Author: pandaniel
Oversized weapons are often found in popular fiction, like Cloud’s Buster Sword from Final Fantasy VII, Guts’ Dragon Slayer in Berserk, or even the giant’s sword Beowulf nabbed from Grendel’s mother to kill her. In D&D 5E, oversized weapons (as described in the Dungeon Master’s Guide pg. 277) are weapons with a greater amount of damage dice compared to the usual size in which they are found.
Today, we will explain the ins and outs of these weapons: how they can be found, used, and whether they should be a part of your game.
The Nitty-Gritty
The exact details given about these weapons are the following:
Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it’s Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it’s Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12.
A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.Dungeon Master's Guide (p. 277)
We can see here that big monsters, like giants, can roam around with manufactured weapons appropriate to their size, or simply oversized weapons. We are also told that monsters deal damage appropriate to their weapon, which can potentially be oversized. A weapon of appropriate size to a creature larger than Medium does more damage than usual.
| Size | Tiny, Small, or Medium | Large | Huge | Gargantuan |
| Damage | Base Weapon Damage (BWD) | 2*[BWD] | 3*[BWD] | 4*[BWD] |
If the weapon is sized for someone of a bigger size than the user, the user has disadvantage on attack rolls with it. The passage also points out that a DM can possibly disallow usage of weapons meant for creatures two sizes larger or more.
As a final note, the rules lack any information on the weight of oversized weapons. You might first think of the square–cube law, which would make weapons and such 8 times heavier for a Large creature than a Medium creature, becoming only more nonsensical the bigger the creature is, which in the end makes Huge creatures unable to carry their gear. The only reasonable way to go about it in game’s abstractions seems to be by approximating how much they weigh by looking at the carrying capacity of larger creatures and keeping the ratio of weight to carrying capacity consistent. As a reminder, the carrying capacity doubles for each size above Medium (Player’s Handbook (p. 176)).
What is a Monster?
While the previously mentioned rules only state that big monsters wield oversized weapons, not that these weapons work differently depending on who wields them, you may still wonder: what is a monster? Luckily enough, the Monster Manual explains this in a very understandable way.
A creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed is thus a monster. This includes but is not limited to player characters.
Are They Worth Using?
Oversized weapons might be appealing to use for some. The question then is whether you are better off using them than just regular weapons.
While we won’t do a deep dive on this today, we will show that you cannot simply pick up oversized weapons to increase the damage of your builds.
For this purpose, we will compare level 5 builds (if you would like to spend some time interpreting spreadsheets, you can check our math here). First we will look at Barbarian, the most damaging melee martial, and compare two Custom Lineage builds. One picks Crusher as their racial starting feat, uses an oversized maul intended for Large creatures, and brings their Strength to 20 at level 4. The other picks Polearm Master as their racial feat and chooses Great Weapon Master at level 4, leaving their Strength at 16. This comparison is made with both of them continuously using Reckless Attack, without Rage. The former does 28 damage per round, while the latter does 32. We have chosen to go with a maul for the oversized weapon user, as this simply does more damage than going for Polearm Master too. Great Weapon Master would actually decrease our damage per round, as you are more likely to miss out on bigger damage.
The second comparison is two generic ranged characters that are both Custom Lineage and make use of Crossbow Expert and hand crossbows. The normal weapon user picks Sharpshooter at level 4, whereas the oversized weapon user picks up +2 Dexterity at level 4, skipping Sharpshooter for the same reason as the Barbarian that skips Great Weapon Master. In reality, Sharpshooter is probably still worth picking up for the benefits outside of damage, but for these purposes we consider only trying to maximize damage in situations where cover and range are not important factors. The oversized weapon user does on average 19 damage per round, whereas the normal weapon user does 23. Again the oversized weapon user is beaten.
Thus, in situations where your character is Medium or smaller, it is not worth using an oversized weapon. However…
Large (and Larger) Player Characters
By default, any player character is of Medium or Small size. However, some game features allow them to grow or shrink in size. The former would allow them to use certain oversized weapons without disadvantage.
There are two specific features we would like to comment on: the enlarge/reduce spell, and the Rune Knight’s Giant’s Might subclass feature. There are of course other ways to increase your size, but they are generally not as practical or accessible. As a disclaimer, we consider both of these interpretations as Rules As Written, but it is also true that you may encounter either a lack of knowledge of the oversized weapons rules at some tables, or deliberate house-ruling at others. Later in the article, we will discuss whether or not we believe you should be considering any house rules on oversized weapons.
Enlarge/Reduce
Enlarge/reduce has two options as the name would suggest. Today we will be mainly focusing on the large option. Specifically this passage:
The first sentence is clear as day. The second sentence says a weapon stays appropriately sized to the creature (match its new size) if it was already, for example a creature going from Medium to Large has their weapon transformed to a weapon appropriately sized for Large creatures, thus making it an oversized weapon. Following from that, you would follow the usual damage dice rules for oversized weapons, and do an additional 1d4 damage.
Giant’s Might (Rune Knight)
Giant’s Might, one of two level 3 Rune Knight features, allows a creature to become Large in addition to a small damage increase. We are interested in the following two benefits:
Once on each of your turns, one of your attacks with a weapon or an unarmed strike can deal an extra 1d6 damage to a target on a hit.Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (p. 44)
This works almost exactly the same way as enlarge/reduce described above. The difference here is that this cannot make you bigger than Large, and you can only deal the extra damage once per turn.
As an additional note, you certainly can combine both of these features by first becoming Large using Giant’s Might, and then being enlarged through enlarge/reduce.
Are They Overpowered?
To answer this question we will first compare characters that use oversized weapons with other damage dealers at level 5. The oversized weapon users we have looked at for this are all Custom Lineage Rune Knights with the following key differences:
- Fighter A picks the Great Weapon Fighting Fighting Style, starts with Crusher and chooses +2 Strength at level 4 for their first Ability Score Improvement. Fighter A will use a maul at all times.
- Fighter B picks the Great Weapon Fighting style, and takes Crusher and Polearm Master. Usually they will use a glaive, except on the turn they use Giant’s Might, in which they will use a maul.
- Lastly, Fighter C goes with the Archery Fighting Style, and picks up Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. Fighter C will use a hand crossbow, except on the turn they need to use Giant’s Might, in which they will use a heavy crossbow.
These builds were the most damaging melee and ranged oversized weapon builds at level 5 that we could come up with in the scope of this article. Their competitors will be our Basic Build Fighter wielding the trusty hand crossbow and the prior mentioned Custom Lineage Barbarian using a glaive with Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master.
These calculations have been made with the same assumptions as our Basic Build Fighter, which is on average 8 combat encounters per day taking on average 4 rounds and 2 short rests. At level 5, Fighter A (Maul) does on average 29 damage per round, Fighter B (Glaive) does 31, and Fighter C (Ranged) does 29. As shown before, the subclass-less Barbarian, without using Rage, does 32 damage per round on average while using Reckless Attack on every attack. Finally, the Basic Build Fighter does an average of 30 damage per round.
Before level 5, the Rune Knight Fighters are very close to their competitors. After level 5, the Rune Knight Fighters may or may not pull ahead of other martials depending on how optimized they are. This waxes and wanes, but is never oppressive, as they’ll be staying within a ~30% increase over our non-multiclassed Basic Build Fighter, following some math approximations. Something not taken into account here is that Rune Knight Fighters suffer from bonus action clog, meaning that with their runes, they won’t always be able to use their weapons as part of their bonus action.
