Monk unarmed damage question

[Ranger5]

Forgive me if this has been asked before but, does anyone know the reason why smaller monks deal less damage than medium monks and larger monks deal more damage then medium monks?

Is it based on strength? Well then what about the halfling with a 16 strength and the human with a 12 strength.

Is it based on size of the fist/foot/head/other body part that is dealing the damage? If so what about a really short petite human (not much bigger than a halfling) have better base damage then a halfling?

I only ask this because if a halfling, a human, and an ogre all used a regular shortsword it would still deal 1d6 damage. The difference of course would then come from the creature's damage modifier from their strength. And what if the halfling had a 24 str, the human had a 16, and the ogre had their base at a 21.

With the shortsword the halfling would deal 1d6+7, the human would be 1d6+3 and the ogre would be 1d6+5. And say all were instead 1st level monks. Then their unarmed damage would be 1d4+7 for the halfling, 1d6+3 for the human, and 1d8+5 for the ogre.

To me this just doesn't make sense. It was always my understanding that the monk's unarmed damage came from their training as a monk and had nothing to do with their size of their fist/foot/head/other body parts they were using to hit their opponent.

 

[Ottergame]

It's based on the size of the monk, just like all weapon damage. Small people do less damage with their weapons in D&D.

And no, a halfling, a human, and a ogre would all do different damage if the shortswords were properly sized, or the halfling and the orge would be taking a penalty to hit for using a improperly sized weapon.

A shortsword sized for a halfling would do 1d4 damage, a humans would do 1d6, while an ogres would do 1d8.

 

[Scion]

Depends if he is talking 3.0 or 3.5 otter.

But yes, it is all about the size of the character what their unarmed damage does. This follows the same for creatures as well, natural weapons deal damage based on their size.

So, even a 'small, petite' human is medium sized as far as the game is concerned and a really tall, buff halfling is still small sized.

That is where the change in damage comes from.

In 3.5 weapons all have a size associated with them, so a halflings shortsword does a d4, a humans shortsword does a d6, and an ogres shortsword does a d8 (I think, I didnt check the last one).

Effectively, in 3.0, the 'longsword' used by a halfling is the same as a 'shortsword' used by a human. This, I believe, is where the confusion is comeing from for you. The same rules are there either way, they are just harder to see sometimes.

 

[Elephant]

Depends if he is talking 3.0 or 3.5 otter.

But yes, it is all about the size of the character what their unarmed damage does. This follows the same for creatures as well, natural weapons deal damage based on their size.

So, even a 'small, petite' human is medium sized as far as the game is concerned and a really tall, buff halfling is still small sized.

That is where the change in damage comes from.

In 3.5 weapons all have a size associated with them, so a halflings shortsword does a d4, a humans shortsword does a d6, and an ogres shortsword does a d8 (I think, I didnt check the last one).

Effectively, in 3.0, the 'shortsword' used by a halfling is the same as a 'longsword' used by a human. This, I believe, is where the confusion is comeing from for you. The same rules are there either way, they are just harder to see sometimes.

Errr....the halfling's 'longsword' looks like a 'shortsword' to the humans. Not the other way around, I hope!

 

[Scion]

edited above, just a natural tendency to always put the word 'short' with the word 'halfling'

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Perhaps it has something to do with the mass of the monk. A large-sized monk can put more of his mass in his punch...

Of course, this makes absolutely no sense if you consider that there are Air Elemental monks :\

AR

 

[Lamoni]

Is it based on strength? Well then what about the halfling with a 16 strength and the human with a 12 strength.

Well, a halfling with a strength of 16 could lift 172 lbs and a human with the same strength could lift 230 lbs. The numbers as they relate to strength are different than all the other abilities. They are there to compare creatures of similar size. An 'average' small creature has a strength of 10 and an 'average' large creature would also have a strength of 10... the large creature could still lift close to 3 times as much and is still much stronger. That is why there are modifiers for size and different base weapon damages including for monk unarmed damage.

This is all assuming that we are talking about a creature that doesn't have a +X to strength which most large creatures have, or a -X to strength like most small creatures have. In that case the average for that race would be higher or lower than 10.

Edit: A small creature with a 16 strength can lift about the same as a medium creature with a 14 strength. That gives the small creature an extra +1 to damage rolls... but the medium creature will be using a different damage die that will yield an average of 1 more damage. Therefore they end up being about equal.

 

[ARandomGod]

Forgive me if this has been asked before but, does anyone know the reason why smaller monks deal less damage than medium monks and larger monks deal more damage then medium monks?

Is it based on strength? Well then what about the halfling with a 16 strength and the human with a 12 strength.

Is it based on size of the fist/foot/head/other body part that is dealing the damage? If so what about a really short petite human (not much bigger than a halfling) have better base damage then a halfling?

I only ask this because if a halfling, a human, and an ogre all used a regular shortsword it would still deal 1d6 damage. The difference of course would then come from the creature's damage modifier from their strength. And what if the halfling had a 24 str, the human had a 16, and the ogre had their base at a 21.

With the shortsword the halfling would deal 1d6+7, the human would be 1d6+3 and the ogre would be 1d6+5. And say all were instead 1st level monks. Then their unarmed damage would be 1d4+7 for the halfling, 1d6+3 for the human, and 1d8+5 for the ogre.

To me this just doesn't make sense. It was always my understanding that the monk's unarmed damage came from their training as a monk and had nothing to do with their size of their fist/foot/head/other body parts they were using to hit their opponent.

You are correct, it doesn't make sense at all.
It's put in there simply because the authors have a biase towards big.
Possibly because an ogre edited the rules.
"Big Smash."
No, it doesn't really have a lot to do with "real".
Simple physics shows that the same strength applied on a smaller focus will do more damage. Which is, in the halfling's case, edited for in the lesser strength of the race.
But then again, you must realize that the halfling's -2 strenth +2 dex is becuase of racial adjustments, not because of size... The lesser damage die is to reflect the fact that they're simply weaker, perhaps?
But, on the whole, I do agree with you that the weapons "size" modifications simply do not make sense.
But, in support of this particular rule, I'll point out that there are a lot of other counterintuitive, and even downright wrong rules in the system as is.

 

[Sejs]

Two words:

Relative mass.

 

[CyberSpyder]

A larger creature applies the force of its strength over a larger distance, resulting in a greater momentum of the swing/kick/whatever.