D&D 5E Monk Weapon

[Guest 6801328]

Sorry, this might be a bit nitpicky, but this strikes me as assuming there's a right or wrong way to play D&D, and that bothers me a bit. There's nothing wrong with a player wanting to optimize or be good at something with regards to their character. Yes, allowing a monk to use a longsword as a monk weapon will improve their DPR. But as long as everyone is still having fun and the monk is not up-staging anyone, I don't see this as game-breaking.

I don't have a beef with trying to optimize within RAW. But granting exceptions to RAW in order to optimize is, I believe, the "wrong" way to play.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'd say simply being an elf doesn't bypass the Monk Weapon restrictions. Proficiency is different to whether a weapon counts as a Monk weapon. An Elf Monk who wants to wield a longsword in one or both hands should look at the kensei archetype when it comes out: its pretty much what it is for.

Or go with DemoMonkey's suggestion: allow them to describe using whatever they want, but use standardised stats for it.

But why, why does your monk have to wield

a) a medieval 1-1/2 hander (bastard sword) (this is what a longsword is by the numbers and the best historical approach)
b) an arming sword (this is what some Players think a Long sword is, when used in 1 Hand, and would look a bit clumsy on an elf)
c) a rapier like sword with a broader than usual blade so that it still can do reasonable slashing damage (This is what most players think an elven longsword looks like and would be fine for an elven fighter or rogue or even wizard maybe but for a monk? )

The 5e D&D longsword categoryin the weapons table covers pretty much any cutting sword bigger than a shortsword but smaller than a dedicated two-handed sword. Arming swords, dao, bastard swords, katana, falchions, messer, spatha, etc. Doesn't have to be western.

Even if you create a fictive non-eastern style but western-style Monk then a Monk surely will not use the same weapon as a Knight, but rather humble things like a quarterstaff or reshaped peasant weapons. Hell, even a naginata, glaive or a flail would suffice.

A D&D Monk is someone who uses internalised magic to boost their physical and combat capabilities. Once you accept that it is a fantasy trope, you no longer have to restrict them to eastern vs western concepts. The kensai is pretty much designed as a monk that can use more martial weapons, and would fit a historical longsword- (greatsword) wielding judicial duellist for example better than a fighter would.

 

[Thurmas]

I just believe this is a slippery slope, allowing the use of a weapon as a monk weapon simply because of proficiency. Are you going to then allow warhammers and half plate to be used for martial arts since your mountain dwarf is proficient?

 

[hejtmane]

I just believe this is a slippery slope, allowing the use of a weapon as a monk weapon simply because of proficiency. Are you going to then allow warhammers and half plate to be used for martial arts since your mountain dwarf is proficient?

Technically Monks can wear armor now if they are procient but they lose being able to use dex as their unarmed strike etc

Plus with the upcoming Kensei then yes then a monk will be able to use warhammer as a monk weapon since it is verstile but not a maul; look at the revised UA it will most likely be very close to what we see in Nov basicaly they can not use two handed or heavy weapons (GWM fears and compliants which are understandable)

 

[Thurmas]

Technically Monks can wear armor now if they are procient but they lose being able to use dex as their unarmed strike etc

Plus with the upcoming Kensei then yes then a monk will be able to use warhammer as a monk weapon since it is verstile but not a maul; look at the revised UA it will most likely be very close to what we see in Nov basicaly they can not use two handed or heavy weapons (GWM fears and compliants which are understandable)

I realize all that, I pointed it out in the first reply of this thread. Technically, he can use the long sword just like you say he can use armor. Just that he will lose all the benefits. The difference here is the kensei is designed to allow this vs the other subclasses which aren't.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I just believe this is a slippery slope, allowing the use of a weapon as a monk weapon simply because of proficiency. Are you going to then allow warhammers and half plate to be used for martial arts since your mountain dwarf is proficient?

I would. Warhammers as monk weapons would be cool, reminds me of the rhinos from Kung-Fu Panda. I personally would also allow such a player to use the armor with their Martial Arts ability, but they would have to choose whether their AC is based on wearing armor or if they get the Unarmored Defense.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

My issue here is we are not talking about players dipping into other classes for proficiencies and attempting to use them. These are racial abilities. Why would we say a player can choose a race, but then not allow them to benefit from their ability? Why would I choose the Urchin background if I wouldn't be allowed to use thieves tools? As an example, let's look at the Tortle. He technically comes with an automatic AC 17, equivalent to heavy armor. Should we punish a monk Tortle and say they can't use their martial arts abilities if they decide to use their natural armor over their Unarmored defense?

We are not talking about anything game-breaking. And in regards to slippery slopes, any competent DM knows that they can find creative ways to reign in problematic players or rulings.

As I tend to say a lot, this is a game where everything's made up and the points don't matter. If this change allows the player to increase their fun, and it doesn't negatively impact the table (or even better, increases EVERYONE'S enjoyment), then why not consider allowing it?

 

[Guest 6801328]

My issue here is we are not talking about players dipping into other classes for proficiencies and attempting to use them. These are racial abilities. Why would we say a player can choose a race, but then not allow them to benefit from their ability?

Nobody is saying they can't benefit from their ability. An elf monk can absolutely use a long sword. He just can't use a long sword and treat it as a monk weapon. That would be like saying (as somebody above suggested) that a Dwarf monk should be able to wear heavy armor and get Unarmored Defense. According to your argument, they should be able to benefit from their racial ability, no?

Why would I choose the Urchin background if I wouldn't be allowed to use thieves tools? As an example, let's look at the Tortle. He technically comes with an automatic AC 17, equivalent to heavy armor. Should we punish a monk Tortle and say they can't use their martial arts abilities if they decide to use their natural armor over their Unarmored defense?

Um...I don't understand your argument. In the case of the Tortle I believe RAW does allow them to use their natural armor and martial arts at the same time. So you are comparing a house-rule that allows an otherwise illegal race/class synergy to a house-rule that prevents an otherwise legal race/class synergy.

We are not talking about anything game-breaking. And in regards to slippery slopes, any competent DM knows that they can find creative ways to reign in problematic players or rulings.

As I tend to say a lot, this is a game where everything's made up and the points don't matter. If this change allows the player to increase their fun, and it doesn't negatively impact the table (or even better, increases EVERYONE'S enjoyment), then why not consider allowing it?

I agree with all of that. So what part of allowing the long sword but adjusting the damage to be in line with other monk weapons conflicts with those goals? It's one slight rule adjustment to allow the sword, and one slight rule adjustment to re-balance the damage. Win-win, right?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or go with DemoMonkey's suggestion: allow them to describe using whatever they want, but use standardised stats for it.

Not to toot my own horn...ok, ok, I'm tooting my own horn!...but I prefer my solution: normalize the damage to staff rather than martial arts damage. If you drop it to 1d4 you are penalizing them for a roleplaying/flavor choice. If you make it 1d8 (no 1d10 for using it 2H) then there is no mechanical incentive or disincentive (other than encumbrance): the player can freely make a roleplaying/flavor choice. (It would, of course, scale with martial arts damage like other monk weapons and become 1d10 at high enough level.)

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Um...I don't understand your argument. In the case of the Tortle I believe RAW does allow to use their natural armor and martial arts at the same time. So you are comparing a house-rule that allows an otherwise illegal race/class synergy to a house-rule for that prevents an otherwise legal race/class synergy.

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.

I agree with all of that. So what part of allowing the long sword but adjusting the damage to be in line with other monk weapons conflicts with those goals? It's one slight rule adjustment to allow the sword, and one slight rule adjustment to re-balance the damage. Win-win, right?

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.