Overall, an oversized weapon user won’t be overshadowing other well built martial builds, but their increased damage output certainly matters. This is especially true because you have to be in melee to make best use out of them, which is generally weaker than being at range, where the enemies are less threatening. In later levels, where they might pull ahead a bit, they are not competing with others martials, but spellcasters casting spells such as animate objects, upcast conjure animals, and multiple short rest based castings of synaptic static for Warlocks. All in all, from a balance standpoint oversized weapons are not a bad addition to the game.
While it is balanced, it does change the metagame in that it becomes optimal to carry around an oversized weapon. When advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out—for example due to both attacker and target being unseen in a fog cloud—it is better to attack with an oversized weapon than a regular one. For spellcasters this usually adds around 1 to 2 extra damage per attack, whereas for other characters it might add a couple more points. This is obviously not too big of a deal, but could be jarring to some. However, comparing it with the immersion of the generic ‘can’t see each other’ scenario, oversized weapons are not the worst offender here. Additionally, in situations where you already have disadvantage, or when you are up against enemies with a low armor class, and want to spend your action economy to attack, it allows you to go for a “Hail Mary” where you can hit harder. Outside of switching from a melee weapon to a javelin, player characters rarely have reasons to change their weapons. Oversized weapons add some more interactivity to your gameplay, and promote more active thought about what items your character should be carrying about.
Now that we have looked at the balance, it is time to ponder what else oversized weapons do to your game. They give martials more options not just for builds, but also their turn-by-turn decisions, something they generally lack. They incentivize teamplay more—for example by using enlarge/reduce, make sense in the fiction, and are fun to play with. We now have a feature that is not bad for balance, adds onto martial options while not crowding out other options, and makes teamplay more prevalent. We are of the opinion that this is a healthy game feature to keep in your game.
Finally, we will look at what may or may not have been the intention for the game mechanics described. Some might say the rules in the Dungeon Master’s Guide are exclusively intended for the Dungeon Master, which is obviously wrong, as this book also describes things like the rules on magic items and more. Others might say oversized weapons are only intended for non-player characters. For this we look back at what is written. We have already shown the definition of a monster in D&D 5E, so we will not focus on that. The rules say what happens when a creature picks up a weapon unintended for the size of the wielder. This might have been written purely for the DM, where it would be written for the fringe situations where something like an orc picks up a Large ogre’s greatclub. The other, more likely scenario, is that it was written with the players in mind, in situations where they pick up a fallen enemy’s greatclub and whack some skeletons, and the like. Things point to it being intended to be used for players as well as Dungeon Masters.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the baseline mechanic of oversized weapons is seemingly intended. Unfortunately, interactions with other mechanics and the game as a whole were likely not considered in their design. However, we have shown that these interactions are:
- Rules As Written.
- Not game breaking.
- A great way to add more variety to the restrictive martial options.
- Make sense within the fiction.
- Fun to play with.
We suggest you allow and experiment with these options, as they make for a better game overall.
If Mithiral weighs 1/2 of steel maybe mithiral weapons could bypass the disadvantage?
Sounds a nice bonus in line with adamanite weapons.
It is not a bonus in line with adamantine weapons, it’s significantly stronger, probably at the power level of a stronger uncommon magic item.
It’s similar to how small creatures have trouble wielding ‘Heavy’ weapons – when you try to wield something that large, it’s more about leverage and momentum than the weight itself. Imagine wielding a 30ft pole made of aluminium or steel – the steel one is obviously much heavier, but the aluminium one being lighter doesn’t make it easier to control.
does powerful build allow characters to wield oversized weapons without disadvantage?
No, it does not.
This absolutely doesn’t show that a PC using an oversized weapon is “RAW”.
Monster Rules and PC rules are separate things and taking flavor text to try to argue otherwise is idiotic.
“Monster Rules and PC rules are separate things”
As outlined in the article, PCs *are* monsters RAW, therefore all rules that apply to monsters, apply to PCs.
Furthermore, all actually mechanically relevant rules refer to “creatures”, which PCs also are.
