Using an inappropriately sized weapon confers a penalty to hit, as follows:

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.

I know that the Titan Mauler's Massive Grip ability reduces that penalty by 1 for every 3 levels.

Are there any other traits, feats, or class abilities that can reduce the penalty to hit from an inappropriately sized weapon?

  • \$\begingroup\$ For what it's worth, Titan Mauler is a horribly broken (in the "doesn't work" sense) archetype that does the exact opposite of what it's supposed to. \$\endgroup\$
    – Bobson
    Jul 6, 2014 at 16:57

3 Answers 3


Tieflings can get a variant heritage that allows you to use Large weapons:

16 - You have over-sized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty.

There is a bit of debate on whether or not you need the Fiendish Heritage feat, but the answer seems to be "most likely no, but talk with your GM".

  • \$\begingroup\$ The rules look pretty clear to me, though I do think they’re pretty stupid: either your DM can let you have these things for free, or if he doesn’t let you, you can take the feat and then he’s “supposed” to let you (except of course that he’s the DM and he can still not let you so why does this rule even exist?) And it gives DMs absolutely no guidance as to whether these things should be worth a feat and thus have that cost, which is just headache-inducing. Anyway, for any DMs reading this: ability 16 is absolutely not in any way worth a feat. Replacing a racial feature, sure. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jan 16, 2014 at 18:43

Only using Paizo published material:

Take a look at the Titan Fighter fighter archetype. It has the ability to use oversized 2H weapons (even Titan Mauler Barbarian Archetype can't do this) with a total -4 to hit that gets reduced incrementally to -0 by 15th level.

Also consider the spell/potion Enlarge Person. Great link to explain size changes (in the sidebar).

And there's also the Impact enchantment (+2 bonus) that increases the damage 1 size larger...

Ok, so lets use a Greatsword as the example...

  • greatsword designed for M creature 2d6, 8 lbs., 50 gp cost.

  • greatsword designed for L creature 3d6, 16 lbs., 100 gp cost.

  • greatsword designed for H creature 4d6, 32 lbs., 200 gp cost.

  • greatsword designed for G creature 6d6, 64 lbs., 400 gp cost.

So you're playing a M creature, Titan Fighter and wielding a 3d6 oversized greatsword. You then Enlarge Person and you're now L, you're greatsword is now H and deals 4d6. Then you get a Large magical Greatsword +1 Impact and you're dealing Gargantuan sized greatsword damage: 6d6.


  • anything that increases your to hit is worthwhile. (weapon focus, etc)

  • vital strike for double weapon dice, improved vital strike for triple weapon dice, greater vital strike for quadruple weapon dice ("but then I only get 1 attack!" yeah, don't miss and take Power-Attack, Cleave, Cleaving Finish --> you can't vital-strike/cleave but you're probably killing whatever you hit with your big vital strike and cleaving finish works with that.

  • if you decide to multi-class to be self-sufficient on the Enlarge Persons, consider Vivisectionist Alchemist archetype for potions, +STR mutagen and sneak attack... also take the "Accelerated Drinker" Combat trait to be able to drink a potion as a move instead of a standard.


Yes, I know of two feats that are found in the D&D 3.5 book Complete Warrior. I am going to assume they are also okay to use in Pathfinder.

Monkey Grip:

You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change. For instance, a Large longsword (a one-handed weapon for a Large creature) is considered a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat. For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered a one-handed weapon. You can wield a larger light weapon as a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands. You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand, and you cannot use this feat with a double weapon.

Wield Oversized Weapon:

You can treat any weapon as if it were one size category smaller than normal and one category "lighter" for the purpose of determining the amount of effort it takes to wield. For instance, a halfl ing with this feat could wield a Medium short sword as a Small light weapon, or a human could wield an ogre's Large greatclub as a Medium twohanded weapon. The weapon still deals its normal amount of damage.

I can't find the link right now - but these two feats do not stack so you have to choose which you want to apply.

Other than these two feats, I found that there have been multiple queries similar to yours about using oversized weapons in Pathfinder, and all of those have turned up with negative replies or suggestions to just use the two feats I posted above. There was one person who designed two feats but they aren't official. Officially Pathfinder does not have any feats directly dealing with this, but you should consult your DM if you plan to use content from D&D 3.0/3.5 or homebrew.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Actually, these two do stack. You treat a Huge Two-handed weapon as a Large One-handed weapon, and then you can wield a Large weapon at a -2 penalty, so all that checks out. The real problem is A. 3.5 material is not available by default in Pathfinder, so that’s quite an assumption, and B. Monkey Grip appears to be more-or-less the default in Pathfinder, as the inappropriately-sized weapon property is -2, the same as Monkey Grip gives. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jan 16, 2014 at 16:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan According to the link: "This feat subsumes the effects of the Monkey Grip feat. The feats' effects do not stack." \$\endgroup\$
    – MrLemon
    Jul 1, 2014 at 8:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MrLemon Ah, I thought the quote Inbar had offered was complete. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jul 1, 2014 at 11:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .