Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Calibur 04-30-08, 05:43 PM	How can a medium human end up wielding a huge sized greatsword two-handed? Please note I do NOT wish to wield a huge greatsword in EACH hand. Rather, I wish for my PC to wield a huge greatsword with BOTH hands.
risner 04-30-08, 07:27 PM	Be an Enlarged Human with Monkey Grip/Powerful Build or Strongarm Bracers.
The_Ditto 04-30-08, 07:48 PM	Expansion - 7th level psywarrior, or psion will do it ..
AtsuiShoto 04-30-08, 08:37 PM	I think the OP expressed the desire to play a MEDIUM human, not a large or huge one (as the result of enlarge or expansion). That said, I don't know of any ways to wield larger weapons that actually stack. I think getting increased to Large or Huge size is the only way to do this, like the other responders have suggested.
Johannixx 05-01-08, 12:37 AM	You could always have your character dye his hair yellow, spike it with a whole tube of gel, and dress in black leather. It seems to work in Anime...
Ianten_Silverblade 05-01-08, 01:40 AM	Thank you AtsuiShoto for trying to help. Do you suppose the Monkey Grip feat would help a human of MEDIUM SIZE wield a huge-sized greatsword two-handed in combat? I know there is an epic feat called Wield Oversized Weapon but the NPC I'm making isn't epic, she's a female human (mulan) fighter who ran away from the nation of Thay. (Note to risner and The_Ditto - When answering a specific question of mine please next time post a answer related to the specifics of my question) (Note to Johannixx - I don't need sarcasm)
Tsuul 05-01-08, 04:06 AM	Calibur/Ianten_Silverblade thank you for reminding me about the ignore option available here on the boards.
risner 05-01-08, 04:37 AM	Do you suppose the Monkey Grip feat would help a human of MEDIUM SIZE wield a huge-sized greatsword two-handed in combat? No obviously not. A Medium PC can't use Monkey Grip, Strongarm Bracer or Powerful Build to use a Huge sized weapon, period. Note there are some house ruled ways to do so involving using a Fullblade from 3.0 translated to 3.5 rules by your DM, but if so the weapon is a Large Fullblade and not a Huge weapon. (Note to risner and The_Ditto - When answering a specific question of mine please next time post a answer related to the specifics of my question) Note to Ianten, I did answer your specific question. Not to mention the fact you didn't bother searching for this weekly asked question nor did you look in the FAQ.
Merestil Haye 05-01-08, 08:16 AM	Using strictly 3.5 items and terminology, no. A weapon is categorised by type, skill level required, effort to use and "design size" - that is, the size of the creature who can wield the weapon with the intended amount of effort. Thus a Huge two-handed weapon is a weapon that can be wielded in two hands by a Huge creature. In 3.5, a weapon's actual size category is the size of a creature who can wield it two handed normally. Thus a Huge greatsword is a Huge two-handed weapon. In 3.0, there were several shifts, one of which is relevant here. A weapon's size category was the same as the size of a creature who could normally wield it one-handed. Thus a Huge greatsword (in 3.0) is a Large greatsword (in 3.5). The Fullblade is a 3.0 item that does not have a real translation in 3.5 terms. The closest I have seen is that "A fullblade is a two-handed weapon that has the special property that a creature one size smaller than the size of creature the weapon was constructed for can use in two hands with a -2 penalty to attack rolls." Thus a Huge fullblade can be wielded normally by a Huge creature or at a -2 penalty by a Large creature. If you have a Medium size creature that can wield Large-sized weapons then they can (presumably) wield a Huge fullblade. I'd require the penalties to stack, though, so the wielder is taking a total -4 to hit. I must admit, the result of joining those particular dots in the rules surprises me a little. I'd think hard before allowing a Fullblade in my games at all now.
Kextor 05-01-08, 02:30 PM	Calibur, in addition to the above help, don't forget that a Huge two-hander is likely 20+ ft. long. I'd come up with a way of carrying it, as well.
Nezkrul 05-01-08, 08:21 PM	no kextor, each increase in size doubles the weight, not the dimensions. It's not 20 ft. long unless you are the DM and declare it as such :D
risner 05-01-08, 11:32 PM	no kextor, each increase in size doubles the weight, not the dimensions. It's not 20 ft. long unless you are the DM and declare it as such :D But it would be 15 ft. A Medium is 5 ft tall. A Huge Tall is 15 ft tall. A Medium Greatsword is 5 to 6 ft long. Therefore: A Huge Greatsword is 15 to 18 ft long.
