Medium Two-handed Weapon can be used one-handed by Large PC's? Anyone familiar with this rule?

[magnusmalkus]

Like the subject says...

One of my players is asking me about his Large PC using a medium two-handed weapon, one-handed. Neither of us can find the rule but it sounds familiar to us both.

I did find this, which seems to COUNTER the idea that it can be done... but the quote does not specify if the penalty applies Upward or Downward, or due to a lack of specification as such, both ways.

[h=6]Inappropriately Sized Weapons[/h]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’tproficient 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.

 

[N'raac]

Like the subject says...

One of my players is asking me about his Large PC using a medium two-handed weapon, one-handed. Neither of us can find the rule but it sounds familiar to us both.

I did find this, which seems to COUNTER the idea that it can be done... but the quote does not specify if the penalty applies Upward or Downward, or due to a lack of specification as such, both ways.

[h=6]Inappropriately Sized Weapons[/h]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’tproficient 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 added - that suggest to me that a 2 handed weapon to a M character is 1 handed to a L character, but he would take a -2 penalty.

I also like the optional rule (I think it's in the DMG) that suggests a similar weapon with the damage of the other size's weapon substitutes freely. For example, a Small short sword does 1d4 damage, like a Medium dagger, so a Small Halfling could use a Medium Human's dagger as a short sword.

 

[the Jester]

Weapon size rules like you're talking about sound like the 3.0 version to me.

In 3.5, a Large dagger is a Large dagger, period; you always take the "wrong size" penalty. However, Monkey Grip... uh... does something to alleviate this?

IDHMBIFOM, because IAAMGFH.

EDIT: In all fairness, my 4e books are here, along with... I think Libris Mortis from 3e?... but those aren't going to help here.

 

[trancejeremy]

Like the subject says...

One of my players is asking me about his Large PC using a medium two-handed weapon, one-handed. Neither of us can find the rule but it sounds familiar to us both.

That's basically how it worked in 3.0.

Weapons had inherent sizes, like a long sword was (always) medium, a two-handed (or greatsword) sword was (always) large.

A medium creature could use a medium weapon in one hand, or a large weapon in two hands. But then large creatures could use large weapons in one hand.

Then in 3.5 for reasons I never understood, they made every single weapon come in different sizes for each creature. Like there were small sized longswords and two handed swords. If a medium sized creature wanted to use a small two-handed sword, then I guess that's when that rule you quote comes into play (as the released srd is 3.5).

 

[the Jester]

Then in 3.5 for reasons I never understood, they made every single weapon come in different sizes for each creature.

I think part of the reasoning is that an ogre's dagger wouldn't actually be a whole lot like a medium shortsword- its balance, the thickness of its hilt, etc would all be different.

 

[delericho]

Then in 3.5 for reasons I never understood, they made every single weapon come in different sizes for each creature.

It was so things like a "halfling quarterstaff" could easily be statted up - in 3.0e there are special versions of some weapons specifically for small users, and of course there are some weapons that scale pretty obviously ("halfling longsword" = "shortsword", etc), but there are quite a few that don't have any obvious analogues.

3.5e took the step to generalise the system - you could generate a Small Heavy Crossbow, Large Nunchaku, and everything in between.

At the time, this didn't seem unreasonable. With the benefit of hindsight, though, it's pretty clearly a mistake - it managed to cause a disproportionate amount of confusion for very little gain, and that gain could just as easily as been achieved with a single paragraph explaining how to resize weapons as needed.

 

[Vegepygmy]

With the benefit of hindsight, though, it's pretty clearly a mistake...

I have to disagree with you there. It's an entirely sensible rule, and the only people I've seen confused by it are the ones who remember that it used to work ridiculously differently.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I have to disagree with you there. It's an entirely sensible rule, and the only people I've seen confused by it are the ones who remember that it used to work ridiculously differently.

