One-armed warrior?

[imaginary]

How would you maximize the attacks for a one-armed warrior?

Two-weapon fighting is definitely out, as is great weapon master. How much of a handicap would it be to have only one arm, and how might you create a melee character to still be effective and contribute to the group?

Perhaps a rogue with sneak attack is the best way to go? Or a paladin for smiting? Maybe give him a shield, and the shield master feat?

What kind of build would you make?

[Sirithhyando]

Fighter/Swashbuckler maybe

Fighting style is duelist

Ask your DM but (stupid idea coming... dont worry, i usually have a lot of those ) maybe get a way to have a mage hand handling a shield for you? Instead of swashbuckler, the arcane trickster would let you use a "second" hand (not sure how ridiculous this idea is, but still, might be interesting to elaborate on it. [AFB at the moment])

[Emay Ecks]

With dm permission, you could be one-armed in flavor only. If your dm permits you to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand (like a boss) and then functionally treats it like you're two handing a weapon, there is no real difference.

Losing an arm means no shield for extra AC, no second weapon for a bonus-action attack, and no switching to good ranged weapons when the need arrives (better carry some javelins/hand axes with you). Basically, you'd need a class that doesn't use shields (like a monk) or that has better things to do with it's bonus action than make an additional attack (probably rogue).

If I had a one armed character, I'd probably build a monk. They can't use the shield and still get a bonus action to attack with an unarmed strike (wow... that just works too perfectly... I'd crack that joke almost constantly at the table) regardless of how many limbs they possess (you could flavor it as a kick if you wanted).

[nickl_2000]

With dm permission, you could be one-armed in flavor only. If your dm permits you to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand (like a boss) and then functionally treats it like you're two handing a weapon, there is no real difference.

Losing an arm means no shield for extra AC, no second weapon for a bonus-action attack, and no switching to good ranged weapons when the need arrives (better carry some javelins/hand axes with you). Basically, you'd need a class that doesn't use shields (like a monk) or that has better things to do with it's bonus action than make an additional attack (probably rogue).

If I had a one armed character, I'd probably build a monk. They can't use the shield and still get a bonus action to attack with an unarmed strike (wow... that just works too perfectly... I'd crack that joke almost constantly at the table) regardless of how many limbs they possess (you could flavor it as a kick if you wanted).

A monk would be a perfect choice for this, As Emay said. An unarmed strike is already defined as being possible to be a kick, elbow, or headbutt, so no worries about missing an arm there.

I also could see you arguing that a one armed man would have the strength to wield a versatile weapon using the two handed stats (after all, your one arm would need to be stronger to compensate for lack of the other arm).

[JackPhoenix]

I also could see you arguing that a one armed man would have the strength to wield a versatile weapon using the two handed stats (after all, your one arm would need to be stronger to compensate for lack of the other arm).

Why? It doesn't matter if your Str is 10 or 20, you need two hands to get the better die when you use versatile weapon: it's not just matter of strength, two hands give you better control over your weapon and leverage you just can't achieve with one hand.

If you really want BA attack, there's still that one-handed quarterstaff thing...

I had one-armed paladin in my game for a while. She used only shield to protect herself (and her teammates with Protection FS) and beat her enemies (both with Shield Master and as improvised weapon, later got shield upgraded with bladed edge... and she got new hand (well, whole arm) grafted soon after that).

[Specter]

If you don't need a weapon, then Monk, definitely.

If you do, then Frenzy Barbarian. Your rage is the channeling of your discontent towards not being able to use a greataxe.

[CaptainSarathai]

You're making me miss my L5R character. He was a 1-armed, far-sighted investigator, who was also a master duellist. Played him very blunt and straightforward, so he had no qualms pointing out wrongdoers publicly, usually resulting in them duelling him to try and save face. It usually didn't save much at all...

In D&D, if you're going 1-Armed, you're going for a caster most of the time.

For me though, it would be way too tempting to go with a Battlemaster Fighter, Duellist style, and then either 2 or 5 levels of Rogue, or start grabbing levels of Monk, maybe as a Kensai.
Y'know, for old times' sake.

[nickl_2000]

Why? It doesn't matter if your Str is 10 or 20, you need two hands to get the better die when you use versatile weapon: it's not just matter of strength, two hands give you better control over your weapon and leverage you just can't achieve with one hand.

