Coup de Grace and Power Attack

[Al]

The sensible way to translate it directly would be to say it allows you, for a -2 penalty, to treat a specific two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon.

You can already treat a one-handed weapon of a size category larger as a two-handed weapon, for a -2 penalty, so you could also take Monkey Grip with that weapon to treat a one-handed weapon of a size category larger as a one-handed weapon, for a -4 penalty.

Anything else causes problems.

If you don't want to translate it directly, but instead three-point-fiveify it, you might say it applies to all two-handed weapons, like Weapon Finesse applies to all light weapons, and switch the Weapon Focus prerequisite for something else.

-Hyp.

That would make Monkey Grip even more lame than the old 3e one. No weapon one category larger does four points of damage more than its smaller predecessors, so you might as well just take Power Attack and have the flexibility AND the damage-dealing potential. Even a large Bastard Sword (2d8, average 9) is only 3.5 points better than its medium counterpart (d10, average 5.5).

The best balanced MG is actually the old one but with no attack penalty. After all, Weapon Specialisation gives you +2 to damage, which is roughly what the increase from a medium weapon to a large weapon gave you, and can only be used with one weapon (i.e. like MG).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That would make Monkey Grip even more lame than the old 3e one. No weapon one category larger does four points of damage more than its smaller predecessors, so you might as well just take Power Attack and have the flexibility AND the damage-dealing potential. Even a large Bastard Sword (2d8, average 9) is only 3.5 points better than its medium counterpart (d10, average 5.5).

The best balanced MG is actually the old one but with no attack penalty. After all, Weapon Specialisation gives you +2 to damage, which is roughly what the increase from a medium weapon to a large weapon gave you, and can only be used with one weapon (i.e. like MG).

The main power of Monkey Grip was, by the way, not giving you an average +2 to damage. It was allowing you to gain reach with a weapon you use in one hand.
Longspear in the right, Large Metal Shield in the left. This was worth a -2. (if the shield is not enchanted, compare it to using expertise -2 attack / +2 dodge, plus gaining an average 1 point of damage and 10 foot reach).
For real munchkin goodness, using the spiked chain might be a good suggestion.

But in D&D 3.5, you do not even need a feat for it - just take the halfing/gnome longspear (if you are a dwarf, elf, half-orc, human, or any other medium size race). Though, in D&D 3.0, a giant (or other large creauture) could take a human longspear to gain the same benefits without any drawback.
All of this without any house rules or logical assumptions or whatever, certainly...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[FrankTrollman]

Except that 3.0 power attack benefits finessing TWF more. Their average damage increased disproportionaly, increasing their likelihood for a cleave compared to a Two Hander. I like the 3.5 change.

In terms of total average damage bonus from the feat - yes. So what? You still did less total damage per hit, which means that you were less likely to get cleaves, which in turn were less likely to generate additional cleaves.

What the feat was actually for was still encouraging cleaves - and TWF still sucked for that because your damage per hit was still lower.

1> I don't care if TWF people get something cool - their combat style suffers penalties in absolutely everything they ever do except when they benefit from static damage bonuses. The style doesn't make any sense unless you give them some static damage bonuses.

2> Power Attack + Cleave is still better in the hands of a two handed weapon user than it will ever be in the hands of a TWF user.

What's the problem? Even if it were strictly superior in all ways for a TWF user - which it is not - why would that be a bad thing?

The main power of Monkey Grip was, by the way, not giving you an average +2 to damage. It was allowing you to gain reach with a weapon you use in one hand.
Longspear in the right, Large Metal Shield in the left. This was worth a -2. (if the shield is not enchanted, compare it to using expertise -2 attack / +2 dodge, plus gaining an average 1 point of damage and 10 foot reach).

Since we are talking 3.0 here - the Heavy Lance is a medium martial reach weapon. The Kusuri Gama is a medium exotic reach weapon. Either one can be used one handed without investing two feats and suffering a net total of -2 to-hit.

