Please rate Monkey Grip [2002 Thread]

[Rel]

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".

A pool cue (gripped near the base) is a LONG lever arm and it would take a LOT of strength to swing with any speed.

I submit that a fighter of a level high enough to have Monkey Grip likely has a LOT of Strength.

None of which invalidates your position that if you (as a GM) think it is too silly for your game, you are free to disallow it. I think that many of the people in this thread (including myself) are just saying that they usually disallow things because they are unbalanced, not because they are silly.

 

[Bastoche]

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.

Would you allow me to create a character who's fighting style include the use of an antimatter gun in a D&D campaign ?

 

[Bastoche]

A pool cue (gripped near the base) is a LONG lever arm and it would take a LOT of strength to swing with any speed.

A lot of strenght to swing a pool cue ???? It's light as a feather ! I'm talking pool table, not swimming pool ! It's ackward because it's long not because it's heavy (since it's not).

None of which invalidates your position that if you (as a GM) think it is too silly for your game, you are free to disallow it. I think that many of the people in this thread (including myself) are just saying that they usually disallow things because they are unbalanced, not because they are silly.

If someone wants to play a donkey rogue who wears rouge in my campaign, I'd dissallow it because it's silly. And chances are you would dissallow it too. Right ? Well I think monkey grip is as silly as a donker rogue with rouge. I don't care if it's balanced or not (not that I would allow something unbalanced mind you)... But I get your point.

 

[Rel]

Would you allow me to create a character who's fighting style include the use of an antimatter gun in a D&D campaign ?

Clearly there is no "rules" resolution to this argument (except saying that Monkey Grip is allowed as an option in Sword and Fist) but I see no need for setting up a straw man argument like this.

Let's agree that we disagree on the silliness of Monkey Grip and leave it at that.

 

[Bastoche]

Clearly there is no "rules" resolution to this argument (except saying that Monkey Grip is allowed as an option in Sword and Fist) but I see no need for setting up a straw man argument like this.

Let's agree that we disagree on the silliness of Monkey Grip and leave it at that.

That was adresse to someone else...

But anyway. It has been argued that monkey grip should be allowed for the people who'd like to play an anime type character. In answer to that argument, madmann75 argued that if the campaign he was making was NOT an anime style campaign, there's no reason it should be allowed for sake of coherence. And he was conterargued with an argument saying that it should not be dissallowed because some player might find it "cool" even for a non-anime campaign. Kea Yoss stop taking into account that the previous argument of maddman75 considered an anime vs non-anime campaign. So while we at it, why not talk about anti-matter gun (an option in the DMG, not some supplement BTW)...

It kind of was a poor attempt at humor. I'll try to be funnier next time

 

[Mistwell]

Lord of the Rings. That's where this whole argument is coming from. It's all Tolkiens fault.

See, NOBODY in favor of large-weapon two-weapon-fighting mentioned anime as its source. That's because that ISN'T its source. I know of no anime that uses this, though its possible it exists.

And NOBODY in favor of large-weapon two-weapon-fighting mentioned video games. That too is because that ISN'T its source. I know of no video game that uses this, though its possible it exists.

The source of large-weapon two-weapon-fighting is 1970's High Fantasy books. It's the Conans, Krulls, Red Sonja's, and Frank Frazetta art. It's the sculpting of lead figures to portray such characters as well. And it's the portrayal of people with massive, massive muscles who do extraordinary feats of physical prowess.

And people who are rabid Lord of the Rings fans have always tried to stay away from that type of "High Fantasy" stuff. If their campaigns are supposed to have a Lord of the Rings feel, they do NOT want half-naked barbarians with huge swords running around claiming that "What is best in life is to crush your enemies, to see them flee before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women." In fact, they don't want overly muscle-bound folks at all in their games, since the extraordinary acts in their campaigns should be surviving against the odds, not heedlessly cleaning the field with your weapon.

The problem is, these Lord of the Rings folks may be playing the wrong game. Because D&D 3e is all about characters increasing in power as they go up a level. And eventually, someone is going to be uber-strong (if they don't start out that way). And their physical strength will far surprass anything the good guys had in Lord of the Rings. And picking up two huge swords will not only be physically possible for them, but it will make sense that they will want to, because it shows off their stength, just as the rogue will want to show off their dexterity, and the Bard their charisma, and the spellcasters the power of their spells.