If you really want BA attack, there's still that one-handed quarterstaff thing...

I had one-armed paladin in my game for a while. She used only shield to protect herself (and her teammates with Protection FS) and beat her enemies (both with Shield Master and as improvised weapon, later got shield upgraded with bladed edge... and she got new hand (well, whole arm) grafted soon after that).

It's pure RAF, there is no RAW or RAI reason, but if you aren't playing gritty realism it seems like a reasonable alternative/boon to make the PC compete with other PCs while still having them have a negative from an impediment. It would be a house rule, but more realistic than allowing a greatsword.

[JackPhoenix]

It's pure RAF, there is no RAW or RAI reason, but if you aren't playing gritty realism it seems like a reasonable alternative/boon to make the PC compete with other PCs while still having them have a negative from an impediment. It would be a house rule, but more realistic than allowing a greatsword.

It's the problem of "Hey, his Str is 14 and he can use longsword one-handed as 1d10 because his only hand is stronger? Well, I have Str 20, I should be able to do that too, even if I have both hands"

[nickl_2000]

It's the problem of "Hey, his Str is 14 and he can use longsword one-handed as 1d10 because his only hand is stronger? Well, I have Str 20, I should be able to do that too, even if I have both hands"

True, it would have to be agreed upon by all players. My table wouldn't care, I think yours would

[Naanomi]

Strap a shield on that stump, or a hook or (depending on your taste for realism/cinematics) a longer blade

[JackPhoenix]

True, it would have to be agreed upon by all players. My table wouldn't care, I think yours would

Weeeeell... I'm not sure about my players, but *I* certainly would

[Boci]

It's the problem of "Hey, his Str is 14 and he can use longsword one-handed as 1d10 because his only hand is stronger? Well, I have Str 20, I should be able to do that too, even if I have both hands"

"They trained for years to overcome their limitation. If your character does the same they can probably do so as well yes."

[JackPhoenix]

"They trained for years to overcome their limitation. If your character does the same they can probably do so as well yes."

"Yeah, sure, my character did that too. It's retroactively in my background, just as it is in his." Or, depending how that one-handed thing happened "But he just lost his hand x amount of time ago in the game, and never mentioned special training!"

Note: At this point I'm just inventing counter-arguments for fun, I don't think that would happen with my players. Actually, I don't think player trying to convince me to let that versatile thing run would happen either, given my experience with the paladin.

[scalyfreak]

"Yeah, sure, my character did that too. It's retroactively in my background, just as it is in his."

"Oh. Okay... so which arm did you lose, and how did it happen?"

[JackPhoenix]

"Oh. Okay... so which arm did you lose, and how did it happen?"

"No arm. I just thought that using two-handed techniques with only one hand would be cool, so I trained to do that. Also with both hands, so I can use TWO d10 longswords at the same time... even took Dual Wielder for that."

[Cybren]

"No arm. I just thought that using two-handed techniques with only one hand would be cool, so I trained to do that. Also with both hands, so I can use TWO d10 longswords at the same time... even took Dual Wielder for that."

I'd probably ask the "can I use a two handed weapon in one hand" guy "why do you want to play a character with a disability if you aren't willing to explore how that disability would limit the characters life and chosen profession of being an itinerant murderer"

[scalyfreak]

"No arm. I just thought that using two-handed techniques with only one hand would be cool, so I trained to do that. Also with both hands, so I can use TWO d10 longswords at the same time... even took Dual Wielder for that."

"Actually, you didn't. You said you trained to overcome the limitation of having only one arm, and that it's in your background, just as it is in his. So you either lose an arm, or we go back to not openly trying to cheat our way to unfair advantages. Deal?"

I may have had more than one GM give me a version of this speech at some point or another...

[MaxWilson]

How would you maximize the attacks for a one-armed warrior?

Two-weapon fighting is definitely out, as is great weapon master. How much of a handicap would it be to have only one arm, and how might you create a melee character to still be effective and contribute to the group?

Perhaps a rogue with sneak attack is the best way to go? Or a paladin for smiting? Maybe give him a shield, and the shield master feat?

What kind of build would you make?

Monk of Long Death, of course. So appropriate--and monks have very little use for their off-hand, so it's also mechanically effective.

