D&D 5E Monk Weapon

[jaelis]

Quarterstaff and spear do 1d8 with versatile, but I know some tables don't allow that.

Is that really true? Seems pretty obnoxious.

But if you do allow 1d8 spear and staff, you could I guess get 1d10 using the versatile property of the sword. So its +1 dmg either way. (Unless you rule that the monk can only use the sword one handed, then it would be a wash.)

 

[Bacon Bits]

Is that really true? Seems pretty obnoxious.

But if you do allow 1d8 spear and staff, you could I guess get 1d10 using the versatile property of the sword. So its +1 dmg either way. (Unless you rule that the monk can only use the sword one handed, then it would be a wash.)

I've seen people read Martial Arts as it proscribes any weapon used in two hands. I think it's a bad reading, myself, but I've seen more than one person rule it that way. I think it's a carryover from 3E's Flurry of Blows.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think if people want their monks to use swords/katanas they don't know the class' origins.

The whole point of the monk is exactly the opposite of a martial weapons user!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[cbwjm]

I think if people want their monks to use swords/katanas they don't know the class' origins.

The whole point of the monk is exactly the opposite of a martial weapons user!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I dunno man, a quick google search shows that Shaolin monks utilised a variety of weapons over their history, including swords. As for the class, the AD&D class allows them to add half their class level to weapon damage, sounds like even then they thought the monk should be highly skilled with weapons, so I kinda think that allowing racial weapons as monk weapons is reasonable.

 

[CapnZapp]

I dunno man, a quick google search shows that Shaolin monks utilised a variety of weapons over their history, including swords. As for the class, the AD&D class allows them to add half their class level to weapon damage, sounds like even then they thought the monk should be highly skilled with weapons, so I kinda think that allowing racial weapons as monk weapons is reasonable.

Since there were no elf monks in reality I'd say it's impossible to use that as an argument for (or against!) "reasonability". You can't cherry pick a historical fact and then just apply that to the highly fictional item "elves are born proficient in blades"...

I think perhaps you meant to say "I consider it reasonable for racial weapons to be included in the monk weapon category, for little other reason than I think that would be awesome"? If so, that's something entirely different and I would wholeheartedly agree, per Rule as Fun! Go ahead, knock yourself out!

What I am trying to point out here is merely that there is a reason monk weapons exist as a thing in D&D 5E. It makes no sense to suggest martial weapons and especially blades if you know what this reason is. So if you want elf blade monks, fine by me, it won't wreck anything, but please don't try to justify it with history, since, well, if anything, history suggests to us the exact opposite!

Good luck with your gaming

 

[cbwjm]

Since there were no elf monks in reality I'd say it's impossible to use that as an argument for (or against!) "reasonability". You can't cherry pick a historical fact and then just apply that to the highly fictional item "elves are born proficient in blades"...

I think perhaps you meant to say "I consider it reasonable for racial weapons to be included in the monk weapon category, for little other reason than I think that would be awesome"? If so, that's something entirely different and I would wholeheartedly agree, per Rule as Fun! Go ahead, knock yourself out!

What I am trying to point out here is merely that there is a reason monk weapons exist as a thing in D&D 5E. It makes no sense to suggest martial weapons and especially blades if you know what this reason is. So if you want elf blade monks, fine by me, it won't wreck anything, but please don't try to justify it with history, since, well, if anything, history suggests to us the exact opposite!

Good luck with your gaming

Whatever man, history doesn't suggest the exact opposite. Monks used a variety of weapons, including long bladed swords and broadswords so the jump to allowing elven monks to utilise longswords as monk weapons is a very small one.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

What I am trying to point out here is merely that there is a reason monk weapons exist as a thing in D&D 5E. It makes no sense to suggest martial weapons and especially blades if you know what this reason is. So if you want elf blade monks, fine by me, it won't wreck anything, but please don't try to justify it with history, since, well, if anything, history suggests to us the exact opposite!

It wasn't entirely clear in your earlier post what you meant by the 'origins' of the Monk. I think cbwjm thought you were talking about the historical monks rather than the history of the monk (mystic in some editions) as a D&D class, or the media inspired by the eastern mysticism craze of the 70's onwards that inspired it.

Whatever man, history doesn't suggest the exact opposite. Monks used a variety of weapons, including long bladed swords and broadswords so the jump to allowing elven monks to utilise longswords as monk weapons is a very small one.

Would you allow human monks to treat longswords, glaives, greataxes etc as monk weapons given that criteria?
You mentioned that they wouldn't get the full benefits of the Martial Arts ability unlike more conventional monk weapons? - They wouldn't automatically be able to use Dex?

 

[jaelis]

I've seen people read Martial Arts as it proscribes any weapon used in two hands. I think it's a bad reading, myself, but I've seen more than one person rule it that way. I think it's a carryover from 3E's Flurry of Blows.

Hmmph, I'd call that crossing the line between a ruling and a houserule. Plenty of ambiguous things in the rules, but I wouldn't say the definition of monk weapons is one of them

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sage Advice

 

[smbakeresq]

Would you consider a guan dao as a Monk weapon though?
Would you let the player use the halberd? glaive? stats for it, or would you adjust them to be more in line that the other Monk weapons?

I think a big part of the draw for making favoured weapon X into a Monk weapon is being able to use dex with it.

Having a martial art associated with a weapon doesn't necessarily make it a monk weapon. Fighters definitely, and probably rogues and other classes are martial artists.
Its the association with the explicitly magical martial arts of the Monk class that makes a weapon a 'Monk weapon'.

Yeah sure. Maybe not a level 1, make them work up to it like in the 36th Chamber of Shaolin. Start at staff and then get this weapon later. A monks spade is probably better and more thematic, I would let them use that also with Halberd stats but slashing at one end and piercing at the other. Its a slashing weapon really, but the motions to attack are piercing type motions, straight lines as opposed to arcs to slice in. I would designate them as monk weapons so then can use them with DEX, but I would put a minimum STR requirement on those weapons to prevent the player from dumping STR. A monks spade would qualify as a polearm for the feat also, in fact it is the purpose (to use both ends.) Let the player use a staff until 4th level, where they can take the polearm feat and then get proficiency in one of those.

A guan dao in action (a real one, not the ceremonial ones which are lighter) by a master is a whole body experience, with power provided by rotational mechanics and the dexterity and skill of the user, not raw strength. Its frightening to imagine it hitting someone. It probably should be a d12 weapon.