Small sized weapons on medium creatures

[CromoftheBloodhammer]

Can a medium creature wield a small sized weapon one handed? Like, a small sized greataxe in one hand.

[CromoftheBloodhammer]

This is just a general interest question. I think in that case you would need exotic weapon proficiency.

[Jeraa]

CromoftheBloodhammer wrote:

Can a medium creature wield a small sized weapon one handed? Like, a small sized greataxe in one hand.

Yes. A medium creature can wield a weapon designed for a small creature. You do take a -2 penalty on attack rolls for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon, however.

And no additional proficiency feat is needed.

Quote:

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.

[iLaifire]

I've always treated it as whether it seamed reasonable to. If there is a comparable weapon in the appropriate size then I say they can use it without any penalty. For example a medium sized dagger does 1d4 damage, while a small sized short sword also does 1d4. I would treat a medium short spear and a small spear the same (though these two have diffirent crit modifiers and I'm not sure why).

[Ravingdork]

I wouldn't ignore the penalty even with similar weapons. If nothing else, the balance is likely to be totally different.

[iLaifire]

Ravingdork wrote:

I wouldn't ignore the penalty even with similar weapons. If nothing else, the balance is likely to be totally different.

Depends on the type of weapon. Both short swords and daggers have their weight in the pommel as they are more piercing weapons and that gives them better tip control. The other thing it depends on is the "type" of weapon, as most of the weapons represent a general group of weapons instead of an actual historic weapon therefore two seperate "daggers" can be completely different (the classic image of a foot long double edged blade with an overall cross shape and a foot long single edged sax for example). Throw in the fact that each person has a different "ideal" length and balance (all the people I know who do sword fighting do point of sword to end of pommel as the height from the ground to their belly button). Seeing as D&D doesn't take any of these weapon differences in size/weight into account I don't see a reason to force a medium sized character proficient with a dagger to take a -2 penalty when using a small short sword as a dagger (unless they decide to throw it in which case I might consider it).

[Jeraa]

Its not just balance, but the the handle/haft size too. A weapon designed for a small-sized wielder will probably have a grip that is too small/short to be comfortably held by a medium-sized user.

Likewise, a medium-sized weapons may have a handle too big/thick to comfortably be held by a small-sized creature.

[iLaifire]

Jeraa wrote:

Its not just balance, but the the handle/haft size too. A weapon designed for a small-sized wielder will probably have a grip that is too small/short to be comfortably held by a medium-sized user.

Likewise, a medium-sized weapons may have a handle too big/thick to comfortably be held by a small-sized creature.

I was indirectly counting that in to the "'ideal' length and balance". I've seen people use everything from 3/4" to 1.5" diameter grips on their swords. And it also depends on the weapon. A spear for example will have no differences (the whole length of the shaft is the "handle" so there won't be a problem from not having enough room for one or two hands, the thickness is more determined by the type of wood and the length as if it is too thin for the length it will easily snap).

Plus the size differences inside each category is greater then the size difference between categories. The tallest gnome is 3' 8" (he is a small character), only an inch shorter then the shortest dwarf at 3' 9" (she is a medium character), meanwhile the tallest half orc is 6' 10" (at 182% taller then the shortest dwarf is still a medium character). The shortest halfling is only 2' 8" (making the female dwarf only 141% taller then the halfling) so the size difference between the shortest small creature and the shortest medium creature is smaller then the size difference between the shortest and tallest medium creature.
NOTE: while size is not only height but also bulkiness/width, I am ignoring that for this subject because based on the illustrations of the PC races all their body types are within existing human proportions.

So, yes, RAW says they need to take a penalty. I've never been in favour of play with strict adherence to RAW, especially when encountering situation where RAW makes no sense as in the examples above. I think the rule change I hate the *most* between any of the editions is that in older editions (I want to say 2E was the last one that had it) it was explicitly stated that these were guidelines to cover the majority of situations and everything was in the end DM's discretion.