weapon size, only that creature size matters, and Goliath’s are still medium creatures.
Goliaths were large in previous editions iirc. WoTC has been extremely reluctant to give players large races because 5th edition is based on the premise that players are stupid and everything has to be simple. FOR EXAMPLE PLAYER VS MONSTER CENTAURS
@@PH03NIX96 I assumed it had more to do with published dungeons, since there are some where Large creatures would have to keep squeezing the whole way through and may be unable to access some vital areas.
Finally someone's getting sponsored by that Eldritch Hunt book, I have been getting ads for it on apps and I was thinking "So, if it is only on this app does it suck? That would suck because I love both Lovecraftian things and Bloodborne."
Enlarge Spell. "While these Weapons are enlarged, the target's Attack with them deal 1d4 extra damage." If the d4 were related to being bigger and stronger, wouldn't it just say that the target's attack with any weapons would deal 1d4 extra damage. It specifically refers to the enlarged weapons. Personally, I like Kobold's take on it better, but RAW doesn't seem to agree.
Yea, Enlarge/Reduce and Rune Knight are clearly not intended to be used with the oversized weapon rules. Not super game breaking if you want to do that, though.
i might rule that only monster (ie opponents) can start/make oversized weapons, so my players would have to seize one from an opponent. already using those in my game, but i decided to change the rules a bit - if a character wants to hold this weapon and use it, it must succeed a constitution saving throw at the beginning of the day or have disadvantage on everything (basically exhaustion rules) whenever holding the weapon.
Kind of redundant... Medium Size PC can use a Large Sword but not a Huge Sword, at Dis Adv... That's all you need since it's the Heavy Property, expanded.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 not exactly. It's not dis on attack rolls, but on everything, and since it's huge there's also more reward (and the character is a goliath, so it seems appropriate, even if it's officially medium). It's basically is a burden whenever you fail, for an entire day.
@@nixian_zwaylus Not by RAW... The Dis Adv for Large+ Weapons and for Heavy Weapons only affect the Hit Chance. It doesn't affect every other d20 test. But if you homebrew it. Then that's its own thing.
I'm not sure if this is again one of the less serious videos but you conveniently glossed over the distinguishing phrase between monster and player characters: "The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk WHO MIGHT BE FRIENDS OR RIVALS TO THE PLAYER CHARACTERS." This is not a new bullet point, nor would it make sense to be separate from the two sentences before it, since you almost certainly are going to interact with friends or rivals. "to the player characters" means that 'monster' has to be separate from all of the player characters. Not just one of them, all! Otherwise it would've stated "to a player character" (or similar), but it clearly makes the distinction. Applying this suggestion in the dmg to player characters might be equally funny as non-sensical, but it just isn't a rule. If this video is making a serious argument then I'd suggest watching Treantmonks video on RAW. Though, as a DM I would personally consider allowing it for enlarge/reduce only, as that spell can indeed use a buff but would disallow it for any other means, especially for the Rune Knight, since that class is already above most other fighter subclasses.
@@Bam_Byk it is an interesting item but the extra dice are very obviously part of the balancing as a legendary item, therefore a specific note rather than a general rule.
Minor nitpick in case people are having trouble finding it in the DMG: the rule for oversized weapons is under the "Base the Damage on the Weapon" section that starts on page 277, but the paragraph itself is on page 278. [Edit: Misspelled "minor". It is not spelled "minir".]
I’m not sure how I feel about this interpretation. By this logic, at level 3 my rune knight fighter, along with a wizard companion, could become huge and do 7d6+1d4+STR with his maul. I certainly wouldn’t mind becoming this monstrosity but it seems like it would throw off balance. I would definitely say the giant’s might bonus damage should be each attack though not just once per turn.
@Stefan Erwin Baumer There's no reason he couldn't combine PAM and runeknight... it would give a weaponized bonus action to use on subsequent rounds and make the damage dice of that extra hit bigger too... If he takes a two level dip into hexblade he could also just buy an oversized weapon and summon it on demand and then no wizard needed. Or idk buy a pack horse and get a custom sheath. The problem is that there's no tradeoff here in actuality. He can do it all on his own if he were only willing to try to be as busted as possible. And at level 5 It gets more gross... What if the caster has metamagic and twins it? What if he has an easy way to get himself advantage on every turn like a familiar or something? What if he does it all on his own and the wizard casts web anyway?
@Stefan Erwin Baumer I totally agree, that's why I allow the "gary stu" fighter subclass in my game It adds 1000 damage to every attack, and 10 to your AC, it's balanced, since after all, since you're playing this, you're not playing a battlemaster shit man, show me a fighter subclass that adds this much damage and maybe you'd have a point But hell, it doesn't even matter, this was clearly not intended, PC's are not monsters, kobold is just plain wrong, and using the worst of RAW lawyering to justify it yes, I think enlarge should be better than it currently is, and I'm not stoked about the fighter feature either, buffing both is a good idea, this isn't a good idea though, at all. All you're doing is invalidating everyone who deigned to play a martial and didn't exploit this horribly lawyered rule
this is not rules text. These are instructions for creating your own stat blocks, and gives some insight into how the authors typically selected damage dice when designing monsters. But this is not a rule to be invoked at the table, and the authors didn't even follow it all of the time when designing monster stat blocks. For example, the fiend Baphomet, size Huge, carries a glaive named Heartcleaver that does only 2 die of damage Since Baphomet is a Huge monster, and his personal weapon is made personally for him we would typically expect the weapon attacks to deal 3dX, but Baphomet's do not. This bit about oversized weapons is not a rule. It's a design principle that was usually followed, but not always. We can further motivate this ruling by observing that we should be able to figure out what the spell does without having to read a section about monsters from the Dungeon Master's Guide. The spell enlarge/reduce is printed in the Basic Rules and System Reference Document, documents which do not contain the material about homebrewing monsters from the DMG. We should be able to figure out what the spell does even if all we have is the Basic Rules or SRD, by reading the spell description and the rules for spells
Given older Editions and the Large Magical Thunder Ax in one if the 5e Adventure books for PCs... Your incorrect about Large+ Weapons for PCs. Otherwise... We can play the DM God side of things. How much will the DM side of things be RAW???... That line is more blurred.
2:22 Here's the wiggle room: The third sentence further defines Monsters by their relationship to the players, implying that the player characters are NOT monsters.
Carrying capacity might get messy with the size increases. A size increase only double carrying capacity, but doubling your size technically increases your weight by 2^3 (square cube law). This would apply to your weapons+armor and what you're carrying as well. The saving grace is that Rune Knight makes you Large, and later Huge, but isn't necessarily doubling your actual size (and the weapon's). A pike at 18 lbs will become 144 lbs with Enlarge/Reduce. Even just doubling the weight with each Rune Knight size increase makes the pike 72 lbs at Huge. Multiplying by 8x with Enlarge/Reduce makes it 576 lbs. A gargantuan sized 20 Str Rune Knight would have a carrying capacity of 2400 lbs. And that's just a pike. Plate armor would become 2080 lbs.
The rule on dnd5e is that small and medium crestures carry str score x 15, timy half of it, large is double (x30) and huge is x3 of that (x45) and so on A creature can acrry more than you think on dnd, specially if they get the feature that 'let them carry the double stuff and are considered one size bigger', theres many ways of getting it, some races as goliaths already have it from start, or best totem barbarians too at lv6
@@FarothFuin I already factored the size boosting carrying capacity with my calculations. A gargantuan sized 20 Str Rune Knight has 2400 lbs carrying capacity: 20x2x2x2*15=2400. Getting features that increase your carrying capacity would pretty much be a requirement in order to use this tactic (depending on your gear). Also, Goliath as your race actually _wouldn't_ help for the final build where you become actually gargantuan because it only treats you one size larger; if you become gargantuan sized, that is the maximum size in RAW (encompassing things those size and above), making you cap out in carrying capacity boosts. Bear totem is 6th level Barbarian, meaning you can't do 18th level Rune Knight to reach Gargantuan anyhow. Another option is Enhance Ability to double carrying capacity, requiring someone else or you to cast and maintain concentration. - Finally, of note is that I took a conservative approach to how much heavier your carried items become when using Rune Knight size increases (x2 then x2 then x8 for Enlarge for x32 total). It's possible DM rulings may vary, choosing to rule the size increases as effectively doubling your size in order to get to the next creature size, similarly to Enlarge/Reduce. Each size increase would then increase the weight of carried items by 8x: M->L->H->G is 3 size increases which means your carried items will weigh a whopping _512x heavier._ Meanwhile, size boosts for carrying capacity are only 2x per increase: about 8x carrying capacity in total boosted without using other carrying capacity affecting abilities.
My new Goliath character uses an oversized flame tongue greatsword. And the DM even let us rule it in a way that it doesn't impose disadvantage because goliaths' carrying capacity (so in a way the amount that they can carry around) is calculated as if the goliath was large
The paragraph on oversized weapons is presented as part of an optional way to calculate monster damage in a chapter that consists of guidance for creating homebrew (dmg 263), so players should be aware that they'll need to seek DM approval to use oversized weapons because they are optional rules. Despite the definition in the monster manual, the word monster is actually used throughout the rules as a way to talk about creatures that are not PCs. If you define PCs as monsters, then the rules say that the DM should do things like include player characters and friendly NPCs when calculating encounter difficulty (dmg 82), track player health in secret so that they don't know how much health they have remaining (247), and deny them death saving throws (phb 198).
So i know this is not officially acknowledged by WoTC as of yet, however when running games any being with the Powerful Build feature, since it states that they can lift, carry, and drag items as if one size greater, can use one size larger than normal. For enlarge this actually allowed them to get a wield boost up to Gargantuan safely (or colossal at disadvantage) if they had it active, while normally they could only safely use large and awkwardly use huge. In theory with the Rune Knight you could actually have powerful build from a race being medium that can safely wield large, become large that can safely wield huge, then get enlarged to become a 20x20 colossal that can wield colossal+ weapons safely, or even if you want the extra damage, a colossal++ weapon at disadvantage, and with as many sources of advantage there are that you can use to cancel out disadvantage that becomes a pretty viable option considering the damage. For example lets use just a mundane Great Axe as our weapon, this would suddenly be a weapon that you can pick up (lets say from some giant statue made by dwarves or something) that would be able to do 7D12 damage on a flat D20 roll assuming you find some sort of advantage, so a bounds of 7-84 damage, with an average range of 42-49, and thats before any sort of modifiers, special actions, or anything. And, if you happen to get lucky and find such a weapon at some point early on that should be enough damage that so long as you hit even a single enemy with it you would be able to take it out until decently far into the game. And should size be an issue with becoming super big you can instead of using enlarge on yourself, reduce the axe down to half its size. Because remember, large creatures are 10x10, huge are 15x15, gargantuan are 20x20, its only a 5ft difference per tier, and since enlarge doubles your size this lets you jump a full step. Or more if you can find a different way to grow first, such as using magic items with the enlarge effect or something similar
I'd really love Crawford's opinion on this, while I do agree with kobolds point of view that when we go up in size the damage should too, all the d6 extra and d4 extra makes me feel like it doesn't which sucks coz that would be nice and simple and would make things easy.
Keep in mind that Crawford says monks attacking with Unarmed Strikes is a weapon attack, but doesn't work with a paladin's Smite because they don't count as Weapons, which isn't in the RAW ("When you his with a melee weapon attack...."), but also says DM should feel free to allow it.
Additional damage die generally stack, like a Paladin Rogue multi-class can get both Smite and Sneak Attack. So in this case if you follow Kobold's train of thought, Enlarge/Reduce upsizes you and your weapons by one category. So a Medium Fighter with a Shortsword would attack for 2d6+1d4+modifier. For a concentration spell to only grant 1d4 extra damage (and advantage to strength checks/saves) isn't amazing. It also means that a tiny character being upsized gets the same damage bonus as a large character, which is weird when you think about it. I think the 1d4 is due to the magic, and the die count also increases. After all, larger creatures don't get advantage on the above rolls but Enlarge grants that, so why not also a damage boost in addition to the larger weapon?
Keep in mind Crawford is an idiot who doesn't know how his own game works half the time and is more concerned with saving face than giving good advice. His opinion should be weighed the same as any random DM, so feel free to just ask any DM you know.
@Stefan Erwin Baumer OK, DDBeyond excludes that on the character page, but has it on closer inspection on the PHB. That is indeed, much more stupid. I could go to a dictionary or legal statutes (Turner v. State) to argue in favor of a hand being a weapon, let alone getting around it with knuckledusters, cestus, bhaknaks, gauntlets, nekokote, etc.
The funny thing is, if you add this to cleave and a DM that adds more vulnerabilties and resistances to monsters to make different physical damage types actually matter, it makes martials actually scale almost as well as damage-oriented casters. Add that to my preference for grim reality, and you actually see martials are more effective at sustained damage over an extended period of time while casters are better for large chunks of damage.
Pulling out a rule from the DMG located in a section dedicated to helping DMs create or modify monsters from the Monster Manual and applying it to player characters is quite the stretch. As is ignoring the part of the "definition" of a monster that excludes player characters. If it were a static rule that applied to players, it would be in the PHB.
@Stefan Erwin Baumer They are guidelines in the DMG on how one might create or modify a monster from the Monster Manual. The section heading these "rules" are found in is "Creating a Monster Stat Block." Player characters don't have stat blocks. These guidelines on size and weapon damage are written within the context of creating balanced stat blocks for monsters and NPCs. It is _irrelevant_ that they use 'creature' instead of 'monster' in the description, because the _entire section_ it is written in isn't defining rules or guidelines for player characters; it's for creating monster stat blocks. If player characters are monsters, then we should be able to apply anything and everything that applies to monsters to Player Characters as well. So players must also have Challenge Ratings because monsters have Challenge Ratings. If I do a CR calculation on my PC and find my CR is higher than my character level, well then I need to roll more hit die because CR is intrinsically tied to hit die. And oh look, a monster's size also determines which die a monster uses for it's HP calculation. Medium monsters use a d8 hit die, so all the characters that don't use a d8 aren't following monster rules. Weird. Monsters can also have base stats up to 30 without any special rules or magic items. I should also be able to determine the creature type of my PC by looking through the Monster Manual and picking one that suits my idea for my character as is described in the paragraph about determining monster type. Heck, it even says "Make the monster whatever size you want". Great! Heck we don't even need the PHB because all the rules for creating monsters and similar creatures are all right here. Or maybe, just maybe, cherry picking a few sentences from the section of the _Dungeon Masters' Guide_ that provides guidelines on how to create or modify monster and npc stat blocks and applying it out of context to anything that could be considered a monster based on a vague definition of monster found in the _Monster Manual_ is an extraordinarily bad faith argument.
