Please rate Monkey Grip [2002 Thread]

[Bastoche]

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 dont not think that monkey gripping is what makes a campaign "fantasy-like". And I'm not talking about playing a low fantasy campaign either. I just think that the whole part of D&D that can be understood IRL could be applied to D&D. In our current example, the fact that a greatsword couldn't be wield in one hand because it's too long.

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.

That's exactly why I put the "I think" there in the first place... I've said a thousand times that if you want to allow it in your campaign, I'm fine with it. The guy asked my opinion and I gave it: I think monkey grip is silly. Now I feel like my opinion has been disregarded because some people here think it's un-D&D-like to not allow monkey grip because they think "D&D = overstrong barbarians wielding oversized swords". And I don't agree with that either.

What I agree with though, is the following:

Anyone who'd like to play a campaign with monkey gripper can knock themselves out, I don't care. But / won't allow it in my game because I find it unplausible, unrealistic or whatever. And nobody will change my mind. It's my opinion and I have a right to hold it.

 

[maddman75]

Funny, I don't recall Conan using two huge swords. I have no problem with great feats of strength. I just think its ridiculous to weild a greatsword or polearm in both hands. If your taste is different, well that's okay too.

 

[smetzger]

I think this is the most votes of any of my polls.

I don't think the mechanics are all that silly/out of place. However, I think the name of the feat is silly.

 

[Rel]

However, I think the name of the feat is silly.

On that you have my wholehearted agreement.

They could at least have called it "Fiendish Dire Ape Grip".

 

[Mistwell]

Oh yeah, I agree on the name as well. "Greater Wield", "Enhanced Wield", "Enhanced Grip", "Enhanced Grasp", "Improved Wield", "Improved Grip", "Improved Grasp", these would all be better names.

 

[dcollins]

I think this is the most votes of any of my polls.

I'm wondering how you're going to handle all the people who voted "1" because they feel that the feat is actually too powerful.

They could at least have called it "Fiendish Dire Ape Grip".

I made the same crack at our game... of course, my PC who took the feat is fond of summoning spells, so it sounded more complementary.

Even just "Ape Grip" would be a more punchy title.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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

Sure. I'd let you practice a fighting stile that includes the use of antimatter guns. Or phasers. Or kill-o-mat phizz-lazers of death (tm).
But you would have problems finding the weapons you want to fight with. That's the problem: there are no antimatter guns in most D&D worlds, but there are lots of greatswords and the like.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't think the mechanics are all that silly/out of place.

I concur.

Some people seem to imply that people with that feat would at once dual wield greatswords. But that's not true. It's just one way to use this feat, and you could also use a large weapon and a shield at once.

Some people seem to fuse the feat to anime or other themes. But that's not true. I can well imagine someone wielding a large weapon in one hand in your normal Grayhawk or FR campaign.

Some people insist that it's impossible to use weapons in the way the feat let's you. But that's not true. With enough strength you can use weapons that way despite the physical hindrances. and with enough experience you can use the way physics work with very long weapons to your advantage and incorporate it into your fighting style.

Some DM's just ban everything they don't like from their campaigns and give a damn whether the players like that or not. If the players don't mind, and one indeed wants to use that feat and would have a good time playing such a character, you only take the fun out of the game (I had such DM's myself, they seem to be created by AD&D with it's restrictions). A good DM would talk with the player (if noone really wants that feat, noone will miss it and you maybe even have to ban it to keep it out of the game), and work with him to make the thing work - without looking silly.

However, I think the name of the feat is silly.

Well, I think it's OK, since you have to grip the weapon rather awkwardly (ctrl-alt-del comes to mind), like a monkey with his long-fingered hands (awkward for humans, that is. Monkeys are accustomed to it I think)

 

[maddman75]

Kae, I'd say that if a player wanted the fighting style of 'Big sword and shield' that Exotic Weapon: Bastard Sword is the way to do that. Since there is no Monkey Grip IMC, it is as large a sword as can be held by a human, and has the impressive look you'd be going for.

A greatsword cannot be weilded with less that two hands by a medium creature IMC, feat or no feat.

 

[Ratama]

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.

Maybe if you actually bothered to learn anything about medieval weaponry...

Wielding a 6 foot long sword in one hand is not possible in real life.

In fact, it is possible to wield a zweihander in one hand (it's not even very difficult), so please don't go around warping impressionable young minds with uneducated fallacies.

If for some reason you develop the ambition to educate yourself, I recommend your local library and your local SCA chapter as two decent starting points; if you can't get your butt off the couch, then at least tune into the History channel once in a while, ok?

More research less guesswork, please.

If you don't want Monkey Grip in your campaign, then don't use it; but the actual silliness with that feat is that it IS a feat, instead of merely a poor tactic on the part of the warrior (obviously, someone should better off using a weapon designed to be used in one hand if they are dual-wielding or using a shield).

If you want a realistic take, just assign a -4 penalty to hit when using a two-handed weapon in one hand, and simply don't allow any feats to negate that penalty under any circumstances.