D&D 5E Monk Weapon

Guest 6801328 · Nov 1, 2017

Hawk Diesel said:
The way I see it, the is a role-playing game. Role-playing is important, but it is also a game. [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], just because a player wants to improve their damage, it doesn't make them a munchkin.

No, not at all. I like to improve my damage, too. It's when the player starts making what should be roleplaying choices...especially choices that he/she wouldn't otherwise make...purely because of the damage that we have a problem. Look at Great weapons: we've all seen people take Greatsword instead of Great Axe or Maul, even when the player would kinda like to go with the axe or maul, because 2d6 does more damage than 1d12. It happens all the freakin' time. Does the little bit of extra damage from the sword really matter? No. But I think it's pretty much a Bad Thing that people feel like they can't choose the weapon they really like because it's not "optimal".

Everyone wants to have characters that are competent and feel badass. And I disagree that a player should be happy with just purely reflavoring or reskinning their abilities. Having a fun game, in my experience, requires a balance AND flexibility with both mechanics and role-playing. Being too rigid risks lessening people's enjoyment, whether you're a player or DM.

I agree that being "too rigid" isn't any fun, but personally I don't see telling a player he can't change the rules in order to have his cake and eat it too as being too rigid.

What none of the "lenient" posters have answered is: if the extra damage from the sword is so tiny and irrelevant and non-game breaking, why is it such a big deal to say, "No, you can't have that bonus damage. You can use a sword but it will do the same damage as a staff."?

Hawk Diesel · Nov 1, 2017

Elfcrusher said:
What none of the "lenient" posters have answered is: if the extra damage from the sword is so tiny and irrelevant and non-game breaking, why is it such a big deal to say, "No, you can't have that bonus damage. You can use a sword but it will do the same damage as a staff."?

This is a fair question. I can't answer for everyone, but as a DM I really try hard not to tell my players no. Hearing no, especially in a game based in imagination, can really be counterproductive. I may be more lenient than many DMs, but I learned the hard way when I was cutting my teeth running my first games that player fun suffered when I said no on things that were largely non-issues. If the change doesn't break the game and allows the player to feel like their character is special and mechanically and role-playing wise represents their vision for their character, it becomes a win-win situation. The DM isn't harmed by allowing the player to deal an average +1 damage, and if it doesn't bother or impact the enjoyment for other players, then as the DM why stand in the way? As a DM I see myself as the creator of challenges, and the facilitator for fun.

Guest 6801328 · Nov 1, 2017

Hawk Diesel said:
This is a fair question. I can't answer for everyone, but as a DM I really try hard not to tell my players no. Hearing no, especially in a game based in imagination, can really be counterproductive. I may be more lenient than many DMs, but I learned the hard way when I was cutting my teeth running my first games that player fun suffered when I said no on things that were largely non-issues. If the change doesn't break the game and allows the player to feel like their character is special and mechanically and role-playing wise represents their vision for their character, it becomes a win-win situation. The DM isn't harmed by allowing the player to deal an average +1 damage, and if it doesn't bother or impact the enjoyment for other players, then as the DM why stand in the way? As a DM I see myself as the creator of challenges, and the facilitator for fun.

Ok, fair enough. I was imagining my answer being a "yes" also. "Yes, you can use a long sword. If you want it to be a monk weapon, and thus finesse, then we'll have it do the same damage as a staff, but...yes you may."

Hawk Diesel · Nov 1, 2017

Elfcrusher said:
Ok, fair enough. I was imagining my answer being a "yes" also. "Yes, you can use a long sword. If you want it to be a monk weapon, and thus finesse, then we'll have it do the same damage as a staff, but...yes you may."

Sorry, but maybe because I'm coming from a different perspective, but your answer is more like a "no" than a "yes, but."

The player didn't ask to use a "longsword-like" or "longsword-flavored" weapon. They asked to use a longsword as understood in the PHB. They asked to use their racial benefit with their class ability.

To both of those questions you're saying no.