@Stefan Erwin Baumer The size of the weapon doesn't grant the extra damage as per the description. A large greataxe still does 1d12. All the features that increase a player character's size explicitly state what happens as a result. They do get extra damage, but not the same damage bonus that is relegated for balancing monster stat blocks. The entire video conflates 'guidlelines for DMs regarding monster stat blocks' with 'rules for players' which makes any implication you draw from them useless as they are vacuously true.
I am using a 7ft Guts/Cloud/Anime sword on my 7ft Paladin in the campaign my house is about to start. Ive written its stats as follows: Giant Sword: 1d10 Slashing+1d4 Bludgeoning Martial, Two-Handed, Heavy, Reach, *Giant *Giant Property: Str17 Required, DisAdvantage on Dex Saves I also keep going back and forth on adding "remove the DisAdv on Dex Saves if Str21+", IE getting any belt of Giant Strength. For now we're keeping the DisAdv because the 10ft Range and extra Dmg needs a solid trade off and seems cheap to cleanse its negatives. Itll be fine :) If you think the DisAdv isnt a good enough tradeoff to balance, at first I also had "Speed -5" so can put that back on if you want. Im getting Crusher and Fell-Handed Feats as soon as I can. So excited for everything about this character.
An additional point: This is extra good with 2 levels in barbarian which effectively cancels the detriments of using an oversized weapon whilst you are normally sized (you can roll flat when you use reckless attack). Not as good to hit chance but consistent double damage.
the Oversized Weapons are not even a rule, they are an alternative way to increase the damage of a creature to increase their CR in a "natural way" in the Create Monster section of the DMG. Like instead of saying the Large creature does 5d4 you say it does 2d12, almost same average damage but the 2d12 is more "justified" while 5d4 is more "gamey"
@@haenhaen4282 Those subclasses are an example of PC style enemies, not meant for the players, magic items are for the DM to place not for the players to choose. Both have a different place, neither is in the Monster Creation rules section
As a Laywer, I must say that the enlarge spell rules are more specific than the oversized weapons rule, so they take precedence over them. So, no, the rules don't say to double the dice. But I do encourage you to play that way, because it does make more sense and sounds more fun
Thanks for sharing this knowledge with everyone. i gave a player a large greataxe (2d12 damage) a few weeks ago. it was the former axe of his nemesis, a minotaur. had an argument with other DMs about the great-greataxe "not being in the rules" and "not wieldable by humans, because it's minotaur sized". the player has equal strength to the minotaur and has to reckless attack to get rid of the disadvantage from the size of the axe (he is a barbarian). now i can show the DMs that doubted me your video!
Not sure why other DMs care so much. If the player is having fun, and you as the DM are happy with the ruling, that's all that should matter! I have a DM that lets us have two subclasses. It's powerful, and not written in the rules at all. But we are having a blast! Play DnD your way!
@@aldrinvendt8524 This is extremely unaware. DMs are not doubting him because of “letting his players have fun”. They are doubting him because he’s trying to claim this is RAW. rules exist for a reason, and breaking them is part of the D&D fun! Hell, I’ve given my lvl 1 players wish before. BUT implying you’re not home brewing or house ruling is severely flawed and that IS something other DMs can critique.
@@aldrinvendt8524 it's fun, but defineatly a bit overpowered. i balance it by adding adds to the fight that simply serve as roadblock to the main villians, costing them actions. and boy do my players love the heroic vision of cutting down hordes of low CR creatures. the casters free the way with AOE, and the barb cuts down the largest threats with the great-greataxe. the hordes of low CR creatures would ruin the barb recklessly attacking if not removed, while the big bads are a thread to the casters.
Okay, I have a problem with this being presented as RAW. Kobold says it himself, that IF this was written in the weapons section it would be widely accepted, but it's not, it's in the section for creating homebrew monsters. Trying to cross-link it to a definition of monster that means every possible creature is a stretch already, and that's not even what that definition of monster says past the first sentence. "It also applies to... civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters" shows that the first sentence did NOT apply to noncombat NPCs, and looks to me like it doesn't automatically apply to the player characters themselves, it's about other non-player beings the player characters might interact with. Add on top of that fact that other parts of the game rules that let you change size categories include their own damage buffs and do not reference or mention this monster-creation guideline, it's blindingly obvious that these rules weren't intended to apply this way. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea of oversized weapons! I did this in 3.5 all the time! And if these are the rules DMs want to use to run them in game, DMs should go nuts! But presenting this as intentional RAW that was just 'put in the wrong section' is going to mislead new players who want a giant sword and then don't understand why their DM is being mean to them.
The better RAW would be... Ignore everything Kobold said about Monsters and only focus on Large+ Weapon Rules. Paraphrase: "Any Creature (or PC, since your character is a Creature) can wield any weapon that is at least one size larger than your size but no larger than that. And you can dual wield it too, if it doesn't have the Double Handed Property or the Reload Property." As for damage dice... A magically enlarged weapon doesn't count. It must be a natural Large+ Weapon in order to use the Large+ Weapon Damage Dice. This would be valid by RAW based on the DMG of 5e and many PHBs of older Editions. I don't know why WotC shafted this mechanic so terribly by hiding it into the DMG of 5e. When the Wizard can do abstract things which inherently breaks RAW at times.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 The part of the rule mentioning creatures is a much stronger argument for RAW, but even then I would say it necessitates a DM ruling. It's worth looking at the context of the chapter it's in, Chapter 9 'Dungeon Master's Workshop'. "This chapter contains optional rules that you can you to customize your campaign, as well as guidelines on creating your own material." The whole section is optional rules and guidelines for homebrew, so the idea that this is just how oversized weapons work, RAW end of story, doesn't sit right with me.
@@IronWilliam You can always use older Edition rules for Oversized Weapons or follow what I stated above. The rules are not strict because that will bring inconsistencies... Imagine an NPC giving a Large Weapon which does 3d6 damage to a PC. But because of RAW, the medium sized PC cannot wield that Large Weapon somehow??? Or that the 3d6 Damage Dice is nerfed for arbitrary reasons??? This has the same issue with "ending your turn in mid jumping arch" because WotC didn't write any rules about it. Or how Fall Damage + Jump is jank, RAW. (In 5e... There are a lot of Unspoken Rules with mechanics. I hope this is not repeated for OneDnD.)
This most likely isn't rai, but raw the runic juggernaut feature only states 'your size' can increase to huge. It doesn't explicitly state that your equipment also benefits for the size increase
True... That's WotC for ya... There are many Unspoken Rules in 5e. Like in Misty Step for example. It's assumed that you teleport with your stuff even though that spell doesn't mention it.
Once played a paladin who had gauntlets allowing her to wield weaponry one strength category above her own, so what was already a large imposing aasimar quickly turned (and chopped) even more heads with a huge sized greatsword (+ great weapon master). That was a fun character to play
Back in 3.5 there was a feat called monkey grip which let you use a large sized weapon without penalty. There was a feat called exotic weapon Proficiency which could be taken to allow a bastard sword to be used one handed instead of two handed. There was also a feat called whirlwind attack which let you spin in a circle and make an attack Against everything in your reach with the weapon(weapons) you are using.. Using a large weapon granted 10 feet of reach. I think you can see where I'm going with this.
I feel like using a combination of shove and/or find familiar -> help to frequently have advantage and cancel out the disadvantage for using an oversized weapon would be neat. Is a 2d12 greataxe rolled at a flat roll better than, say, sharp shooter on hand cross bows? Definitely not. Is it the type of stupid fun I play the game for? Absolutely. I think I have my next build.
Makes sense to me. I game my rune knight player more damage anyway just didn't realize it was covered. Been a hot minute since I actually read the DMG as a DM. Thanks for the breakdown! Amazing as always.
The 1d4 and oversized weapon rules don't stack, otherwise it would specify. Adding a d4 on top of oversized weapon rules makes it a stronger spell than higher level spells like elemental weapon.
Pic is funny. I have a character planned who's a Kobold who uses Spheres of Might, as there's a Tinker Talent that lets you remove Heavy from a weapon, so he can use a Greatsword normally!
A cool high level martial feature might be an ability to haul oversized weapons around on your hip (as if they were Medium sized weapons), that grow to full size when you draw them. Easy way to bump martial damage across the board.
This really is a personal preference thing, as some people are perfectly cool with it (the characters are in a world that has magic in it, after all), but I'm pretty bothered by giving distinctly magical abilities to classes that are themselves not magical in nature. No amount of "being good at fighting" is going to give you the power to make your weapons shrink or grow, and unless the subclass changes the flavor of the class to being magical (like eldritch knight, rune knight, psi warrior or arcane trickster) then I feel like it's a pretty hard break from the flavor of the class. If you want to make martials do more damage, just give them a feature that makes them do more damage without the narrative baggage that doesn't fit with the flavor of the class. That being said, there is no reason that you can't have a magic item or subclass feature that does the narrative heavy-lifting here if you want a weapon that grows... and I think there's some fun to be had with the logistics of trying to transport an ogre's greatsword at full size everywhere you go.
@@kevingriffith6011 You make a good point, tbh I decided against playing a Barbarian a while back because the best ones have magic involved in their rages.
Don't forget about Potion of Growth an uncommon item (dmg 187) depending on how you rule on stacking the effect from two sources that can make you even larger.
I think the interpretation of "Monster" is a bit too far fetched, and obviously RAI it doesn't include players, because if not, the term creature and monster would be interchangeable, wich it isn't. Also the oversized weapons rule is not in the PHB because it's not intended for PCs. The extra die in enlarge/reduce and Rune knight are the player version of that rule. Depending on the campaign I might personally houserule something like what you propose, because I don't think it would be overpowered, and monster weapons are rarely magical. Edit: Typo
The term "monster" is never used in a definitive or semantic way in any sourcebook; they really are interchangeable. But it's less exciting if the book was called the "Creature Manual" or the spell was called "Hold Creature." If anything is referred to a "monster" instead of a creature or the like, it is solely for flavor.
@@Agamemnonoverhead When you make a term that's "monster" and it includes "creatures" in it, they are immediately non-interchangeable, also the monster description says monsters are creatures that may be allies or foes of the player characters, clearly stating them as NPCs
A cool feature I'd like to see for a rune knight or pgb would be something that could counter or dispel magic with brute force. [While enlarged, you can use a reaction to channel your str into a hard stomp in an attempt to dispel a magical effect. The target of the stomp must 20ft in site and on the ground.] You may only do it a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per day. With str being the ability modifier.
Monsters and players have different rules. RAW monsters don't get bonus actions or death saves, players don't get oversized weapons. YMMV, your DM might give monsters death saves or give players nifty rules for oversized weapons.
As a spell with a specified effect, shouldn't you default to the specified effect and only that effect RAW? As you said, the rules for oversized weapons aren't official play rules, they're listed in the creating a monster section, and aren't always followed either. There are a number of huge sized creatures wielding weapons that only deal 2 die of damage, but appear to be appropriately sized. I don't think enlarge reduce was ever meant RAI or RAW to allow double dipping for even more damage, nor was rune knight. An extra d4 on all attacks and an added d6 are plenty for the combo you mentioned, I don't think they were meant to deal additional base damage dice as well. What you suggest could arguably put enlarge over polymorph. It's one thing if a player acquires an oversized weapon, but the only written material to back up the enlarge = oversized weapons claim is a bit of text suggesting rules for generating your own monsters. Also, it's debatable that pcs might not even be considered monsters, they are explicitly mentioned as being the defining feature for a monster. Any creature the players interact with, which could easily mean as a group, thereby excluding other players from the monster definition. Love the content, but the application of the rules and generalized "common sense application" reminds me a bit of coffeelock arguments.
@@iyomatic7866 the rules don't say a lot of things The rules don't say that you don't burst into flames when you get dressed after a long rest The rules also don't say you cannot use your pact weapon to summon a sword the size of the continent to simply smash the bad guys castle That's why we look at what the rules DO say you can do
NGL kobold, until you can find a developer confirms your reading of the rules, I'm inclined to believe you're falling victim to confirmation bias. I don't think the rules for oversized weapons are in the wrong part of the DMG. I don't think Enlarge/Reduce is intended to double damage die *and* add 1d4. And I certainly don't think a player is supposed to consider doubled damage die as it's not in the player's section of the rules. Your reading of the rules certainly is one way to do it, but I don't think you've given enough reason or weight for a player to convince their DM of this tactic.
As a dm I'd personally react a lot better to, "Yo I think this shit would be fun and not unbalance things that much..." than "THIS IS RAW. Look it's in there. Players are monsters despite this definition only enumerating non-player entities as monsters. and another thing, ignore the principle that specific trumps general it should get an additional d4 and double the damage dice because...??? I think I made my point."
I'm not sure I agree that Enlarge/Reduce and Giant's Might counts as an oversized weapon in addition to the damage boost those features already give you. But I do support making oversized weapons more accessible. I was looking at the possibility for a homebrew project of linking oversized weapons to carry weight: if the weapon's weight is below a certain percentage of your carrying capacity, you can wield it just fine, regardless of how big it is. More Strength = larger weapons = more damage. I was also going to tune down the extra damage of oversized weapons, so it wouldn't be as strong, but the combination of the two would mean it was still an overall buff to martials.
A weapon that doubled in size because the person weilding it is enlarged is by no means "made for a large size creature" The dice aren't from the size category of a weapon but from what size category of creature the weapon was *made* for. Meaning. When it was made. Meaning you can't change that
yep the enlarge spell doesn't do what he says if you already have a large weapon it will just add 1d4 to it and remove your disadvantage for wielding it. *Sad no large races or tiny races noises*
Agreed. I read the bonus dice from enlarge, etc. as being damage from a normal weapon becoming enlarged, which wouldn't be as effective as a weapon that was made that way. And even if you had a giant sword or whatever to use once enlarge is cast, it had better not be on your person or else it'll just become bigger too. The combo doesn't really work at all RAW but I know I'd allow it to beef up a party member for such significant investment.
