D&D 5E Monk Weapon

[Guest 6801328]

A guan dao in action (a real one, not the ceremonial ones which are lighter) by a master is a whole body experience, with power provided by rotational mechanics and the dexterity and skill of the user, not raw strength. Its frightening to imagine it hitting someone. It probably should be a d12 weapon.

Yeah, sure. I'll take your word for it

The thing is...everybody with any knowledge of any weapon or technique will tell you how destructive it can be in the hands of a master. So maybe we should just make everything do d12. Or, heck, d20.

....


The numbers aren't in the game to model reality or history. There are there to create balance, so that whatever choice you make has tradeoffs.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yeah sure. Maybe not a level 1, make them work up to it like in the 36th Chamber of Shaolin. Start at staff and then get this weapon later. A monks spade is probably better and more thematic, I would let them use that also with Halberd stats but slashing at one end and piercing at the other. Its a slashing weapon really, but the motions to attack are piercing type motions, straight lines as opposed to arcs to slice in. I would designate them as monk weapons so then can use them with DEX, but I would put a minimum STR requirement on those weapons to prevent the player from dumping STR. A monks spade would qualify as a polearm for the feat also, in fact it is the purpose (to use both ends.) Let the player use a staff until 4th level, where they can take the polearm feat and then get proficiency in one of those.

Part of the fantasy and magic of D&D Monks is that they don't need to be particularly well-toned or athletic: they can happily dump strength. Their ki presumably directs and empowers their strikes instead. Hence being able to use Dex with some non-finesse weapons. I'm not sure that a Str minimum would fit that well.

A guan dao in action (a real one, not the ceremonial ones which are lighter) by a master is a whole body experience, with power provided by rotational mechanics and the dexterity and skill of the user, not raw strength. Its frightening to imagine it hitting someone. It probably should be a d12 weapon.

Cool. Do you have a link?
(I'm not sure whether I'm thinking of the right weapon: I'm visualising a big choppy sword blade on a staff: like a heavier version of the naginata, with maybe rings on the back edge?) I don't think I've seen one in action, just in flourishing display katas. I was under the impression that they were used more as a strength exercise than a weapon though.

 

[smbakeresq]

Yeah, sure. I'll take your word for it

The thing is...everybody with any knowledge of any weapon or technique will tell you how destructive it can be in the hands of a master. So maybe we should just make everything do d12. Or, heck, d20.

....


The numbers aren't in the game to model reality or history. There are there to create balance, so that whatever choice you make has tradeoffs.

As to the first part, that's just a stupid thing to say. Any one who would say that has no knowledge of weapons or weapon usage or history of weapon usage. Especially in regards to an armored target.



As to the second part, there is no tradeoffs as currently implemented in the game. No one makes any trade offs, there is an optimized weapon type for a build and that's what's used. Those categories are generalized into avg damage levels so weapon choice doesn't matter, damage die size does. For example Romans used short swords for a tactical reason that isn't present in the game, in the game a shield user will choose a d8 weapon if proficient or a d6 weapon if they are not. Flails were great against shield users, that's not in there. Minis are choice also, its hard to find a heavy armor user with a shield and hammer that isn't a dwarf, or a Goliath in full armor, or, in this case, monk with some exotic weapon. The game isn't set up that way to reflect differences.

The Monk has no tradeoffs after a certain level because their weapon die size overrides the weapon itself.

 

[smbakeresq]

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+. The demonstration I saw was in Japan, they were cutting the rice mats, the typical test for sword sharpness. For the Guan Dao, they had dowel rods wrapped in those rice mats in a frame, like a jail cell with the bards wrapped up. It just crushed through them. I wish they used the katana for the same test but it probably was too valuable.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As to the first part, that's just a stupid thing to say. Any one who would say that has no knowledge of weapons or weapon usage or history of weapon usage. Especially in regards to an armored target.

....or maybe it's "stupid" to not understand the point being made?

As to the second part, there is no tradeoffs as currently implemented in the game. No one makes any trade offs, there is an optimized weapon type for a build and that's what's used. Those categories are generalized into avg damage levels so weapon choice doesn't matter, damage die size does. For example Romans used short swords for a tactical reason that isn't present in the game, in the game a shield user will choose a d8 weapon if proficient or a d6 weapon if they are not. Flails were great against shield users, that's not in there. Minis are choice also, its hard to find a heavy armor user with a shield and hammer that isn't a dwarf, or a Goliath in full armor, or, in this case, monk with some exotic weapon. The game isn't set up that way to reflect differences.

Yes, there are lots of tradeoffs. You even allude to some. "Do I use sword and shield or two-hander?" "Do I got with a Dex build or a Str build?" "Do I take a Greatsword and get 2d6, or a longsword and only get 1d10 but have the option of using a shield?" "Do I roll monk and limit myself to weapons that do less damage but get cool martial arts, or do I roll Fighter and get more damaging weapons but no cool martial arts?"