silenced_shout 05-04-08, 12:27 AM	Here's a good question: how big a weapon can a small character wield? I'd assume large, but huge would be great. Also, in response to the topic @ hand, I know of a splatbook class....:P (seriously: It's a PrC called "Wrecker" that specializes in two-handed weaponry, gaining the ability to handle bigger weapons. I think Monkey grip is a prereq. If anyone actually wants to know, just holler. Otherwise, you never saw me.:incog: )
Merestil Haye 05-04-08, 06:25 AM	A Huge Tall is 15 ft tall.Really? There's a picture on page 150 of the PHB. According to that diagram, a Large creature comes to about the waist of the Huge creature next to him. If you count the lines, the Huge creature occupies 27 and the Large creature 14. A Medium creature fits into 7. This supports claims that the linear dimensions of creatures double. It also makes that Huge creature 20-25' tall. So how can it fight in a cube 15' on a square? The answer is, it can't. Either the creature is squeezing all the time or *deep breath* the statement that creatures double in linear dimension when they go up one size category is false. I'd guess the latter. Since creatures don't scale up in linear dimension like you claim, why should their weapons? The other problem I had was the invocation of "realism." Here's some realism for you. You double the weight of something, but increase the volume by a factor of eight. What does that do to the density of the object? It reduces it to one quarter of what it was. How, then, can we achieve this? There are two answers. One is to make this out of some super-strong stuff that can only be used to make weapons of Large size or larger. I hope you can talk fast when you explain why it cannot be used to make weapons for Medium creatures. Or why Dwarves don't have it. The other is to make the weapon as full of holes as a typical Swiss cheese (actually more; fully three quarters of its internal volume is void space) meaning it'll have as much structural rigidity as a piece of straw. One good blow and the blade is ruined. Basically, bringing in "realism" is the death knell for these weapons.
Zarith 05-04-08, 07:12 AM	It also makes that Huge creature 20-25' tall. So how can it fight in a cube 15' on a square? So you're saying a humanoid creature is as wide as it is tall? Look in the DMG pg 29 for creature sizes. Huge = 16 ft - 32 ft.
Merestil Haye 05-04-08, 07:25 AM	So you're saying a humanoid creature is as wide as it is tall?The rules say that to fight effectively a creature needs to occupy a cube with sides equal to the size given for it's space. That is, in order to fight effectively, a human must have a 5'*5'*5' cube, and so on. For a Huge creature that space is 15' tall. But these same rules say that a Huge creature is about 20' tall. How can a 20' tall creature fight effectively in a 15' tall space? Answer : it cannot. Somewhere along the line, the writers created two utterly incompatible rules. One is wrong.
Zarith 05-04-08, 07:37 AM	The rules say that to fight effectively a creature needs to occupy a cube with sides equal to the size given for it's space. Where is this stated? (Pg or SRD will do.) The table I refered you to state a Huge creatures size and that they occupy a 15 ft square to fight effectively (See the heading SPACE on the same page. It does not say it needs to accupy a cube equal to its size.
risner 05-04-08, 11:26 PM	how big a weapon can a small character wield? I'd assume large, but huge would be great. A Small can use a Medium weapon, not Large or Huge. Really? There's a picture on page 150 of the PHB. I went off the chart that said how tall the creature of each size stands. Did I misread that chart?
mplindustries 05-04-08, 11:51 PM	First, let me say, that I've never seen anyone else advocating the position that creature size in fluff and crunch don't mesh at all. Its nice to see someone else agrees with me on that, Merestil. The table I refered you to state a Huge creatures size and that they occupy a 15 ft square to fight effectively (See the heading SPACE on the same page. It does not say it needs to accupy a cube equal to its size. I will now prove creatures take up cubes and not just squares in two ways. 1) Lets assume you are right. That a creature does in fact only take up squares and not cubes. A colossal creature takes up 30' square, and is about 64' tall. Lets just use the Tarrasque as an example. The Tarrasque drops prone for some reason. It is now lying down. Does it now take up 60'+ square? If not, is it somehow squeezing itself while prone to be literally less than half its size? 2) A colossal creature can fly with perfect manueverability. It can hover, it can move backward. It can flip upside down or sideways. If said creature flew 5' off the ground and turned sideways, how far could it reach? How much space would it take up? I don't know, I'm having trouble continuing this without saying, "come on its obvious." Because, come on, its obvious. In a game with flight, nevermind anything else, you know height has to come in somewhere, so the Tarrasque can bat down the flying wizards. Creatures take up cubes, just as they have cubic reach. The Tarrasque is 64' tall, but takes up a 30' cube of space when it fights. There is something wrong here. Anyway, as cool as it is to see someone else advocate this position, I would not jump to the same conclusions. I would not assume weapon size does or does not correlate to creature size. I actually assume that A) the size rules are dumb and you should describe them however you want because it actually makes no difference in the rules and B) the weight rules are really the problem, because D&D, despite calling it weight and using pounds as notation, clearly does not actually use weight, but rather an abstract encumberance system in which equipment "weighs" more than it actually does due to awkwardness or bulkiness. Since weapons that increase in size only double in "weight," I assume that, while they would x8 in mass, they would not get especially more bulky or awkward than they already are, at least proportionately speaking. Thus, its clear that while mass goes up by a factor of 8, its D&D "weight" does not because the majority of that "weight" was actually awkwardness/bulkiness/etc.