So what you're saying is, if you're playing a Rune Knight, just have a sword crafted that is actually "made for a Large sized Creature" for you to use while enlarged, problem solved.
So I recently played a level 20 norse mythology themed one-shot, as a Giant Barbarian who wields an Ascendant Dragon's Wrath Maul and has a 26 in Str as well as Great Weapon Master. So when I Rage with that character she does about 7d6+25 Thunder damage on a hit. Now the way I understand weapons like Flame Tongue and Dragon's Wrath, the extra elemental damage they deal still counts as the weapon's damage dice, hence why Great Weapon Fighting applies to them. So if we use the oversized weapon rules here, we'd triple the damage dice (5d6 -> 15d6) of the weapon and then add the additional 2d6 damage for Elemental Cleaver. That's *17d6+25* Thunder damage on a hit. On a crit, thanks to Brutal Critical, that's *37d6+25* damage. Even with the -5 to hit from GWM, she still has a +12 to hit... So that's disgusting. Especially considering she has unlimited Rages and can remain in Rage indefinitely as long as she's concious.
Important thing to note, larger sizes from monsters do not duplicate dices. They add one die to the pool. So a large Greatsword would do 3d6, while a large Greataxe would do 2d12. It’s the same with brutal critical. A brutal critical from a Greatsword deals 3d6, not 4d6. That’s why barbarians favor axes and fighters (who can reroll 1’s and 2’s) favor swords.
@@firechaser4095 That's not correct. It specifically says "Double the weapon dice if a creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan." Brutal Critical specifies the exact number of dice you add on top of your critical hit, so you're correct there, but for oversized weapons it's a straight multiplication. If it's 2d6 and it says to double the weapon dice then it's now 4d6, similar to how a normal critical hit doubles all of the damage dice for the attack. So with the Ascendant Dragon's Wrath Maul, which is 5d6, oversized weapon rules for a Huge sized creature would triple the weapon dice, making it 15d6. Elemental Cleaver is an additional 2d6 but is not the weapon's inherent damage dice, so it stays the same. So in total that's 17d6. On a crit you double all the damage dice for that attack, making it 34d6, and with Brutal Critical that's an additional 3d6 damage dice added to the crit. Hence *37d6* damage.
Not sure i agree with this ruling in even a RAW or RAI sense. While "monster" applies to any type of creature - The wording in the following sentence clearly specifies a series of non-players (friends, rivals, enemies) which the term "monster" applies to. (Though it could have been worded more clearly) Just the same, I dont have a problem with it. If a player wants disadvantage in exchange for an extra d10 on their attacks, im okay with that. Similarly, its not a big deal imo if enlarge spell and potions get a buff. I'd just treat this as a houserule.
But then the oversized weapons chapter also just says "creature" for one of the clauses, meaning that even if PCs weren't monsters (they are) oversized weapons would still work
Second what Mandos says, the rules for oversized weapon first tell you who typically use them (big monsters). But in the second part they specifically talk about how a *creature* handle a bigger weapons. The characters are creatures, as stated in the PHB. Monster or not, it make no difference
I think the distinction lies in a real oversized weapon vs a magically enlarged weapon. If you steal a greatclub off a troll, sure it's a 2d8. If you use Enlarge on a player wielding a greatclub, it's still just a d8 + d4/d6.
@@geodude03 you're neglecting the wider context of the section being that this is about designing monsters for your game. Not only that but the things presented in the DMG are not for players, they are for the DM and they offer options to the DM for variants they might want to offer to their players and these options are specifically denoted as such.
What's funny is Giant's might turns anything smaller than large to large. You could play a pixie with this and in one bonus action go from tiny to mighty!
There is one glaring issue with this argument in the what is a monster section it says "...any other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters." That implies that player characters are the exception and are not monster. Their familiars, pets, and hirelings are fine by this definition, but not the PCs themselves.
Yeah I agree with kobold. You can't use headings or location in books to determine what something can and can't do. Both hold monster and this section have monster in the heading but we wouldn't rule hold monster can't effect players. It's also notable that while that entire section basically only says monster all through out it switch's to creature for that sentence in particular which makes me think it's meant to address the question " what happens if the players pick up a monsters weapon." Balance wise I do think the ability interactions were probably unintended but if you think of a big weapons as a magic item the larger weapons up to the size of huge are weaker than a flame tongue so if you make the characters carry around the big weapon it's easy to balance. My main concern is a second level spell just giving you one though might be a bit too powerful for that spell level but not so powerful that it shouldn't be a spell at all. It's not like over powered spells for the level don't exist like fireball but to me the damage boost from getting a bigger weapon seems like it's in the range of a powerful 3rd level spell rather than a second level spell.
Well enlarge/reduce goes from a shit spell to a powerhouse spell if the weapon damage dice improves along with the (nonsensically randomized) bonus to strength damage from a creature growing larger.
Check out Steinhardt's Guide to the Eldritch Hunt kick starter! www.kickstarter.com/projects/691715600/960698887?ref=abuhxa Also check out Tabletop Builds for the math involving oversized weapons! tabletopbuilds.com/oversized-weapons/
I’m designing a level 20 one shot where the king is secretly (or not so secretly) the lich BBEG and the queen is secretly a level 20 Ancestral Guardian Barbarian. Even though her husband is obviously evil, she’s true neutral and doesn’t care because “family is everything” (deep connection to ancestors). I am planning on having her pull out a giant hammer that’s WAY too big for her at some point when my players go after either the king or the princess (who is also secretly level 20), being like “she has 24 STR, it’s fine.” Now I have a RAW excuse for doing this, Reckless Attack for a straight roll with +13 to hit. So thank you lol
Calling the PCs "monsters" is pretty accurate in many cases...
Hehe, that was funny. Take a like.
Sometimes, even the players :P
jokes like this stopped being funny when i found out half of the parties that play "call of the netherdeep" kill the emerald pact cause "rival = kill" then bitch when the campaign breaks or when they just die cause emerald pact isnt ment to be fought at third level
mine are 100% are monsters...
Any cleric who doesnt heal is a monster.
“Aww… it’s a little Kobold.”
_It pulls out a Huge Sword_
“AHHHHH!!!!”
What eldritch shenanigans are you using to make your comment 2 weeks old?
@@yeanalac probably early access (as from being a patrion-member) or actual eldritch magic.
@@yeanalac 😈
@@yeanalac he's got powers and you can to all you gotta do is sign on the dotted line...
*Pulls out comically large sword*
My favorite part of the original kobold was using a greatsword as a small creature, literally all of the Dark Souls meme's. As long as you are attacking with an ally, its straight rolls.
You would still be unable to ever have advantage on those rolls because disadvantage.
@@sariourlecai1561 If you really are worried about hitting something drop the great sword and attack them with something else then, but in most situations its hard to argue with +10 damage per hit. :P Not to mention hitting them with something that weighs more than you do.
@@sariourlecai1561 advantage and disadvantage effects stack so if you had pact tactics wielding a heavy weapon it would be a straight roll but if you're flanking your enemy or the enemy has faerie fire on for example it would become advantage
@@lucasramey6427 no they dont, a single disadvantge cancel out all advantges
@@snowyowl7991
And vice versa too... If you have multiple Dis Adv stacked on your PC, then one Adv will make the dice roll, flat.
Adventurer 1: "Is that a giant flying sword?"
Adventurer 2: "I think theres a kobold attached to it. . .Oh -shi"
Kobold: "...rrrrrRRRRREEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!"
The funny thing about this is that even in the most wild exploitation possible of this ruling, it has been *severely nerfed* from how oversized weapons worked in 3.5e.
Actually... Not on a per size basis. In 3.5, it was double damage dice every TWO size categories. Once you get to five or more size increases yeah 3.5 is going to pull ahead, but for all but the craziest examples you're going to be better off with 5e size increases.
Example: Greatsword, 3.5/5e
Medium: 2d6
Large: 3d6/4d6
Huge: 4d6/6d6
Gargantuan: 6d6/8d6
Colossal: 8d6/10d6
Colossal+1: 12d6/12d6
Colossal+2: 16d6/14d6
See how big it needs to get for 3.5 to win out? The reason why 3.5 would look crazy is because there were ways to increase the effective size of weapons without actually increasing their size, and there were exceptionally large base weapons like Bastard Swords and fullblades. Mighty Whallop comes to mind... Even then, it required the GM to allow effective sizes larger than colossal, which was far from a guarantee.
@@RequiemRelentless I know that looks ridiculous but if you look up what people can do in 3.5 that is not really that impressive. The record for movement speed in a turn is faster than the speed of light. You could literally walk every 5 foot square in the United States in a turn. Getting 6 (or 5 really cause 3.5 didnt make every race medium) is almost nothing in that game.
@@RequiemRelentless I was pretty sure it just followed the damage die steps that they published in a few places.
You also had Heavy weapons that got the same kind of boost to damage, though for a penalty to attack.
@@AzraelThanatos the table followed the math I outlined and yes, heavy was another way to effectively add size without actually adding size.
4th edition was even crazier. (×3) meaning a gigantic weapon did it's extra damage three times, then was multiplied by three again.
Gurt’s Greataxe from Storm King’s Thunder actually supports this breakdown. As it is equipment that a Sufficiently strong PC can wield. It is sized for a Giant and deals 3d12 damage, and that’s before going into what actually makes it Magic.
Also from SKT, the Potion of Giant Size follows these rules exactly- it makes you huge upon drinking it, and triples the damage dice for your enlarged weapons
@@yeanalac so becomes 9dx?
Gurt's Greataxe is originally a giant's weapon, not a weapon englarged to be Giant-size (Huge), so it's not the same thing.
@@kori228 this is about oversized weapons, not weapons that have been enlarged. The reason he brings up weapons that have been enlarged is for the sake of oversizing them, so it very much is the same thing.
@@yeanalac but if that reading was expected, why is it not also the way Enlarge is written? The potion specifies the 3x damage, Enlarge only says extra d4.
I like the fact that he is saying "player" rather than "player character". I just imagine Jeff sitting at the table with a buster sword swinging it at the dragon mini on the table
I'm running a barbarian using an canoe oar three times his size as an improvised great club that makes goblins rocket into the sky team rocket style
I think this would only work if you got your hands on a larger weapon, such as a Fire Giant's longsword. The extra damage from the spell/feature is probably intended to be the extra damage from being larger.
Natural Large+ Weapons are not the same as magically/otherwise enlarged+ Weapons, in 5e, RAW.
Just buy your Large Sword at the Shop behind the Storage Boxes...
In Storm King's Thunder, we have a kobold Rune Knight. When he grows to large size, someone throws him large sized weapons and he goes on a rampage.
I’ve always wanted to combine this concept with a longbow. By combining enlarge with giants might I could be shooting massive ballista arrows for at least 3d8 damage plus bonuses. It would be a lot of fun.
I’d love to hear the explanation from the guard who has to somehow explain that the gates of the keep were breached by a flying tree that then vanished into nothing…
@@NINJAfries07 magic ez
In waterdeep dragon hiest one of the mercs that you fight literally has an oversized longbow or something like that, that does 2d6
I have to disagree with the interpretation of the interaction between Enlarge/Reduce and the DMG rules on oversized weapons. Specific rules supercede general rules, and because Enlarge specifies the additional damage, you wouldn't be able to double dip. However, if you were holding an oversized weapon before receiving Enlarge, then the advantage from Enlarge would cancel out the disadvantage from the oversized weapon, and you at least get straight rolls.
Disagree with you absolutely,
Enlarge/Reduce is an additional magical affect.
Giant's Might extra damage does not require you to become large first before gaining the benefits of the damage.
An oversized weapon does not lose its damage simply because it was due to a magical affect.
This is clearly seen in previous editions where the rules were better written.
The RAW could go either way, but RAI is clearly that the enlarged weapon gets ONLY the extra d4, not the multiplier.
@@PH03NIX96 I said nothing about the interaction with Giant's Might. This is the case of the specific rule (the effect of Enlarge/Reduce on your current weapon) versus the general rule (DMG paragraph on oversized weapons). As Jeremy Crawford has said many times before, specific rules override general ones, so the bonus damage, since it's already been factored into the spell's effect, is the 1d4. f the weapon is already oversized BEFORE the spell hits, then you get the original oversized weapon damage on top of the spell's effect, because the differing circumstances would invoke both rules separately.
Giant's Might, on the other hand, specifies that it applies its damage to the attack, not the weapon, so the extra nd6 per turn would apply on top of all of this.
@@TheMountainLynx I'm with you on this. The specific feature (spell) states exactly what happens, there's no ambiguity. If the DM says you get double the weapon dice, that's their decision. I've considered this build and chose not to ask the question. I thought about what I would rule if one of my players tried this and I quickly said "the spell says how much extra damage"
same for Giant's Might, it clearly states how much extra damage is done because you've grown in size. However... the new giant barbarian subclass ... doesn't?
odd...
@@TheMountainLynx I don't care if you didn't say anything about GM, its still applicable.
A magical affect does not negate a non magical affect unless specifically stated.
Enlarge gives 1d4 extra damage RAW PLUS THE OVERSIZED WEAPON.
It does not replace it
JC has been wrong several times and has even went on record to say he purposely gives wrong rulings to stir shit up and make players think.
He's a jackass and his rulings should never be taken into account.
5:00 My DM and I agreed that there is a difference between a Greatsword designed for Medium proportions and durability, and a Greatsword designed for Large. For us, any enlarged weapons only get the 1d4 boost, while naturally sized weapons only get their size multiplier. (To clarify, a Large Greatsword Enlarged to Huge is 4d6+1d4, while a Huge Greatsword is 6d6).
I was roleplaying the -1 Wisdom as “I make mistakes once.” So when I shrunk from Huge to Small (Rune Knight Fairy), I let myself get crushed under the Greatsword and nearly begged the Goliath Barbarian for help.
