Can a medium four armed creature, without feats and magic, weild a large or huge weapon?

[SorrySleeping]

So, normally a medium creature can not wield a Large two-handed weapon. He can wield a Large one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. This thread is not about that second option.

Can a medium creature that gets no other bonuses, wield a large or bigger two-handed weapon, if he has four arms?

[Saethori]

Weapons wrote:

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. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. 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.

The rules were not written with four-armed PCs in mind at all, so your GM may choose to rule otherwise (it seems okay to wield a Large two-handed Greatsword with four arms to me), but the rules are crystal clear on the subject.

[Kazaan]

By default, no. Remember, it's more about leverage than it is about shear weight. Even if you were to wield a Large Greatsword with four hands, how would you swing it? The additional hands on the hilt would interfere with your swings more than they would assist. Mechanically speaking, the best you could probably do as a four-armed creature would be to wield a properly sized two-handed weapon for adjacent foes, and also a two-handed reach weapon. That way, you threaten both at reach as well as adjacent. You don't even need TWF for it; just stick to your iterative attacks.

[lemeres]

Also, there is a problem of grip.

Basically- a huge sized weapon is made for huge sized hands. So while while you can wrap your fingers around that ax shaft when it is made for you... for a huge sized creature, their ax shaft would be as thick as a telephone pole.

You can't properly wrap your fingers around that. You can't get a proper grip for weapon use, no matter how many hands you have. I suppose you could think of your arms as fingers... but then your whole body would be a hand without any arm to swing it.

[Khudzlin]

@Kazaan I'm not even sure you can wield a two-handed weapon with 2 off hands (you have only 1 primary hand, all the others are off hands).

[Kazaan]

Khudzlin wrote:

@Kazaan I'm not even sure you can wield a two-handed weapon with 2 off hands (you have only 1 primary hand, all the others are off hands).

There's a lot of debate on that, but it only matters if you're using TWF rules. If you aren't declaring an off-hand to get extra attacks above and beyond your iteratives, then it isn't TWF (or MWF in the case of a 3+ armed creature). For example, if you have three iterative attacks (+11/+6/+1) and two weapons available (even if those are two 2-h weapons on a four-armed creature), you can make your three attacks with any weapon to hand. That could be all three with one weapon, all three with the other, or two with one and one with the other. So a four-armed creature wielding a Halberd and a Greatsword could make their iterative attacks without using TWF with any combination of their two weapons (three, technically, because they always have Unarmed Strike available). If you do want to use MWF, to avoid unnecessary debate, it's probably best to use a 2-h weapon and a pair of light weapons.