D&D 5E Monk Weapon

[Guest 6801328]

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.

I can't speak for Kobold, but for my part (in response to the bold) yes & no:

Ok, sure, in my heart I am making a value judgment about roleplaying.

But his summary doesn't need to be judgmental to be accurate: if you are playing a game of optimization and roleplaying is secondary, which many people do, then it would be perfectly rational to say, "Hey, can't I use my racial ability with my class ability and get a tiny bit more damage out of it?"

 

[Hawk Diesel]

So when I say the value judgement piece, I wasn't directing that at [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] (though I did quote him in my statement, so I wasn't as clear as I would like). But a DM that decides yes or no when those are the options is making a value judgment and imposing it on the player. Which is fine, we all make judgments and decisions based on what we value. It's how we operate as people. I just prefer when people are upfront with their values/presuppositions at a game table, and consistent (I like some predictability at my game table). If I play at a table and find out after the fact that my values/presuppositions don't line up with the DM or group, conflict brews. I guess this is another area that is really resolved in a good and effective session 0.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So when I say the value judgement piece, I wasn't directing that at [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] (though I did quote him in my statement, so I wasn't as clear as I would like). But a DM that decides yes or no when those are the options is making a value judgment and imposing it on the player. Which is fine, we all make judgments and decisions based on what we value. It's how we operate as people. I just prefer when people are upfront with their values/presuppositions at a game table, and consistent (I like some predictability at my game table). If I play at a table and find out after the fact that my values/presuppositions don't line up with the DM or group, conflict brews. I guess this is another area that is really resolved in a good and effective session 0.

That's a great observation and totally fair. One of my values is "roleplay in order to tell good stories, not to gain mechanical advantage." The reward should be the entertainment value. I just feel (as I've explained many times) that doing otherwise creates a perverse incentive to do things like...oh...play Half-Ogres for the bonuses, instead of because you really want to develop an interesting, complex, flawed, and surprising Half-Ogre character.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

No. I am listening to the request, which you couched in terms of character image and the player's imagination, and making a judgement that provides that without compromising other parts of the game or player party dynamic.

If you had couched the request in terms of just plain wanting to deal more damage, then I would have given a different response.

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.

If I was going to make a houserule, such as allowing Elves to count Longswords as Monk weapons, then I probably would bring it up with the group. I would probably need to be able to come up with an argument better than those in this thread to satisfy them however. As always, different groups differ.

 

[smbakeresq]

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

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.

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


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"

No I am correct. Within each weapon damage level there is no distinctions between weapons. There isn't this great multitude of options that are available, the game isn't set up that way. You just pick whatever weapon you want your pc to look like. 4e had a lot of options, 3e had a lot of options, 5e didn't go that route. The only flail user I have seen in 5e is me when I play them, otherwise its longsword or axe, the more popular choices, mostly due to IMO that's what you see in movies and shows and minis. The way 5e is set up there really isn't a bad choice your can make, they are all almost the same.

I did like more the more options in 4e, it gave you more variety. The different choices of powers that favored various weapons were a GREAT idea. You had to think about it. This edition isn't set up that way. However, this edition is by far IMO the easiest to run as a DM and as a player also, the game flows better and has more non-combat stuff that makes the game more interactive at the table, that's very good.

And through almost continuous play for 35 years I haven't seen anyone build a dedicated Javelin thrower, or a use a longsword with 2 hands all the time, etc. Dagger thrower, sure, it was a great build and you got to wear an bandolier. Javelin thrower no, that's was just said for argument. Longsword with 2 hands was used sometimes when power attack was a thing.

BTW, Power attack (and Power Shot and Power Throw) limited to your proficiency bonus, is a great idea and far better than the Great Weapon and SS feats. Be using it some, the players like it as it can be used with all weapons (with the right feat) and you get varying bonuses. For example with +2 proficiency bonus you can choose to take -2 to hit for a +2 (one handed weapon) +3 (one handed in two hands) or +4 (two handed) bonus to damage. Players who have it are using all the time and seem to enjoy it (when it works) and hate it (when they miss by 1.)