Zarith 05-05-08, 06:09 AM	* Snip * I think you missed my point, I'm not arguing that creatures don't take up 3 dimensions and I'm certainly not arguing that RAW is realistic (just put 2 horses side by side and see how they occupy 20 ft of space). I was just answering a statement about conflicting rules (RAW), which I have not seen. I think it's perfectly reasonable to change the space a creature occupies if it changes into an unusual position (the 20' tall huge giant lays down, parts of it are outside the 15ft square he normally occupies). I also think it's reasonable to judge a creature occupies a space that doesn't fit the rules. But that would be a houserule, not RAW. Creatures take up cubes, just as they have cubic reach. The Tarrasque is 64' tall, but takes up a 30' cube of space when it fights. There is something wrong here. Again, I have never seen a rule that states a colossal creature occupies a 30' cube. It takes up a 30 squares on the battle mat, and if your flying 50' off the ground (isn't a tarrasque 50' tall?), you can still hit it. I think that's why creature height is given. As a side note, there is a table for vertical reach based on size (I think it's in the skills section under "Jump") - Creature Size / Vertical Reach Colossal / 128 ft. Gargantuan / 64 ft. Huge / 32 ft. Large / 16 ft. Medium / 8 ft. Small / 4 ft. Tiny / 2 ft. Diminutive / 1 ft. Fine / ½ ft.
bloodtalon 05-05-08, 09:20 AM	the ARMS AND EQUIPMENT GUIDE on page 7 gives a way you can use a huge fullblade and still be a medium creature basically use exotic weapon feat and use both hands. a huge full blade there is only 18 inches bigger then a great sword and 23 lbs.
risner 05-05-08, 12:55 PM	the ARMS AND EQUIPMENT GUIDE on page 7 gives a way you can use a huge fullblade and still be a medium creature basically use exotic weapon feat and use both hands. a huge full blade there is only 18 inches bigger then a great sword and 23 lbs. 3.0 content when Weapon sizes were different.
Merestil Haye 05-05-08, 02:11 PM	I went off the chart that said how tall the creature of each size stands. Did I misread that chart?Yes, you did. The Rules Compendium (p116) states that a Medium bipedal creature has a height "to 8 feet," Large "to 16 feet," and Huge "to 32 feet." What this means is that a Huge bipedal creature is, by the rules, more than 16 feet tall and up to 32 feet tall. This is entirely in accordance with the heights listed in the table "Big and Little creatures in combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLi ttleCreaturesInCombat)" in the SRD.
Bloodsoul 05-05-08, 07:14 PM	A Small can use a Medium weapon, not Large or Huge. Could've sworn the DMG said a Small creature could use a Large dagger like a longsword with, what, -4 penalties? (hope so, 'cause I made one Medium character wield a Gargantuan dagger as a greatsword :shifty:)
risner 05-05-08, 10:16 PM	Could've sworn the DMG said a Small creature could use a Large dagger like a longsword with, what, -4 penalties? (hope so, 'cause I made one Medium character wield a Gargantuan dagger as a greatsword :shifty:) You can take a stacking -2 to use a larger weapon with more hands. This isn't usually what people want when they ask if a Medium can use a Huge. A Huge Dagger (light) is a -2 Large One handed and a -4 Medium Two Handed. Not many people want a -4 Two Handed dealing 1d4->1d6->1d8? So you can't have a small using a "longsword" like Large weapon, it would be a Greatsword like that dealing 1d6 damage at -4 as a Two handed weapon. You can't use anything Gargantuan as a Medium using these rules.
jaelis 05-06-08, 01:29 PM	A Huge sunblade is the closest thing I know to what the OP wants. A medium creature could wield it in two hands with a -4 penalty. (Damage 3d8, almost the same as 4d6 for a huge greatsword.)
Bloodsoul 05-06-08, 08:24 PM	You can take a stacking -2 to use a larger weapon with more hands. This isn't usually what people want when they ask if a Medium can use a Huge. A Huge Dagger (light) is a -2 Large One handed and a -4 Medium Two Handed. Not many people want a -4 Two Handed dealing 1d4->1d6->1d8? So you can't have a small using a "longsword" like Large weapon, it would be a Greatsword like that dealing 1d6 damage at -4 as a Two handed weapon. You can't use anything Gargantuan as a Medium using these rules. Well, for clarification the table is on page 27 of the DMG, near the bottom of the list. So.. WotC contradicting itself? I think I'll just have to try and get it house ruled, then. I mean, so it's basically a greatsword with a -6 penalty. So what? Wielding a 7', 500+ lb. butcher knife just feels sooo good.
dirkformica 05-06-08, 08:48 PM	Titan Bloodline. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm#titan) Although I think that's Gargantuan Warhammer.
jaelis 05-06-08, 09:17 PM	Titan Bloodline. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm#titan) Although I think that's Gargantuan Warhammer. Assuming you scale it by size, this would let a Medium creature wield a Large warhammer in two hands, something they could already do. It would just take away the -2 penalty. (But you're right of course, as written it lets you wield a gargantuan warhammer no matter what size you are.)
