D&D 5E Monk Weapon

[smbakeresq]

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 )

Been done already, 30 years ago in "The Whole Half Ogre" article and another article ​on using weapons of different size in Dragon Magazine. Goliaths, who have powerful build trait, get to use the next larger size damage die in my game, my son is playing a Goliath Paladin using a d12 Halberd. Bugbears (the monster version) have the same trait and get double damage, so my version of powerful build is far less.

Of course, you would have to have a weapon custom built for you, if you hand is large enough to use a greatsword in one hand than the balance would be off for a one handed user. The handle also wouldn't be thick enough, its not like you could just add some athletic tape to it. Weapon balance is also based on mass and momentum. For example, I cant use women's golf clubs, they are far to light and thin handled for me. Any really good hitter in baseball would struggle with a whiffle ball bat. Wonder why very tall basketball players struggle with free throws? Try shooting free throws with a volleyball, you will miss more.

I can use an axe (to cut down trees) one handed, however the balance isn't set up to do that so I have to shorten my grip for it to feel right. Watch Forged in Fury, look how they struggle with oddly balanced weapons even though they are the same size.

Finding the weapon maker to make such weapons could be a whole adventure. That person would also know their value, and would charge premium prices, 20 - 100x is about right. They would also need 2-3x the material, with admantine that could be expensive. Of course if a person had a weaponsmith or bowyer from their background that would greatly help. Magic Weapons would be ever rarer unless it resized to fit the wielder as some do, check the magical item descriptions. Otherwise the hope would be that a similar sized creature did that same thing.

Did I mention that if wearing a suit of armor it would of course have to be custom, that just don't have ++Sized Chainmail on the rack. Magical Armor of course, if it didn't resize to fit wearer, would need to worked on too. Maybe just cutting the hide off that dragon to make into armor would make more sense, the 3.5 e Draconomicon has rules for that. A shield would need to be bigger to cover the same effective area, a normal sized shield would only be +1 to AC maybe.

Just picking up any old greatsword to use one handed, nope. I can see you finding your sword early like Conan did, then leveling it up as you go up (devoting experience to the weapon instead of your levels, see Level Up Your Longsword, Dragon magazine, or just make up your own rules.) Or think of a good backstory and a good history and write it up, if its good enough you can start with that family hierloom (d4+d12) Great-axe. I use the d4+d12 because crits get extra damage die not dice, so you can use the d12 for the crits.

I also use crits as max damage on your weapon dice + the one more die you just rolled, so for that massive weapon you would get 16+d12. Works great, people love it until that Frost Giant crits 36+3d12, the rules work both ways...

 

[smbakeresq]

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

D&D is a ROLEPLAYING game, I guess you missed the description in literally every D&D book. From the wiki:

"Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as D&D[2] or DnD) is a fantasy tabletop role-playing game..."


I will clue you in, its a fantasy game also. Its mostly played on tables also.

You can bang for misspelling role-playing, I always use it as one word out of an old habit.

 

[jaelis]

Been done already ...

OK then, it sounds like your answer to Elf's question

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?

is basically yes, you're fine with that.

I have no problem with it either, you should play the game that your group enjoys. But it does mean that most of Elfcrusher's arguments are a bit off point, I guess you are approaching the question from different places.

 

[smbakeresq]

OK then, it sounds like your answer to Elf's question

is basically yes, you're fine with that.

I have no problem with it either, you should play the game that your group enjoys. But it does mean that most of Elfcrusher's arguments are a bit off point, I guess you are approaching the question from different places.

There is no dangerous precedent. An few extra points of damage as a reward for a player putting in a few extra hours (or more likely 10+ hours) isn’t dangerous at all to the game.

It’s very dangerous to the ego of the player who can’t stand another player getting something they don’t because they worked on it.


Monsters don’t die because of 1-2 extra points of damage per round. They die because your wizard cast hold person on them for free crits and you fighter obliterated them with action surge; or your thief backstabs them after your Paladin hit them with a Divine Smite.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

Been done already, 30 years ago in "The Whole Half Ogre" article and another article ​on using weapons of different size in Dragon Magazine.

Ah, yes....it's funny you mention the Whole Half Ogre. I remember it well. We were teenagers and everybody wanted to play a Half-Ogre for those sweet bonuses and general badassery.

That is to say, we came up with reasons to rationalize roleplaying a Half-Ogre in order to get the bonuses. Which is exactly what I'm talking about here: if you allow an option that results in an even slight mechanical advantage then some/many players, especially younger ones, will take that option for the bonus without caring about the story. For the same reason so many people play Halfling Rogues, Half-elven Bards and Paladins, and Gnome Wizards. (For the record I'm opposed to racial attribute bonuses for this very reason.)

Now maybe in your game nobody does this. Or maybe everybody does that and it's just part of the way you play and so a little more of it doesn't matter. I don't really care. I'm offering my observations in general, not to you in particular.

D&D is a ROLEPLAYING game, I guess you missed the description in literally every D&D book. From the wiki:

"Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as D&D[2] or DnD) is a fantasy tabletop role-playing game..."

I will clue you in, its a fantasy game also. Its mostly played on tables also.

Oh, lord.

Ok, mea culpa. That was my bad for trying to use irony. Way too subtle.