So I can carry a true great sword (huge) and dual wield with it...
Not optimal but its the concept.
Or to put Stat Blocks on... Take any weapon from the shop and sell the Huge/Large etc. versions of it.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 I don’t see how your reply corresponds to my comment. Did you accidentally reply to the wrong person?
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 They didn't mention anything about dual wielding?
@@LocalMaple
Your comment reminded my of Dark Souls...
But in RAW... 5e doesn't have rules to support Large+ Weapons beyond the DMG. Even the Item Shop doesn't sell Large+ Weapons in 5e.
@@pinkliongaming8769
Anyone can Dual Wield anything. The "Light" Property is only mentioned in the Bonus Action Dual Wield Attack. Just ignore it and use the Fighter's Extra Attack to strike with your other weapon or fist etc. Remember to get Feats to add Proficiency to some types of attacks. And, in the optional rules, Improvised Weapon that are similar to your Proficient Weapons can apply your Proficiency Damage.
Even in the Light Property. It doesn't rule out that this Property is the only way to dual wield.
But if you want to use that specific Bonus Action, then take the Feats, Dual Wielder and Two Hand Weapon Fighter (Not the Fighting Style) in order to add your Proficiencies to the BA Attack and to ignore the Light Property part of the BA Attack rule... Oh... And get Unarmed Combat Fighting Style since it's great synergy with Dual Wielder. The Proficiency application of this Fighting Style is not negated by the BA Attack under Dual Wielder do to the fact that Unarmed Combat has it's own damage calculations.
I think you can easily read enlarge/reduce differently. In that the specific rules of the spell tell you that the only change to your ‘enlarged weapon’ is that it deals an additional 1d4 damage.
I think that this is the way most people read it and it’s equally plausible. I especially imagine many DMs wouldn’t want to see weapon damage dies increase in addition to all the other benefits of the spell
I think the fact that they didn’t put enlarged weapons in the weapons section can support this reading
But personally I would love if my DM reads enlarge reduce in the way that you mentioned
Also on page 7 of the phb is the “Specific Trumps General” rule
@@Gaichou here's why I'd allow it:
1. the spell says you add to the damage, not that the added damage becomes 1d4. Which is distinction WotC have used before to clear up certain interactions and as a result means that Gator is likely right about how these effects interact.
2. Giving weapons this extra damage makes it still an inefficient use of a spell slot a lot of the time,
Because damage and mass control spells are just that much more powerful than weapons (also casters usually have access to all damage types where each weapon has 2 at most, making weapons drop in usefulness even more.)
3. +1d4 on a 2d6+4 doesn't really feel like it fits with the description of a weapon becoming double its original size, wouldn't you agree?
For those worried about balance,
I'd like to point out that a group of Shadows is a TPK machine, but RAW they're no more dangerous than a Swarm of Beetles.
@@Gaichoutrue, but there are legendary weapons that could count as over-sized such as Gruts Greataxe in which you’re only limited by your amount of strength to actually wield it (it weighs like 300~ lbs) since it’s originally meant for a frost giant
I always liked the idea of players keeping the large weapons they pry from the cold dead hands of their foes. It is hard to use but becomes a special weapon in a unique way that a +1 weapon just doesn't do.
Some people probably would tell you that the RAI is that the damage bonus is a specific thing replacing the normal bonus of the weapon from being oversized. I don't agree with it but it could be something someone could say.
If you fight and kill another player you are gonna have to leave my table, i'm sorry.
Player characters are fair game.
Come on once or twice is no big deal :)
I won't sit at your table.
I’m reasonably certain that RaI, they meant for the extra die of damage for getting bigger to REPLACE the Double damage from bigger weapons instead of add to it, much like players’ pets are more or less forbidden from getting multi attack, even if they normally would.
Not really... It could be both meanings for giant damage.
And for multi attacking PC Pets... Is that a RAW or Homebrew???
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 it’s based on the restrictions on early Beastmaster Rangers and the lack of the multi attack feature in the Tasha’s alternatives and subsequent pet classes. There are features designed to make monsters a bigger threat to the party that they don’t want PCs to use. I personally have no issue with this.
Similarly, I would gladly let a PC use the Large Weapon rules in the monster creation section. As Kobold says, marginals could use the bump.
Giants might and Rage have a similar number of uses, and also both add some damage and advantage on Strength checks and saves. They’re also the main features of the class/subclass, meaning they should be comparable.
The extra damage die is 1d6 on 1 attack per turn for the Giants Might feature. The specific benefits of Giants might end here unless you include Extra Dice from huge weapons.
Zealot Barbarians get more damage than this from just their subclass. Add onto that that they also get Rage bonus damage and Resistances.
I think of you include bonus damage, it’s mainly going to make your Rune Knight not feel worse than a Zealot on every occasion ever.
@@Janders797 Why not just combine the two? First round, Rage. Second round Giants Might. Greatsword of 2d6{3d6 for those who use the above mentioned rules]+strength + d6 + d6+half level + whatever else ya got.
@@DarkSoul620 My preferred option is just a couple of large/huge/gargantuan hand crossbows and the cbow expert/sharpshooter feat. 20 levels of fighter yields 10d6/15d6/20d6 + 1d10 + 75 damage before adding in magic weapons and/or ammunition. Now you are truly a ballista launcher.
odd ruling question at 10:26. seeing as any item you drop instantly looses it's size 3:46, would ranged weapons work seeing as you are shooting the ammunition and it's no longer on your person?
I think this is something that had to be determined by RAI, instead of RAW. Since you're actively attacking with it instead of just setting the weapon down or throwing it aside, I think it makes sense that it stays at the enlarged size until it stops, at which point it would return to normal size.
@@sagatario58 RAI is that players don't use these rules. Players who are enlarged by some means use the extra damage as specified in the effect that has enlarged them, if any. The info presented here, in this video, is pulled from the section on making monsters in the DMG and is not applicable to players. Players and monsters don't use the same rules.
I think it would be cool to say "yes", not because it disallows larger ranged weapons, but because then you have to science that shit to figure out a way to make it work.
Like, perhaps casting Enlarge on the ammunition, or a Contingency spell that makes ammo Enlarged when it hits a target... just a little something you have to think about, you know?
Scientifically when then arrow size shrinks it would accelerate. The energy put in to the oversized arrow is still present but now the arrow is easier to move because it has less mass. I would say you keep the extra damage.
@@NumbSkull2602 Typically, the attack action would conclude 1st as they are usually unable to be interrupted. For example, a 1 HP Goblin hits a PC who uses Hellish Rebuke. The hit & damage are still rolled, but only after those the Goblin get hit & die. So with that precedent, I could see the round of ammunition shrinking AFTER the round hits & damage as calculated. QCreyton is right in that these are MONSTER rules, not PC rules.
While I see Kobold's case, I think he's stretching both RAI & RAW past their limits here when he claims PCs are Monsters. There might not be a disclaimer line that says 'PCs aren't Monsters', but does there really need to be? The "What is a Monster?" paragraph already goes as far as to mention that Monsters might be Friends or Rivals to the PCs, but still separates them. I'm certain that was reserved for things like Dragons, Archdruids & Priests in the Monster Manual who are literally sentient & capable of both good & evil. However, they are not necessarily built around the same rules as PCs.
Specific trumps general, so I don't think the Oversized weapon rules should also apply to a creature that's been Enlarged, since that specific spell has its own rules for what damage the enlarged weapons do
Technically, it says "the attack deals 1d4 extra damage", and not the weapon, so I think it is still legit.
2.5 extra damage from becoming 8(?) Times larger feels bad man. Mans made of helium
@@simonfsson817 If you’re using enlarge reduce for the extra damage you’re doing it wrong. Get yourself a scroll of hunter’s mark and use enlarge reduce for what it was really made; Wrestling dragons and giants. There’s nothing more satisfying than proning those bitches
How can you be sure the 1d4 extra damage isn't ON TOP of the increased weapon size?
I ask that, but there is probably sage advice on this. However, if the person drops their weapon, a sorcerer twins enlarge on them and their weapon, and then they pick it up, it should be the large sized weapon's double dice plus the 1d4.
@@maitrecorbeau_gm yeah but it's "the attacks with them", meaning the weapon.
So it wouldn't apply for unarmed strike for example.
I've used this rule for years as a DM, but every DM I've ever played under disagrees with it. I completely agree that it's balanced, because martials are inherently weaker than their caster counterparts, and this primarily benefits martials and even encourages the use of support spells (enlarge/reduce) which adds more synergistic cooperation to the game (one of the best feelings when fighting encounters as a player).
I thought this would be the one rule we disagreed on, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see you cover it in this light. Thank you for giving me a popular and detailed video to point to whenever I have to broach this topic to any player or DM in my games.
Gurt’s Greataxe
I think context is very important.
First is the thing several here have pointed out that it seems to clarify a difference between monsters and players.
Second compare enlarge reduce to other similar "buff my weapon spells"..... Enlarge is a 2nd level spell.... You get extra d4 per hit and advantage on str. Magic weapon just a +1 to damage (and hit), crusader mantle 3rd level...... Still only 1d4 per hit but for all allies in the aura. Elemental weapon still a 1d4 and +1 to hit. Arguably enlarge reduce is already over powered for its level since it also has non combat aspects in addition to providing multiple explicit benefits. I don't think it is supposed to then also buff the weapon cause of obscure rules.
Third then compare rune knight to every other fighter subclass. I know there is always variety in abilities/damage and utility but this would mean by end game they are expected to have triple the damage output of every other pure fighter? Outside of explicit burst abilities (monks quivering palm?) this would mean the rune knight would have probably the largest gap in damage of any subclass to its other subclasses by a wide margin.
Do while enlarging weapons makes sense logically I unfortunately don't think it works RAW. The benefits explicitly stated are to represent the benefits of becoming large.... Not in addition. I do think it is safe to rule that a weapon actually made at a large size that you somehow cart around (good luck..... At large a greatsword would be expected to be at least 10 ft long..... Getting worse from there on) should work RAW and is a sufficient reward for solving the issue of taking it with you.
While your are right that systematically martials could use help I don't think this is it since it basically buffs explicitly 1 subclass to ludicrous levels over its peers. The difference between level 20 fighters (with no benefits other than the size buff and using a great sword) is the difference between 16d6 (normal 8 attacks cause action surge) and 48d6 (triple weapon dice cause huge size of rune knight). This is an enormous disparity. Not to mention critical hits.
As much as I want this to be the case looking at it as a game I think it clearly shows that this unfortunately isn't how it works.
Doesn't, I think it's called Divine Weapon, add a d4 and it's a first level spell? Does that make it OP?
sums it up quite nicely.
But what if you were to enlarge both the weapon and the player separately, like enlarge/reduce on a medium weapon to be used by a large rune knight?
@@mythicalthings1796 fair enough I missed that particular one. Still it is giving damage per hit plus an extra (adv on str check/save) which is comparable to a 3rd level spell. All of this could say they are bad spells but when compared in context of the type of spell they are enlarge reduce its probably one of the best in category (low spell level that buffs per hit damage, not a 1 time burst line a smite)
The point being of it doubled your weapon dice as well not only would it massively out class the similar (and even higher level spells) when as explicitly written or is already best in category? That clearly shows the design intent. As has been pointed out by others I think this is a case of the specific description is what you get. Specific over general.
I know that this is an old post, but I wanted to respond.
First, since this section of the DMG is called "Base the damage on the weapon" and the paragraph right before the ones in question says that if the monster is using a manufactured weapon, then the damage should be the same as the base weapon that a PC would get, and the paragraph says that a large CREATURE gets double damage dice. This would make it seem that it would apply to the PC, and that it doesn't matter if the PC isn't a monster and is irrelevant.
Second, crusader mantle is a 3rd level spell and can choose the damage type, so if you think that the enemy is vulnerable to a certain damage type, you get double that 1d4 (or 2d4) per hit. Elemental weapon, once again, 3rd level spell and can choose the damage type, so if you think that the enemy is vulnerable to a certain damage type, you get double that 1d4 (of 2d4) per hit. So a 2nd level spell that does +1d4 is not that OP on its own and only becomes OP if you can buff the base damage dice. If it doesn't buff the base damage, you haven't proven that, because it does NOT say that it replaced the increased damage dice. It DOES say that it does "1d4 extra damage" which would make it look like it would addon to an increased base damage dice, RAW. If I'm wrong, I would like to know the rule, RAW, that says that it would replace the damage dice increase.
Third, as for the Rune Knight, their Giant Might ability says that it only increases the size of what you are wearing, not carrying (unlike enlarge/reduce that includes what you are carrying and specifically says that the weapon damage increases), so you might have to go out of your way to get a large weapon or find a way to enchant it to enlarge it with you. And the 1d6 once on your turn, looks like it can still be added on, sense it can be added even if you don't become large and can be added to an unarmed attack. The Rune Knight's damage potential is higher, but the Battlemaster gets to do things like push, topple or increase their to-hit chances to hit more often, that help offset at least some of the reduced damage (and I will admit that it might not offset all of the lower damage potential). I do admit that some of the other subclasses to need a boost.
Now that 48d6 damage with a Rune Knight, I think, is a little disingenuous. To get that number requires a few things, 1) You need to get to Level 20. 2) You need to go straight fighter without multiclassing. 3) You need to use your action surge, which you only get 2 of per short rest and can only use one per turn. and 4) You have to succeed at 8 attack rolls in a row. You are not getting that anywhere near that 48d6 each round. Most rounds (if you don't get to level 20 or the fighter decides to multiclasses), you will be getting (with the extra 1d6/turn, and not accounting for misses and critical hit which offset each other) 19d6 (66.5 ave dam) if you hit all 3 times (and 37d6 (129.5 ave dam) with action surge if you hit all 6 times), instead of 6d6 (or 12d6 with action surge). Which doesn't sound to overpowered.
