PDA

View Full Version : You know how Monkey Grip doesn't let you wield weapons as if they were less heavy...



Were-Sandwich
2007-02-02, 10:34 AM
...well WOTC seem to think it does. From 'Save my Game'

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20070202



You can also extend your effective combat range by arming yourself with a reach weapon. These are usually two-handed, meaning you can't use a shield, but you can solve that with the Monkey Grip feat -- shield in one hand, longspear or spiked chain in the other. You can gain reach by finding or commissioning magic items that increase your size or with a feat such as Lunging Strike. You can also make sure you have missile weapons available -- f you can't reach them, you can still attack them. Weapons you can use in melee or at range are handy for this, though ranged attacks preclude using Combat Expertise.

Emphasis mine. Either this is a glaring error, or a new ruling. IF its the former, we need to send a big "MONKEY GRIP DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!" to WOTC. If the latter, we may have to retract many such previous statements.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-02, 10:36 AM
Glaring error. We don't need to send anything, we don't expect WotC's minor articles and stuff to be consistent
.

Wolf53226
2007-02-02, 10:42 AM
Technically, couldn't the spear be the exception, since there is a type of spear that is one handed? Wouldn't a long spear, be in effect, a short spear with this feat?

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-02, 10:43 AM
No. No, it wouldn't. A Large sized shortspear is not a longspear mechanically, regardless of how much they resemble each other.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-02, 10:44 AM
Technically, couldn't the spear be the exception, since there is a type of spear that is one handed? Wouldn't a long spear, be in effect, a short spear with this feat?

No. One has reach, the other doesn't.

Thomas
2007-02-02, 11:25 AM
WotC writers rarely, if ever, get their own rules right outside of the books. (And even inside the books, it can be hit-and-miss. Check out the monk bonus feat matter in the PHB2...)

Yakk
2007-02-02, 11:30 AM
So here is a question.

Is it the size of the weapon or the size of the wielder that determines the reach boost?

Ie, if you use a weapon sized for Tiny people, do you lose reach, or do you still get your own reach?

Thomas
2007-02-02, 11:31 AM
Reach weapons just add 100% to your Reach, as far as I know. If your reach is 5 ft., it goes up to 10 ft. If your reach is 10 ft., it goes up to 20 ft. Technically, a Huge giant wielding a Tiny longspear would apparently have 30 ft. reach... (Although any sensible DM will step in and rule otherwise at that point.)

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-02, 11:32 AM
So here is a question.

Is it the size of the weapon or the size of the wielder that determines the reach boost?

Ie, if you use a weapon sized for Tiny people, do you lose reach, or do you still get your own reach?

The size of the wielder.

Well, no. Larger creatures generally have greater natural reach; reach weapons generally just add 5 or 10 to a creature's natural reach,

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-02, 11:34 AM
Reach weapons double natural reach.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-02, 11:35 AM
Reach weapons double natural reach.

They do?

Oh.

I should stop discussing these things while I'm at work without looking at the SRD first.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2007-02-02, 11:50 AM
Methinks they are trying to make that feat suck less.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-02, 11:55 AM
Methinks they are trying to make that feat suck less.

The way they did in NWN2 was actually pretty good.

Yakk
2007-02-02, 11:58 AM
Then having a one-handed reach spear is really easy.

Just use a use a small-sized longspear. No feat needed to use as a one-handed weapon, -2 to hit, 1d6 damage. Can hit things that are 10' away.

Halflings can use a tiny-sized longspear for 1d4 damage and -2 to hit in one hand.

Although you might be better off using a Glaive (ups your die size by 1).

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-02, 12:00 PM
A small-size longspear is not a one-handed weapon for a medium creature.

Thomas
2007-02-02, 12:19 PM
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.


Looks to me like it is, Bears? A Small longspear (two-handed weapon) is a one-handed weapon for a Medium creature, but used at a -2 penalty.

Yakk
2007-02-02, 12:26 PM
A small-size longspear is not a one-handed weapon for a medium creature.


The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

Yes, but it can be wielded as a one-handed weapon at -2 to hit without any feats.

