Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Belzbet" data-source="post: 5676206" data-attributes="member: 6678902">Yeah I know it says you can weild a weapon one size category larger with no penalty. The point of contention (with many WoTC writings) is if what it says is exhaustive in terms of the benefits (meaning whether what is written is the only plausible benefit's received). Is the clause about weapons something IMPLIED by the ability or is it a DESCRIPTION of the ability (in one sense it is a descritpion but is it a exhaustive description)? The ability makes it so a creature is effectively ONE SIZE CATEGORY LARGER (for SOME things). One of those things is weapons. So, it seems that the ability makes you one size category larger with respect to weapons (and something IMPLIED by that is that you can use larger weapons with no penalty). But, I do see that one should NOT add in benefits to abilities. But this one seems reasonable. Lets not consider weapons with reach (since those are odd shaped and hard to invision a person weilding in one hand). A goliath can use a large longsword in one hand AND a medium Greatsword. Those are presumably the same size why wouldnt the goliath be able to weild a medium greatsword in one hand (while amybe taking a penalty)? The question is more about the penalty. I will let the character wield a medium Greatsword in one hand (no problem) I am just wondering if you guys think there should be a penalty? I mean if a human REALLY wanted to try and wield a medium Greatsword in one hand I would let them (they would just receive a large penalty for doing so). Its not like ITS IMPOSSIBLE for a human to wield a medium greatsword in one hand (they would just not weild it very good).</blockquote>

Verification