Now let's look at the Paladin. A 19th level Paladin gets improved divine smite at level 11 that adds 1d8 to each hit and can choose to smite after he rolls a 20 on a d20 attack roll, which means that he can get 4d6 +12d8 (68 ave dam) (+2d8 if the enemy is a fiend or undead) in a single hit, 5 times a day and 10 time a day at lower damage (between 4d6 +6d8 and 4d6 +10d8 (+2d8 if the enemy is a fiend or undead)) without accounting for recovering spell slots of 3rd level or lower from the optional ability "Harness Divine Power". And this is on top of his regular attack rolls, proving always on Aura of Protection and any Chanel of Divinity from the subclass. Plus, if he picks up the Arcana skill and allowed to make "spell scrolls of holy weapon" during down time, can do 2d8 extra damage per hit (4d8 with critical hits) without using up spell slots.
So, no, I don't think that the oversized weapons are OP.
Pretty sure the extra 1d4 and 1d6 are supposed to replace the extra damage dice from larger size
This!
Too bad thats not anywhere in writing
They are. He's a power gamer trying to double damage output with a 2nd level spell. If the justification is "you grow bigger, thus use X rules' it would tell you, or that would supercede the bonus 1d4 damage.
I disagree, the d4 represents the extra strength mod damage a creature would have by becoming larger
An enlarged weapon /= an oversized weapon. So in theory, you could pick up a giant's Large sword after being enlarged yourself and get that doubled dice, but you wouldn't get the extra 1d4/1d6 since that was not a weapon oversized as part of the spell. However, I personally think that as a DM I'd totally let the players have this because its not going to break the game in half, I can just throw more enemies at them.
I see a big challenge in this. There's more than enough examples to support both the idea that you could use the oversize weapon information from the DMG and that you should not for any class or spell effects on players (or enemies). Like so many things, there is no specific rule to support this, you will be at the whims and mercy of your dungeon master.
Just buy a Large weapon for the extra damage dice...
Then Enlarge as you desire because that d4 for this Spell only applies to Medium and Small weapons.
Since Large+ weapons covet a different damage calculation.
So the real monsters were the friends we made along the way..
Kobold is wrong about pcs using the oversized weapons rule being RAW.
The keyword is interact. Interact means to act upon one ANOTHER. Once again, that is another as in other, not oneself. Under this rule, a player character treats other pcs as monsters but does not treat itself as a monster and thus does not benefit from oversized weapons rule under the RAW. That said, there is no problem house ruling the oversized weapon rule to apply to pcs.
Given older Editions about Large+ Weapons... Why did WotC leave that behind? It's a miss step on their part. Just like 5e Spelljammer, recently.
(I wanna preface this with i am a fan of oversized weapons, and am in favor of them being homebrewed in because martial do fall off hard after like level 7-10)
Hear me out Kobold, 5:10, is it really that all of the people at WotC just forgot OS weapons rules at the release of the PHB and had too squeeze it into the DmG, or is it possible the oversized weapon rules are in the right section, because those rules are meant to be used specifically by the DM for monsters as part of a custom stat block. Don't get me wrong. I know WotC doesn't have the best track record but I can't think of an oversight this oversized (pun intended). Few spells and individual cases falling through the cracks sure but a whole section? The logic is as shakey as PCs are monsters logic and just makes more sense too Homebrew vs twisting rules so much. Especially since I think you're more likely too get a dm too agree with making a homebrew in good faith, vs rules lawyering too be "technically right" and get your way.
Define Monster when PvP exists in 5e?
Not to mention that Player Races are monsters too...
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 PCs are not monsters.
@@infinitedm5396
Then what's a DMPC??? Is that a Monster???
Or... When the DM controls another PC (not currently controlled by players) for story related reasons? Is that a Monster???
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 You answered your own question. PvP stands for player versus player. Even the loose logic used by Kobold and the tabletop site he quotes, that information comes from the DmG meant for DMs. Monsters are anyone/anything being played by the DM who is not explicitly taking over a PC.
Players race =/= monsters. A player abjurer wizard has less HP potential than PC abjurer wizard. And given the recent release of MotM I doubt you want your spellcasters having "spell like abilities" that aren't spells. Well assuming you're a DM. A player maybe, this is an optimization channel but I think we know how much inherent magic like that would break the game.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 DM PCs are not official. That is a homebrew idea
I think the issue with Melee martials isn't that they're all weak. It's that if you don't pick the right subclass/multiclass combo, the right feats, you're kinda fucked and can't do much more than an animal conjured by a Druid. Whereas a spellcaster can easily pull their weight just by the base spells their class has access to and can use their feats on whatever.
The martial has to take 18 levels and be affected by a *SPELL* , to do big boy damage and wrestle a Tarrasque. The Spellcaster can blast AOE's all over the place, while still taking utility spells to open a pickle jar
If you're talking about rune knight, because you can grapple a creature up to one size larger than you and in DnD there is no size category above gargantuan, you would only need enlarge before 18th level to wrestle with the tarrasque. And frankly being able to wrestle the tarrasque at 3rd level with the help of magic (which you can get from two races for free) is pretty damn bad ass XD
But on the whole I do agree, martials really do need buffs. And not just straight damage buffs, although those would help. I personally feel martials need more options to do more interesting things in combat aside from spamming the attack action.
Honestly as a rune knight fighter you barely even need the spell, considering how powerful those rune abilities are
And since you're getting bigger you can control a wider area, especially when utilizing a glaive
Edit: forgot to mention that for solo tarrasque suplexing shenanigans you can be a Goliath rune knight
@@fallenangeldraco3778 Goliath increases your carrying capacity but doesn't let you grapple creatures two sizes larger than you.
@@The_Crimson_Witch that is true, but it also makes you one size larger for pushing, pulling and lifting
So as a Goliath rune knight you can push around the tarrasque and even lift it up and suplex it if the rolls allow it, because even in the early levels where giant's might makes you large you have the carrying capacity and push, pull, lift strength of a huge creature, but if that's not enough for you, when you can become huge you count as gargantuan for those attributes
@@fallenangeldraco3778 push drag and pull are extensions of carrying capacity. They have no mechanical effect on shoving or grappling, as stupid as that sounds
I think that the specific rule of those features would overwrite the general rule for oversized weapons. HOWEVER, you could simply find or commission an oversized weapon.
You could take inspiration from Barding costs of x4 to calculate the cost to commission an oversized weapon.
So if you commission for a Greatsword:
Greatsword: 50gp
Greatsword (Large): 200gp
Still using any weapon that not an appropriate size already gives an disadvantage. As far as I know there's no class that allow anyone to use a larger category weapon
The oversized weapons rule is cool and fun for players and I am allowing it for my players in my games. However, the idea that it is RAI or even RAW is absurd. The definition of monsters makes the distinction between them and player characters in the third line of the passage and even if you still define player characters as monsters the entire section and surrounding passages are describing how a DM can make a nonplayer character. There is no indication that this passage would be referring to player characters. It was even said in the video if it was is the weapons section that would imply that its for everyone but its not. Its in the section for creating nonplayer characters. The second passage does say creatures, referring to everyone, for the disadvantage part which makes sense as that is the case outside of this section as well (heavy weapons and small creatures).
This comment reminds me of getting loot in an MMO. You beat the boss and win their sword, but all of a sudden it's half the size and nerfed halfway to oblivion.
I’d be inclined to agree if not for the fact that on the very next page, they begin using the terms creature and monster interchangeably:
“MODIFYING CREATURES
Despite the versatile collection of monsters in this book, you might be at a loss when it comes to finding the perfect creature for part of an adventure. Feel free to tweak an existing creature to make it into something more useful for you, perhaps by borrowing a trait or two from a different monster or by using a variant or template, such as the ones in this book. Keep in mind that modifying a monster, including when you apply a template to it, might change its challenge rating.
For advice on how to customize creatures and calculate their challenge ratings, see the Dungeon Master’s Guide.”
The very thesis of this passage relies on monsters and creatures meaning the same thing. This works in both RAW and RAI.
The passage Kobold sited doesn’t even say anything about needing to be a monster to wield and oversized weapon. The passage says “A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker,” which also fundamentally applies to all creatures including player characters and means they would be able to wield oversized weapons this way. It just means the players would need to obtain the weapon from an oversized monster.
I am all for applying this rule for players too, martials need buffs, but cmon....
3 lines bellow it says "...who might be friends or rivals to the Player Characters."
It making the separation between PCs & Monsters
Creatures = player tough.
All those spells target creatures, who could be players.
Yeah, just the fact that the definition was longer than a sentence shows an obvious rules as intended and taking just that first sentence as proof of it being RAW isn't exactly what RAW means.
That being said I don't think it's a bad change, so long as allowing it at any given table makes the martial more relevant as opposed to making one martial more relevant and any others that don't have growing mechanics even less so.
A good tool in the DM arsenal to consider, but no way actually intended or should be used universally in my opinion.
Oh, so we're just gonna ignore the first half of the definition entirely? Where in the Oversized Weapons section it is specifically ruled for creatures?
@@Agamemnonoverhead Of course not, a Trade off of disadvantage for 6 or 7 extra or damage is fair enough and something that some characters would choose and something that some characters would not. More importantly for what we're talking about, it is also very explicitly and clearly stated in a seperate paragraph. We are objecting to the statement that sizing weapon damage is an accepted rule which he is presenting an argument for, Even as we also acknowledge that it could be a useful rule to allow despite that.
@@johnarnold8485 If we're working RAW, it would definitely apply otherwise the definition of "creature" becomes fluid. Either that or someone's got to admit this was written poorly
The problem in saying that pc = monsters, is that there are some rules specifically carved for monster. Like the one that says that a monster when reach 0 hitpoints usually are destroy (no death saves).
As I said before, I am all for this being applied to players, and this is definitely poorly written, but if you define that moster = pcs, them..... as half-life once said it... "Prepare for unforseen consequences"
Giant's might only increases the size of what you are wearing, so anything you are carrying/your weapons don't grow. You can still carry around a larger sword to attack with though. (Enlarge reduce explicitly includes what you are carrying and your weapon, so that does work.)
No, specific *overrides* general. So, in the case of the extra damage from enlarge/reduce, the 1d4 supplants the default oversize weapon die doubling.
Similarly, giant's might specifically *doesn't* mention making your weapon larger. It's not all your equipment that scales up, just your clothing.
So, if you giant's might + enlarge, you get the 1d6 + 1d4 extra, but not the additional 2 base weapon dice.
HOWEVER. If you carry around a huge weapon on a horse drawn carriage, you could enlarge and giant's might, then PICK UP that huge weapon, AND THEN you would get the two extra damage dice from the weapon, plus the 1d6 from giant's might, since that damage is due to *your* additional size, not the weapon's.
In short, the exploitable power from enlarge/reduce and giant's might, both, is the ability to *wield* larger weapons; but neither *creates* larger weapons. Enlarge mechanically adds less than a full tier larger to your weapon, and giant's might only makes *you* larger, not your weapons. So, it allows for some beautiful synergies, but is not the all-in-one that you present.
There is nothing stating that the extra damage from Enlarge/Reduce replaces the oversized weapon rule. While I agree that it probably does RAI, it just gets added ontop RAW.
Different features that add extra dice of damage do stack tho
In this case specific does not affect general. Enlarge makes no mention of the normal oversized weapon rules so those rules remain in place. It’s kinda like arcane recovery, it tells you what happens when you complete a rest but does not replace the normal short rest benefits.
Enlarge/Reduce says specifically the weapon gets bigger and Giant's Might says along with anything you are wearing. So that would mean my clothes, armor, backpack, but if you want to be technical, if your holding your weapon it wouldn't get bigger, but I sheathed it so I'm now wearing it before I get larger, now it gets bigger. I think it's pedantic to think the weapon wouldn't get bigger using Giant's Might and the upgrade to it, but your armor, clothes, sheaths, and things you might wear around you, like a bow in some cases or a jewelry, magically would. And a huge creature swinging a tiny weapon sounds ridiculous. But to each their own in this world of make believe.
this makes the most sense
Since the additional damage that Enlarge/Reduce gives is only a d4, I think it overrules the damage for oversized weapons... HOWEVER, you easily could grab a large longsword, drag it around and when the battle begins, you drop it, then you enlarge yourself (so the weapon doesn't enlarge with you) and then grab the giant sword like an anime transformation.
You could do the same with giant's might with even greater weapons.
Only that you might not get the extra damage for those features, since the d4 for enlarge is if the weapon was enlarged, which we aren't looking for
I am surprised that he never mentioned small creatures using heavy weapons
ikr I've been trying to figure out how to make this viable RAW for ever since I have a pc like this
@@TheFigandro Play the original Kobold. If you’re attacking with an ally and not in sunlight your attacks are straight rolls with a heavy weapon.
@@lancey_1680 even in sunlight as long as you are next to an ally one advantage cancels all disadvantages
@@TheFigandro or play Barb, or samurai fighter... or you prolly have flanking rules at your table since they are used a bunch
The Heavy Property is not connected to the Size Property, in 5e. It's a separate mechanic that only affects small creatures/players. Unless you upscale the weapon into a Heavy + Huge Weapon etc.
A monster is defined as "any creature who might be interacted with and potentially fought and killed ... who might be friends or rivals to the player characters." This indicates it's meant only for NPCs.
But I agree that the part talking about creatures attacking with weapons sized for creatures larger than they are attack with Disadvantage means that PCs can absolutely pick up that Giant's 3D12 Greataxe and attack with it as long as the DM has determined it's not too large for them to use at all.
hmm I would think that they did not intend the Players to be Monsters. Would be interesting to have some kind of official clarification on that. My opinion (but not a dnd lawyer) is that RAI PC should not be monsters, but it's just my interpretation
Given the Player Races... Monsters = Creatures = Player Character.
Especially in PvP...
It defines monsters in opposition to player characters, 5e is not a simulation an npc elf is not the same as avpc elf
@@JustLooking1996
Then what is PvP in 5e?
Even in the new Spelljammer. Some PC Races are considered as Monstrosities and Constructs etc. instead of Humanoids.
Not to mention that there is an official Large+ Weapon in one of the adventure books that PCs can use.
And then... There are DMPCs, for better or worst. Since DMs can play as other PCs for story related reasons.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 5e isn't built around pvp, and even then player characters are player characters. You shouldn't use rules for npcs on pcs and expect the results to make any sense.
@@JustLooking1996
That's true... A Monster who throws a massive boulder will do a lot of damage, based on the DMG. While a Monk will reflect that boulder back to the Monster but with far less damage dice in comparison.
