I dislike the feat for one reason... it opened the doors for Goliath Huge Greatsword nonsense. Nevermind that the sheer mechanics of a medium creature wielding a good sized sword meant for a large or huge creature is just silly. Have you looked at the D&D minis and compared the swords in the hands of the large and huge minis to medium minis? Some of them are longer than 10' corridors! How do you sheath a weapon that's longer than you are tall without getting caught in every door you try and pass through or just dragging it behind you like Pyramid Head from the Silent Hill games?
Player One: "I swing my huge greatsword at the Minotaur".
GM: "You realize you're in a 10' wide corridor. You can't swing that thing in there".
Player One: "The rules don't say that I can't".
GM: *Resists urge to strangle Player One*
I never allow Goliath in a game but pretty sure monkey grip does not stack with mighty build.
Question (might derail the thread): where is it said that Powerful Build (either Goliath or Jotunbrud) allows the character to wield oversized weapons? IIRC/AFAIK, it only allows you to consider your character one size larger for what is Combat Maneuvers, essentially. Was I wrong all that time?
From the Goliath section of Races of Stone:
Powerful Build: (flavor text) Whenever a goliath is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the goliath is treated one size larger if doing so would be advantageous to him. A goliath is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature's special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. A goliath can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject's size category.Emphasis mine.
I dislike the feat for one reason... it opened the doors for Goliath Huge Greatsword nonsense.
I think the true reason is people not knowing how the feat works.
My point of contention with ArchLich, and indeed with anyone arguing against it for realism's sake is this. I don't feel it is fair to subject fighters to the scrutiny of realism when you don't subject casters to the same. If you're going to be all "well historically no one would wield a weapon that size, it would be impractical" yadda yadda, you should also say "hey bub, magic doesn't exist. sorry you chose the wizard class, you are now a commoner with a good will save."
If something is munchkin because the player PERCIEVES what they are doing to have a purely mechanical advantage then the meaning is utterly perverted. Monkey Grip, except at very low levels where actual weapon dice make a difference, is a mechanical DISadvantage. The difference between a 16th level fighter swinging for +30/2d6+40 or +28 for 3d6+40 is at best a wash.
At least until the goliath can afford an Enlarge spell.
LOL, yes, very true, though that is an issue with the goliath race itself, not the monkey grip feat.
EDIT: Except it is enlarge "person", so a goliath would not qualify. So no issue after all. :D
The more someone whinges about "realism," I've found, the less they know about actual history.
D&D weights are moddled after cerimonial and "fireplace" brand swords, not real ones. By the time huge swords came out - and yes, swords that made the D&D greatsword look like a toothpick - steel working had advanced to make these weapons incredibly light.
People keep saying you need to base it off of strength. Uh. They do. See that -2 to hit you take? That's because swinging the weapon is hard. Want to be able to hit with it? You need ti increase your attack bonus. How do you do that? Strength.
Anime was a reference to the fact that those stupid amazingly think and wide heavy swords are pretty much originated from it.
I already bloody refuted this. No, it's not. Plenty of western iconic heroes and mythological characters used oversized swords. Hell, plenty of real and living western soldiers used gigantic weapons. In the Revolutionary War where most people were 5', one giant of a man used a sword longer then his fellow solders were tall.
As for mechanical benefits, there isn't one. Monkey Grip is a terrible feat that's only good if you have a character concept in mind. if a player is doing it just for the mechanics, he's either terrible, trolling you, or you have no idea what you're talking about.
I know this is a waste as you'll just go "Well your trolling me" and proceed not to respond to a damn thing here regardless of how wrong it proves you, but welp. There it is.
|
If a player had a concept that required monkey grip to make a certain character flavor work, I would be all for it, despite the fact that I am not personally keen on oversized weapons.