=============================

"No arm. I just thought that using two-handed techniques with only one hand would be cool, so I trained to do that. Also with both hands, so I can use TWO d10 longswords at the same time... even took Dual Wielder for that."

Or, "I used to be one-handed but a priest healed me. When he was kidnapped, that's what motivated me to become an adventurer--my Bond is my debt of gratitude to Father Forthill, and my desire to find him and free him."

To be clear, I'm saying this is a good reason not to make a special exception for one-handed guys. I'm not saying that this background is a good thing that every DM should totally allow--rather the opposite. It's fine to have this background about being ex-one-handed but it shouldn't grant unusual mechanical benefits, in my opinion.

[djreynolds]

How would you maximize the attacks for a one-armed warrior?

Two-weapon fighting is definitely out, as is great weapon master. How much of a handicap would it be to have only one arm, and how might you create a melee character to still be effective and contribute to the group?

Perhaps a rogue with sneak attack is the best way to go? Or a paladin for smiting? Maybe give him a shield, and the shield master feat?

What kind of build would you make?

There was another thread about a blind PC. So I think these are comparable

I feel you character might suffer from it. You might take a "hit" on your to hit.

I mean its really tough to adventure with one arm, obviously there have been warriors in real life that have had to survive with one arm, or a broken arm for period of time... but it was tough

So what I'm saying is play it like that, think of the challenge of having to climb... you are gonna have to be smart and come up with a special skill.

Perhaps you pick up magic, shocking grasp seems cool

As a DM I allow players to play what they want, but if you play say a blind man... you are not The Dare Devil and there is no radioactive goop that is going to give you powers

I would play either a sorcerer like a wild one and you lost your arm to a spell

A paladin type like Tyr

A monk who kicks a lots, unarmed strikes can be with your legs

A mystic could be cool

But I would give you at least disadvantage on strength checks, but that would be the challenge for you

[Boci]

"No arm. I just thought that using two-handed techniques with only one hand would be cool, so I trained to do that. Also with both hands, so I can use TWO d10 longswords at the same time... even took Dual Wielder for that."

Unfortunately it didn't work. Without actually losing an arm he never had the drive in his training.

I'd probably ask the "can I use a two handed weapon in one hand" guy "why do you want to play a character with a disability if you aren't willing to explore how that disability would limit the characters life and chosen profession of being an itinerant murderer"

"Because I want to make sure sure I'm still pulling pulling my weight in a fight. They still only have one arm, even if they can wield a weapon as if they had two, so in all other aspects the disability is being explored, I just don't want to be too much of a drag for the other players".

[Cybren]

Unfortunately it didn't work. Without actually losing an arm he never had the drive in his training.




"Because I want to make sure sure I'm still pulling pulling my weight in a fight. They still only have one arm, even if they can wield a weapon as if they had two, so in all other aspects the disability is being explored, I just don't want to be too much of a drag for the other players".

"yeah then you can have two arms, maybe we can figure out some other angle for your character because you aren't legitimately interested in this one"

[Boci]

"yeah then you can have two arms, maybe we can figure out some other angle for your character because you aren't legitimately interested in this one"

Wanting to mitigate the impact your character's flaws will have on the party means they aren't legitimately interest? That's not your call to make. I do wish DMs would understand the limit of their power, like, how they can't decide whether a player is legitimately interested in their own character concept or not.

I as a DM would be hesitant to allow this because its still a major pain in the ass for other party members, even with accommodating the fighting style. Climbing is difficult, manipulating certain objects...

If a player wants to have the full drawback of the flaw, that's great. If a DM doesn't want to house rule any favours to them, fine I can understand not wanting to do that. But a DM doesn't get to decide that a player asking for some mitigation of a draw back "isn't legitimately interested".

[Cybren]

Wanting to mitigate the impact your character's flaws will have on the party means they aren't legitimately interest? That's not your call to make. I do wish DMs would understand the limit of their power, like, how they can't decide whether a player is legitimately interested in their own character concept or not.

I as a DM would be hesitant to allow this because its still a major pain in the ass for other party members, even with accommodating the fighting style. Climbing is difficult, manipulating certain objects...