As for Large+ Weapons... There's already an official Large+ Weapon in one of the adventure books. It's a shame that 5e (or OneDnD) may never expand in its many mechanics and content.
But that said... Let PCs use Large+ Weapons instead of enlarging their usual weapons. And give it 1 extra damage dice based on the weapon with +5ft of more melee range (grid map). Instead of what the DMG gives to NPCs for Large+ Weapons.
It's just odd that NPCs can wield Large+ Weapons but PCs cannot, outside of that one Large+ Weapon in the official adventure book.
It seems like this would run into considerable balancing trouble if you allow a player character to be of a large race. While not vanilla, it would allow the character to use double dice weapons at no resource cost.
It's not that bad... In fact... It's weaker compared to older Editions.
But in 5e... A Medium size PC can dual wield two Large Swords at a Dis Adv, but no larger.
Or do people want to go down the "Ego DM" side of the game??? It will end badly.
(I'll ignore the Monster stuff... That's just Coding written poorly for the Users.)
Regarding the definition of monster: The paragraph of the definition is longer than the first sentence, so it doesn't end there and there is more information to consider. The definition goes on to explicitly mention player race options (dwarves and elves), but talks about them as separate to PCs - monsters are creatures that might be friends or rivals to the players, which semantically separates them as groups, which heavily implies that players are not creatures. It seems very clear to me that when they are talking about monsters, they are referring to any creature BUT PCs.
Of course a player can still wield a monster's weapon, but to say that PCs are monsters doesn't seem like what the definition actually says.
Exactly
Ah but wait, many spells explicitly state targets as ‘creatures’ and can target Player Characters. So dividing the monster definition off by saying players aren’t creatures doesn’t work.
Further, the monster definition is a clarification, to inform the reader that yes NPCs and civilized humanoids are also monsters. It doesn’t negate the previous statement that a monster is any creature, it just clarifies that yes even your NPCs are monsters.
A rune knight can also drink a potion of growth (yes it sacrifices the first turn) and bypass the concentration issue.
The "catch" is that it last 1d4 hour, which is great to finish the dungeon crawl but also prevents you to repeat the combo untill it last
One of my player's characters fought a Balor. It was a loong fight, and after it had downed three other characters, I figured they earned the right to its sword.
Not even just the strength the weapon gives by itself but the RP value it's created is amazing. It's really inspired them and has made supercool moments down the road too
Um, actually when a Balor dies it explodes and its weapons are destroyed. That does sound cool though
2:38 the following sentence does state that it is a friend or foe of the players, not a player but I wouldn't harp over it. It did seem like you chose not to acknowledge that section
The tricky thing is that players don't (or shouldn't) have access to the DMG rules. The even trickier bit is that the DMG and PHB have different rules for players vs. creatures. For example, an Abjuration Wizard has a d6 hit die, but an Abjurer [VGM p.209]/Abjurer Wizard [MPMM p. 260] has d8 hit dice. Monsters are not player characters, and they use different rules.
I applaud the DMs who allow stuff like this, but it has wild implications at a table of people who know how to use or abuse it.
an abjurer stat block is not an abjuration player character, this does not mean player characters aren't monsters???
Hard disagree. Many rules that the players NEED to know re only in the DMG.
A specific (and egregious) one is for the Thief Rogue with Fast Hands, which lets them Use An Item as part of their Cunning Action. Sounds AWESOME right? Get a wand of magic missile or something and have a bonus action attack! Feed players potions to be the ultimate utility with only a bonus action! Strong class feature!
Except.... No. Magic Items, potions included, the PHB Potion of Healing ALSO included, SPECIFICALLY don't benefit from Fast Hands as outlines SPECIFICALLY in the DMG ONLY. If the players don't have access to the DMG rulings then a player could think of doing that build, drop ALL their resources into potioncrafting (Tasha's has rules) and suddenly be shut down by a rule they had NO WAY of even knowing about. Bad rule, and Bad DM for hiding it from the player. That will make that player feel terrible and likely walk from the table
Completely agree on all this!!
I don't think any DM should be promoting players to be ignorant about game rules. And just because a monster's name and a subclass look and sound similar it doesn't mean you are obliged to limit that monster to player character creation rules. Abjuration has existed before any 5e wizard thought to specialize in it!
No it doesn't. There are nearly zero implications for abuse because Wizards, Druids, and Clerics exist. These 3 classes are so fundamentally broken compared to every other class it makes me want to un-exist people for claiming that X or Y thing that Martials could do will break the game.
It won't fucking break the game and any claims to the contrary are simply, factually, and MATHEMATICALLY WRONG.
Kobold, i present to you: Monkey Grip
Monkey Grip
( Complete Warrior, p. 103)
[General]
You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size.
Prerequisite
Base attack bonus +1,
Required for
Wield Oversized Weapon (CW) ,
Benefit
You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change. For instance, a Large longsword (a one-handed weapon for a Large creature) is considered a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat. For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered a one-handed weapon. You can wield a larger light weapon as a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands. You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand, and you cannot use this feat with a double weapon.
Normal
You can use a melee weapon one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, and the amount of effort it takes to use the weapon increases. A larger light weapon is considered a one-handed weapon, a larger one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon, and you cannot use a larger two-handed weapon at all.
as always, 3.5 saves the day
"You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift."
+
"Natural Athlete
You have proficiency in the Athletics skill."
Golaiths are just barely short of RAW allowed to use oversized weapons without disadvantage.
How? None of these features are relevant, as far as I see
What determines the weapons you can wield without disadvantage is determined by your size capacity.
Goliath is literally stated to count as one size larger in terms of carrying capacity.
Ego, Goliaths can weird Large weapons.
@@BoomDriveProductions I don’t think that’s right, but I can understand why you might come to that conclusion. It never states carrying capacity has anything to do with weapon size, only that creature size matters, and Goliath’s are still medium creatures.
Goliaths were large in previous editions iirc.
WoTC has been extremely reluctant to give players large races because 5th edition is based on the premise that players are stupid and everything has to be simple.
FOR EXAMPLE PLAYER VS MONSTER CENTAURS
@@PH03NIX96 I assumed it had more to do with published dungeons, since there are some where Large creatures would have to keep squeezing the whole way through and may be unable to access some vital areas.
Finally someone's getting sponsored by that Eldritch Hunt book, I have been getting ads for it on apps and I was thinking "So, if it is only on this app does it suck? That would suck because I love both Lovecraftian things and Bloodborne."
Enlarge Spell. "While these Weapons are enlarged, the target's Attack with them deal 1d4 extra damage." If the d4 were related to being bigger and stronger, wouldn't it just say that the target's attack with any weapons would deal 1d4 extra damage. It specifically refers to the enlarged weapons. Personally, I like Kobold's take on it better, but RAW doesn't seem to agree.
Yea, Enlarge/Reduce and Rune Knight are clearly not intended to be used with the oversized weapon rules. Not super game breaking if you want to do that, though.
i might rule that only monster (ie opponents) can start/make oversized weapons, so my players would have to seize one from an opponent.
already using those in my game, but i decided to change the rules a bit - if a character wants to hold this weapon and use it, it must succeed a constitution saving throw at the beginning of the day or have disadvantage on everything (basically exhaustion rules) whenever holding the weapon.
Kind of redundant...
Medium Size PC can use a Large Sword but not a Huge Sword, at Dis Adv...
That's all you need since it's the Heavy Property, expanded.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 not exactly. It's not dis on attack rolls, but on everything, and since it's huge there's also more reward (and the character is a goliath, so it seems appropriate, even if it's officially medium).
It's basically is a burden whenever you fail, for an entire day.
@@nixian_zwaylus
Not by RAW... The Dis Adv for Large+ Weapons and for Heavy Weapons only affect the Hit Chance. It doesn't affect every other d20 test.
But if you homebrew it. Then that's its own thing.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 what did you think "i decided to change the rules a bit" meant?
Ofcourse it's homebrew, and for oversized weapons.
I'm not sure if this is again one of the less serious videos but you conveniently glossed over the distinguishing phrase between monster and player characters:
"The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk WHO MIGHT BE FRIENDS OR RIVALS TO THE PLAYER CHARACTERS." This is not a new bullet point, nor would it make sense to be separate from the two sentences before it, since you almost certainly are going to interact with friends or rivals. "to the player characters" means that 'monster' has to be separate from all of the player characters. Not just one of them, all! Otherwise it would've stated "to a player character" (or similar), but it clearly makes the distinction.
Applying this suggestion in the dmg to player characters might be equally funny as non-sensical, but it just isn't a rule. If this video is making a serious argument then I'd suggest watching Treantmonks video on RAW.
Though, as a DM I would personally consider allowing it for enlarge/reduce only, as that spell can indeed use a buff but would disallow it for any other means, especially for the Rune Knight, since that class is already above most other fighter subclasses.
Player characters can be friends or rivals to each other. The point still stands.
@@inquisitorkobold6037 you clearly haven't read the comment you're responding to.
@@KommandoCraftLP check magic weapon "Gurt’s Greataxe", lol
@@Bam_Byk it is an interesting item but the extra dice are very obviously part of the balancing as a legendary item, therefore a specific note rather than a general rule.
Love how this came out several months after I started playing a character using the oversized weapons rules
Minor nitpick in case people are having trouble finding it in the DMG: the rule for oversized weapons is under the "Base the Damage on the Weapon" section that starts on page 277, but the paragraph itself is on page 278.
[Edit: Misspelled "minor". It is not spelled "minir".]
I like that you say "Players" and not "Player Characters" while describing monsters XD
Anyway, this video is still useful to me today ! Thanks for it
I’m not sure how I feel about this interpretation. By this logic, at level 3 my rune knight fighter, along with a wizard companion, could become huge and do 7d6+1d4+STR with his maul. I certainly wouldn’t mind becoming this monstrosity but it seems like it would throw off balance. I would definitely say the giant’s might bonus damage should be each attack though not just once per turn.
@Stefan Erwin Baumer There's no reason he couldn't combine PAM and runeknight... it would give a weaponized bonus action to use on subsequent rounds and make the damage dice of that extra hit bigger too...
If he takes a two level dip into hexblade he could also just buy an oversized weapon and summon it on demand and then no wizard needed. Or idk buy a pack horse and get a custom sheath.
The problem is that there's no tradeoff here in actuality. He can do it all on his own if he were only willing to try to be as busted as possible. And at level 5 It gets more gross...
What if the caster has metamagic and twins it?
What if he has an easy way to get himself advantage on every turn like a familiar or something?
What if he does it all on his own and the wizard casts web anyway?
@Stefan Erwin Baumer I totally agree, that's why I allow the "gary stu" fighter subclass in my game
It adds 1000 damage to every attack, and 10 to your AC, it's balanced, since after all, since you're playing this, you're not playing a battlemaster
shit man, show me a fighter subclass that adds this much damage and maybe you'd have a point
But hell, it doesn't even matter, this was clearly not intended, PC's are not monsters, kobold is just plain wrong, and using the worst of RAW lawyering to justify it
yes, I think enlarge should be better than it currently is, and I'm not stoked about the fighter feature either, buffing both is a good idea, this isn't a good idea though, at all.
All you're doing is invalidating everyone who deigned to play a martial and didn't exploit this horribly lawyered rule
this is not rules text. These are instructions for creating your own stat blocks, and gives some insight into how the authors typically selected damage dice when designing monsters. But this is not a rule to be invoked at the table, and the authors didn't even follow it all of the time when designing monster stat blocks. For example, the fiend Baphomet, size Huge, carries a glaive named Heartcleaver that does only 2 die of damage
Since Baphomet is a Huge monster, and his personal weapon is made personally for him we would typically expect the weapon attacks to deal 3dX, but Baphomet's do not. This bit about oversized weapons is not a rule. It's a design principle that was usually followed, but not always.
We can further motivate this ruling by observing that we should be able to figure out what the spell does without having to read a section about monsters from the Dungeon Master's Guide. The spell enlarge/reduce is printed in the Basic Rules and System Reference Document, documents which do not contain the material about homebrewing monsters from the DMG. We should be able to figure out what the spell does even if all we have is the Basic Rules or SRD, by reading the spell description and the rules for spells
Given older Editions and the Large Magical Thunder Ax in one if the 5e Adventure books for PCs... Your incorrect about Large+ Weapons for PCs.
Otherwise... We can play the DM God side of things. How much will the DM side of things be RAW???... That line is more blurred.
2:22 Here's the wiggle room: The third sentence further defines Monsters by their relationship to the players, implying that the player characters are NOT monsters.
Carrying capacity might get messy with the size increases. A size increase only double carrying capacity, but doubling your size technically increases your weight by 2^3 (square cube law). This would apply to your weapons+armor and what you're carrying as well. The saving grace is that Rune Knight makes you Large, and later Huge, but isn't necessarily doubling your actual size (and the weapon's). A pike at 18 lbs will become 144 lbs with Enlarge/Reduce. Even just doubling the weight with each Rune Knight size increase makes the pike 72 lbs at Huge. Multiplying by 8x with Enlarge/Reduce makes it 576 lbs. A gargantuan sized 20 Str Rune Knight would have a carrying capacity of 2400 lbs. And that's just a pike. Plate armor would become 2080 lbs.
The rule on dnd5e is that small and medium crestures carry str score x 15, timy half of it, large is double (x30) and huge is x3 of that (x45) and so on
A creature can acrry more than you think on dnd, specially if they get the feature that 'let them carry the double stuff and are considered one size bigger', theres many ways of getting it, some races as goliaths already have it from start, or best totem barbarians too at lv6
@@FarothFuin I already factored the size boosting carrying capacity with my calculations. A gargantuan sized 20 Str Rune Knight has 2400 lbs carrying capacity: 20x2x2x2*15=2400. Getting features that increase your carrying capacity would pretty much be a requirement in order to use this tactic (depending on your gear).
Also, Goliath as your race actually _wouldn't_ help for the final build where you become actually gargantuan because it only treats you one size larger; if you become gargantuan sized, that is the maximum size in RAW (encompassing things those size and above), making you cap out in carrying capacity boosts.
Bear totem is 6th level Barbarian, meaning you can't do 18th level Rune Knight to reach Gargantuan anyhow.
