I was taught that the drawbacks of using an oversized weapon were -4 to hit. After getting back from a game in which my barbarian used a large greataxe to great effect, I was looking at the page for an unrelated character, and saw that I had both short-changed myself and completely broken the rules; the penalty should only have been -2, except for the fact that I couldn't even use it because the weapon was too big (for someone 800 pounds heavy, 7 feet tall, and with a 22 strength. Seems odd, that).
So I went back and checked 3.5. Same thing.
Please, tell me it was correct during 3.0. Or 2.0. Or was the guy who taught me D&D completely full of it on this point?
I was taught that the drawbacks of using an oversized weapon were -4 to hit. After getting back from a game in which my barbarian used a large greataxe to great effect, I was looking at the page for an unrelated character, and saw that I had both short-changed myself and completely broken the rules; the penalty should only have been -2, except for the fact that I couldn't even use it because the weapon was too big (for someone 800 pounds heavy, 7 feet tall, and with a 22 strength. Seems odd, that).
So I went back and checked 3.5. Same thing.
Please, tell me it was correct during 3.0. Or 2.0. Or was the guy who taught me D&D completely full of it on this point?
You can use a one handed weapon for a large creature in two hands, but you can't use a two-handed weapon for a large sized creature at all without monkey grip or some other special ability.
If he allowed you to used a two handed weapon for a large sized creature then he was wrong.In his defense sometimes DM's use houserules so long we get them confused with the real rules.
First off, by the rules, you are Large sized by a few definitions. Medium covers 4-8 ft., so you are small there, but at 800 lbs, you are clearly in Large weight class.
Consider a lion, a Large creature. Average weight, 330-550 lbs for males. Average length, 5'7" to 8'2".
You are bigger than a lion. That's why this probably doesn't make sense.
Monkey Grip in 3.0 was a feat that allowed you to wield a two handed weapon in one hand at a -2 penalty. So if you took the -2 penalty for Monkey grip and the -2 penalty for size difference, you could wield a Large greataxe (which you treat now as a Large one-handed weapon) in two hands.
First off, by the rules, you are Large sized by a few definitions. Medium covers 4-8 ft., so you are small there, but at 800 lbs, you are clearly in Large weight class.
Consider a lion, a Large creature. Average weight, 330-550 lbs for males. Average length, 5'7" to 8'2".
You are bigger than a lion. That's why this probably doesn't make sense.
Monkey Grip in 3.0 was a feat that allowed you to wield a two handed weapon in one hand at a -2 penalty. So if you took the -2 penalty for Monkey grip and the -2 penalty for size difference, you could wield a Large greataxe (which you treat now as a Large one-handed weapon) in two hands.
Just a note, those are generalizations and wouldn't modify a listed statistic (IE if you are a half orc who is listed as Medium sized and are outside the parameters of the link, you are still medium). Just one of those things where the balance of the mechanics and the perception of what should be/fluff are off.
I was taught that the drawbacks of using an oversized weapon were -4 to hit. After getting back from a game in which my barbarian used a large greataxe to great effect, I was looking at the page for an unrelated character, and saw that I had both short-changed myself and completely broken the rules; the penalty should only have been -2, except for the fact that I couldn't even use it because the weapon was too big (for someone 800 pounds heavy, 7 feet tall, and with a 22 strength. Seems odd, that).
So I went back and checked 3.5. Same thing.
Please, tell me it was correct during 3.0. Or 2.0. Or was the guy who taught me D&D completely full of it on this point?
When you started using too large of weapons? ;) [note: that is a joke]
Just a note, those are generalizations and wouldn't modify a listed statistic (IE if you are a half orc who is listed as Medium sized and are outside the parameters of the link, you are still medium). Just one of those things where the balance of the mechanics and the perception of what should be/fluff are off.First off, by the rules, you are Large sized by a few definitions. Medium covers 4-8 ft., so you are small there, but at 800 lbs, you are clearly in Large weight class.
To an extent. The height and volume of a creature is more important to the size category than the weight, because size categories dictate combat areas, not mass.
However, I disagree with you in saying that they don't modify a listed statistic. If you are a half-orc and fifteen feet tall, you ARE Large or Huge sized, not Medium. As a result, someone who wants to make a Medium sized character should understand the dimensions involved before they list an extreme measurement.
And for something like our eight hundred pound, seven foot tall, stronger than an ogre brute, I'm simply pointing out that because he is so massive and close to the Large size category (larger than things in the Large size category), somethings will not 'make sense', like a greataxe sized for a eight foot tall, six hundred pound, 19 strength minotaur, being "too big" for his puny Medium sized hands.