Then “RAW” your small barbarian would now have a d6 hit die and attacks with disadvantage while using a normal weapon made for medium creatures. If you want to use the GUIDELINES for creating a monster statblock, and act as if they were rules in the game then, by all means do that, but then you have to use all of them and not just cherry pick what you like.
That said, i would still use them as a dm, but people acting like its is raw just ticks me the wrong way.
As already said, the PCs’ classification as monster doesn’t affect any of this because the *weapons* do the damage and *creatures* can wield them. You might argue some wiggle room about auto-resizing the weapons through enlarge and the likes, but you can unambiguously pick them up and use them as a PC.
As for your argument: you’re conflating ‘rules for monsters’ with ‘rules for the DM’. You can create monsters in different ways, that section is one of them, another is using a Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything summoning spell (note how those monsters don’t have hit dice at all), and another one again is creating a player character. The implication about forcing set hit dice for everyone simply does not exist.
Even then, the part about oversized weapons is in the section of the guidelines for homebrewing, which makes it anithing but a rule.
The article does not show/prove that PCs are monsters. The last sentence quoted in the MM: “The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals TO THE PLAYER CHARACTERS”. The PCs cannot be friends and/or rivals to themselves, so this sentence clearly only refers to those creatures that are not the PCs.
Look at the definition again more closely:
“A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters.”
Yes, the third sentence does indeed not include the PCs, but the sentence says “the term ALSO applies to…”; this means it can only ADD to the pool of things that are monsters (it cannot remove PCs from the definition if they are added some place else) – and in fact, it doesn’t change the set of things that are considered monsters at all because all of those things fall into the definition of sentence 1 already:
“A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed.”
PCs are creatures that can interacted with and potentially fought and killed; they are therefore monsters unless some other rule says otherwise; the sentence you quoted does not say otherwise; PCs remain monsters.
Ok read through it, and though I do really enjoy the content, I disagree minorly with some of the presumptions (aka PCs are monsters by their definition,
“A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters.”
While I see what you’re going for by trying to group PCs in there because they ‘can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed’ by other pcs, I believe it was definitely intended as a way to include traditionally non-monstrous races as monsters for the PCs to fight, and that the PCs are balanced around their own set of rules. (Like what I was talking about the other day about using PC sheets for monsters being balanced very differently. 🙂 )
Everyone disagreeing with Moonsilver on this is prioritizing their interpretation or belief of the creators’ intent over RAW.
The literal words are there. It makes no sense for a PC human to have different laws of physics than an NPC human.
Run your games with all the internal inconsistency you’d like, of course. But don’t claim you’re running it “The Right Way”.
Since you brought up consistency yourself, that means you would also agree that all medium PCs have a d8 hit die as per raw, and that a small sized pc that uses a standard weapon made for medium creatures will always roll with disadvantage, right?
“A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed”
Whom are the monsters interacting with? Other monsters? If so, why define a monster at all if all beings are monsters, doesn’t that make this sentence useless since monsters would include all beings? The reason monsters are defined at all is because not all beings are monsters. There are non-monsters called characters that are controlled by players. The correct answer to my question is player characters. Player characters are what monsters interact with and can potentially be fought and killed by. The fact a monster definition exists at all implies non-monsters have to also exist otherwise there’s no point in defining it since everything would be a monster.
That takes us to the next section, “The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters.”
This sentence clearly establishes a difference between player characters and non-player characters that are of the same or similar race as a player character. The context of this sentence existing is to establish that a monster can be the same race as a player character but that doesn’t mean a player character is a monster.
As you said, we can’t take away from the monster group that was established in the first sentence, we can only add to it but we also can’t add something if it’s already added. If player characters were already defined as monsters and added in the initial sentence then they couldn’t be added again in the third sentence because they’re already there. You can’t add the same thing to a group twice. That means, the only reason this sentence even exists is to clarify that just because something is a playable race, i.e. an elf, it doesn’t mean they can’t be a monster. That’s why we take the full context of the paragraph to establish meaning.