If a player wants to have the full drawback of the flaw, that's great. If a DM doesn't want to house rule any favours to them, fine I can understand not wanting to do that. But a DM doesn't get to decide that a player asking for some mitigation of a draw back "isn't legitimately interested".

Yeah, they aren't legitimately interested in having one arm, they're interested in the imagery of being cool. The player is asking to have one arm, they can have one arm or they can't. a mitigation of that drawback is a hook hand or playing a class that minimizes needing two hands, not letting them use a greatsword with their teeth.

[Boci]

Yeah, they aren't legitimately interested in having one arm, they're interested in the imagery of being cool. The player is asking to have one arm, they can have one arm or they can't. a mitigation of that drawback is a hook hand or playing a class that minimizes needing two hands, not letting them use a greatsword with their teeth.

Again, not your call, and kinda a weird claim to make. They still have one arm, this situation will come up a lot. Wanting to make sure your party doesn't suffer too much in combat to indulge your legitimate desire to have a one armed PC doesn't mean you aren't "legitimately interested" in the concept.

Also, when you're done getting straw out of your hair, you'll realize this one armed character is still at a disadvantage compared to a 2 armed character, even with the allowance.

[Cybren]

D&D is primarily a combat game. The book lists three pillars, but combat tends to be the one that takes up the majority of class abilities, page-count, and when it occurs, even if it occurs rarely, session time. The grammar of D&D is steeped in the grammar of killing things, so yeah, if someone wants to explore having one arm without having it impact their ability in combat they are free to do so, by choosing abilities and equipment that don't demand both hands. They can be a monk, they can be a druid, they can be any number of spellcasters, they can be a fighter that uses a one-handed weapon and a shield strapped to their other arm. A fair and legitimate mitigating factor would be something like a prosthetic or a device to help them load crossbows with one hand, not just hand-waiving away the Two-Handed requirement for them. Choosing to ignore one of the few concrete game mechanical reasons you would need two hands demonstrates a lack of willingness to really engage with missing a limb or appendage, even if the overall fictional positioning is worse for them.

Additionally, I was, as I assume everyone else was doing so, replying to the hypothetical conversation as if one of my own players made the request, not a stranger, as I don't, with rare exception, play with people I don't know, and I wouldn't play with the kind of person who would be concerned about whether another PC was "pulling their weight in combat". If someone used that as their argument to me, I would know their concern was either a) unfounded and unnecessary or b) an argument made in bad faith. If it was a request made by a player with only one arm I would be more willing to work with them, given that I would not be immediately skeptical of their motivations.

(also, it is 110% the call of a DM to determine what is and isn't an appropriate character to their campaign)

[Boci]

Choosing to ignore one of the few concrete game mechanical reasons you would need two hands demonstrates a lack of willingness to really engage with missing a limb or appendage, even if the overall fictional positioning is worse for them.

1. Still not your call, no matter how many times you want to play amateur psychologist with the hypothetical player.

2. They can't use a two handed weapon. The example was a long sword, wielded as if by 2 hands. A greatsword was your straw man, and specifically ruled out by the person who first suggested the house rule. So there is still a tangible drawback

If it was a request made by a player with only one arm I would be more willing to work with them, given that I would not be immediately skeptical of their motivations.

Understandable I guess, but at the same time, isn't a big part of D&D about playing someone you are not?

(also, it is 110% the call of a DM to determine what is and isn't an appropriate character to their campaign)

I never disputed this, I even aknowledge it, so I'm not sure why you're including here like its some information I need to accept. I simply said its not the DM's call as whether or not a player is "legitimately interested" in their character concept.

[Cybren]

1. Still not your call, no matter how many times you want to play amateur psychologist with the hypothetical player.

Okay, I understand now that you're saying it's not my call to make a judgement about the other persons motivation. except it is, because I'm talking to them, and using the things they say to infer the things they mean, which is how all conversation works, given that humans aren't psychic.

2. They can't use a two handed weapon. The example was a long sword, wielded as if by 2 hands. A greatsword was your straw man, and specifically ruled out by the person who first suggested the house rule. So there is still a tangible drawback

A greatsword was my hyperobole, but it's not a strawman. You could call it a reductio ad absurdum, but we aren't engaging in a formal debate or writing a critical analysis of something so bringing that up at all is just, yknow, the fallacy fallacy. At any rate, the discussion of two become one had by that time spun off to a discussion of justifying that in-game and whether that would permit other characters from doing the same, and I was responding in kind.