I mostly agree with Vege on this. The original 3.0 rules were very questionable to me because any race that's going to be crafting a weapon for itself is going to make a proper weapon designed to be used by something of its size, not some potentially unbalanced length of steel meant for something perhaps significantly larger or smaller. A large longsword is not a medium greatsword, and in a game where the rules were made to treat monsters and players the same way with certain things to hopefully streamline the design process of both, forcing a weapon system centered on medium creatures was total BS.

Perhaps it could have been said better and/or more succinctly, but analyzing the rules without extra baggage from other places like the previous edition does tend to make things easier. When I first started it was with 3.5, and it felt entirely natural that weapons be crafted specifically for certain sizes of monsters, but in a pinch they could be used by creatures of a different size provided the effort needed to wield the weapon didn't go out of whack like a medium creature trying to use a large 2h weapon.

Reach is another matter and one that could have been done better when certain rules changed the way weapon sizes compared to the characters and their own reach, but taking a step back and analyzing it from different angles (like RAW, RAI, and Read As Reasonable for a particular table) allows one to get a better idea of the totality of the weapons rules and come to more sound conclusions.


To hopefully finish off the OP's question: 3.5 allows a large creature to treat a medium 2-handed weapon as a large 1-handed weapon, with a -2 penalty on attack rolls due to balance and size issues. N'raac already quoted the relevant rules, although there are extra ones regarding reach and all that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think part of the reasoning is that an ogre's dagger wouldn't actually be a whole lot like a medium shortsword- its balance, the thickness of its hilt, etc would all be different.

I am one who was initially disappointed with the change to weapon size rules between 3Ed and 3.5Ed. Then I saw something that made me realize the 3.5Ed rules were dead on.

Among other blades, I own a skean dhu and a letter-opener that is an accurate scale replica of a basket-hilted longsword in a museum. They are the exact same length. In 3Ed, they'd be the same...and they're actually anything but.

The skean dhu's blade takes up half of its length, and is nearly 1" wide at its base. In comparison, the letter-opener's blade takes up @ 7/8th of its length, and the blade is only 1/4" across.

The hilt of the skean dhu is equally large, as big around as a sizeable dowel or pipe. The letter-opener is most easily gripped between the thumb and 2 fingers.

In short, someone trying to use the "longsword" like a dagger- as per 3Ed's rules- would find his hand enveloping the blade and cutting his hand badly.

Meanwhile, a pixie trying to use my skean dhu would look like he was fighting with a sawed-off caber, not a graceful saber.

 

[delericho]

Among other blades, I own a skean dhu and a letter-opener that is an accurate scale replica of a basket-hilted longsword in a museum. They are the exact same length. In 3Ed, they'd be the same...and they're actually anything but.

...

In short, someone trying to use the "longsword" like a dagger- as per 3Ed's rules- would find his hand enveloping the blade and cutting his hand badly.

Meanwhile, a pixie trying to use my skean dhu would look like he was fighting with a sawed-off caber, not a graceful saber.

Realistically, your theoretical pixie using the letter opener (or a proper sword at the same size) wouldn't be able to do so as a slashing weapon, especially against human-sized opponents, and especially against an armoured foe. Such weapons depend heavily on momentum, and the much-reduced mass of the smaller weapon, coupled with the shorter length (reducing the velocity of the bit of the blade that hits), would render it ineffective. The pixie would be better off with a different weapon entirely - probably the needle-like rapier that they're usually depicted using.

It's also worth noting that the scaling rules only apply to weapons, and only to certain aspects of weapons as well: a Small longbow by rights should have a lower range than a Medium one, but this isn't done. Likewise full plate armour sized for a halfling would need to use thinner plates, and consequently should given lesser protection (and the reverse for ogre-sized full plate).

As a theoretical matter, I can certainly appreciate the nod to realism that the weapon scaling rules in 3.5e give. But in practice, I've just found that they cause far more trouble than they're worth. YMMV, of course.