D&D 5E Monk Weapon

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Hmm...quote me where I used the words "huge" or "multitudes". I'll settle for "large" and "many." How about "big" or "lots"? No?

You are the one who used absolute language. You said all weapons are equal, with no exceptions. That is incorrect. (You also claimed that nobody used versatile weapons 2H, which you seem to have now backed away from.)

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.

Exactly. It's below budget, so it's a bad trade-off. If your claim were true you would expect to see approximately as many whips as other 1H martial weapons. But you don't. Ergo, all weapons are not equal.

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.

In any event, this discussion about weapons is a distraction...an amusing distraction because it's fun watching you retreat from untenable hyperbole...but a distraction nonetheless. The actual point here, that you repeatedly refuse to address (which I presume is because you don't have a retort) is that there are trade-offs in the game. Such as giving up the most damaging weapons in order to play a class that has other kinds of damage bonuses, like Rogue or Monk.

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,

100% agree.

it isn't a Pandora box, dangerous precedent or anything like that at all.

Also totally true, if you are already used to handing out bonuses to players who ask for them.

Its letting a player explore a role-playing hook for a PC he/she cares about.

And so is letting them use the sword but only doing monk damage with it.

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.

Yup, that's all.

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.

I can totally see that. In fact, I've long been wanting a Zen Archer sub-class, which would be perfect for elves, right? So elven monks with longsword and longbow could be great.

And none of that depends on giving them any extra damage. Ok, maybe a Zen Archer sub-class could give bonuses, but in that case you're spending the opportunity cost of taking other sub-classes; you're not just getting bonuses for free. In fact, that could solve the Longsword issue as well: homebrew a race-restricted sub-class in which the Longsword is a Monk weapon, and just make that the level 3 ability.

Look, nowhere have I argued that the bonus damage itself is going to make much a difference, even though you keep saying that I do. I've explicitly, several times, said the opposite. (Sorry if that's inconvenient for your argument.) And there are many RAW builds in other classes that will still do more damage. The point isn't that the d10 breaks the game, it's that I don't think you should start giving bonuses for character concept. Make the concepts fit existing rules, not the other way around. That's all. Character concepts with bonuses are called "sub-classes", and you only get one of them. (zomg...another trade-off!)

You obviously disagree, and of course you are free to run your table however you want. But the hyperbole and viciousness with which you mischaracterize my arguments don't really help your credibility.

 

[smbakeresq]

For the Zen Archery class I can see an ability that adds your wisdom bonus to hit (and maybe damage) but that costs an action (so only one attack.) The Booming Blade of archers as it were.

I said there was no practical difference, there isn't.

I didn't mischaracterize anything, you said "dangerous precedent" among many other things. That of course can only mean that you believe in someway that its unbalancing to the game, unless of course you are backing off of it now like you did when you implied I put too much emphasis role playing into a role playing game. Or tried to argue the trade offs between 2d6 and d12.

I suggest read the thread string in its entirety, its not my credibility in question.

This argument is over, I think the OP got what he wanted. Its not contributing anything to the OP questions. You can keep scrambling trying to "win" it, you wont.

See you on the threads.

 

[Guest 6801328]

For the Zen Archery class I can see an ability that adds your wisdom bonus to hit (and maybe damage) but that costs an action (so only one attack.) The Booming Blade of archers as it were.

I said there was no practical difference, there isn't.

Yes, and I did as well. We are not disagreeing on that point.

I didn't mischaracterize anything, you said "dangerous precedent" among many other things. That of course can only mean that you believe in someway that its unbalancing to the game,

Do you even know what the word "precedent" means? A dangerous precedent might have zero impact on game balance. It would just be a...precedent. Here, I will help you: definition of precedent.

unless of course you are backing off of it now like you did when you implied I put too much emphasis role playing into a role playing game.

No, I did not imply that. I implied...no, actually, I said explicitly...that you talk too much about emphasizing roleplaying since all you actually seem to care about is damage. Again I have to wonder if you don't understand the difference or if you are just willfully pretending not to.

Or tried to argue the trade offs between 2d6 and d12.

Uh...no. I didn't say there was a trade-off on that one. 2d6 is superior in most cases. Go back and read. The trade-off might be between your character concept and the math, if what you really want is to use the axe. (Again, NOT saying I personally care, just refuting you assertion that there's no difference.)

I suggest read the thread string in its entirety, its not my credibility in question.

Uh-huh....

This argument is over, I think the OP got what he wanted. Its not contributing anything to the OP questions. You can keep scrambling trying to "win" it, you wont.

See you on the threads.

Looking forward to it! Toodles!