However, most of the players I have played with that wanted to oversize their weapons, merely wanted this as a stepping stone on the path to attempting to their turning a 2d6 normal greatsword swing into an oversized, double feat tweaked, magic item enhanced, 12d6 sword swing per round. I have allowed this a few times, but then had to constantly argue with them about 3PP feats, weird magical enhancements that they want to read as doing something different than are accepted by the rest of the gaming community, etc. So I can understand some DMs reticence to allow oversized weapons, because if its a min/maxing routine like this, you nip it at the bud by banning oversized weapons in your game. You also have an unhappy player, so there is balance to be considered there. I had only one happy experience with a player using oversized weapons without making me feel like he was trying to break my game, but we had a long talk about it beforehand and worked out what was reasonable and what wasn't.
Alternatively, in one of my earlier negative experiences, I threw hill giants at the party using oversized swords one handed with monkey grip, at which point I was told by the player I had let take monkey grip that I couldn't do that because it was "cheating"....LOL
RE: Fighters need to be realistic:
No they don't.
Oh sure, at level 1, the do. They're just level 1! But at level 5? At level 5, you're literally better and more capable then almost any other human being alive. By level ten you've catapulted into mythological status - Hercules, Beowulf, Sigurd, and Cú Chulainn.
Fighters should be heroes. Yes, at level one, you're new to this whole adventuring thing, you're most likely just a farmboy with a dented sword or a former guardsmen with a hope for glory. But that's at level one. We don't demand wizards stay as apprentices their entire career, why do we do the same for fighters?
That's more or less what this argument comes down to - the refusal to allow fighters to be heroes. For some people, fighters need to stay as wimpy level 1 guardsmen. That's rubbish. D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game. Let your characters be fantastic.
D&D weights are moddled after cerimonial and "fireplace" brand swords, not real ones. By the time huge swords came out - and yes, swords that made the D&D greatsword look like a toothpick - steel working had advanced to make these weapons incredibly light.
[Rant]
I don't agree with ya often but I do here. That is the thing that bugs me most. I know it's odd but if I had to pick one thing and only one thing to redo in the book it'd be the damned weights. Ya I hate it that bad
I been in a few arguments on this forum with folks who "used real weapons" claiming they were 6 pounds or greatswords weighed like 12 pounds on average. I just want to beat some of theses "experts" with a book. I mean I don't claim to know everything about weapons or be an expert but I do think I know more then folks who go "Well a swords about the size of a lead pipe so it must weigh the same or close to it" Like anyone using a 5 pound longsword is gonna keep fighting more then 15 mins
Steel weapons were not lead, they were not heavy, sluggish and like swinging a lead pipe. Even the large swords could be swung fast and with control as they had balance. It was not like swinging a pipe or like some movies with wild swings..ugh
sorry that just bugs me
[/rant]
RE: Fighters need to be realistic:
No they don't.
Oh sure, at level 1, the do. They're just level 1! But at level 5? At level 5, you're literally better and more capable then almost any other human being alive. By level ten you've catapulted into mythological status - Hercules, Beowulf, Sigurd, and Cú Chulainn.
Fighters should be heroes. Yes, at level one, you're new to this whole adventuring thing, you're most likely just a farmboy with a dented sword or a former guardsmen with a hope for glory. But that's at level one. We don't demand wizards stay as apprentices their entire career, why do we do the same for fighters?
I think they should be heroic but always non-magical{unless they multiclass} They should never step to far from the realistic{at lest epic style} realm. They already are outside of the norm I mean some of the feat builds are super human anyhow. I don't mind bad ass or epic but a fighter should use skill not mystic powers to pull off his bad assery
Myself I do like the class but would have liked for it to have 4 skill points and expanded the trainings more. They are like rogues talents in a way it would have been nice to give more options and way to build the fighter. That is something I think could be added with ease.
But as always YMMV
I'm kind of surprised that no one pointed out this sword was an actual sword used to kill a horse and rider. Although it wasn't used very much, some guy would sit in a tree with it, jump down, and cut a horse and rider in half (but likely miss) and then pull out something they could swing more than once. I'm with meatrace though, why is carrying an over sized sword not allowed when people can shoot fire/lightning/cold, fly, revive the dead, etc. And if you want an example from real life look at William Wallace, he was 7ft tall and carried a 10ft sword, could shoot fire from his eyes and lightning from his arse :P
Just thought I'd reemphasize that this was based off an actual sword used in both China and Japan.