Spikes01k 05-06-08, 11:23 PM	There is ONE way to pull it off. Have Powerful build, strong arm bracors, or monkey grip, and use the enlarge weapon spell, found in the complete scoundrel I think.
mplindustries 05-07-08, 02:10 AM	Well, for clarification the table is on page 27 of the DMG, near the bottom of the list. So.. WotC contradicting itself? I think I'll just have to try and get it house ruled, then. I mean, so it's basically a greatsword with a -6 penalty. So what? Wielding a 7', 500+ lb. butcher knife just feels sooo good. Why not just use a Greatsword and describe it like a 7', 500+ lb. butcher knife?
Bloodsoul 05-07-08, 01:51 PM	Because, at roughly those dimensions, it'd probably instill the same penalty? I mean, what's wrong with doing something just for flavor or fun? Maybe I'm just speshul. :P
mplindustries 05-07-08, 07:38 PM	Because, at roughly those dimensions, it'd probably instill the same penalty? I mean, what's wrong with doing something just for flavor or fun? :P Nothing is wrong with doing somethign for flavor/fun. However, it is not fun to get penalized by the rules for doing something that has 0 rules impact. The rules don't care what your "greatsword" looks like, or what name you give it. It only cares that its two-handed and deals 2d6 slashing damage with 19-20/x2 crit. Why penalize yourself unnecessarily when the flavor you want is easily attainable by just reflavoring existing material?
MethaneGranola 05-07-08, 10:13 PM	there is a magical sword ability in the arms and equipment guide (i know 3.0) called balanced that makes a big weapon count as 1 size smaller, i dont really know how well that translate to 3.5, but if its a magic sword, im sure your player will understand and that would stack with the monkey grip feat for a huge great sword at a -2 penalty
risner 05-08-08, 02:28 PM	There is ONE way to pull it off. Have Powerful build, strong arm bracors, or monkey grip, and use the enlarge weapon spell, found in the complete scoundrel I think. PB/SB/MG don't stack. If Enlarge Weapon works with PB, then maybe you have +2 size from that (Medium->Large->Huge) there is a magical sword ability in the arms and equipment guide (i know 3.0) called balanced that makes a big weapon count as 1 size smaller Considering the 3.5 rulings (like Oversized TWF) which does the same thing and explicitly (in errata) doesn't stack with PB/MG, this is unlikely to be allowed to stack by a reasonable DM.
Spikes01k 05-08-08, 04:16 PM	PB/SB/MG don't stack. If Enlarge Weapon works with PB, then maybe you have +2 size from that (Medium->Large->Huge) I said PB/SB/or MG, that gives you large, and enlarge weapon gives you huge.
The_Ditto 05-08-08, 09:06 PM	(Note to risner and The_Ditto - When answering a specific question of mine please next time post a answer related to the specifics of my question) Note to Ianten, welcome to the message boards, where we don't all have hoards of time to do your research for you ... next time you see a response that doesn't really apply, either completely ignore it, or politely point out the specifics that you wanted to emphasize. That being said, sorry for missing the emphasis on MEDIUM human ... but using Expansion means you ARE medium .. (before using it that is) ... so I believe I did answer your Specific question ... Oh well ... no loss, no harm in the result .. don't go making a big deal of it .. Cheers! :tiphat:
seventh_scroll 05-10-08, 11:47 AM	ENLARGE WEAPON Transmutation Level: Sorceror/Wizard 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 Standard Action Range: Touch Target: One touched melee weapon Duration: 1 round/level Saving Throw: Will negates(harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes(harmless, object) With a shriek of warping wood and scraping metal, your weapon grows, becoming far more intimidating. A melee weapon you hold enlarges by one size category(Small weapons become Medium, Medium weapons become Large, and so on). As its size increases, the damage the weapon deals increases as well(PH 114). When your weapon is affected by this spell, you do not take a penalty for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon. If you drop the enlarged weapon, are disarmed, or hand the weapon to another creature, the spell ends. This spell does not grant you the ability to wield any other inappropriately sized weapon without penalty, only the one on which this spell is cast. This spell has no effect on a weapon that is already increased in size by some other effect(such as being held by a creature affected by Enlarge Person). I'd say that this would work perfectly with Monkey Grip or Powerful build. I'm not sure how Strong Arm Bracers work, but I'm assuming they work in a similar fashion to the others. Monkey Grip is not a magical effect. It allows you, through special training, to wield an inappropriately sized weapon with reduced penalties. A large creature wielding a Large greatsword could use Enlarge Weapon to make it Huge for the spell's duration, so why couldn't a medium creature wielding the same weapon through non-magical means? On that note, if your NPC is a non-spellcaster, you can buy Oil of Enlarge Weapon. Using the DMG rules for pricing potions, a potion of a 2nd level spell with a caster level of 3 costs 300GP, and would last for 3 rounds. Oil of Extended Enlarge Weapon would be treated as a 3rd level spell with a caster level of 5th, for a cost of 750GP, and would last 10 rounds.
risner 05-12-08, 11:19 AM	I said PB/SB/or MG, that gives you large, and enlarge weapon gives you huge. "This spell has no effect on a weapon that is already increased in size by some other effect" Such as Powerful Build, Monkey Grip, etc. I still say it doesn't stack with PB/MG/SB.