Arbitrarity
2007-02-02, 12:32 PM
What you can do, is get a pair of spiked chains, enlarge person, let go of them, so they shrink to medium, and grab them both. Voila, medium sized spiked chains, and really retarded looking TWF.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 02:26 PM
Looks to me like it is, Bears? A Small longspear (two-handed weapon) is a one-handed weapon for a Medium creature, but used at a -2 penalty.

Indeed, the FAQ seems to think so too. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be.

Gamebird
2007-02-02, 02:53 PM
What you can do, is get a pair of spiked chains, enlarge person, let go of them, so they shrink to medium, and grab them both. Voila, medium sized spiked chains, and really retarded looking TWF.

LMAO.

Yes, truly. In any future campaign I start, I am banning exotic weapons except for racial ones.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 03:04 PM
I would ban the racial ones as well. What about the Bastard Sword and Repeating Cross Bows, though?

Mauril Everleaf
2007-02-02, 03:11 PM
I think Bastard Sword should be moved to martial anyway. It is arguably the most common sword used in Europe during the Middle Ages. I houserule it down to martial in my games. And it can be weilded one- or two-handed, with damage and AB modifers.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 03:14 PM
Well, a lot depends on who you talk to with regard to the Bastard Sword and what it represents in D&D. It's worth remembering that in 3.x it is already a Two Handed Martial Weapon that a character can be trained to use in one hand (via Exotic Weapon Proficiency); with regard to that it models the Medieval 'Longsword' or 'Grete Sword' fairly well.

Mauril Everleaf
2007-02-02, 03:19 PM
According to the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/weapons.html) the bastard sword is a one-handed exotic weapon and not listed as a two-handed martial weapon. It may say different in the PHB or DMG but I don't own a 3.5 copy of either, so I rely on the SRD.

Hurlbut
2007-02-02, 03:45 PM
It is a martial weapon when wielded Two-handed

Matthew
2007-02-02, 03:45 PM
Read the associated description:



Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

Mauril Everleaf
2007-02-02, 03:48 PM
Ah, missed that. I was looking for the description under Bastard Sword, not Sword,Bastard. My mistake.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 03:53 PM
No problem, you are not the first to have overlooked this and you probably won't be the last!:smallwink:

Mauril Everleaf
2007-02-02, 03:56 PM
I actually own a German Bastard Sword. I'm not a strong guy by any means (maybe str 9) and I can wield the thing rather effectively with one hand. I prefer just making a AB penalty when weilded one-handed, and a damage bonus when weilded two-handed. No extra feats required. But that's me.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 04:01 PM
Thomas has argued for that in the past. Basically treating it as though Non Proficient (-4 AB). It doesn't appear to be RAW (though, there is disagreement), but it also seems like a reasonable interpretation. Personally, I would dump Bastard Swords if I were going to House Rule the game and make Long Swords 1D10 when used in two hands.

Mauril Everleaf
2007-02-02, 04:02 PM
Well, they make two-handed long swords, which, IIRC, are +1 AB, +2 dmg over a regular Longsword.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 04:10 PM
What book is that in? Sounds odd.

Mauril Everleaf
2007-02-02, 04:11 PM
I don't know. It's probably from an old edition.

Gamebird
2007-02-02, 06:23 PM
I would ban the racial ones as well. What about the Bastard Sword and Repeating Cross Bows, though?

No repeating crossbows. Technology level isn't there in my game.

As for the bastard sword, I'd probably leave it as is. It's not weird, it doesn't have reach, and it forms a bridge between the d8 longsword and the two handed, 2d6 great sword.

Alternately, I could say it's a human racial weapon, letting humans use it one handed and making everyone else pay a feat for the same privilege.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 06:26 PM
Fair enough, though I feel I should point out that Repeating Cross Bows were around over 2,000 years ago (so I am told). Also, the Bolas, Net, Whip and Shuriken are on the exotic list, not to mention the other Monk Weapons.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-02, 07:04 PM
Repeating crossbows have been around for thousands of years, yes. Like gunpowder. They were a Chinese thing and really don't fit well into the faux-European flavour of most of the weapons...

Except the nunchaku, and the sai, and the shuriken, and the...