Player character is defined in the PHB, pg 5, “In the Dungeons and Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). …The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic MONSTERS, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure.”
This sentence should be the final nail in the coffin on the debate. It clearly establishes that each player creates a being called a character (not a monster) and then specifically states that these player characters fight monsters, not other player characters, even though characters can technically fight other characters. It also states that player characters can talk with other player characters. Why would it specify player characters fight monsters if player characters were monsters? Wouldn’t that mean the players characters have to fight each other? If player characters were monsters why would they specify that a player character can talk to another player character? Why wouldn’t it just say a monster can talk to another monster? Player characters can talk to monsters or kill them, they can also talk to player characters or kill them. Why wouldn’t they just say a monster can talk with or kill another monster? Why the different words if they’re all the same thing? That’s because player characters and monsters are two different things, hence the differentiation. You have to take all the rules into context, not just one sentence from one book, otherwise, you’ll misinterpret the meaning.
I really would be upset if a DM says you only get an additional d4 for oversized weapon…that is how I read the rules. I assume the definition of monster as any creature you can interact with…this would be the time for the rules to add in “even Player Charaters” but only mentions various Non Player Charater race types.
Would NOT be upset, I should have said.
I recently showed this to a friend, and he said that because of the line “If a monster wields a manufactured weapon” that Enlarge/Reduce doesn’t increase the damage because it would be merely an oversized weapon and not a manufactured oversized weapon. Is this correct?
Well, it says in the next paragraph
“Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit.”
This doesn’t mention manufactured. Monsters(PCs included) wield weapons. If it’s oversized it becomes heavier, which logically does more damage. More weight, more force.
So somehow a magical greataxe, which is obviously manufactured – I doubt it was conjured anyway – would suddenly become not manufactured merely because it grew in size? What is it then? Is it a natural weapon? is it an improvised weapon? That would mean it deals a base damage of 1d4 regardless of it’s type.
Also, what are manufactured weapons? It’s not a term in the PHB outside of Heat Metal afaik, which says you target a manufactured metal object, which can be a weapon.
One could argue an oversized literal stick is not manufactured, but improvised. But a club from the Weapons table is purposefully crafted, ie manufactured. Someone spent time to shape it. So I think anything that was made for combat is manufactured; non-magical, magical or oversized are just modifiers.
So, if all this was allowed. I could be a fairy Rune Knight. At level 3 I could become large with Giant’s Might, then use Enlarge / Reduce to make myself huge. My weapons grow to match my size. With a maul, I would do 3d12 +1d6 +1d4 +Str modifier for a single attack. Seems a bit overpowered for level 3. That being said, it requires some setup and you’re still competing with casters, so . . .
Error: the Fairy doesn’t get Enlarge / Reduce till 5th level, so this wouldn’t work at 3rd.
You can just buy a potion of growth for 50gp. You don’t need to be a fairy, though this certainly adds to the humour.
There are no non-homebrew rules for oversized weapons, it’s literally in a homebrew section of the DM guide.
Rules on a spell specifically cover the additional damage from the increase in weapon size, it’s an extra 1d4. That’s it. It’s very specific, like spells always are when it comes to a spell’s effect on damage dealt. If it doubled the damage dice of the weapon it would say so specifically – let’s not be silly about this, It’s 1d4 from enlarge, not additional damage die, and certainly not both!
but with the duargar dwarf xD
So how about characters with Great Weapon Master that want all their weapons to be ‘heavy’? Would oversized weapons satisfy this requirement? How about non-oversized weapons that were just made with more material? What’s the threshold of weight over the non-heavy weapons when something will become heavy?