Another option is Enhance Ability to double carrying capacity, requiring someone else or you to cast and maintain concentration.
-
Finally, of note is that I took a conservative approach to how much heavier your carried items become when using Rune Knight size increases (x2 then x2 then x8 for Enlarge for x32 total). It's possible DM rulings may vary, choosing to rule the size increases as effectively doubling your size in order to get to the next creature size, similarly to Enlarge/Reduce. Each size increase would then increase the weight of carried items by 8x: M->L->H->G is 3 size increases which means your carried items will weigh a whopping _512x heavier._ Meanwhile, size boosts for carrying capacity are only 2x per increase: about 8x carrying capacity in total boosted without using other carrying capacity affecting abilities.
My favourite combo with the Rune Knight ability is Duegar or Fairy. They get one free casting of enlarge/reduce per day!
And also (especially with the Fairy) that's just hilarious.
My new Goliath character uses an oversized flame tongue greatsword. And the DM even let us rule it in a way that it doesn't impose disadvantage because goliaths' carrying capacity (so in a way the amount that they can carry around) is calculated as if the goliath was large
The paragraph on oversized weapons is presented as part of an optional way to calculate monster damage in a chapter that consists of guidance for creating homebrew (dmg 263), so players should be aware that they'll need to seek DM approval to use oversized weapons because they are optional rules.
Despite the definition in the monster manual, the word monster is actually used throughout the rules as a way to talk about creatures that are not PCs. If you define PCs as monsters, then the rules say that the DM should do things like include player characters and friendly NPCs when calculating encounter difficulty (dmg 82), track player health in secret so that they don't know how much health they have remaining (247), and deny them death saving throws (phb 198).
So i know this is not officially acknowledged by WoTC as of yet, however when running games any being with the Powerful Build feature, since it states that they can lift, carry, and drag items as if one size greater, can use one size larger than normal. For enlarge this actually allowed them to get a wield boost up to Gargantuan safely (or colossal at disadvantage) if they had it active, while normally they could only safely use large and awkwardly use huge. In theory with the Rune Knight you could actually have powerful build from a race being medium that can safely wield large, become large that can safely wield huge, then get enlarged to become a 20x20 colossal that can wield colossal+ weapons safely, or even if you want the extra damage, a colossal++ weapon at disadvantage, and with as many sources of advantage there are that you can use to cancel out disadvantage that becomes a pretty viable option considering the damage.
For example lets use just a mundane Great Axe as our weapon, this would suddenly be a weapon that you can pick up (lets say from some giant statue made by dwarves or something) that would be able to do 7D12 damage on a flat D20 roll assuming you find some sort of advantage, so a bounds of 7-84 damage, with an average range of 42-49, and thats before any sort of modifiers, special actions, or anything. And, if you happen to get lucky and find such a weapon at some point early on that should be enough damage that so long as you hit even a single enemy with it you would be able to take it out until decently far into the game. And should size be an issue with becoming super big you can instead of using enlarge on yourself, reduce the axe down to half its size.
Because remember, large creatures are 10x10, huge are 15x15, gargantuan are 20x20, its only a 5ft difference per tier, and since enlarge doubles your size this lets you jump a full step. Or more if you can find a different way to grow first, such as using magic items with the enlarge effect or something similar
I'd really love Crawford's opinion on this, while I do agree with kobolds point of view that when we go up in size the damage should too, all the d6 extra and d4 extra makes me feel like it doesn't which sucks coz that would be nice and simple and would make things easy.
Keep in mind that Crawford says monks attacking with Unarmed Strikes is a weapon attack, but doesn't work with a paladin's Smite because they don't count as Weapons, which isn't in the RAW ("When you his with a melee weapon attack...."), but also says DM should feel free to allow it.
Additional damage die generally stack, like a Paladin Rogue multi-class can get both Smite and Sneak Attack. So in this case if you follow Kobold's train of thought, Enlarge/Reduce upsizes you and your weapons by one category. So a Medium Fighter with a Shortsword would attack for 2d6+1d4+modifier. For a concentration spell to only grant 1d4 extra damage (and advantage to strength checks/saves) isn't amazing. It also means that a tiny character being upsized gets the same damage bonus as a large character, which is weird when you think about it. I think the 1d4 is due to the magic, and the die count also increases. After all, larger creatures don't get advantage on the above rolls but Enlarge grants that, so why not also a damage boost in addition to the larger weapon?
Keep in mind Crawford is an idiot who doesn't know how his own game works half the time and is more concerned with saving face than giving good advice. His opinion should be weighed the same as any random DM, so feel free to just ask any DM you know.
@Stefan Erwin Baumer OK, DDBeyond excludes that on the character page, but has it on closer inspection on the PHB. That is indeed, much more stupid. I could go to a dictionary or legal statutes (Turner v. State) to argue in favor of a hand being a weapon, let alone getting around it with knuckledusters, cestus, bhaknaks, gauntlets, nekokote, etc.
The funny thing is, if you add this to cleave and a DM that adds more vulnerabilties and resistances to monsters to make different physical damage types actually matter, it makes martials actually scale almost as well as damage-oriented casters. Add that to my preference for grim reality, and you actually see martials are more effective at sustained damage over an extended period of time while casters are better for large chunks of damage.
Pulling out a rule from the DMG located in a section dedicated to helping DMs create or modify monsters from the Monster Manual and applying it to player characters is quite the stretch. As is ignoring the part of the "definition" of a monster that excludes player characters. If it were a static rule that applied to players, it would be in the PHB.
@Stefan Erwin Baumer Do you want rule books that are a thousand pages?? Or would you rather just apply common sense occasionally??
Human NPC
Human PC
Both are monsters...
@Stefan Erwin Baumer They are guidelines in the DMG on how one might create or modify a monster from the Monster Manual. The section heading these "rules" are found in is "Creating a Monster Stat Block." Player characters don't have stat blocks. These guidelines on size and weapon damage are written within the context of creating balanced stat blocks for monsters and NPCs. It is _irrelevant_ that they use 'creature' instead of 'monster' in the description, because the _entire section_ it is written in isn't defining rules or guidelines for player characters; it's for creating monster stat blocks.
If player characters are monsters, then we should be able to apply anything and everything that applies to monsters to Player Characters as well. So players must also have Challenge Ratings because monsters have Challenge Ratings. If I do a CR calculation on my PC and find my CR is higher than my character level, well then I need to roll more hit die because CR is intrinsically tied to hit die. And oh look, a monster's size also determines which die a monster uses for it's HP calculation. Medium monsters use a d8 hit die, so all the characters that don't use a d8 aren't following monster rules. Weird. Monsters can also have base stats up to 30 without any special rules or magic items. I should also be able to determine the creature type of my PC by looking through the Monster Manual and picking one that suits my idea for my character as is described in the paragraph about determining monster type. Heck, it even says "Make the monster whatever size you want". Great! Heck we don't even need the PHB because all the rules for creating monsters and similar creatures are all right here.
Or maybe, just maybe, cherry picking a few sentences from the section of the _Dungeon Masters' Guide_ that provides guidelines on how to create or modify monster and npc stat blocks and applying it out of context to anything that could be considered a monster based on a vague definition of monster found in the _Monster Manual_ is an extraordinarily bad faith argument.
@Stefan Erwin Baumer The size of the weapon doesn't grant the extra damage as per the description. A large greataxe still does 1d12.
All the features that increase a player character's size explicitly state what happens as a result. They do get extra damage, but not the same damage bonus that is relegated for balancing monster stat blocks.
The entire video conflates 'guidlelines for DMs regarding monster stat blocks' with 'rules for players' which makes any implication you draw from them useless as they are vacuously true.
@Stefan Erwin Baumer The implication of your entire argument is based on the same premise of this video, but good try.
I am using a 7ft Guts/Cloud/Anime sword on my 7ft Paladin in the campaign my house is about to start. Ive written its stats as follows:
Giant Sword: 1d10 Slashing+1d4 Bludgeoning
Martial, Two-Handed, Heavy, Reach, *Giant
*Giant Property: Str17 Required, DisAdvantage on Dex Saves
I also keep going back and forth on adding "remove the DisAdv on Dex Saves if Str21+", IE getting any belt of Giant Strength. For now we're keeping the DisAdv because the 10ft Range and extra Dmg needs a solid trade off and seems cheap to cleanse its negatives. Itll be fine :)
If you think the DisAdv isnt a good enough tradeoff to balance, at first I also had "Speed -5" so can put that back on if you want.
Im getting Crusher and Fell-Handed Feats as soon as I can. So excited for everything about this character.
i made a fairy (thay get a free Enlarge/Reduceat lvl 5) rune knight just to go for a small size to huge in 2 truns 1 if you skip your atk
You can do it in 1 turn. Giants might is a bonus action and the spell an action. Works great for intimidation;)
@@woutvanostaden1299 yup i put 2 or 1 if you skip a attack. ty for the reply
An additional point: This is extra good with 2 levels in barbarian which effectively cancels the detriments of using an oversized weapon whilst you are normally sized (you can roll flat when you use reckless attack). Not as good to hit chance but consistent double damage.
Would I allow this? Yes
Do I feel it's rai? Probably not based on the rules for it being in a book players won't read
the Oversized Weapons are not even a rule, they are an alternative way to increase the damage of a creature to increase their CR in a "natural way" in the Create Monster section of the DMG. Like instead of saying the Large creature does 5d4 you say it does 2d12, almost same average damage but the 2d12 is more "justified" while 5d4 is more "gamey"
Magic items are in the exact same book, as are two subclasses
@@haenhaen4282 Those subclasses are an example of PC style enemies, not meant for the players, magic items are for the DM to place not for the players to choose.
Both have a different place, neither is in the Monster Creation rules section
As a Laywer, I must say that the enlarge spell rules are more specific than the oversized weapons rule, so they take precedence over them. So, no, the rules don't say to double the dice. But I do encourage you to play that way, because it does make more sense and sounds more fun
Thanks for sharing this knowledge with everyone. i gave a player a large greataxe (2d12 damage) a few weeks ago. it was the former axe of his nemesis, a minotaur. had an argument with other DMs about the great-greataxe "not being in the rules" and "not wieldable by humans, because it's minotaur sized". the player has equal strength to the minotaur and has to reckless attack to get rid of the disadvantage from the size of the axe (he is a barbarian). now i can show the DMs that doubted me your video!
Not sure why other DMs care so much. If the player is having fun, and you as the DM are happy with the ruling, that's all that should matter! I have a DM that lets us have two subclasses. It's powerful, and not written in the rules at all. But we are having a blast! Play DnD your way!
@@aldrinvendt8524 This is extremely unaware. DMs are not doubting him because of “letting his players have fun”. They are doubting him because he’s trying to claim this is RAW. rules exist for a reason, and breaking them is part of the D&D fun! Hell, I’ve given my lvl 1 players wish before. BUT implying you’re not home brewing or house ruling is severely flawed and that IS something other DMs can critique.
@@aldrinvendt8524 it's fun, but defineatly a bit overpowered. i balance it by adding adds to the fight that simply serve as roadblock to the main villians, costing them actions. and boy do my players love the heroic vision of cutting down hordes of low CR creatures. the casters free the way with AOE, and the barb cuts down the largest threats with the great-greataxe. the hordes of low CR creatures would ruin the barb recklessly attacking if not removed, while the big bads are a thread to the casters.
Okay, I have a problem with this being presented as RAW. Kobold says it himself, that IF this was written in the weapons section it would be widely accepted, but it's not, it's in the section for creating homebrew monsters. Trying to cross-link it to a definition of monster that means every possible creature is a stretch already, and that's not even what that definition of monster says past the first sentence. "It also applies to... civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters" shows that the first sentence did NOT apply to noncombat NPCs, and looks to me like it doesn't automatically apply to the player characters themselves, it's about other non-player beings the player characters might interact with. Add on top of that fact that other parts of the game rules that let you change size categories include their own damage buffs and do not reference or mention this monster-creation guideline, it's blindingly obvious that these rules weren't intended to apply this way.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea of oversized weapons! I did this in 3.5 all the time! And if these are the rules DMs want to use to run them in game, DMs should go nuts! But presenting this as intentional RAW that was just 'put in the wrong section' is going to mislead new players who want a giant sword and then don't understand why their DM is being mean to them.
The better RAW would be... Ignore everything Kobold said about Monsters and only focus on Large+ Weapon Rules.
Paraphrase: "Any Creature (or PC, since your character is a Creature) can wield any weapon that is at least one size larger than your size but no larger than that. And you can dual wield it too, if it doesn't have the Double Handed Property or the Reload Property."
As for damage dice... A magically enlarged weapon doesn't count. It must be a natural Large+ Weapon in order to use the Large+ Weapon Damage Dice.
This would be valid by RAW based on the DMG of 5e and many PHBs of older Editions. I don't know why WotC shafted this mechanic so terribly by hiding it into the DMG of 5e.
When the Wizard can do abstract things which inherently breaks RAW at times.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 The part of the rule mentioning creatures is a much stronger argument for RAW, but even then I would say it necessitates a DM ruling.
It's worth looking at the context of the chapter it's in, Chapter 9 'Dungeon Master's Workshop'. "This chapter contains optional rules that you can you to customize your campaign, as well as guidelines on creating your own material." The whole section is optional rules and guidelines for homebrew, so the idea that this is just how oversized weapons work, RAW end of story, doesn't sit right with me.
@@IronWilliam
You can always use older Edition rules for Oversized Weapons or follow what I stated above.
The rules are not strict because that will bring inconsistencies...
Imagine an NPC giving a Large Weapon which does 3d6 damage to a PC. But because of RAW, the medium sized PC cannot wield that Large Weapon somehow??? Or that the 3d6 Damage Dice is nerfed for arbitrary reasons???
This has the same issue with "ending your turn in mid jumping arch" because WotC didn't write any rules about it. Or how Fall Damage + Jump is jank, RAW.
(In 5e... There are a lot of Unspoken Rules with mechanics. I hope this is not repeated for OneDnD.)