The point I was making is that what interests you seems to be mechanical power (e.g., you can't conceive of anybody using a longsword two-handed or being primarily a javelin thrower because that would be sub-optimal), and then you claim that your motivation is really about roleplaying. Color me skeptical. So "there you go again with roleplaying and backstory" meant "there you go again paying lip service to roleplaying, without showing any evidence you actually care about it."

There is no dangerous precedent. An few extra points of damage as a reward for a player putting in a few extra hours (or more likely 10+ hours) isn’t dangerous at all to the game.


It’s very dangerous to the ego of the player who can’t stand another player getting something they don’t because they worked on it.

That's at least twice you've said something like this. Where on earth did you get this idea? Is that the only reason you can conceive of somebody being opposed to longswords and halberds as monk weapons? (If so, you clearly haven't understood anything I've said.) Or is it simply easier to disagree with somebody if you ascribe character flaws to them?

 

[ClaytonCross]

I have a Female player that wanted to play a monk with a "samurai sword"... Which in some books is a long sword.
I fixed this by giving her a Uchigatana (Predecessor of the Katana).

Uchigatana
Shortsword damage 1d6
Finesse, Light, Versatile 1d8

I basically mixed the two and it works fine. Since monks override the damage its not a big deal and the idea of a Samurai/Ninja style monk fits the class fine and interests my player.

 

[smbakeresq]

Ah, yes....it's funny you mention the Whole Half Ogre. I remember it well. We were teenagers and everybody wanted to play a Half-Ogre for those sweet bonuses and general badassery.

That is to say, we came up with reasons to rationalize roleplaying a Half-Ogre in order to get the bonuses. Which is exactly what I'm talking about here: if you allow an option that results in an even slight mechanical advantage then some/many players, especially younger ones, will take that option for the bonus without caring about the story. For the same reason so many people play Halfling Rogues, Half-elven Bards and Paladins, and Gnome Wizards. (For the record I'm opposed to racial attribute bonuses for this very reason.)

Now maybe in your game nobody does this. Or maybe everybody does that and it's just part of the way you play and so a little more of it doesn't matter. I don't really care. I'm offering my observations in general, not to you in particular.



Oh, lord.

Ok, mea culpa. That was my bad for trying to use irony. Way too subtle.

The point I was making is that what interests you seems to be mechanical power (e.g., you can't conceive of anybody using a longsword two-handed or being primarily a javelin thrower because that would be sub-optimal), and then you claim that your motivation is really about roleplaying. Color me skeptical. So "there you go again with roleplaying and backstory" meant "there you go again paying lip service to roleplaying, without showing any evidence you actually care about it."





That's at least twice you've said something like this. Where on earth did you get this idea? Is that the only reason you can conceive of somebody being opposed to longswords and halberds as monk weapons? (If so, you clearly haven't understood anything I've said.) Or is it simply easier to disagree with somebody if you ascribe character flaws to them?

You didn’t try to use irony, don’t pass off getting blasted.

You are the people who can’t stand the thought of someone getting ahead. It’s clear from your posts and tone. “Dangerous precedent”, that’s a joke. I see this all the time, the optimizers, the munchkins terrified of someone getting over on their carefully constructed PC. It’s the only reason someone would be terrified of a “dangerous precedent” of a minimally higher DPR in a game where DPR is constrained and subservient to good play, including good role play and pc development.

I have been doing this for years, it has literally no effect on gameplay except increase enjoyment. The increased deadly critical hits I use has had a much greater effect, you can one shot PCs that way.

None of this is free either, no one is given anything. The PC has to work at it, if you put in the time it’s a reward. That’s what DMs are supposed to do.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

You didn’t try to use irony, don’t pass off getting blasted.

You are the people who can’t stand the thought of someone getting ahead. It’s clear from your posts and tone. “Dangerous precedent”, that’s a joke. I see this all the time, the optimizers, the munchkins terrified of someone getting over on their carefully constructed PC. It’s the only reason someone would be terrified of a “dangerous precedent” of a minimally higher DPR in a game where DPR is constrained and subservient to good play, including good role play and pc development.

/facepalm

The "dangerous precedent" is not the slight damage; it's that you are creating an incentive to craft a character's concept and backstory for the purpose of getting bonuses, rather than for the story itself. Given that I do things like use longswords 2H and dual-wield daggers I'm probably not going to feel terribly threatened by a bit of bonus damage. If a player truly cares about his concept he won't care...

...hmmm.

This is pointless, isn't it? I'm not really talking to somebody who is even interested in understanding what I'm saying, am I?

I thought I've had surreal forum debates, with people who seem to redefine the word "comprehension", but this may set a new high. (By which I mean low).

You know what? I take it all back. I think you should use the longsword. Use the halberd. Use a sentient Vorpal halbard, even. I think you will need it.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

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. 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.

 

[cbwjm]

The argument that the player should be fine with refluffing another weapon to stand in for a weapon which already exists in the game is a stupid argument in my opinion. The game has a longsword, an elf is proficient in it. Even though the class rules don't allow for it, the rules are more of a guideline than anything else and groups should feel free to change them up to make the game fun for their group. It's best to ignore anyone who thinks this is setting some kind of dangerous precedent, it sounds like an overreaction aimed at stopping people having fun.