It seems like this question should have come up before, but I couldn’t find much on it. A specific example I’m pondering is the Spider Staff from Lost Mines of Phandelver. A normal quarterstaff weighs 4 lbs, but the Spider Staff is spec’d at 6 lbs, AND it’s Adamantine. Given the description of Adamantine weapons, I would think that a quarterstaff made of the stuff would pack quite a punch. All the slashing/piercing ‘heavy’ weapons are 6 lbs (or 7, except the Pike), but the maul is 10 lbs. The Greatclub is also 10 lbs and needs two hands, but is NOT ‘heavy’. I’m kind of inclined to think the Spider Staff is ‘heavy’, but I could see an argument against as well.
At the very least, it seems like there should be a 1st level spell that will increase the density (or something) of a weapon to the point that it gains the ‘heavy’ property for use with GWM.
If a creature using a weapon that does 2d6 goes to large (Looking at the line where it says double the weapon dice). Does that mean at large a creature is doing 4d6?
Correct, 4d6 for large, 6d6 for huge etc. this can also e seen in the giants statblock, they use large/huge greataxe/greatsword of such damage.
I don’t get the arguing against PCs using oversized weapons, because you can just pick up one of them from a monster you kill and use it. Does it now magically not do the extra damage because you picked it up? Does Ao himself come down and stop you from picking it up because you’re “not allowed” to use it? Just let PCs use oversized weapons, it’s not even close to being broken.
I can’t see why rules in the homebrew chapter of the DMG should be understood as RAW for PCs.
I appreciate the math and can see the benefits to allow it, but calling it RAW….
It’s explained in the “create a monster” section, but that’s more of a guide to create a monster similarly balanced compared to RAW ones. The rules for handling and weapon dice of large creatures are already the same in RAW large monsters such as giants running around with 2d12 large greataxe or 6d6 huge greatsword. I don’t see any reasonable point for any creature not being able to pick up such a weapon as long as they have the strength for it, that’s what you have spells like enlarge for.
Monsters and PCs don’t use the same rules to be created. (Others have written giving examples in the comments above)
You cannot call a quideline, in the homebrew chapter of the DMG, RAW.
The quideline for oversized weapons is in this chapter and it only talks about creating monsters.
thats not raw at all. i would use it and sounds cool but calling it raw is laughable at best…
The PC does not need to count as a monster because the RAW does not say that a large (or bigger) monster has the higher damage dice, but a large (or larger) CREATURE has the higher damage dice.
Combine with the fact that the first paragraph quoted implies that the die damage comes from the weapon, not the monster, and this is in the sub-category titled “Base the Damage on the Weapon” with the first sentence in this being “Alternatively, you can use a die expression to represent the damage that a monster deals with each of its attacks BASED ON WHATEVER WEAPON IT IS USING.”
This implies that the damage is based off the weapon and that any creature can benefit from the larger weapons and that the monster label is irrelevant.
> The target’s weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target’s attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage.
As a GM I would interpret this as “your enlarged weapons do 1d4 extra damage“, not 1d4 on top of a bonus for being enlarged. Specific trumps general. That said, I would also accept that if an enlarged PC then picked up an already oversized weapon, they would do the double dice damage – sans the extra 1d4.
Giants Might would be subject to a similar ruling.
I think this article could be remade considering the path of the giant from Bigby that make you large or huge, I don’t know how it could change the math
Player characters are most certainly not monsters. That doesn’t mean a player character can’t use an oversized weapon since there’s no rule explicitly stating they can’t.
Monster Manual, “Introduction”, pg 4:
“Some of the creatures that inhabit the worlds of D&D have origins rooted in real-world mythology and fantasy literature. Other creatures are D&D originals. The monsters in this book have been culled from all previous editions of the game.”
This paragraph explains that the Monster Manual contains monsters and establishes that there is a difference between creatures and monsters. We later learn that a creature can be a monster or a player character and that’s the term used when they want to reference both a monster and/or a player character. If your interpretation was true, then they wouldn’t ever use the term creature and would instead use the term monster because, according to you, they are the same thing anyways. This one point blows up your entire argument about player characters being monsters but I’ll provide other rules that further debunk your claim.