Understandable I guess, but at the same time, isn't a big part of D&D about playing someone you are not?

Sure, it is for some people, and sometimes it's escapism and sometimes it's abstract puzzle solving, I don't get this response. Are you critizing my hypothetical one-armed player for wanting to play a one-armed character?

I never disputed this, I even aknowledge it, so I'm not sure why you're including here like its some information I need to accept. I simply said its not the DM's call as whether or not a player is "legitimately interested" in their character concept.

It's my call to interpret if the words that come out of their face agrees with the things that they claim to mean.

[Boci]

Okay, I understand now that you're saying it's not my call to make a judgement about the other persons motivation. except it is, because I'm talking to them, and using the things they say to infer the things they mean, which is how all conversation works, given that humans aren't psychic.

But you're not talking to them, they don't exist. So you've just made up this "not legitimately interested" and are pretending it will always apply, which is absurd.

Getting something in return for mechanical, or even RP, inconveniencing your character is a common theme in RPGs. 3.5 had flaws, pathfinder had drawbacks, M&M has flaws, WoD has flaws...

Once again, if you as a DM wouldn't want to do this, that's fine, just stop pretending its because of some universal truth on "legitimate interest" you can totally divine.

And the logic flaws of a fallacy apply regardless of how formal or in formal the debate is, a the fallacy fallacy only applies when I dismiss your entire argument solely because you used a fallacy, which I didn't, I just called attention to it, then added details as to why it wasn't relevant.

[Cybren]

But you're not talking to them, they don't exist. So you've just made up this "not legitimately interested" and are pretending it will always apply, which is absurd.

No, I'm determining it using my reason and experience to interpret the words they said, which were

"Because I want to make sure sure I'm still pulling pulling my weight in a fight. They still only have one arm, even if they can wield a weapon as if they had two, so in all other aspects the disability is being explored, I just don't want to be too much of a drag for the other players".

The specific things that indicate they aren't willing to legitimately explore the concept are 1) I want to still pull my weight in a fight and 2) "so in all other aspects the disability is being explored".

If they want to still be effective in a fight why didn't they pick any of the other numerous and more plausible character options that wouldn't be hampered by their lack of an arm? Why did they choose the only concrete mechanical rule relating to them having one arm as the thing they want to overcome rather than "My character has one arm but has adapted to it over time using prosthesis that let him hold simple objects" like, say, Götz von Berlichingen did.

Getting something in return for mechanical, or even RP, inconveniencing your character is a common theme in RPGs. 3.5 had flaws, pathfinder had drawbacks, M&M has flaws, WoD has flaws...

Sure, 3.5 had flaws as an optional rule that more often than not people would take, and then do everything in their power to never be relevant in game. I'm eminently familiar with flaws in RPGs. I have played a lot of GURPS. But one of the most critically important elements of giving your character a mechanical drawback is making sure that it is relevant in game. Picking one of the few specific areas where their chosen disadvantage would be mechanically relevant to the rules as the area they want to mitigate is at best highly suspect. If they just chose a disadvantage to have to make their character more interesting they haven't really succeeded. By not engaging with their disadvantage in the language of the game itself they aren't really engaging with the disadvantage at all. If they chose a disadvantage because we're using a variant rule where that grants them some other mechanical benefit then no, that definitely wouldn't fly. (incidentally, in GURPS, if you were to have a mitigator on one of your disadvantages it reduces the extra points it gives you by 80%, changing the 15 CP you would get from One Hand to 3)

Once again, if you as a DM wouldn't want to do this, that's fine, just stop pretending its because of some universal truth on "legitimate interest" you can totally divine.

It has nothing to do with universal truth. It has to do with the nature of the request and the way it was made

And the logic flaws of a fallacy apply regardless of how formal or in formal the debate is, a the fallacy fallacy only applies when I dismiss your entire argument solely because you used a fallacy, which I didn't, I just called attention to it, then added details as to why it wasn't relevant.

We are very clearly engaging in a conversational tone here, and it seems endemic to internet discussions that people misinterpret that for being a poor argument, which is understandable, I've certainly been that guy.