He's more like a giant dwarf then whatever race this is supposed to be. This character has a BMI of 79.7. Granted the BMI should be used that way but seriously something seems very off about this character.
What race is it? What edition was it made in?
.... Could you use oversized weapons in 2e? I though that all depended on strength ratings and such. My memory is a bit hazy on that point as no one in my group ever used giant weapons during that edition.
*edit*
While volume of creature can be important don't forget that the spacing in game represents how much space it needs to fight effectively. A Human let alone a Halfling doesn't fill a 5 ft. square. Such a massive creature while short could still need a 10 ft. square to actually be able to effectively maneuver its bulk.
Half-giants have powerful build, which gets around this. Just sayin.
Fluff and crunch are two separate things. You can go ahead and describe your character as whatever the heck you want- you could make a gnome and mark off on his character sheet that he's 40 feet tall if you wanted. Would that give him any sort of mechanical bonus whatsoever? Of course not. Unless your DM specifically allows you to do something the rules don't allow you to do, you can't do it. It doesn't matter how big you describe your orc as being, he must follow the rules unless the DM says otherwise. D&D is not a realism simulator- at some point, you have to accept that just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean that it should have a rule associated with it.
Fluff and crunch are two separate things. You can go ahead and describe your character as whatever the heck you want- you could make a gnome and mark off on his character sheet that he's 40 feet tall if you wanted. Would that give him any sort of mechanical bonus whatsoever? Of course not. Unless your DM specifically allows you to do something the rules don't allow you to do, you can't do it. It doesn't matter how big you describe your orc as being, he must follow the rules unless the DM says otherwise. D&D is not a realism simulator- at some point, you have to accept that just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean that it should have a rule associated with it.
No, I completely disagree. You -can't- describe a gnome as 40 ft. tall and then be all, "Oh, he's still Small sized". You are approaching this from the "You can dictate flavor, but you can't change the mechanics". I'm saying that because you can't change the mechanics (without DM permission), you can't have the 40 ft. tall gnome flavor. The game gives height and weight guidelines for the race, and ranges for the size category for a reason.
It might not be a realism simulator, but there are elements of reality simulated within it.
However, we agree that ultimately it doesn't matter about the making sense, he still can't wield the weapon. (Without feats and penalties.) I'm simply pointing out WHY it doesn't make sense...his PC is running right up against the limitations of Medium size.
No, I completely disagree. You -can't- describe a gnome as 40 ft. tall and then be all, "Oh, he's still Small sized". You are approaching this from the "You can dictate flavor, but you can't change the mechanics". I'm saying that because you can't change the mechanics (without DM permission), you can't have the 40 ft. tall gnome flavor. The game gives height and weight guidelines for the race, and ranges for the size category for a reason.
I was exaggerating, of course (as I'm sure you knew), but my point is that the topic creator seems to be approaching this with the assumption, "Medium creatures can be up to eight feet tall. My character is more than eight feel tall, and therefore I must not be medium." When really, it should be approached instead with the assumption, "Medium creatures can be up to eight feet tall. My character is medium, therefore I must not be more than eight feet tall." The game indeed gives height and weight guidelines for a reason, but the mechanics (in this case, medium size) should be given higher priority than the fluff.
But, yes, we can both agree that the TC's character should not be able to wield a bigger weapon without penalty without paying for it somehow.
I was exaggerating, of course (as I'm sure you knew), but my point is that the topic creator seems to be approaching this with the assumption, "Medium creatures can be up to eight feet tall. My character is more than eight feel tall, and therefore I must not be medium." When really, it should be approached instead with the assumption, "Medium creatures can be up to eight feet tall. My character is medium, therefore I must not be more than eight feet tall." The game indeed gives height and weight guidelines for a reason, but the mechanics (in this case, medium size) should be given higher priority than the fluff.But, yes, we can both agree that the TC's character should not be able to wield a bigger weapon without penalty without paying for it somehow.
Well, he's not over 8 ft. tall. He's just a huge 7 ft. tall character. Bigger than a lion. Bigger in many ways than a minotaur. I don't think he realized how close to Large size he is in his dimensions, which is why things didn't make sense. We're of one accord that despite that discrepancy, mechanics will need to take priority here. (Unless he's given permission otherwise by the DM.)
Well, he's not over 8 ft. tall. He's just a huge 7 ft. tall character.
My mistake- I mis-remembered a previous post. My point still stands, though. If he's no longer in the parameters of a medium character, that doesn't mean he's not a medium character, it means he needs to change his parameters to fit that of a medium character.