Please rate Monkey Grip [2002 Thread]

[Bastoche]

Someone in another thread mentionned the word "plausible". I really like that word.

The DnD universe don't need to be realistic. Realistic as in "respects all rules of physics". It only has to be plausible. Plausible as in "considering that magic exists, is it realistic ?". You can't compare spellcasting to reality since it doesn't exist at all. But swords and swordfighting do (or did) exist ! There's no reality base for magic but there is for "fighter's mechanics".

Wielding a 6 foot long sword in one hand is not possible in real life. Depending on the feel you want (there's no such thing as a "DnD feel", there is as many as there is players), monkey grip may or may not be silly. For me it's silly. And using two greatswords is the top silliness there is. For me. And for me anime is about realistic cartoons, exactly to opposite as some claim here. Monkey gripping a greatsword is more a console games thing (final fantasy comes to mind). But then again, I'm not very well verse in anime culture... I like ghost in the shell, Blood, the last vampire and thins like that. No monkey gripping there.

And who the hell would want to take a feat with the word "monkey" in it beside Homer Simpson ?

 

[Rel]

In a game where a fighter of a level necessary to have Monkey Grip could easily have a Strength of 22 or higher (thanks to spells like Bulls Strength or Gauntlets of Ogre Power), I've got no problem with the plausibility of this feat.

If it violates the "flavor" of your campaign, that's a different argument altogether.

 

[Bastoche]

In a game where a fighter of a level necessary to have Monkey Grip could easily have a Strength of 22 or higher (thanks to spells like Bulls Strength or Gauntlets of Ogre Power), I've got no problem with the plausibility of this feat.

If it violates the "flavor" of your campaign, that's a different argument altogether.

That's the main point IMO.

But also IMO, it's not a matter of strength but rather a matter of length. Take two pool cue and try to swing them efficiently to hack someone down and you'll get my point.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't allow it in my games. If playing in someone else's game I would never take it, and would make fun of anyone who did .

And damage wise, wouldn't you be just as well off using two short swords and power attacking for 2 each round (average damage = 3 + 2 = 5) as taking the penalties to use two bastard swords? (average = 5).

It's bad DMing to disallow fighting styles that you don't like. If the player wants to spend a feat to fight in a way that's still inefficient, just because he likes the notion, why not let him.

And forget about those formulars. It's not about doing as much damage as you could, but doing something stylish (and if you don't think it looks cool, just don't take it. Don't forbid or ridicule everyone who's gaming stile differs from your own.)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Using two greatswords, one in each hand?! No way!

Why not? With STR scores beyond the twenties, or even thirties (and that's not so awfully much: 18 as a base stat can be achieved, +2 for some races, +4 for rage, +6 for frenzy, and we've got 30. And I've not even included magic or level-dependent ability score increases.)

A character with STR 30 can carry over 500 lbs without even starting to sweat. Thy can lift 1600 pds over their head and can drag or push along 8000 pounds! I think a player with those tremendous power will have no problem fighting with a whole tree (if it has a handle), and a greatsword in each hand should be one of his easier tricks.

 

[maddman75]

Because too divergent a style can ruin the feel of a campaign. I mean we have a group of gritty warriors, sly rouges in black cloaks, and caster of ancient knowledge that look like they just came out of LotR. Then they get joined by spikey haired FF looking guy with a greatsword in each hand. He is out of place and looks silly.

By contrast, if the game was in a high magic, high energy like setting where everyone looked like the FF guy, a character that looked like strider would look silly and out of place.

I disagree vehemently that it is bad DMing to dictate the styles of the characters. For instance, if we are playing an epic game of good heroes off to slay evil and one guy makes an assassin, he is effectively screwing up the game for everyone. Same goes for a campaign set in a corrupt urban city, with the characters trying to gain influence in a theives guild and one guy goes and makes a paladin.

I'm a player as well as a DM, and I always take the setting and style of the campaign into account when I make a character.

 

[Bastoche]

Why not? With STR scores beyond the twenties, or even thirties (and that's not so awfully much: 18 as a base stat can be achieved, +2 for some races, +4 for rage, +6 for frenzy, and we've got 30. And I've not even included magic or level-dependent ability score increases.)

A character with STR 30 can carry over 500 lbs without even starting to sweat. Thy can lift 1600 pds over their head and can drag or push along 8000 pounds! I think a player with those tremendous power will have no problem fighting with a whole tree (if it has a handle), and a greatsword in each hand should be one of his easier tricks.

Look at my pool cue argument. I think it's silly. And it's my opinion. And in my games. most sword'n'fist feats are dissallowed. Especially "monkey grip".

 

[maddman75]

Why not? With STR scores beyond the twenties, or even thirties (and that's not so awfully much: 18 as a base stat can be achieved, +2 for some races, +4 for rage, +6 for frenzy, and we've got 30. And I've not even included magic or level-dependent ability score increases.)

A character with STR 30 can carry over 500 lbs without even starting to sweat. Thy can lift 1600 pds over their head and can drag or push along 8000 pounds! I think a player with those tremendous power will have no problem fighting with a whole tree (if it has a handle), and a greatsword in each hand should be one of his easier tricks.

Its not a question of weight or strength. Its a question of length. These swords are in all likelyhood longer than the character is tall. Furthur, when actually used they were gripped almost like a staff, with blows being dealt with the hilt and pommel as often as the blade. How is he supposed to do that with one in each hand?

 

[Bastoche]

And what about dual wielding glaives while we're at it

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Because too divergent a style can ruin the feel of a campaign. I mean we have a group of gritty warriors, sly rouges in black cloaks, and caster of ancient knowledge that look like they just came out of LotR. Then they get joined by spikey haired FF looking guy with a greatsword in each hand. He is out of place and looks silly.

By contrast, if the game was in a high magic, high energy like setting where everyone looked like the FF guy, a character that looked like strider would look silly and out of place.

I disagree vehemently that it is bad DMing to dictate the styles of the characters. For instance, if we are playing an epic game of good heroes off to slay evil and one guy makes an assassin, he is effectively screwing up the game for everyone. Same goes for a campaign set in a corrupt urban city, with the characters trying to gain influence in a theives guild and one guy goes and makes a paladin.

I'm a player as well as a DM, and I always take the setting and style of the campaign into account when I make a character.

Who's talking about spikey haired FF looking guys? I'm not saying the guy's got to have dragon balls to use two greatswords (or a greatsword and a shield). It doesn't have to be an anime-style character. I was talking about fighting stile.