D&D 5E Monk Weapon

[Guest 6801328]

Where in RAW does it distinguish Natural Armor from Armor? Based on my review of the Monk's Martial Arts ability, and the Tortle's Natural Armor ability, one could rule that a Tortle's Natural Armor disqualifies it from using several monk abilities. There is no where in the Tortle description of abilities that specifically makes exception to using this ability with Martial Arts. Of course, perhaps I missed something, but this is a potential way to rule.

In the use of the word "wear". In the monk class it says a monk cannot "wear" armor to benefit from its abilities. In the Tortle description it says:

You are ill-suited to wearing armor. Your shell provides ample protection, however...

and

You gain no benefit from wearing armor

That says to me (YMMV) that Tortles are not wearing armor.

Because I could just as easily flavor my monk so that his hands become clubs of stone or wreathed in Ki energy. This doesn't change anything with the mechanics. But if I race provides a mechanical benefit, and a player is not allowed to use it, why would we nerf that player if it doesn't break the game? I mean, things are different in AL games because it is HARD RAW, but in any home table game, from my perspective, it's unduly harsh to say an elf monk could not benefit from using their racial ability effectively.

Wait...on the one hand you are saying that the damage difference is so tiny that it doesn't matter, and on the other hand you are saying that it is "unduly harsh" to not allow it. I'm confused.

And, again, explain why it's ok for the elf monk to use a sword but not ok for the dwarf monk to wear armor. Or are you saying that the dwarf monk should be allowed to wear armor?

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Wait...on the one hand you are saying that the damage difference is so tiny that it doesn't matter, and on the other hand you are saying that it is "unduly harsh" to not allow it. I'm confused.

And, again, explain why it's ok for the elf monk to use a sword but not ok for the dwarf monk to wear armor. Is it simply a matter of degree?

My reasoning for saying it's harsh not to allow it is because it is such a small thing to argue over and provides such a small benefit to the player that saying no seems... for lack of a better word... mean I guess? I mean, if I had a DM that would be that strict in their rulings, I would worry about their ability to be flexible in their interpretations of the game and fear they are too rigid for my tastes of play style.

As to the Dwarf wearing armor, I think you misunderstood my post above. I would absolutely allow a Dwarf Monk to wear and benefit from armor. They couldn't add their wisdom bonus to their AC if they use the armor, or use Wisdom in place of Dexterity, but I would allow a Dwarf Monk to have access to all their monk abilities while wearing armor granted by their racial abilities. The only abilities really affected by wearing armor are Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My reasoning for saying it's harsh not to allow it is because it is such a small thing to argue over and provides such a small benefit to the player that saying no seems... for lack of a better word... mean I guess? I mean, if I had a DM that would be that strict in their rulings, I would worry about their ability to be flexible in their interpretations of the game and fear they are too rigid for my tastes of play style.

Ok, fair enough. My reasoning is that if they're upset by the loss of 0.5 damage then it must because they were choosing it for the damage, and not for the flavor, and for me that's not a good enough reason to change the rules.

Would you allow an elf rogue to use a longsword as a "finesse" weapon so he can use it 2H and get 0.5 more damage than he would with a rapier? I imagine (based on your argument above) that you would say yes. (This is a bad example because it would actually reduce his damage to not have a 2nd attack as a backup for Sneak Attack in case the first attack missed.)

As to the Dwarf wearing armor, I think you misunderstood my post above. I would absolutely allow a Dwarf Monk to wear and benefit from armor. They couldn't add their wisdom bonus to their AC if they use the armor, or use Wisdom in place of Dexterity, but I would allow a Dwarf Monk to have access to all their monk abilities while wearing armor granted by their racial abilities. The only abilities really affected by wearing armor are Martial Arts and Unarmored Movement.

But the same thing could be said of the long sword: you are free to use it because your race says so, but that's mutually exclusive with the class benefits that apply only to monk weapons. The reason monk damaging abilities are restricted to "monk weapons" is to prevent them stacking with high damage weapons, just like monk defenses are restricted to no armor to prevent it from stacking with high ACs.

 

[jgsugden]

My suggestion: If it doesn't break the game, allow players to do anything that seems fun to them. If it bumps average damage by 0.5 points? Whatever. That isn't significant, and if it is more fun for the player, let them have their cake and eat it too.

If an elven monk wanted to use a longsword as a monk weapon, I'd allow it. It isn't overpowered to just treat it like a monk weapon - it may have some slight advantages, but the advantages are within reason and monks are not exactly overpowered in general.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

But the same thing could be said of the long sword: you are free to use it because your race says so, but that's mutually exclusive with the class benefits that apply only to monk weapons. The reason monk damaging abilities are restricted to "monk weapons" is to prevent them stacking with high damage weapons, just like monk defenses are restricted to no armor to prevent it from stacking with high ACs.

Yes, but then you are essentially forcing the player to prioritize their character's identity as either a monk or an elf, when really they are an elven monk. Also, we are not talking about the difference between a shortsword and a greatsword or greataxe. We aren't talking about halberds with reach or heavy weapons that work with great weapon fighting. It definitely does improve the player's character. But does it do so in such a way that it breaks the game? I'd argue no. But I'm also the kind of DM that has no issue giving players various boons and unique magical gear. Part of the fun of playing D&D is to pretend to be something greater and more powerful than yourself and to overcome epic challenges. As long as no one feels left out or nerfed, as a DM I just kinda roll with it. That's not everyone's style or cup of tea, but it's mine and it works for me and the groups I've played with.

 

[DemoMonkey]

You can always give the player what they want and then subtract a point from their damage behind the screen. If that makes them happy and doesn't bother the other players, have at it.

 

[Coroc]

You can always give the player what they want and then subtract a point from their damage behind the screen. If that makes them happy and doesn't bother the other players, have at it.

now that is mean, real DM go without a screen. DM cheating works well for purely RP orientated groups, but for my group I dice in the open, because they do really want it that way.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Heh. It doesn't matter whether you roll the dice in the open. Unless you leave your notes facing the middle of the table (which kind of spoils THEIR fun, I think) and/or your players can read upside down they are not going to actually know what HP you're recording for damage.

And if they DO care that much about a single point of damage, they aren't the type to let one player squeeze out an advantage that they all don't get, so you don't have to be the bad guy.

In either case it's an easy solve for the DM!

 

[Satyrn]

In either case it's an easy solve for the DM!

I envy your memory, if you think it'd be easy for me to remember to do that for more than half a session!

 

[Hawk Diesel]

You can always give the player what they want and then subtract a point from their damage behind the screen. If that makes them happy and doesn't bother the other players, have at it.

Seems too disingenuous for my tastes. In a game that is all about group cohesion and working together within an established social contract, lying like that really creates potential for future problems. If there is any kind of slippery slope, that one is more concerning to me than opening so-called floodgates for what can be considered a monk weapon. Especially if you are the DM, the players place trust in you to provide a fun game that is interesting and challenging to some degree. The DM controls NPC that may be antagonists or conflicted with the players, but in my experience the DM functions best as part of the game and the group in some way, not a Player vs. DM scenario. The DM already technically has all the power to change the world and the rules, but that power only goes as far as the players allow because a DM without players is just a writer or artist rolling dice alone. Why abuse that power and risk losing the trust of the players?