In 3.5 we can simply use any small reach weapon one-handed. If you take an exotic weapon proficiency in that small weapon the penalties go away (probably, depending of course on how you read the 3.5 weapon size rules that flat forbid you from fighting with any weapon smaller than a housecat).

In either case - using Small Sized Objects as weapons can allow us to hit things 10 feet away with less penalties than a Monkey Gripped larger weapon. For example: a Kusuri Gama backed up with 3 feats (EWP: KG, WF: KG, and Power Attack) does 3.5 damage at +1 to-hit, or 5.5 damage at -1 to-hit (your choice). A Monkey Gripped Spiked Chain backed up with 3 feats (EWP: SC, WF: SC, and Monkey Grip: SC) does 5 damage at -1 to-hit.

The only time it was even vaguely worth considering is when you were upgrading a long sword (4.5 damage) to a Greatsword (7 damage). A feat for -2 to-hit and +2.5 damage all the time actually still sucks. But at least you were getting a betting deal than Power Attack for those first 2 points of attack bonus. Not worth doing - but better than any of the other crap you could do with that waste of time feat.

-Frank

 

[Darklone]

Wasn't Monkey Grip worth if for large or huge monsters? The average damage for size increases should raise more than a +2 on average IIRC.

 

[HeavyG]

I mean, right now it takes a house rule to allow you to throw a baseball or kitchen knife at someone (what with medium sized creatures being unable to wield diminutive objects)

The weapon size rules seemed pretty clear to me, but I don't understand this part.

Why couldn't you throw a baseball or kitchen knife at someone ? The improvised weapon rule does cover this situation and they are not diminutive weapons at all (unless you are thinking of a human throwing a pixie's baseball or a 1 inch long kitchen knife of course, which I would let you do anyway, but it just wouldn't count as an actual attack, IMO).

Now, in 3.0, it's true that you couldn't use baseballs or throw small kitchen knives around as weapons, but not in 3.5, unless there is some rule I'm overlooking.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Why couldn't you throw a baseball or kitchen knife at someone ?

Because a light weapon is two sizes smaller than you. So a medium creature's Light Weapon is a Tiny Object. Anything smaller than a light weapon cannot be used at all - not even as an improvised weapon. An Ogre can't use a Halfling's Longsword. Not as an improvised weapon, not under any circumstances - it's too small.

Similarly, a human can't use any diminunitive object. Not as an improvised weapon, not under any circumstances. So in 3.5 you can't stab people with kitchen knives, let alone scalpels, shaving razors, or needles. Not even as a coup de grace.

Obviously, something needs to be houseruled there - I personally don't use the 3.5 weapon size rules at all. The only thing they add to the game is stupidity like the inability to cut peoples' throats with shaving razors.

-Frank

 

[Darklone]

Frank, that's not right. 3.5 PHB page 113 gives the example (Inappropriately Sized Weapons) of a human using a small dagger, e.g. a dagger made for a halfling... a diminuitive object.

Where was that rule that you can't use a smaller weapon than a light one???

Edit: Didn't find it in the weapons chapter... by that wording there every weapon lighter as a one-handed weapon is simply a light weapon, penalties on attack roles for different weapon sizes apply.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Where was that rule that you can't use a smaller weapon than a light one???

On the exact same page, if you had bothered to keep reading:

If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

The examples of using small daggers have been acknowledged to be erroneous - as of course a Human simply can't use a small dagger because as a diminutive object it is moved one step beyond light and can't be used. Similarly, any other diminutive object (up to and including brass knuckles and kitchen knives) is unusable by a human.

That's what the 3.5 weapon size rules say - it's totally dumb and I see no reason to implement them.

-Frank

 

[youspoonybard]

Isn't it a medium-sized housecat? That is, a housecat meant to be thrown by a medium-sized character?

 

[Darklone]

Hmm, not exactly true. A small light weapon (by these rules, since the example above is indeed erroneous) couldn't be used, but a medium diminuitive weapon should be useable since it's simply a light weapon.

A diminuitive weapon made for halflings has no handle large enough for human hands, but a diminuitive knife for humans is ok.