 

[smbakeresq]

So when I say the value judgement piece, I wasn't directing that at [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] (though I did quote him in my statement, so I wasn't as clear as I would like). But a DM that decides yes or no when those are the options is making a value judgment and imposing it on the player. Which is fine, we all make judgments and decisions based on what we value. It's how we operate as people. I just prefer when people are upfront with their values/presuppositions at a game table, and consistent (I like some predictability at my game table). If I play at a table and find out after the fact that my values/presuppositions don't line up with the DM or group, conflict brews. I guess this is another area that is really resolved in a good and effective session 0.

Of course I am making a value judgment, as I posted D&D is a ROLEPLAYING game, its says so right in the description. I think that should be rewarded. I have no inherent problem with an optimizer, that's ok. However an optimizer who does nothing for PC background or development then complains when those that do get rewarded is off base (and most likely will be a problem player.) I have seen players show up with PC that are prefect mathematical constructs right off this forum that don't have a name, and then tell you "its impossible for the guard to resist my stealth check, I checked the MM and his perception cant beat my stealth check, as the DM your cheating." I think there are more players like that on these forums then in real life (so they can argue anonymously) but they do exist.

The idea is to have fun and role play in a roleplaying game, and if completely ruins your enjoyment of this game that an elf monk gets to use his racial weapon as monk weapon, maybe this game isn't for you. Certainly my table wouldn't be, I might ask you to speak in character, really have a beer drinking contest (halfing vs dwarf of course,) actually show me your spell scroll you have prepared (a slip of paper would work.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

No I am correct. Within each weapon damage level there is no distinctions between weapons.

Explain the whip. 1d4

Or that the Greatsword does 2d6 while Maul and Greataxe do 1d12. (Yes...there's a difference, and people who throw temper tantrums about about their dpr...sorry, I mean their "roleplaying"...probably care about that difference, if they can understand the math. Or read forums.)

In any event, as with most of the arguments others have made in this thread you have completely, utterly failed to understand this one. You saw the word "trade-off" and you immediately assumed "trade-off between weapons." And then in your ignorance you just barreled ahead and attacked the wrong argument.

Yes, there are trade-offs in the game. When you decide to play a monk and get special bonuses with monk weapons, the trade-off you make is that you can't use the higher damage weapons. This, of course, is a special case of the trade-off you make when you build a Dex-based character: you can't use the highest damage weapons. (And the trade-off would be greater, and be better game design, if that abomination called the rapier had not been duct-taped onto the game.)

Conversely, if you want to use the hardest-hitting weapons you are going to have to invest in Strength, probably at the cost of Dex. Trade-off.

So, basically, you're wrong.

Of course I am making a value judgment, as I posted D&D is a ROLEPLAYING game, its says so right in the description. I think that should be rewarded. I have no inherent problem with an optimizer, that's ok. However an optimizer who does nothing for PC background or development then complains when those that do get rewarded is off base (and most likely will be a problem player.) I have seen players show up with PC that are prefect mathematical constructs right off this forum that don't have a name, and then tell you "its impossible for the guard to resist my stealth check, I checked the MM and his perception cant beat my stealth check, as the DM your cheating." I think there are more players like that on these forums then in real life (so they can argue anonymously) but they do exist.

The idea is to have fun and role play in a roleplaying game, and if completely ruins your enjoyment of this game that an elf monk gets to use his racial weapon as monk weapon, maybe this game isn't for you. Certainly my table wouldn't be, I might ask you to speak in character, really have a beer drinking contest (halfing vs dwarf of course,) actually show me your spell scroll you have prepared (a slip of paper would work.)

Oh, I see.

Likewise if it completely ruins your enjoyment of the game that you spend 10 hours thinking up the concept "elven monk with longsword" and the DM won't let you roleplay d10 damage (that villain!), and your fragile ego can't handle having the same dpr as the other people at the table, this game probably isn't for you, either.

Did I get that characterization about right?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

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

No I am correct. Within each weapon damage level there is no distinctions between weapons. There isn't this great multitude of options that are available, the game isn't set up that way. You just pick whatever weapon you want your pc to look like. 4e had a lot of options, 3e had a lot of options, 5e didn't go that route. The only flail user I have seen in 5e is me when I play them, otherwise its longsword or axe, the more popular choices, mostly due to IMO that's what you see in movies and shows and minis. The way 5e is set up there really isn't a bad choice your can make, they are all almost the same.