Rebel7284 05-12-08, 05:12 PM	"This spell has no effect on a weapon that is already increased in size by some other effect" Such as Powerful Build, Monkey Grip, etc. I still say it doesn't stack with PB/MG/SB. O.o those effects don't enlarge a weapon, they just allow you to use a larger weapon. It works.
ClockworkRevenge 05-12-08, 05:37 PM	How can a medium human end up wielding a huge sized greatsword two-handed? Please note I do NOT wish to wield a huge greatsword in EACH hand. Rather, I wish for my PC to wield a huge greatsword with BOTH hands. What youre asking for cant be done in current DnD, as you define your request at least. Monkey grip would let you, at best, weild a large greatsword in both hands. And even if your DM let you havepowerfull build as a human, it doesnt stack with monkey grip, (This has been exstensivly covered in eratta, and sage advice, etc). So, to answer your qustion: A medium human cant weild a huge greatsword, not even two handed.
risner 05-12-08, 09:37 PM	O.o those effects don't enlarge a weapon, they just allow you to use a larger weapon. It works. Sigh Again, they will not stack with PB/MG/SB because you end up with two sizes larger.
mplindustries 05-13-08, 01:08 AM	It absolutely does work. Here's why: "A melee weapon you hold enlarges by one size category...When your weapon is affected by this spell, you do not take a penalty for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon." While no sane GM would allow the RAW reading here, it would technically allow you to wield any size weapon as long as you could hold it when you cast the spell. You could, by RAW (I am NOT advocating this, please don't allow RAW here), cast Enlarge Weapon on a Gargantuan Greatsword, which would then become Colossal. Henceforth, you could wield that weapon without suffering the penalties for an inappropriately sized weapon, even though you normally couldn't wield it at all.
Nezkrul 05-13-08, 10:44 AM	mp, a colossal sized greatsword takes more than two hands to wield. you cannot wield it. you are misinterpreting that spell.
mplindustries 05-13-08, 11:26 AM	mp, a colossal sized greatsword takes more than two hands to wield. you cannot wield it. you are misinterpreting that spell. The spell never talks about needing to be able to wield the weapon in the first place, you just need to hold it. I suppose it could come down to whether the increased number of hands needed qualifies as a "penalty."
Wheldrake 05-13-08, 01:43 PM	IMHO, the best you can do with monkey grip, powerful build and the like is use a weapon *one* size category larger. So a medium sized human can use one of those feats to use a *large* greatsword, but not a huge one. So I suggest giving the NPC a *large* greatsword, and everybody can call it huge, but in fact it'll be large: 3d6 base damage. Why isn't that big enough? Note: rereading the thread, I suppose this "Enlarge Weapon" spell would allow you to increase the weapon temporarily by one further size category, effectively enabling you to use a huge greatsword (4d6 base damage) Cheers, --- Wheldrake
Nezkrul 05-13-08, 08:56 PM	mp, the spell does not say "ignore the normal rules for wielding inapporpriately sized weapons" it says y ou get to ignore the normal penalty... when you look up the penalty it clearly defines itself as 1 size larger or smaller than normal = -2 and anything bigger/smaller is unwieldable.
risner 05-13-08, 09:46 PM	It absolutely does work. Here's why: "A melee weapon you hold enlarges by one size category...When your weapon is affected by this spell, you do not take a penalty for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon." It doesn't matter. If the spell is in effect on a Medium holding a Large Greatsword then you are now a Medium holding a Huge Greatsword and your "Medium->Large" effect from MB/PB/SB cease to function. Notice, that at no time did I say the spell doesn't increase the size of the weapon. It is just that you can no longer use it.
mplindustries 05-13-08, 11:28 PM	It doesn't matter. If the spell is in effect on a Medium holding a Large Greatsword then you are now a Medium holding a Huge Greatsword and your "Medium->Large" effect from MB/PB/SB cease to function. Notice, that at no time did I say the spell doesn't increase the size of the weapon. It is just that you can no longer use it. No, I agree that the medium -> large ability ceases to function. Monkey Grip/etc, is not helping at this point. Its all the spell. Enlarge Weapon doesn't care what size the weapon was/is/will be. It specifically says you can wield it without any penalty. Period.
Nezkrul 05-14-08, 10:08 AM	It specifically says you can wield it without any penalty. Period. No, it doesn't say that. You are completely wrong in that respect. See my post before this one.