D&D is not a simulation. Repeat that. Not a simulation.

The Monk has no tradeoffs after a certain level because their weapon die size overrides the weapon itself.

...unless you start allowing them to use 1d12 polearms.

EDIT: The discussion is starting to remind me of the countless threads over the years about Katanas, and how awesome they are and how they should do more damage than longswords, etc.

 

[smbakeresq]

The whole idea behind my responses to this thread and many others is to allow and reward creativity for the purposes of character development. There is a group out there that are just terrified at someone getting "ahead" of them, they slavishly follow the exact wording the rules to prevent this.

Its group play game taking place largely in the theatre of the mind. If a player has a creative idea that builds a PC that's ok by me if (in this case) they get to use a longsword for the elven monk that lets them do 1 pt of damage more per attack then a normal monk.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The whole idea behind my responses to this thread and many others is to allow and reward creativity for the purposes of character development. There is a group out there that are just terrified at someone getting "ahead" of them, they slavishly follow the exact wording the rules to prevent this.

Its group play game taking place largely in the theatre of the mind. If a player has a creative idea that builds a PC that's ok by me if (in this case) they get to use a longsword for the elven monk that lets them do 1 pt of damage more per attack then a normal monk.

Then you and your players should be totally happy with refluffing the lowly quarterstaff as whatever weapon you want it to be, without changing the damage. The reward for creativity should be enjoyment of the narrative. And I'm all for that. In fact I love the idea of an elven monk wielding a longsword.

Anybody who whines about not getting bonus damage is just demonstrating that they aren't doing it for the creativity; they're doing it to be a munchkin. And if you grant the bonus damage you're setting up a dangerous precedent and incentive: "try to make up cool ways to get more damage because the DM is lenient that way." Is that really where you want your players to be investing their creativity?

 

[jaelis]

The whole idea behind my responses to this thread and many others is to allow and reward creativity for the purposes of character development. There is a group out there that are just terrified at someone getting "ahead" of them, they slavishly follow the exact wording the rules to prevent this.

Its group play game taking place largely in the theatre of the mind. If a player has a creative idea that builds a PC that's ok by me if (in this case) they get to use a longsword for the elven monk that lets them do 1 pt of damage more per attack then a normal monk.

Just because I'm curious, how do you decide such things? Say I had the idea to play a max-sized goliath who was trying to live down the shame of having some hill giant blood in his family. Would you let me wield a greatsword in one hand?

(which is a legit question, but also perhaps getting at the same point Elfcrusher just made )

 

[smbakeresq]

....or maybe it's "stupid" to not understand the point being made?



Yes, there are lots of tradeoffs. You even allude to some. "Do I use sword and shield or two-hander?" "Do I got with a Dex build or a Str build?" "Do I take a Greatsword and get 2d6, or a longsword and only get 1d10 but have the option of using a shield?" "Do I roll monk and limit myself to weapons that do less damage but get cool martial arts, or do I roll Fighter and get more damaging weapons but no cool martial arts?"

D&D is not a simulation. Repeat that. Not a simulation.



...unless you start allowing them to use 1d12 polearms.

EDIT: The discussion is starting to remind me of the countless threads over the years about Katanas, and how awesome they are and how they should do more damage than longswords, etc.

None of those are tradeoffs. That's about as dumb as trying to suggest I recommended a d20 for weapons. YOU don't get it.

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.


And I said, I would make them have a backstory and trade offs and wouldn't get polearms until a later level. And I said PROBABLY, which you MISSED.


And guess what, a d12 polearm wouldn't wreck any ones game, it would have almost ZERO affect. Assuming a %65 hit rate for the entire life of the Monk PC, it would mean at most an extra 1.3 damage per round, 2.6 once you get multiple attacks (excluding critical hits.) Its not nothing, but its a lot closer to ZERO than game breaking.

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

None of those are tradeoffs. That's about as dumb as trying to suggest I recommended a d20 for weapons. YOU don't get it.

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.

I've played a character who used a longsword 2H.

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.

I've seen dedicated javelin users.

I think it's ironic that you were arguing for "creativity" a few posts ago, yet you assume that any sort of creativity that results in sub-optimal builds simply doesn't happen.

I smell a Munchkin.

And guess what, a d12 polearm wouldn't wreck any ones game, it would have almost ZERO affect. Assuming a %65 hit rate for the entire life of the Monk PC, it would mean at most an extra 1.3 damage per round, 2.6 once you get multiple attacks (excluding critical hits.) Its not nothing, but its a lot closer to ZERO than game breaking.

Yes, exactly. And so ruling that the polearm in the hands of the monk does the same damage as other monk weapons also "wouldn't wreck any ones game, it would have almost ZERO affect(sic)."

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.

And here you are arguing that it's all about backstory and roleplaying again...