Thomas
2007-02-02, 07:08 PM
I actually own a German Bastard Sword. I'm not a strong guy by any means (maybe str 9) and I can wield the thing rather effectively with one hand. I prefer just making a AB penalty when weilded one-handed, and a damage bonus when weilded two-handed. No extra feats required. But that's me.

The real "bastard swords" are actually longswords; D&D is the greatest propagator of absolutely incorrect ideas about weapons, and the "hand-and-a-half sword" is one of those ideas... Longswords were designed to be used two-handed, but weren't really as big as they're often made out to be (two-handed swords weren't all that heavy, either; 4 pounds would have been quite a lot, comparatively).


Thomas has argued for that in the past. Basically treating it as though Non Proficient (-4 AB). It doesn't appear to be RAW (though, there is disagreement), but it also seems like a reasonable interpretation. Personally, I would dump Bastard Swords if I were going to House Rule the game and make Long Swords 1D10 when used in two hands.

It's within the rules. You can wield any exotic weapon, including a bastard sword used one-handed, but you take the non-proficiency penalty. (If you're not proficient with either martial weapons or the bastard sword, you take the same penalty whether you wield it one-handed or two-handed.)

There's nothing in the rules of D&D stopping you from wielding a bastard sword one-handed, no matter your proficiencies.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 07:46 PM
As I said, it is disputed. The consensus on the Simple Questions and Answers Thread was that you could not use a Bastard Sword One Handed without Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword). I prefer your interpretation, if that makes any difference.

Cybren
2007-02-02, 07:47 PM
As I said, it is disputed. The consensus on the Simple Questions and Answers Thread was that you could not use a Bastard Sword One Handed without Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword). I prefer your interpretation, if that makes any difference.
well, uhm...what's stopping you? some strange fifth-force binding your off hand to the weapon that you can't escape without use of the feat?

Matthew
2007-02-02, 07:50 PM
Basically, this:



Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.


If it said too large to effectively use, everything would be okay, but it doesn't.

On the other hand, the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat goes some way to support the alternate view:



EXOTIC WEAPON PROFICIENCY [GENERAL]
Choose a type of exotic weapon. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1 (plus Str 13 for bastard sword or dwarven waraxe).
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.
Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon. Proficiency with the bastard sword or the dwarven waraxe has an additional prerequisite of Str 13.
A fighter may select Exotic Weapon Proficiency as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Duraska
2007-02-02, 11:35 PM
The rules seem quite ambiguous indeed. I would personally rule that the Exotic Weapons feat encompasses all weapons, and therefore one-handed use of bastard swords; allowing a character to use a bastard sword in one hand with a -4 AB unless they take the feat.

I don't see this unbalancing in any way because taking the feat would enable a first level fighter to fight as effectively as a fifth level fighter who doesn't have the feat (assuming all stats and conditions are the same). Taking the feat is like getting a +4 bastard sword (without the +4 damage) compared to not taking the feat.

The editors really should scour over their rule-books. It just seems logical that things should be spelled out perfectly in black and white.

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-03, 12:36 AM
Briefly back to the OP...

What feat does one take to be able to wield a reach weapon one handed, then? I looked at the size equivalencies and thought that monkey grip's description implied that you could wield, say, a glaive one-handed at -2.

Thomas
2007-02-03, 01:15 AM
Monkey Grip only affects weapons one size category larger than you, so if you're Medium, it would only affect a Large glaive, not a Medium one.

And you don't need any feat at all. Just get a Small two-handed reach weapon and wield it as a one-handed weapon at -2.

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-03, 02:57 AM
But that seems so silly. A is equal to B but B doesn't equal A? It lets you weild a large longsword (counted as two handed for medium creatures) in one hand, but not other two handed weapons? It seems to me that a large longsword, which is composed primarily of metal, would be a sight heavier and more unwieldy than a medium glaive.

Zincorium
2007-02-03, 03:22 AM
But that seems so silly. A is equal to B but B doesn't equal A? It lets you weild a large longsword (counted as two handed for medium creatures) in one hand, but not other two handed weapons? It seems to me that a large longsword, which is composed primarily of metal, would be a sight heavier and more unwieldy than a medium glaive.

The key here is that you are wielding a weapon designed for one handed use, albeit by a larger creature, rather than a weapon designed for two handed use in only a single hand. You can wield a medium longsword in two hands normally, for the additional bonus damage, or in two hands, but the same can't be said for the glaive.