LordTarmos 05-14-08, 02:11 PM	But it would be 15 ft. A Medium is 5 ft tall. A Huge Tall is 15 ft tall. A Medium Greatsword is 5 to 6 ft long. Therefore: A Huge Greatsword is 15 to 18 ft long. That should be the way it is however as stated in the arms and equipment guide increasing a weapons size category does not increase its reach only its weight.
risner 05-14-08, 11:45 PM	That should be the way it is however as stated in the arms and equipment guide increasing a weapons size category does not increase its reach only its weight. Reach != Size A&EG is 3.0 and anything related to the significantly changed weapon rules should be viewed with suspicion. Enlarge Weapon doesn't care what size the weapon was/is/will be. It specifically says you can wield it without any penalty. Period. Fine, but it only covers the penalty from Large -> Huge. But now that you can't use a Large any more (because you lost MG) you take penalties for the Medium -> Large shift.
mplindustries 05-14-08, 11:59 PM	mp, the spell does not say "ignore the normal rules for wielding inapporpriately sized weapons" it says y ou get to ignore the normal penalty... when you look up the penalty it clearly defines itself as 1 size larger or smaller than normal = -2 and anything bigger/smaller is unwieldable. I am continuously amused when people see my name with different spacing. Stuff like Mp Lindus Tries, or stuff like that. Its M.P.L. Industries, and its an incredibly old and childish joke that I will never reveal. Anyway, as I said, it comes down to what you consider a penalty. Anything bigger or smaller than one size, however, is not unwieldable. It requires more hands and imposes a cumulative -2 to attack rolls per size. So, the thing to consider, is the change in the amount of hands needed a "penalty?" Fine, but it only covers the penalty from Large -> Huge. But now that you can't use a Large any more (because you lost MG) you take penalties for the Medium -> Large shift. It says, however, "When your weapon is affected by this spell, you do not take a penalty for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon." It does not specify that it only covers one size change worth of penalties. It says, "you take no penalty." I am positive its not intended, but it would by RAW allow you to ignore all inappropriate size penalties. Meaning, that if the amount of "hands" needed is a penalty, you could wield a colossal weapon with no penalties, just by holding a gargantuan one and casting Enlarge Weapon on it.
Nezkrul 05-15-08, 08:58 PM	Inappropriately Sized Weapons A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies. The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all. emphasis mine, incase you missed this entire section before posting more than 2 sizes bigger than you = unwieldable, no matter what the weapon, unless you have MG, PB, or SAbracers. Again, Enarlge Weapon does not say you ignore the size limitation rules. Those are rules regarding wieldability, they are not a "penalty". Penalty refers to a varaiable modifier, in DnD. You will not see it in reference to anything else, AFAIK.
risner 05-15-08, 10:48 PM	I am positive its not intended, but it would by RAW allow you to ignore all inappropriate size penalties. I am positive that you no longer have MG and as such it is two sizes larger, so unless it is a light weapon, you can't use it with the spell.
Spikes01k 05-16-08, 05:27 PM	"This spell has no effect on a weapon that is already increased in size by some other effect" Such as Powerful Build, Monkey Grip, etc. I still say it doesn't stack with PB/MG/SB. WTF are you smoking??? Your not increasing the size of the weapon. It only talks about spells that increases it in size... So if you already have it as a size large weapon, you have an item that lets yo wield it. Then you have a spell that increases its size and lets you wield it with out negatives for the increase in size. I don't see any problem... In the end, really, increasing in size is only for role play and only at most increases the average damage by 2 to 3 points, which isn't that much really. So if you have a problem with this then you really have a problem with the way he wants to roleplay.
Spikes01k 05-16-08, 05:30 PM	It absolutely does work. Here's why: "A melee weapon you hold enlarges by one size category...When your weapon is affected by this spell, you do not take a penalty for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon." While no sane GM would allow the RAW reading here, it would technically allow you to wield any size weapon as long as you could hold it when you cast the spell. You could, by RAW (I am NOT advocating this, please don't allow RAW here), cast Enlarge Weapon on a Gargantuan Greatsword, which would then become Colossal. The logical and RAW of this is that you still have to deal with wielding with a Gargantuan weapon....
risner 05-17-08, 02:21 AM	WTF are you smoking??? Your not increasing the size of the weapon. Well, all I can say is we differ on the reading of the spell/effects.
Spikes01k 05-17-08, 06:20 AM	Well, all I can say is we differ on the reading of the spell/effects. I had a little more to say about it than just that. In the end, really, increasing in size is only for role play and only at most increases the average damage by 2 to 3 points, which isn't that much really. So if you have a problem with this then you really have a problem with the way he wants to roleplay.
risner 05-19-08, 09:09 AM	I had a little more to say about it than just that. Getting a benefit the rules try to prohibit isn't roleplaying.
Spikes01k 05-19-08, 01:47 PM	Getting a benefit the rules try to prohibit isn't roleplaying. Rules really have nothing to do with role playing.
Spikes01k 05-19-08, 03:39 PM	Hey Guys!! I just found this in the Errata for Complete Scoundrel Page 97 – Enlarge Weapon [Substitution] Remove “When your weapon is affected by this spell, you do not take a penalty for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon” and replace with, “The weapon can be wielded as a weapon of its original size.”
