Before I rule I thought I'd open this question up to the floor.
A fighter has a heavy flail, he also has weapon focus in it, monkey grip and improved disarm. When said tin can attempts to perform a disarm attempt with a *heavy* flail in *one handed* (other hand to hold a large shield to try stop the @#$ being smack out of him) against an opponent wielding a longsword, do you rules as follows:
+3 base attack, +2 strength, +1 weapon focus, +1 masterwork, +0 size modifier, + 4 improved disarm, *+4 two handed weapon*, -2 monkey grip
or do you say:
"No, in order to receive the two haded bonus the weapon must be wielded in two hands (taking away a solid benefit of Monkey Grip)"?
The Monkey Grip feat does allow you after all to attack with a large weapon (and remember a large weapon, {large relative to the character wielding} it is always two handed, unless he has a feat or ability to off set that rule). Disarm is just another attack option available to a character.
I believe the answer is obvious but perhapses someone has a compelling argument either way??
Please, all rules experts speak up.
Well he would need to wielding with weapon in two hands to do any sort of attack (disarm, sunder, etc...) as it is a two-handed weapon from what i remember (i dont have my book on hand currently). Now he can hold it in one hand to travel around with, but to swing it would take two or you can house rule a -4 penalty for using it one handed. But if he was using it two-handed using the paizo combat manuever rolls it would be d20 + BaB + Strength + Creature Size + Misc mods. (i.e. improved disarm + weapon focus + masterwork). If the weapon is large size then -2 penalty also for the monkey grip, though i dont know were the +4 for two-handed would come in at. i think you get that if you have a two-handed weapon and someone was trying to disarm you. like i said, i dont have my book with me currently.
This question really has nothing to do with monkey grip, it hinges on the definition of 'two handed' weapon and its how its interpreted in the context of disarming. It is handled on page 46 of the D&D 3.5 FAQ.
"When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons, they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a “two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed weapon."
Hi Maezer,
I agree on your first point, one has to define.
However what comes out from that logic is as follows:
What you are saying in effect is that a dagger (light weapon) wield in two hands(the only disadvantage {Imply that all other advantages are still in effect} is that one doesn't receive the 1.5 strength bonus to damage) by one combatant is as good as a two handed sword and *better* than an opponent wielding a longsword in one hand or indeed or tin can with his heavy flail in one hand. To the point that his adversary with the two handed dagger will gain a +4 against him, because he is using a *heavy* flail one handed???
Is it not perhaps that the context of that question is coming from the angle of damage bonuses for strength. I do not have that Q&A, where can I down load it?
Please advise
If you let someone take the monkey grim feat, you just have to expect stuff like this to come up. Anyone who builds a character with that feat obviously wants their attacks to be "Super Effective!", to borrow a phrase from my son's Pokemon games. Kicking A$$ is more important that realism to the player, so you might as well chuck the realism.
I would handle it thusly:
1. Allow the player full disarm bonuses with his one-handed / two-handed (red-handed, blue-handed) heavy flail. There's no good reason to nerf his feat choice and spoil his fun.
2. After you get tired of him snagging all the weapons from the bad guys , work around his ability. Send him against foes with natural weapons. Or just give monkey-grip to the bad guys. You could even have some idiot use sovreign glue to permanently stick his weapon to his hand.
I'm still a little unclear on where the idea that monkeys have good grips came from.
You can find the FAQ at http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/faq.
Wielding the dagger with 2 hands would net you both the +4 bonus for using a weapon 'two-handed' and the -4 penalty for using a light weapon.
Also, as others have noted. Monkey grip doesn't actually change the required number of hands it takes to wield a weapon. Your tin can cannot weild a heavy flail in one hand. He could wield a large flail in one hand. Or a large heavy flail in two hands. He could wield a small heavy flail in one hand (still incuring the -2 penalty for inappropriate sized weapons.) But monkey grip doesn'taffect anything going smaller.
I'll quote the entire passage this time.
"You can get a host of benefits from wielding a twohanded weapon, such as 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage (and twice your damage bonus from the Power Attack feat) and a +4 bonus on your opposed attack roll if someone tries to disarm you. So when is a weapon “twohanded?” For example, a lance is a two-handed weapon, right? But you can wield it in one hand when you’re mounted. Since the weapons table shows...
Hi Maezer,
First off, thanks again for replying to my query.
I'm sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, but in South Africa
they cap our bandwidth on most ADSL bundles. I ran out on the 28.04 and
only got juice back on the 01.05. I did infact attempt to reply to you last night but for some reason my post never came up?Anyway, I see where I went wrong in my analysis. The -4 for the dagger [light weapon] equals out the effect of holding onto it with two hands. So the tin can weilding his [i]large one handed
flail is at the same odds [improved disarm +4 aside]. He could choose to wield the large version of his flail with two hands. He would always take the -2 to hit, but then he enjoys an overall further
bonus of an additional +4.In regards to your other comment on monkey grip, that it "doesn't actually change the required number of hands it takes to wield a weapon". Initially I just thought it was semantics. I'll explain, you see the player of this character raised this very issue and the DM worked it through as follows, merely viewing it (incorrectly) as a damage issue.
Interestingly the following comes out from this. A medium longsword does 1D8 while a large longsword does 2D6.
This 2D6 is the exact same damage as a medium two handed great sword. So logically a medium flail does 1D8,
while a large flail does 2D6.
However when referenced against a heavy flail we see it only does 1D10 and not as I would have expected 2D6.
Now if one counters that the flail has certain in game advantages, thereby reducing its damage, then we should expect that the medium longsword should have better damage than a medium flail (which itself also enjoys some in game advantages over a longsword)?? Anyway that issue is not for now.What does come out though is that the tin cans' player is now scoring. Instead of 1D10 for using a medium heavy flail
one handed (which monkey grip in fact does not allow). He can use a large flail for 2D6. Ok so he pays the -2 to hit,
the weight and cost of the weapon are double and the chance of finding a large flail magic item in a module are about as high as South Africa winning the next football (sorry those in North America call it soccer) world cup, but better damage is better damage. Do I have this right now?
Can we close off this post and go home? Unless someone is brave enough to tackle the apparent breakdown in logic on the weapon issue I raised above... :-)