And then as a compromise, you ask them to play with a dagger but pretend it's a sword. In a game that is already based in the imagination, why should the player pretend to use a longsword when they damage like a shortsword? How is it different to describe wielding a shortsword than a long sword? Are they going to constantly reference their superior reach over shortswords? The styles and usage are so similar, how would it increase the player's fun to role play a weapon like it's a couple inches longer and a bit heavier?

The player isn't asking for retractable elbow blades like the Guyver, or fists that turn into anvils and wrecking balls like Battletoads. Those are situations where I would find suitable weapon equivalents and base it on the proficiencies of the character.

Describing something as unique as in my examples is fun. Describing different martial attacks and techniques with sword versus axe versus hammer and what not is fun. Being able to flavor a bow/crossbow as a gun or ray blast is fun. But how does being able to their sword is a bit longer add to the player's enjoyment?

The compromise you propose isn't a compromise. It's an appeasement, and a poor one at that. Because not only does nothing change mechanically, but the flavor change has very little, if any change to how that player may describe the character or role play their actions.

Guest 6801328 · Nov 1, 2017

Hawk Diesel said:
Sorry, but maybe because I'm coming from a different perspective, but your answer is more like a "no" than a "yes, but."

The player didn't ask to use a "longsword-like" or "longsword-flavored" weapon. They asked to use a longsword as understood in the PHB. They asked to use their racial benefit with their class ability.

To both of those questions you're saying no.

And then as a compromise, you ask them to play with a dagger but pretend it's a sword. In a game that is already based in the imagination, why should the player pretend to use a longsword when they damage like a shortsword? How is it different to describe wielding a shortsword than a long sword? Are they going to constantly reference their superior reach over shortswords? The styles and usage are so similar, how would it increase the player's fun to role play a weapon like it's a couple inches longer and a bit heavier?

The player isn't asking for retractable elbow blades like the Guyver, or fists that turn into anvils and wrecking balls like Battletoads. Those are situations where I would find suitable weapon equivalents and base it on the proficiencies of the character.

Describing something as unique as in my examples is fun. Describing different martial attacks and techniques with sword versus axe versus hammer and what not is fun. Being able to flavor a bow/crossbow as a gun or ray blast is fun. But how does being able to their sword is a bit longer add to the player's enjoyment?

The compromise you propose isn't a compromise. It's an appeasement, and a poor one at that. Because not only does nothing change mechanically, but the flavor change has very little, if any change to how that player mat describe the player or role play their actions.

Well, first of all, a staff is versatile and does 1d8 with two hands, so the player could in fact do more damage than a short sword if they don't have anything in their other hand (and they're willing to imagine that they are wielding it with two hands.)

Also, nobody I've ever played with really cares about the physics of weapons*, so maybe we're just hanging out with people who have different priorities.

*Which, now that I think about it, is kind of funny since some of them are physicists.

Cap'n Kobold · Nov 1, 2017

smbakeresq said:
This is a representative picture with a person for perspective, from the intertubes. This weapon would way about 10-14 lbs. A weapon version would be 20lbs+.

Ah thank you. That's the weapon I was thinking of.
It is in no way a finesse weapon.

smbakeresq said:
There is 4 classes of weapons in this game, d4, d6, d8, or d12 (with 2d6 as a subset.) None of the distinctions within those types matter. There really is less, those that can use martial weapons and those that cant. If you can use martial weapons, you take some d8 weapon and a shield or a great weapon. No one picks to use a versatile weapon 2 handed, you either use a two hander (and all the great weapon feats) or you use a d8 weapon and a shield. The fourth choice is to use two weapons. If you use simple weapons, you use a shield and one, no one uses a spear 2 handed to use a d8. It just does not occur. There is no distinction between individual weapons, as I said, so there is no trade off between weapons other than the damage die. That's it. There is not a lot of tradeoffs, there is 4, total.

Ranged is determined if you plan on taken CE. If you do, then you use hand crossbows, otherwise its a short or long bow. No one builds a dedicated javelin user. It just does not occur.

