Whats the point of monkey grip?

[Question]

Yea i mean, wizards dont exist in real life.

 

[Shin Okada]

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.

If you stick to the 3.0e Fullblade's rule for medium-sized creature .... 2d8 two-handed exotic weapon is similar.

If you stick to the 3.0e Fullblade's rule for large-sized creature .... Large Bastard Sword is similar.

If you stick to the 3.0e Fullblade's flavor text .... Large Greatsword (and Large Greatsword was 2d8 weapon in 3.0e)

But anyway, any of those interpretation should be house rule until the actual stats for Fullblade is shown in 3.5e.

 

[Shin Okada]

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.

It is hard to talk about reality and realism in sword and sorcery world.

I don't say all the double weapons are non-realistic. Quarterstaff is realistic and the double-weapon rule seems to suit the way it is used. Two-bladed sword seems unrealistic in some degree. And if we start to argue if some of Chinese martial arts weapons are really practical for combat or mainliy for exhibition, that argument will never end.

And yeah, while there are many weapons which is using chain or being chain itself (both European ones and Asian ones). But Spiked Chain looks more like something used by animation characters (Samurai-Trooper or St. Seiya ..)

And, if we start to talk about the size of swords, many fantasy games including D&D are often not dipictiong the real swords well in weight, length nor shape anyway.

Well, for me, D&D is a world where a human hero with a sword can fight toe-to-toe against Godzilla sized dragons. Then why not he can't use a height length sword?

But each guy has one's taste, anyway.

 

[frankthedm]

It is hard to talk about reality and realism in sword and sorcery world.

Not really, as long as the "It's magic" excuse is only applied to magic effects and the only "hand waving" is for somatic components.

 

[Tetsubo]

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

The game has a foundation in reality. It's for the most part based on Europe of the Middle Ages. It has magic layered over that foundation. The "reality" parts of the game should in my opinion reflect reality. Cows don't normally fly, wagons roll along the ground, crops grow in a normal manner, armour is made much as it is in our world, etc. I also want he weapons in the game to refl;ect reality. Certain ones have been introduced into the game that make no sense to me. The Spiked Chain, Dire Flail and Mercurial weapons are some examples.

If you want a game that has NO basis in reality what so ever... I'd love to see it. But D&D is based on our world. I've been studying weapons for almost thirty years. I want my game world weapons to look like they would actually work. The SC would be a greater danger to its user and his allies then to any enemy...

Many people love the SC. I don't grasp that. The SC was the first thing I saw in 3.0 that I said, "Not in my game."

 

[Shin Okada]

Not really, as long as the "It's magic" excuse is only applied to magic effects and the only "hand waving" is for somatic components.

Hm. But HP is not a magical ability by the rule. And a 20th-level barbarian don't die even if he is fallen from Empire State Building (Max 20d6 damages from falling).

 

[mvincent]

Is it just me or is this feat only useful for PCs that are at least large sized?

Large size (or having enlarge cast on you) greatly improves the effectiveness of monkey-grip. However, you could also use monkey-grip to say, wield a gargantuan sunblade (medium PC's can normally wield a huge ones), increasing the damage from 3d8 to 4d8.

If you were later enlarged, it would become 6d8.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, you could also use monkey-grip to say, wield a gargantuan sunblade (medium PC's can normally wield a huge ones), increasing the damage from 3d8 to 4d8.

No, you can't.

A Medium creature can wield a Huge Shortsword as a two-handed weapon (at -4). A Large creature can wield a Huge shortsword as a one-handed weapon (at -2), or a Gargantuan shortsword as a two-handed weapon (at -4).

A Medium creature with Monkey Grip cannot wield a Huge shortsword as a one-handed weapon, nor can he wield a Gargantuan shortsword as a two-handed weapon; neither of them are weapons designed for a creature one size larger than himself, and the feat therefore has no effect. (They are weapons designed for a creature two or three sizes larger respectively.)

-Hyp.

 

[Sejs]

...However, you could also use monkey-grip to say, wield a gargantuan sunblade...

Just so long as you never, ever had to fight indoors or in any sort of restricted terrain.


"Curses! Hallways! My one weakness!"

 

[mvincent]

No, you can't.

Depending on your DM, yes you certainly could.

neither of them are weapons designed for a creature one size larger than himself, and the feat therefore has no effect. (They are weapons designed for a creature two or three sizes larger respectively.)

While that is the literal interpretation of the feat, the intent of the writer here can also be reasonably interpreted a bit more openly. Hopefully you can already see that side... i.e. many would consider the writer's intent to allow it to assist in wielding a huge longsword similarly to how it assists one to wield a large greatsword.

In fact, the 3.5 FAQ gives an example of a medium character using powerful build (which uses similar wording to monkey grip) to aid in wielding a huge-sized weapon. As much as you malign the FAQ, it would seem over-reaching to insist that one 'can't' follow it's interpretation or examples.

But perhaps I should have clarified that the tactic may not always be allowed (in fact, I don't even allow monkey-grip in my game at all), but merely that it can be allowed (and has FAQ support).