Whats the point of monkey grip?

[Starglim]

Most PCs are medium sized. Using a large great sword jumps the damage from 2d6 to 2d8 or 2-12 to 2-16 damage, on average a 2 point damage increase.

With monkey grip that is a -2 penalty to attacks. With power attack you could subtract 2 points from your BAB and gain +4 damage, on average twice as good as simply using monkey grip.

There's no reason you can't do both. But I agree it's a slightly silly feat. It would work better combined with some additional means to remove the -2 penalty for an oversized weapon.

 

[Ditch]

Two-Weapon Fighting, dwarf fighter with Oversized TWF and Monkeygrip dual wielding large dwarven war axes.

He would have -4 to hit (instead of -2), but would deal 2d8 dmg with each (instead of 1d10).

 

[Shin Okada]

Off topic

Given that the Fullblade hasn't been reprinted for 3.5 anywhere, and given that the flavour text in 3E implied it was designed for Large creatures, I'd be inclined to call the 3E Fullblade a Large Bastard Sword under the 3.5 rules; it's almost identical to what the weapon was in 3E, with the exception of the new -2 for inappropriate size.

-Hyp.

I'd prefer to treat full-blade as simly a two-handed exotic weapon with 2d8 damages. This results in much similar mechanic as 3.0e rule. And Full-blade is meant to be "even bigger and longer greatsword" thing. Not something used in one-hand by a medium character (a large bastard sword + monkey grip feat). If I stick to the flavor text of 3.0e full-blade instead, it should be large greatsword instead of large bastard sword, because it is called "Ogre's greatsword".

Besides, considering that Great falchion is in sandstorm, there can be some great-greatsword thingy.

 

[Tetsubo]

Firstly let me say up front that I would never allow the Monkey Grip Feat into any campaign I ran. I would also never use it as a player.

I see it as an effort to allow fighters to use Anime style weapons in D&D. Huge mucking swords that blot out the sun... just absolutely silly...

 

[Shin Okada]

I see it as an effort to allow fighters to use Anime style weapons in D&D. Huge mucking swords that blot out the sun... just absolutely silly...

Yeah. But if two-bladed sword and spiked chain are acceptable.....

 

[Scharlata]

Two-Weapon Fighting, dwarf fighter with Oversized TWF and Monkeygrip dual wielding large dwarven war axes.

He would have -4 to hit (instead of -2), but would deal 2d8 dmg with each (instead of 1d10).

That would be the above mentioned Shackled City Dwarven Fighter.

BUT, the combination of Monkey Grip and Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting does NOT allow you to wield TWO oversized weapons. Only one oversized weapon and one normal sized weapon. So the Dwarven waraxes would be wielded with -4/-2 doing 2d8 + Str and 1d10 + 1/2 Str.

Going the route: Power Attack, Weapon Specialization and Exotic Weapon Master

Enjoy!

 

[Tetsubo]

Yeah. But if two-bladed sword and spiked chain are acceptable.....

I guess that begs the question: Acceptable by whom?

I've banned the Spiked Chain in every game I've run. I would also not use it as a player. It has no basis in reality. (I am aware that there are real world chain weapons. But none of them do everything that a SC does. This has been argued to death...) It appears to be a weapon designed by the game writers to take advantage of the games mechanics. That sort of meta-gaming bugs me to no end...

The two-bladed sword at least has a passing resemblance to reality. There really are weapons out here in the world that have shafts and dangerous bits on both ends. Mostly esoteric Chinese martial arts weapons but they do exist, have been used and are still in use. So the two-bladed sword is OK in my book. Odd and not a choice I would make as a player but acceptable.

 

[Ditch]

Good point Scharlata. I didn't have the book in front of me at the time and didn't realize your off hand wasn't benefitted by monkey grip.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd prefer to treat full-blade as simly a two-handed exotic weapon with 2d8 damages. This results in much similar mechanic as 3.0e rule. And Full-blade is meant to be "even bigger and longer greatsword" thing. Not something used in one-hand by a medium character (a large bastard sword + monkey grip feat). If I stick to the flavor text of 3.0e full-blade instead, it should be large greatsword instead of large bastard sword, because it is called "Ogre's greatsword".

The Fullblade is a 2d8 weapon that can be wielded in two hands by a Large creature, or in one hand with the appropriate EWP feat. That's a Large Bastard Sword, not a Large Greatsword.

It's too large to be wielded by a Medium creature, unless he has the EWP feat, in which case he can use it in two hands. Which, if we ignore the FAQ answer about bastard swords, again describes a Large Bastard Sword.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I guess that begs the question: Acceptable by whom?

I've banned the Spiked Chain in every game I've run. I would also not use it as a player. It has no basis in reality. (I am aware that there are real world chain weapons. But none of them do everything that a SC does. This has been argued to death...) It appears to be a weapon designed by the game writers to take advantage of the games mechanics. That sort of meta-gaming bugs me to no end...

The two-bladed sword at least has a passing resemblance to reality. There really are weapons out here in the world that have shafts and dangerous bits on both ends. Mostly esoteric Chinese martial arts weapons but they do exist, have been used and are still in use. So the two-bladed sword is OK in my book. Odd and not a choice I would make as a player but acceptable.

What does "reality" and "the real world" have to do with anything in D&D? Might as well ban magic and monsters too, no?