You might want to cool it with making huge sweeping claims about what "everyone" does, and what "no one does".
For one: you're incorrect and I suspect you know it. You might be making hyperbolic claims for the sake of humour or trying to get your point across better, but it doesn't come across well in a text format where the only way to judge what you're trying to say is what you actually say.
For two, making that sort of grandiose claim of absolute truth rather hurts your position because if we know that you're not telling the truth on one thing, it makes a lot of the other things you say more suspect.

But then as I said, there are certain players who cant stand someone getting ahead of them, regardless of how much time a person put into a good backstory and PC development. They would trade the D&D lives for 1.3 extra points of damage per round.

Assigning motives or unpleasant personality traits to people when you don't understand them likewise doers not come across well in a debate.

Hawk Diesel said:
Sorry, but maybe because I'm coming from a different perspective, but your answer is more like a "no" than a "yes, but."

The player didn't ask to use a "longsword-like" or "longsword-flavored" weapon. They asked to use a longsword as understood in the PHB. They asked to use their racial benefit with their class ability.

To both of those questions you're saying no.

Would rephrasing it in a different way work?
"Sure, but because your style uses magic to integrate the sword and unarmed strikes rather than rely solely on the blade for offense, the techniques you start off using are a little different to the usual ones with a longsword. You'll do a lower dice of damage with it until your martial arts damage dice catches up to it."

That should satisfy a player whose character concept is based around "Longsword".
It probably won't satisfy a player whose character concept is based around "d10 damage"

Guest 6801328 · Nov 1, 2017

smbakeresq said:
That should satisfy a player whose character concept is based around "Longsword".
It probably won't satisfy a player whose character concept is based around "d10 damage"

And that right there sums it up very nicely.

Hawk Diesel · Nov 1, 2017

Cap'n Kobold said:
That should satisfy a player whose character concept is based around "Longsword".
It probably won't satisfy a player whose character concept is based around "d10 damage"

But here you are making a value judgment. You are inherently saying that a player must value the role playing aspect over the game aspect of something is a role playing game. It is not up to us to decide how a person plays or what gives them enjoyment when playing. I suppose a table could decide this together in a session zero, but then such a person would be better prepared to understand how others would respond to playing an elf monk and wanting to actually use all the abilities their choice of character grants. I really like how [MENTION=6788732]cbwjm[/MENTION] put it. The rules are really guidelines or suggestions. They shouldn't be taken as immutable dogma. But then I don't believe in sacred cows.

Hawk Diesel · Nov 1, 2017

Also, on a personal note I am petty. If I had a DM that was so rigid they wouldn't allow something with such a relatively small offensive benefit, you can bet that I would go out of my way to build the most broken AL legal character and challenge the DM on every ruling. If they wanna play that rules heavy, that would be how I would make the game fun for me.

jaelis · Nov 1, 2017

How is it a value judgement? Seems like he is just dividing the question into two parts: the role playing part and the game mechanics part. You could argue about that, but it isn't value-laden. And no one is asserting the value of one of those parts over the other.

The point is that it is inconsistent to argue that you want to use a long sword in a non-standard way for roleplaying reasons, but then insist that it must be accompanied by the standard game mechanics. You say

The rules are really guidelines or suggestions. They shouldn't be taken as immutable dogma. But then I don't believe in sacred cows.

Then why insist on the sacred cow that a longsword must deal 1d8 damage?

Fundamentally it's just a question of preference. Do you want to modify the monk rule and let them get a little extra damage, or would you rather modify the longsword rule and keep the damage the same. There's no intrinsic reason to prefer one over the other. I believe Elf's preference for the later is based on a desire to avoid providing mechanical rewards for role-playing reasons, because that could start to color player's roleplaying choices. I don't see anything wrong with that.

And I think that smbaker's preference for the former is because he likes to reward roleplaying choices that way. I see nothing wrong with that either. I do think it is out of line though to attributes Elf's preferences to some kind of insecurity complex.

D&D 5E Monk Weapon

Guest 6801328

Guest

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer

Guest 6801328

Guest

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer

Guest 6801328

Guest

Cap'n Kobold

Hero

Guest 6801328

Guest

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

Similar Threads