————————————————————-
Monster Manual, “How to Use This Book”, pg 4:
“The Monster Manual, like the Dungeon Master’s Guide, is a book for DMs.”
This book, along with the DMG you pulled your definition from, aren’t intended for players and, by extension, players’ characters.
————————————————————-
Monster Manual, Introduction, “What is a Monster?”, pg. 4:
“A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed.”
Interacted with by whom? The player characters which is defined in the PHB. This sentence clearly implies it’s referring to player characters as the entities that would interact with monsters. If all beings were monsters and monsters can interact with each other then there’s no need to even define the term because there’s nothing that wouldn’t be a monster. The fact a monster definition exists at all informs us there would have to be non-monsters as well.
“The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters.”
This sentence clearly differentiates between a player character and other beings that may be of the same or similar race as a player character. If player characters were monsters, this sentence wouldn’t need to exist because all humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk (i.e. the races a player can choose for their character) would have already been categorized as monsters in the first sentence of this section. The fact this sentence does exist informs us that monsters aren’t player characters. For example, an elf that’s friendly to the player characters is a monster but a player’s character elf that’s friendly to the player characters is a player character, not a monster. See the difference? That’s why that sentence was included. If player characters were monsters then they couldn’t be player characters because they’d be monsters. It seems pretty obvious and intuitive.
————————————————————-
Dungeon Master’s Guide, Chapter 9: Dungeon Master’s Workshop, “Step 11. Damage”, pg. 278:
“A monster’s damage output — the amount of damage it deals every round — has a direct bearing on its challenge rating, and vice versa.”
This sentence explains that monsters have challenge ratings. Player characters do not have challenge ratings therefore can’t be monsters since they lack a challenge rating.
“Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra damage dice of damage on a hit.”
This sentence wouldn’t make sense if player characters were monsters because big player characters typically don’t wield oversized weapons. They typically wield normal sized weapons that deal normal amounts of damage. There are, however, plenty of examples in the Monster Manual of monsters that wield oversized weapons that deal extra damage.
“Don’t worry if the damage output isn’t matching up with the expected challenge rating for the monster. Other factors can affect a monster’s challenge rating, as will be discussed in later steps, and you can always adjust a monster’s damage output later on.”
This paragraph clearly states monsters have challenge ratings. Player characters do not have challenge ratings therefore can’t be monsters.
“If a monster has natural weapons, you decide how much damage it deals with those attacks, as well as the type of damage. See the Monster Manual for examples.”
This paragraph indicates that the Monster Manual has examples of natural weapons monsters may use. Notice it doesn’t reference the PHB which we’ve established per RAW is the only book intended for players and, by extension, players’ characters.
“A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.”
“Creatures” is a term used interchangeably for monsters and player characters and, in this context, is probably referring to both monsters and player characters. This doesn’t make player characters monsters though. This is probably why every other paragraph in this section uses the word “monster” and this one singular paragraph uses the word “creature”. This is the only part of the entire section that could be argued to refer to player characters and monsters.
————————————————————-
PHB, Chapter 1: Step-by-Step Characters, pg. 11:
“Your first step in playing an adventurer in the Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine and create a character of your own. Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character. Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world.”
This explanation clearly defines what a player’s character/avatar is. Notice its definition is completely different than a monster and establishes what a player character is so in the third rule book released, the DMG, they can establish what a monster is. If player characters and monsters were the same thing there wouldn’t be a need to establish any definition because a monster would be the only thing a creature could be in D&D. They would also just use the term creature since that’s what they use when referring to both monsters and player characters and the terms monsters and player characters wouldn’t even exist because they would be the same thing.
————————————————————-
Player characters aren’t monsters. You’re incorrect in this interpretation because you’ve taken a couple sentences out of context.
It’s OK if a DM wants to allow player characters to use oversized weapons but we don’t need to try and claim player characters are monsters. That’s incorrect according to RAW, RAI, and common sense.