Well, no. I know that you are incorrect, because I've seen a couple of versatile two-handed users in 5e. (A dedicated javelin-thrower still sounds a little weird, but I'm certainly not going to try to claim that no-one has ever played one in 5e.)

I did like more the more options in 4e, it gave you more variety. The different choices of powers that favored various weapons were a GREAT idea. You had to think about it. This edition isn't set up that way. However, this edition is by far IMO the easiest to run as a DM and as a player also, the game flows better and has more non-combat stuff that makes the game more interactive at the table, that's very good.

There have been a couple of posts here, and probably some stuff on DMsguild, where they expand the weapons table. Separating out a lot of weapons that fall into a single category on the official table, and granting special capabilities etc. If that is something you prefer, they might be worth a look.

 

[smbakeresq]

Well, no. I know that you are incorrect, because I've seen a couple of versatile two-handed users in 5e. (A dedicated javelin-thrower still sounds a little weird, but I'm certainly not going to try to claim that no-one has ever played one in 5e.)

There have been a couple of posts here, and probably some stuff on DMsguild, where they expand the weapons table. Separating out a lot of weapons that fall into a single category on the official table, and granting special capabilities etc. If that is something you prefer, they might be worth a look.

So out of 1000+ PC's you have seen you have seen a couple, that means 2 or 3. That means for every 1000 you see 997 or 998 built exactly like I said. That proves my point.

 

[smbakeresq]

Explain the whip. 1d4

Or that the Greatsword does 2d6 while Maul and Greataxe do 1d12. (Yes...there's a difference, and people who throw temper tantrums about about their dpr...sorry, I mean their "roleplaying"...probably care about that difference, if they can understand the math. Or read forums.)

In any event, as with most of the arguments others have made in this thread you have completely, utterly failed to understand this one. You saw the word "trade-off" and you immediately assumed "trade-off between weapons." And then in your ignorance you just barreled ahead and attacked the wrong argument.

Yes, there are trade-offs in the game. When you decide to play a monk and get special bonuses with monk weapons, the trade-off you make is that you can't use the higher damage weapons. This, of course, is a special case of the trade-off you make when you build a Dex-based character: you can't use the highest damage weapons. (And the trade-off would be greater, and be better game design, if that abomination called the rapier had not been duct-taped onto the game.)

Conversely, if you want to use the hardest-hitting weapons you are going to have to invest in Strength, probably at the cost of Dex. Trade-off.

So, basically, you're wrong.



Oh, I see.

Likewise if it completely ruins your enjoyment of the game that you spend 10 hours thinking up the concept "elven monk with longsword" and the DM won't let you roleplay d10 damage (that villain!), and your fragile ego can't handle having the same dpr as the other people at the table, this game probably isn't for you, either.

Did I get that characterization about right?

Wow, what a difference. You original claimed these huge variations, multitudes, that involved trade offs (I didn't page back to get a quote.) Now its down to 2d6 vs a d12, and the whip, which is a d4 weapon with finesse and reach properties. To use a d12 vs 2d6 you trade a bell curve for flatter distribution that works out to 0.5 more average damage but higher crit damage.

The whip, I am sure you have seen 100's of those in use. You get to use DEX and have reach with a d4 damage die.

You have proven with those examples that you can read down the weapon list searching for something and that there is no real difference among every weapon in the PHB.

Like I said to the OP, letting a elf monk use his racial weapons as monk weapons isn't game breaking, it isn't over-powered, it isn't a Pandora box, dangerous precedent or anything like that at all. Its letting a player explore a role-playing hook for a PC he/she cares about. Of course the player is lying to his DM (the OP) just to get more DPR (who would play with such a person?), well he/she really put one over on the DM to the tune of 1 extra point of damage per hit until level 11 in the monk class.

Personally, if I was the DM, I would think an Elven Monastery would of course be a long term investment, an Elf might study for 100 years and still be an apprentice. They would probably teach only Elf racial weapons (all of them) no other weapons on the Monks list. The monastery would be open to all members of the Elf race, to promote greater harmony among the different types. Through training they might mitigate weaknesses. It might exist in a huge, ancient hollowed out tree, like in that Dungeon Magazine years ago (forgot which one.) A good player could really run with that background and just drip adventure hooks all over the place.