Nezkrul 05-19-08, 06:22 PM	hmm, still didn't change what I posted, but thanks :D
mplindustries 05-20-08, 03:32 AM	Hey Guys!! I just found this in the Errata for Complete Scoundrel Page 97 – Enlarge Weapon [Substitution] Remove “When your weapon is affected by this spell, you do not take a penalty for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon” and replace with, “The weapon can be wielded as a weapon of its original size.” Good enough for me. I was wrong about how it worked, obviously, since I had not seen the errata.
Nezkrul 05-20-08, 09:43 AM	sorry, this was a rude post. What I meant to say was, you didn't really defend your position after what I posted about light,one,2 handed weapon sizes; and that was before the poster above gave us the errata.
Terronus 05-20-08, 05:30 PM	If you are allowed Magic of Faerun (which is 3.0, but was officially updated and errata-ed) making a large weapon from alcehmical gold or platinum would give you the damage dice of huge weapon. And if the flavor you are seeking is wielding a massive meat cleaver, you lose none of it, since a large platinum greatsword would weigh roughly 75 pounds...
Nezkrul 05-20-08, 06:57 PM	hmm, not to mention extremely valuable (75lbs of platinum? wowsers!)
mplindustries 05-21-08, 12:46 AM	sorry, this was a rude post. What I meant to say was, you didn't really defend your position after what I posted about light,one,2 handed weapon sizes; and that was before the poster above gave us the errata. Well, I have to admit your post was rude and I ignored the second section of it after you went off about the increased hand requirement thing. Obviously my argument was premised on the increase in hand requirement being canceled by the spell as well. The penalty point was dead on, though. Honestly, I was just being bitter myself, using an expanded version of the definition of the word "penalty" as bait. It was spill over from the Nighstick discussions and people claiming that "bonus" can mean more than a modifier, so I decided, lets see what happens if "penalty" means more as well. I never really believed it worked that way, so I figured I'd just back away quietly, but here I am explaining.
DLoFunk 05-21-08, 01:37 AM	Lemme just see something. So if a human walks around with a Huge sized greatsword with Sizing enchantment to shrink it to Large, he could then wield it with Monkey Grip, right? If said human were to then be Enlarged then he could wield it at it's normal Huge size. Then the sword gets enlarged with Enlarge Weapon spell. What we're left with is a Large sized human wielding a Gargantuan Greatsword that doesn't become useless when he shrinks back to Medium, correct? I hope this works because I see fun times ahead for my Duskblade if it does! :plotting:
Bloodsoul 05-21-08, 09:47 AM	A running joke amongst friends was that, without some sort of resizing ability, how would your character with the giant sword enter a small building? :D
Nezkrul 05-21-08, 10:23 AM	DLoFunk: No, you can't wield it because at that point it would require more than 2 hands to use.
DLoFunk 05-21-08, 10:40 AM	Ok, i had seen you guys mention that before. Can someone point me towards those rules? Thanx Also it seems to me that that would be covered by the errata, wielding it as though it were still just huge.
Legdiwena 05-21-08, 10:57 AM	Epic feat wield oversized weapon would allow you to treat the huge weapon as large. My question is, would MG allow you to use it with a -2?
kalstrand 05-21-08, 08:59 PM	Either errata or Complete Warrior itself specifically says that Wield Oversize Weapon and Monkey Grip don't work together. It may disallow other features to wield bigger weapons, such as Powerful Build, as well but I don't have the actual text in front of me right now to check.
Nezkrul 05-21-08, 10:30 PM	DLo: check your PHB or DMG.
DLoFunk 05-21-08, 11:22 PM	Hmm... I'm not seeing the problem here. A medium human can wield a medium 2 handed weapon in two hands. Monkey Grip specifies that a weapon 1 size larger does not increase the hands needed to wield it. So... A medium human with Monkey Grip can wield a large 2 handed weapon in two hands. An enlarged (large) human can wield a large 2 handed weapon in two hands. An enlarged (large) human with Monkey Grip can wield a huge 2 handed weapon in two hands. Enlarge Weapon with errata specifies “The weapon can be wielded as a weapon of its original size.” Thus the huge 2 handed weapon enlarged to gargantuan is still wielded as though it were still huge. What part of this is incorrect? :confused:
mplindustries 05-21-08, 11:28 PM	Hmm... I'm not seeing the problem here. A medium human can wield a medium 2 handed weapon in two hands. Monkey Grip specifies that a weapon 1 size larger does not increase the hands needed to wield it. So... A medium human with Monkey Grip can wield a large 2 handed weapon in two hands. An enlarged (large) human can wield a large 2 handed weapon in two hands. An enlarged (large) human with Monkey Grip can wield a huge 2 handed weapon in two hands. Enlarge Weapon with errata specifies “The weapon can be wielded as a weapon of its original size.” Thus the huge 2 handed weapon enlarged to gargantuan is still wielded as though it were still huge. What part of this is incorrect? :confused: In theory, its all fine. However, Enlarge Weapon says, "This spell has no effect on a weapon that is already increased in size by some other effect(such as being held by a creature affected by Enlarge Person)." So, I'd go with that part as being incorrect.
