Talk:Oversized (5e Variant Rule)
From D&D Wiki
- Sure, let's see what you've got.
- I'm thinking of allowing a Medium sized creature only half their proficiency bonus, even if they make the Strength requirement. High Strength characters already have good damage output, oversized weapons might push it too much? Then maybe a feat that normalizes it along with some other benefit. Marasmusine (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2015 (MST)
- Well, for one thing, I'd like to work this into the Zweihander and Double Axe pages once I have them more figured out. I'd also like to create a couple of unique weapons thematically crafted by large races, possibly even a small weapon made by a huge race, such as a giant's dagger, which could be interesting rewards for homebrew adventures, or base items to make compelling quest objects from.--Kydo (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (MST)
- The 4e goliath used normal-sized weapons. Marasmusine (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2015 (MDT)
Well, by RAW, no. I do feel like they made this really ambiguous however, and open to DM's opinion. They definitely shouldn't be able to use large weapons without drawback though. What would you think if a race had this feature: All melee damage you deal is doubled. That sounds like something a class would get at level 20.
Overpowered and Potentially Game Breaking
These weapons are absurdly powerful in any normal game with very little drawback. There are already rules for oversized weapons for monsters on page 278 of the DMG, but they could logically be used for PC/NPCs as well.
- Any weapon can be oversized. To do so, double the damage dice for large, triple for huge, or quadruple for gargantuan.
- Any oversized weapon always has disadvantage on melee weapon attacks (unless the disadvantage is negated by an advantage).
- No one starts with proficiency with oversized weapons, since they aren't technically simple or martial. They would probably deserve their own seperate weapon class (ex. oversized).
- If small characters use heavy weapons with disadvantage, then they shouldn't be able to use extra heavy oversized weapons at all (or at least with an additional -5 on top of the disadvantage if you insist).
-The anchor should be considered an improvised 2d8 Large Greatclub, unless it was taken to a smith to be balanced into a more easily handled weapon. -The buster sword should be considered a 4d6 Large Greatsword. -The Giant Axe should be considered a 2d12 Large Greataxe. -The Giant Sword should be considered a 2d8 Large Longsword with versatile 2d10. -The Great Maul should be considered a 4d6 Large Maul. -The Greatspear should be considered a 2d6 Large Spear with versatile 2d8. Range should probably also be doubled if it's assumed the increased mass is being thrown at the same velocity (40/120), but this is optional with no rule backing at all. I would only consider this if the person was a Goliath or something.
The issue with Oversized weapons isn't weight, it's mass and volume proportionate to body size. There shouldn't necessarily be a hard Strength requirement to use one, but one should use common sense in this regard.
Consider this homebrew feat if a class (probably a Barbarian) wants to specialize in this kind of weaponry. Having this much absurd power, and actually being accurate with it, should at least require a feat investment. https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Massive_Weapon_Fighter_(5e_Feat)
- One more thing, if you want to have some real fun. Take the tavern brawler feat along with the feat mentioned above to be proficient with oversized improvised weapons. If you want to stretch out the interpretation of an improvised weapon, then something like a Goliath could potentially use an enemy as an improvised weapon after a grapple. I would reduce the damage die a level to reduce chance for total abuse, however. For example, a person wielding an orc as an improvised Large Greatclub should probably be toned down to 2d6 (to represent struggle+resistance) instead of 2d8, or the person being struck might recieve 1d6 or 2d4 instead of an additional 2d6.
- The oversized property is an intermediate step between normal weapons and the Large weapons described on DMG p. 278.
- The intent is for Large-sized PCs to use oversized weapons (as defined here) instead of Large weapons so they don't deal game-breaking damage.
- Its right there on the page under "rationale", I can't make it any clearer. Marasmusine (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2017 (MDT)
The weight issue
Okay, is no one else questioning why the weapons are so light. These things are meant for characters who have strength beyond that of a normal person. Most people can pick up a 14 pound item. There are chairs you can use as improvised weapons that would weight more. The shafts of the axe and hammer alone should weight more than what's listed there. Also, if you research you'll see someone made a to scale buster sword, and it was 90 pounds. That's with normal materials, imagine what older times+ magical blacksmithing + adamantine would weigh. Sorry for exploding, I just don't understand how this makes sense. If you have disadvantage for using the weapons for having less than 21 strength, then the weapon must be too heavy for a normal person to carry around without swaying with it. 18 pounds is 2 gallons of milk. Grimeagle4 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2016 (MDT)
- The average home use sledgehammer weighs less than seven pounds. Imagine trying to play baseball with it (considering a baseball bat weighs under two pounds). That should be something approaching what it's like to use a greataxe in combat, except a greataxe is also going to cut your ear off if you don't have the muscles and coordination to make sure it only goes where you want it to go. Fourteen pounds is twice what the PHB greataxe weighs.
- Also, according to Buster Sword Guy's video, that giant thing clocks in at 46. No anywhere-near-average mortal is gonna use that thing effectively in combat, so it fits the bill for requiring 20 Str. Knowlessman (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (MST)
- Shouldn't the weight and cost be multiplied by 8, since the weapon is double the size in every direction, therefore using eight times as much material? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email) . . 10:36, 3 September 2017 (MDT)
"Other sized PCs"
I'm not sure I 100% understand this section. It looks like it might be too much of an edge case to warrant this clarification? Can someone link to an example. Marasmusine (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2019 (MDT)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.
I love this rule a lot and have used it in so many of my homebrew stuff that, honestly, I feel it deserves to be a featured article (or at least, cleaned up enough to become one) Varkarrus (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2019 (MST)
- As Large Player Characters (5e Variant Rule) has failed its QA nomination, so too I am failing this nomination. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email) . . 14:22, 11 June 2019 (MDT)
- Comment - If I recall correctly, variant rules fall under Quality Articles rather than Featured Articles, no? —ConcealedLight (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2019 (MST)
- Oppose FA or QA, the rule is designed to work with another variant, Large Player Character, that I don't see benefitting the game. People may have fun with it and this, but at its core I don't see it good for the game. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2019 (MST)
- Support: Since this is an (IMHO required) extension of the Large Player Characters variant rule (which is so far looking like it's gonna be a QA), this should also be a Quality Article. Or Featured Article. Whatever makes more sense. It gives a balanced way for large-sized races to use larger weapons, which is important since, again, people are going to want to be large-sized races often. Varkarrus (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2019 (MST)
- Comment. I just want to say I created the page to try and fulfil the apparent desire among D&D players to equip their characters with Very Big Weapons or to choose Very Big races, and to hopefully quell an influx of very similar Very Big Weapons (where one rule would cover the lot). So, in a way it's an administrative entry to the wiki. The page is stable and is referenced a lot, so I'm glad it has been useful. However, I sort of agree with BigShotFancyMan. Marasmusine (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2019 (MDT)