Not to long ago a friend of mine asked me why a monk couldn't use punching daggers and add his punching damage to it. I thought about it, and I couldn't see what was wrong with the idea except it might overpower his damage at lvl 3 and whatnot. I just wanted to know if there is a rule against this or if anyone has had previous experience with the subject. It seems like it should do the damage, but I'm afraid of letting him use it at this lvl so at the moment I chose not to allow it. Does that sound fair or should I let him? Suggestions?
Sir Smashes Alot
I do see what he is thinking and why he would think it but you wouldn't get a punch bonus because the dagger already get's a punch bonus with extra crit chance according to the PHB. I hes thinking about unarmed strike though or a monks ability to punch harder, it's really hard to stick a dagger up to the hilt in flesh and still have the energy to make your fist impact
Take a good look at the punching dagger picture in the PHB, you can see that it does not have a hilt but a vertical haft. This means that you use it by employing a punching motion, but your fist will never ever make contact with your enemy.
In conclusion: No monks cannot add their punching damage to a punching daggers damage.
Remember 1e, when monks used to get a damage bonus with weapons equal to half their class level?
|
It could be as simple and clever as a monks unarmed damaged isn't necessarily from punches. They almost certainly use the most effective combination of kicks, knees, elbows, back hands, karate chops, gouges, head butts, etc. Having to maintain a controling grip on the punch dagger would limit their options, and then they wouldn't be using the best combination, they would be using the dagger.
No, no I don't, and its not germaine to the conversation :)
The monk DOES get extra damage when they use a punching dagger. Its called strength. So they can punch for 1d6+3 (assuming a 16 STR), x2 crit, bludgeoning, or 1d4+3, 19-20, x2, piercing. Unless we're talking about magic weapons with special abilities, DR is the only reason I can think to do this.
There's another thing to remember here, too.
Keeping physics out of D&D. The primary reason I monk can't use punching daggers in the fashion inquired about is because the RAW says they can't. Period.
Now, that may not be a good thing to tell the player, depending on his experience with the game/personality/etc. That's where the descriptive statements above come in, to help explain how this makes sense in game. Use those first, and if he keeps countering or pressing through that (with logical arguments, not just mindless stuborness), then tell him the truth of the matter.
Conversly, arguments he or others may propose based on actual martial training experience are not valid. It doesn't matter if one has trained with punching daggers and finds that he can deliver a punch while driving in the weapon, because again, the reason a monk can't do it is the rules say they can't.
The only valid argument that can be made to allow a monk to use a punching dagger is one of balance. One could argue that it wouldn't be overpowered or disrupt game balance. I would start out from a position of disagreement, but the discussion would at least be on the right track.
So, unless he completely bedazzles you with his knowledge of game designing and play balance with arguments to the contrary, then no: a monk can't use a punching dagger like he wants to.