The rogue is going to start doing tumbles that are physically impossible, and will appear like Jackie Chan or something from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Are you going to disallow those also, because they don't meet with your Lord of the Rings driven expectations of your player's behaviour? Your arcane spellcaster, for that matter, is going to start flying while invisible and throwing fireballs from a distance, also highly un-Lord-of-the Rings.

And I agree that none of this is what Lord of the Rings is about - but it IS what D&D 3e is about, as character power grows.

The problem isn't monkey-grip. The feat is not overpowered, it isn't any less physically possible than what the other non-fighter characters will be doing at some point, nor is it any more or less silly than what those other non-fighter characters will do at some point. The problem is monkey-grip isn't Lord-of-the-Rings-like. And that IS a problem, if you are going to insist on DM'ing the wrong role playing game.

 

[Kibo]

Would you allow me to create a character who's fighting style include the use of an antimatter gun in a D&D campaign ?

Translation: "Aiieee! My strawman is on FIRE!"

If you think it's hard to swing long weapons around nimbly with a great degree of agility, check out a kata involving a spear some time. Or just watch a jackie chan movie. Sure weapon focus (ladder) might not be for everybody, but no one can deny it's style. And in the vein of unwieldy swords, some of the martial weapons used in the warring states period of china seem to be all but unwieldable by men, yet they were used in real war. Then to complain about unreasonableness of exceptionally large swords in a game that has double weapons, and where lame players could concievabley choose weapon focus (caber), well you already put yourself on thin ice. Then to finish with the assertion that since some anime is scifi, all anime must be scifi, well, obviously you're running out of gas.

 

[Bastoche]

The problem is, these Lord of the Rings folks may be playing the wrong game. Because D&D 3e is all about characters increasing in power as they go up a level.

D&D is about what the players an DM want it to be. Where in the rules is it forbidden to play a lord of the ring-like campaign in D&D ?

If monkey grip is ok for you, great. But don't tell me there is a way to play or not to play D&D !

 

[Bastoche]

Translation: "Aiieee! My strawman is on FIRE!"

The point was: Why should I allow a "fighting style" only because some player thinks it's cool without regard to the feel I want for my campaign ? Would an antimatter gun blow the feel of a medieval game ? Yes. Would a monkey gripper break the feel of my campaign ? Yes. Would I allow it ? No.

If you think it's hard to swing long weapons around nimbly with a great degree of agility, check out a kata involving a spear some time.

Maybe but with two spears ??? Never. And one handed for a whole kata ? I doubt it !

Or just watch a jackie chan movie. Sure weapon focus (ladder) might not be for everybody, but no one can deny it's style. And in the vein of unwieldy swords, some of the martial weapons used in the warring states period of china seem to be all but unwieldable by men, yet they were used in real war. Then to complain about unreasonableness of exceptionally large swords in a game that has double weapons, and where lame players could concievabley choose weapon focus (caber), well you already put yourself on thin ice. Then to finish with the assertion that since some anime is scifi, all anime must be scifi, well, obviously you're running out of gas.

You did the exact same mistake as KeaYoss, you read my post without considering the history of the thread and you aren't seeing where this conversation is comming from. / never said monkey grip was anime style, somebody else did. And I don't know where you hallucinated this:

Then to finish with the assertion that since some anime is scifi, all anime must be scifi, well, obviously you're running out of gas.

because I never said that.

I think monkey grip sucks. That's the end of the line for me. I think it sucks because I think it to be unplausible and unsuited to my campaign style. If you like it, knock yourself out with it. But I like a more plausible, yet heroic feel to my campaigns. load of magics but no silliness. And don't tell me that my playing style is unrelated to D&D !!! Because it is.

 

[Rel]

D&D is about what the players an DM want it to be. Where in the rules is it forbidden to play a lord of the ring-like campaign in D&D ?

If monkey grip is ok for you, great. But don't tell me there is a way to play or not to play D&D !

Nobody is saying that it is "forbidden", just that 3E D&D may be less suited to a low fantasy style campaign than some other system, unless you want to make some rather significant changes.

I'd also point out that you said in your first post in this thread:

"I think it's a silly unbelievable feat that shouldn't have been printed. I don't know nor care if it's balanced or not. It a stupid concept."

Although you preface it with "I think", the rest of those 3 sentences sound pretty authoritarian. It makes it sound as though you think nobody should play with this feat in their game.