DLoFunk 05-21-08, 11:47 PM	That's where the sizing ability comes into play. It's a Huge weapon to begin with that can be shrunk to large for when he's medium sized. Therefore Enlarge Weapon would make it grow from Huge to Gargantuan because it isn't under the effect of another spell or effect.
Nezkrul 05-22-08, 10:57 AM	sizing property = magical size changing effect = doesn't work
risner 05-22-08, 11:03 AM	That's where the sizing ability comes into play. It's a Huge weapon to begin with that can be shrunk to large for when he's medium sized. Therefore Enlarge Weapon would make it grow from Huge to Gargantuan because it isn't under the effect of another spell or effect. If it is Huge (reduced to Large) and increased to Gargantuan (reduced to Huge), then how is a Medium Human using it? Not to mention the fact it is under the effect of another effect (the shrink.)
DLoFunk 05-22-08, 02:15 PM	No, I'm talking about two different circumstances here. The blade is normally huge. When the wielder is medium then he uses the sizing to shrink it from huge to large thus allowing him to wield it with monkey grip. If the wielder wants to be large then he: 1. Turns off the sizing thus reverting the sword back to it's natural unmodified size of huge 2. Sets down the weapon 3. Enlarges himself 4. Picks up the sword 5. Uses Enlarge Weapon to increase the sword from huge to gargantuan. The blades sizing is not in effect when Enlarge Weapon is cast. It's only on there for when the wielder is medium. Enlarge Weapon doesn't care if the weapon has the "Potential" to change size, only that no sizing effects are active at the time.
Vasarto2021 05-22-08, 07:29 PM	What if the sword had the same ability as the sun sword? Its a bastard sword that gives the wearer the ability to use the sun sword as a short sword. It does bastard sword damage. Could it be possible to have two swords that have this ability that are greatswords? Im sure creating your own items is ok by the rules as long as its ok with the DM right?
_Chaz_ 05-22-08, 08:49 PM	Hey Guys!! I just found this in the Errata for Complete Scoundrel Page 97 – Enlarge Weapon [Substitution] Remove “When your weapon is affected by this spell, you do not take a penalty for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon” and replace with, “The weapon can be wielded as a weapon of its original size.” Human Size: medium Ability: To use a Large Greatsword two handed. Weapon's Original Size: Large Enlarge weapon is then cast on the Large Greatsword (used two handed by a medium creature with -2 to hit due to Monkey Grip, as an example). The Large Greatsword (used two handed by a medium creature with -2 to hit due to Monkey Grip, as an example) is now Huge, but can be used as if it were Large. This means the Huge Greatsword (originally Large), counts as a Large Greatsword in terms of being used in conjunction with a feat such as Monkey Grip. If you're Medium and have Monkey Grip you can wield a Large Greatsword two handed with -2 to hit. Was it really that hard?
Spikes01k 05-22-08, 09:47 PM	Human Size: medium Ability: To use a Large Greatsword two handed. Weapon's Original Size: Large Enlarge weapon is then cast on the Large Greatsword (used two handed by a medium creature with -2 to hit due to Monkey Grip, as an example). The Large Greatsword (used two handed by a medium creature with -2 to hit due to Monkey Grip, as an example) is now Huge, but can be used as if it were Large. This means the Huge Greatsword (originally Large), counts as a Large Greatsword in terms of being used in conjunction with a feat such as Monkey Grip. If you're Medium and have Monkey Grip you can wield a Large Greatsword two handed with -2 to hit. Was it really that hard? Yes that is correct.
Terronus 05-24-08, 03:40 PM	I'd also like to comment on DLoFunk's idea, and something everyone seems to have missed: He is using the sizing property to decrease the size of his weapon. Enlarge weapon says specifically "this spell has no effect on a weapon that is already INCREASED in size by some other effect". The weapon, in its natural state, is not increased in size at all. Did I miss something as well? PS. Although I strongly believe DLo's technique will work, it does have a certain amount of cheese to it. :)
Spikes01k 05-24-08, 03:42 PM	I PS. Although I strongly believe DLo's technique will work, it does have a certain amount of cheese to it. :) That is because it goes against RAI.
Terronus 05-24-08, 04:11 PM	I can respectfully withdraw based on RAI. I hope only that by discussing the matter a DM can rule, whether in favor or against it, reasonably considering balance and maintaining the rules. I feel the topic should recede anyways, having been covered so thoroughly in multiple threads... and we'll have to see if it will ever need to emerge again in 4E. :bow: best of luck.
Spikes01k 05-24-08, 05:41 PM	... and we'll have to see if it will ever need to emerge again in 4E. :bow: best of luck. Thanks, but I wont. Pathfinder for me.
risner 05-24-08, 07:56 PM	Thanks, but I wont. Pathfinder for me. /agree