The players can be defined as monsters... sounds about right for most groups :-p
Yeah the problem race monster and pc race monster like bug bears are different then
This most likely isn't rai, but raw the runic juggernaut feature only states 'your size' can increase to huge. It doesn't explicitly state that your equipment also benefits for the size increase
True... That's WotC for ya... There are many Unspoken Rules in 5e. Like in Misty Step for example. It's assumed that you teleport with your stuff even though that spell doesn't mention it.
One of my party members is kobold ranger which can turn into a treant and I’m a wizard
Have fun ;)
Once played a paladin who had gauntlets allowing her to wield weaponry one strength category above her own, so what was already a large imposing aasimar quickly turned (and chopped) even more heads with a huge sized greatsword (+ great weapon master). That was a fun character to play
Kobold reading the definition of monster makes me feel like I'm being yelled at by my Music Teacher LOL
Back in 3.5 there was a feat called monkey grip which let you use a large sized weapon without penalty. There was a feat called exotic weapon Proficiency which could be taken to allow a bastard sword to be used one handed instead of two handed. There was also a feat called whirlwind attack which let you spin in a circle and make an attack Against everything in your reach with the weapon(weapons) you are using.. Using a large weapon granted 10 feet of reach. I think you can see where I'm going with this.
I feel like using a combination of shove and/or find familiar -> help to frequently have advantage and cancel out the disadvantage for using an oversized weapon would be neat.
Is a 2d12 greataxe rolled at a flat roll better than, say, sharp shooter on hand cross bows? Definitely not. Is it the type of stupid fun I play the game for? Absolutely.
I think I have my next build.
Makes sense to me. I game my rune knight player more damage anyway just didn't realize it was covered. Been a hot minute since I actually read the DMG as a DM. Thanks for the breakdown! Amazing as always.
The 1d4 and oversized weapon rules don't stack, otherwise it would specify. Adding a d4 on top of oversized weapon rules makes it a stronger spell than higher level spells like elemental weapon.
Pic is funny. I have a character planned who's a Kobold who uses Spheres of Might, as there's a Tinker Talent that lets you remove Heavy from a weapon, so he can use a Greatsword normally!
A cool high level martial feature might be an ability to haul oversized weapons around on your hip (as if they were Medium sized weapons), that grow to full size when you draw them. Easy way to bump martial damage across the board.
This really is a personal preference thing, as some people are perfectly cool with it (the characters are in a world that has magic in it, after all), but I'm pretty bothered by giving distinctly magical abilities to classes that are themselves not magical in nature. No amount of "being good at fighting" is going to give you the power to make your weapons shrink or grow, and unless the subclass changes the flavor of the class to being magical (like eldritch knight, rune knight, psi warrior or arcane trickster) then I feel like it's a pretty hard break from the flavor of the class. If you want to make martials do more damage, just give them a feature that makes them do more damage without the narrative baggage that doesn't fit with the flavor of the class.
That being said, there is no reason that you can't have a magic item or subclass feature that does the narrative heavy-lifting here if you want a weapon that grows... and I think there's some fun to be had with the logistics of trying to transport an ogre's greatsword at full size everywhere you go.
@@kevingriffith6011 You make a good point, tbh I decided against playing a Barbarian a while back because the best ones have magic involved in their rages.
Don't forget about Potion of Growth an uncommon item (dmg 187) depending on how you rule on stacking the effect from two sources that can make you even larger.
I think the interpretation of "Monster" is a bit too far fetched, and obviously RAI it doesn't include players, because if not, the term creature and monster would be interchangeable, wich it isn't. Also the oversized weapons rule is not in the PHB because it's not intended for PCs. The extra die in enlarge/reduce and Rune knight are the player version of that rule. Depending on the campaign I might personally houserule something like what you propose, because I don't think it would be overpowered, and monster weapons are rarely magical.
Edit: Typo
The term "monster" is never used in a definitive or semantic way in any sourcebook; they really are interchangeable. But it's less exciting if the book was called the "Creature Manual" or the spell was called "Hold Creature." If anything is referred to a "monster" instead of a creature or the like, it is solely for flavor.
@@Agamemnonoverhead When you make a term that's "monster" and it includes "creatures" in it, they are immediately non-interchangeable, also the monster description says monsters are creatures that may be allies or foes of the player characters, clearly stating them as NPCs
A cool feature I'd like to see for a rune knight or pgb would be something that could counter or dispel magic with brute force.
[While enlarged, you can use a reaction to channel your str into a hard stomp in an attempt to dispel a magical effect. The target of the stomp must 20ft in site and on the ground.] You may only do it a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per day.
With str being the ability modifier.
Monsters and players have different rules. RAW monsters don't get bonus actions or death saves, players don't get oversized weapons. YMMV, your DM might give monsters death saves or give players nifty rules for oversized weapons.
Monsters do in fact get bonus actions.
As a spell with a specified effect, shouldn't you default to the specified effect and only that effect RAW? As you said, the rules for oversized weapons aren't official play rules, they're listed in the creating a monster section, and aren't always followed either. There are a number of huge sized creatures wielding weapons that only deal 2 die of damage, but appear to be appropriately sized. I don't think enlarge reduce was ever meant RAI or RAW to allow double dipping for even more damage, nor was rune knight. An extra d4 on all attacks and an added d6 are plenty for the combo you mentioned, I don't think they were meant to deal additional base damage dice as well. What you suggest could arguably put enlarge over polymorph. It's one thing if a player acquires an oversized weapon, but the only written material to back up the enlarge = oversized weapons claim is a bit of text suggesting rules for generating your own monsters. Also, it's debatable that pcs might not even be considered monsters, they are explicitly mentioned as being the defining feature for a monster. Any creature the players interact with, which could easily mean as a group, thereby excluding other players from the monster definition.
Love the content, but the application of the rules and generalized "common sense application" reminds me a bit of coffeelock arguments.
Could a Warlock summon an oversized Improved Pact Weapon?
I dont see why not. the rules never state that the weapon needs to be your size
@@iyomatic7866 the rules don't say a lot of things
The rules don't say that you don't burst into flames when you get dressed after a long rest
The rules also don't say you cannot use your pact weapon to summon a sword the size of the continent to simply smash the bad guys castle
That's why we look at what the rules DO say you can do
I actually missed this rule and have been mad about it's absence since 5e launched! Thank you for telling me where it is!
NGL kobold, until you can find a developer confirms your reading of the rules, I'm inclined to believe you're falling victim to confirmation bias. I don't think the rules for oversized weapons are in the wrong part of the DMG. I don't think Enlarge/Reduce is intended to double damage die *and* add 1d4. And I certainly don't think a player is supposed to consider doubled damage die as it's not in the player's section of the rules.
Your reading of the rules certainly is one way to do it, but I don't think you've given enough reason or weight for a player to convince their DM of this tactic.
As a dm I'd personally react a lot better to, "Yo I think this shit would be fun and not unbalance things that much..." than "THIS IS RAW. Look it's in there. Players are monsters despite this definition only enumerating non-player entities as monsters. and another thing, ignore the principle that specific trumps general it should get an additional d4 and double the damage dice because...??? I think I made my point."
I'm not sure I agree that Enlarge/Reduce and Giant's Might counts as an oversized weapon in addition to the damage boost those features already give you. But I do support making oversized weapons more accessible. I was looking at the possibility for a homebrew project of linking oversized weapons to carry weight: if the weapon's weight is below a certain percentage of your carrying capacity, you can wield it just fine, regardless of how big it is. More Strength = larger weapons = more damage. I was also going to tune down the extra damage of oversized weapons, so it wouldn't be as strong, but the combination of the two would mean it was still an overall buff to martials.
A weapon that doubled in size because the person weilding it is enlarged is by no means "made for a large size creature"
The dice aren't from the size category of a weapon but from what size category of creature the weapon was *made* for.
Meaning. When it was made. Meaning you can't change that
yep the enlarge spell doesn't do what he says if you already have a large weapon it will just add 1d4 to it and remove your disadvantage for wielding it.
*Sad no large races or tiny races noises*
yeah I think he's reading too deep into this
Agreed. I read the bonus dice from enlarge, etc. as being damage from a normal weapon becoming enlarged, which wouldn't be as effective as a weapon that was made that way. And even if you had a giant sword or whatever to use once enlarge is cast, it had better not be on your person or else it'll just become bigger too. The combo doesn't really work at all RAW but I know I'd allow it to beef up a party member for such significant investment.
So what you're saying is, if you're playing a Rune Knight, just have a sword crafted that is actually "made for a Large sized Creature" for you to use while enlarged, problem solved.
@@jonp8015 yep
So I recently played a level 20 norse mythology themed one-shot, as a Giant Barbarian who wields an Ascendant Dragon's Wrath Maul and has a 26 in Str as well as Great Weapon Master.
So when I Rage with that character she does about 7d6+25 Thunder damage on a hit. Now the way I understand weapons like Flame Tongue and Dragon's Wrath, the extra elemental damage they deal still counts as the weapon's damage dice, hence why Great Weapon Fighting applies to them.
So if we use the oversized weapon rules here, we'd triple the damage dice (5d6 -> 15d6) of the weapon and then add the additional 2d6 damage for Elemental Cleaver.
That's *17d6+25* Thunder damage on a hit. On a crit, thanks to Brutal Critical, that's *37d6+25* damage.
Even with the -5 to hit from GWM, she still has a +12 to hit... So that's disgusting. Especially considering she has unlimited Rages and can remain in Rage indefinitely as long as she's concious.
Important thing to note, larger sizes from monsters do not duplicate dices. They add one die to the pool. So a large Greatsword would do 3d6, while a large Greataxe would do 2d12. It’s the same with brutal critical. A brutal critical from a Greatsword deals 3d6, not 4d6. That’s why barbarians favor axes and fighters (who can reroll 1’s and 2’s) favor swords.
@@firechaser4095 That's not correct. It specifically says "Double the weapon dice if a creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan."
Brutal Critical specifies the exact number of dice you add on top of your critical hit, so you're correct there, but for oversized weapons it's a straight multiplication. If it's 2d6 and it says to double the weapon dice then it's now 4d6, similar to how a normal critical hit doubles all of the damage dice for the attack.
So with the Ascendant Dragon's Wrath Maul, which is 5d6, oversized weapon rules for a Huge sized creature would triple the weapon dice, making it 15d6. Elemental Cleaver is an additional 2d6 but is not the weapon's inherent damage dice, so it stays the same. So in total that's 17d6.
On a crit you double all the damage dice for that attack, making it 34d6, and with Brutal Critical that's an additional 3d6 damage dice added to the crit. Hence *37d6* damage.
Not sure i agree with this ruling in even a RAW or RAI sense. While "monster" applies to any type of creature - The wording in the following sentence clearly specifies a series of non-players (friends, rivals, enemies) which the term "monster" applies to. (Though it could have been worded more clearly)
Just the same, I dont have a problem with it. If a player wants disadvantage in exchange for an extra d10 on their attacks, im okay with that. Similarly, its not a big deal imo if enlarge spell and potions get a buff. I'd just treat this as a houserule.
But then the oversized weapons chapter also just says "creature" for one of the clauses, meaning that even if PCs weren't monsters (they are) oversized weapons would still work
Second what Mandos says, the rules for oversized weapon first tell you who typically use them (big monsters).
But in the second part they specifically talk about how a *creature* handle a bigger weapons. The characters are creatures, as stated in the PHB. Monster or not, it make no difference
But the oversized weapons section specifies creatures, not monsters. And players are undoubtedly creatures.
I think the distinction lies in a real oversized weapon vs a magically enlarged weapon. If you steal a greatclub off a troll, sure it's a 2d8. If you use Enlarge on a player wielding a greatclub, it's still just a d8 + d4/d6.
@@geodude03 you're neglecting the wider context of the section being that this is about designing monsters for your game. Not only that but the things presented in the DMG are not for players, they are for the DM and they offer options to the DM for variants they might want to offer to their players and these options are specifically denoted as such.
What's funny is Giant's might turns anything smaller than large to large. You could play a pixie with this and in one bonus action go from tiny to mighty!
There is one glaring issue with this argument in the what is a monster section it says "...any other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters." That implies that player characters are the exception and are not monster. Their familiars, pets, and hirelings are fine by this definition, but not the PCs themselves.
Yeah I agree with kobold. You can't use headings or location in books to determine what something can and can't do. Both hold monster and this section have monster in the heading but we wouldn't rule hold monster can't effect players. It's also notable that while that entire section basically only says monster all through out it switch's to creature for that sentence in particular which makes me think it's meant to address the question " what happens if the players pick up a monsters weapon."
Balance wise I do think the ability interactions were probably unintended but if you think of a big weapons as a magic item the larger weapons up to the size of huge are weaker than a flame tongue so if you make the characters carry around the big weapon it's easy to balance. My main concern is a second level spell just giving you one though might be a bit too powerful for that spell level but not so powerful that it shouldn't be a spell at all. It's not like over powered spells for the level don't exist like fireball but to me the damage boost from getting a bigger weapon seems like it's in the range of a powerful 3rd level spell rather than a second level spell.
if you take a magic weapon from a large monster will it shrink to your size and loss the extra d whatever like a magic armor resizing to fit you.
For what reason would a mundane weapon shrink to your size
@@thebluerose9485 no I'm asking if you take a magic weapon
Well enlarge/reduce goes from a shit spell to a powerhouse spell if the weapon damage dice improves along with the (nonsensically randomized) bonus to strength damage from a creature growing larger.
Check out Steinhardt's Guide to the Eldritch Hunt kick starter!
www.kickstarter.com/projects/691715600/960698887?ref=abuhxa
Also check out Tabletop Builds for the math involving oversized weapons!
tabletopbuilds.com/oversized-weapons/
I’m designing a level 20 one shot where the king is secretly (or not so secretly) the lich BBEG and the queen is secretly a level 20 Ancestral Guardian Barbarian. Even though her husband is obviously evil, she’s true neutral and doesn’t care because “family is everything” (deep connection to ancestors).
I am planning on having her pull out a giant hammer that’s WAY too big for her at some point when my players go after either the king or the princess (who is also secretly level 20), being like “she has 24 STR, it’s fine.” Now I have a RAW excuse for doing this, Reckless Attack for a straight roll with +13 to hit. So thank you lol