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-03, 03:32 AM
So there's absolutely no way to wield a medium glaive in one hand without a major penalty? Wizards of the Coast, which provided feats that give you special powers for almost every two weapon combo imaginable, which provided feats for using bizzare axe-spear things, which provided feats to allow you to fire 4 arrows at once, which provided feats for hitting people so hard with your fist that they go forward in time and get poisoned, doesn't have a feat for stabbing people with a sizable polearm, one handed?

Raool
2007-02-03, 04:44 AM
They edited the Save My Game Feature. It no longer sais to use Monkey Grip.

Thomas
2007-02-03, 07:09 AM
But that seems so silly. A is equal to B but B doesn't equal A? It lets you weild a large longsword (counted as two handed for medium creatures) in one hand, but not other two handed weapons? It seems to me that a large longsword, which is composed primarily of metal, would be a sight heavier and more unwieldy than a medium glaive.

Weapon equivalencies (large shortsword = medium longsword) were ditched in 3.5. They existed, more or less, in 3.0. This makes more sense, because that plain wasn't accurate.

Yuki Akuma
2007-02-03, 07:14 AM
So there's absolutely no way to wield a medium glaive in one hand without a major penalty? Wizards of the Coast, which provided feats that give you special powers for almost every two weapon combo imaginable, which provided feats for using bizzare axe-spear things, which provided feats to allow you to fire 4 arrows at once, which provided feats for hitting people so hard with your fist that they go forward in time and get poisoned, doesn't have a feat for stabbing people with a sizable polearm, one handed?

The answer is yes.

Thomas
2007-02-03, 10:27 AM
A major penalty? -2? Getting to wield a reach weapon in one hand for a paltry -2 to attacks doesn't sound very bad. (Well, if you think wielding it in one hand is somehow an advantage. Two-handed weapons are better.)

Besides, even using Monkey Grip, you still get -2 to attacks; so if you totally houseruled/misunderstood Monkey Grip and let it be applied to weapons of your own category, there'd still be that same -2 penalty.

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-03, 04:46 PM
Yeah, but it's the principle of the thing.

Understand here, I'm not trying to cheese the thing, but the character concept I had includes having a shield and a glaive, and here I find that I need to either use an itty-bitty glaive from the Gnomeish Shinsplitters Weapon Emporium or else take bigger penalties, despite the fact that the whole flavor of Monkey Grip seems to be to allow you to use bigger-than-normal weapons one-handed, because there are feats to allow you to use a large longsword one-handed but not to use a medium polearm that way. It's so unlike WotC to not have a feat or skill for that...

Thomas
2007-02-03, 05:09 PM
It used to work that way, in 3.0. I'd presume there was a specific reason it was changed.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-03, 06:00 PM
Jade: use the Improved Buckler Defense feat to wield a regular glaiv ein two hands but still use a shield.

Or use a shield and a kusari-gama, but describe yourself as using a glaive.

Not that it wouldn't be as silly as the two-monkey-gripped-giant-swords stuff.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-03, 06:15 PM
It worked like that in 3.0. Whoever wrote that forgot that it changed in 3.5
So, instead of saying "MONKEY GRIP DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!" (like someone posted THREE times on another thread) say "MONKEY GRIP WAS UPDATED ON 3.56 AND NO LONGER WORKS LIKE THAT!!!111elevenone"

Matthew
2007-02-03, 06:59 PM
Yeah, but it's the principle of the thing.

Understand here, I'm not trying to cheese the thing, but the character concept I had includes having a shield and a glaive, and here I find that I need to either use an itty-bitty glaive from the Gnomeish Shinsplitters Weapon Emporium or else take bigger penalties, despite the fact that the whole flavor of Monkey Grip seems to be to allow you to use bigger-than-normal weapons one-handed, because there are feats to allow you to use a large longsword one-handed but not to use a medium polearm that way. It's so unlike WotC to not have a feat or skill for that...

There is a precedent for this sort of thing. A Dragon Magazine #338 presented the Shield and Pike Feat. Essentially, your DM might allow you to take a Feat to use a Glaive with a Shield, I probably would.