I dislike the feat for one reason... it opened the doors for Goliath Huge Greatsword nonsense.I think the true reason is people not knowing how the feat works.
** spoiler omitted **
Ok... even without the Goliath point, a Large Size Greatsword could still not be swung in that 10' hallway... but players would say that because the rules didn't forbid it that it's a valid attack with no additional penalties. Again I give the Silent Hill Pyramid Head example of how unwieldy a Large size greatsword would be.
I know this is a waste as you'll just go "Well your trolling me" and proceed not to respond to a damn thing here regardless of how wrong it proves you, but welp. There it is.
Ok I'll address you directly.
The more someone whinges about "realism," I've found, the less they know about actual history.
Ah so I'm ignorant of history. Classy.
D&D weights are moddled after cerimonial and "fireplace" brand swords, not real ones. By the time huge swords came out - and yes, swords that made the D&D greatsword look like a toothpick - steel working had advanced to make these weapons incredibly light.
Never disagreed about real world weaponry, if you notice. I know the weights are off on some of the weapons compared to the pinnacle of weapon ability to produce them. Just so you know I didn't write the stats.
Also I believe that pinnacle type swords might count as masterwork but whatever.
People keep saying you need to base it off of strength. Uh. They do. See that -2 to hit you take? That's because swinging the weapon is hard. Want to be able to hit with it? You need ti increase your attack bonus. How do you do that? Strength.
Actually the way you increase your attack bonus is leveling, magic or feats. Strength is usually the slowest way to do that. If you wanted to base it off strength is by saying "Requires X Strength or take -Y penalty to hit and damage for every strength point your short of that mark".
Anime was a reference to the fact that those stupid amazingly think and wide heavy swords are pretty much originated from it.I already bloody refuted this. No, it's not. Plenty of western iconic heroes and mythological characters used oversized swords. Hell, plenty of real and living western soldiers used gigantic weapons. In the Revolutionary War where most people were 5', one giant of a man used a sword longer then his fellow solders were tall.
No you just thought you refuted this.
Maybe your missing the point where I'm not saying anything about oversized swords. I'm talking about the specific type of visual representation for large, thick, heavy, broad one handed swords made popular from anime (which is a style of animation attributed to Japan).
As for mechanical benefits, there isn't one. Monkey Grip is a terrible feat that's only good if you have a character concept in mind. if a player is doing it just for the mechanics, he's either terrible, trolling you, or you have no idea what you're talking about.
No benefit? Then you wont miss it will you?
RE: Fighters need to be realistic:No they don't.
You should probably keep some semblance of realism if your going to use 'human' as a race type.
That's more or less what this argument comes down to - the refusal to allow fighters to be heroes. For some people, fighters need to stay as wimpy level 1 guardsmen. That's rubbish. D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game. Let your characters be fantastic.
If anyone needs the biggest sword to be a hero then they should check their jockstrap.
Also for your information I'd like to point out that you don't a damn thing about how non-magic using classes are run in my game. Saying I insist that they are weak or any such thing is ignorant and insulting.
D&D weights are moddled after cerimonial and "fireplace" brand swords, not real ones. By the time huge swords came out - and yes, swords that made the D&D greatsword look like a toothpick - steel working had advanced to make these weapons incredibly light.
[Rant]
I don't agree with ya often but I do here. That is the thing that bugs me most. I know it's odd but if I had to pick one thing and only one thing to redo in the book it'd be the damned weights. Ya I hate it that bad
I been in a few arguments on this forum with folks who "used real weapons" claiming they were 6 pounds or greatswords weighed like 12 pounds on average. I just want to beat some of theses "experts" with a book. I mean I don't claim to know everything about weapons or be an expert but I do think I know more then folks who go "Well a swords about the size of a lead pipe so it must weigh the same or close to it" Like anyone using a 5 pound longsword is gonna keep fighting more then 15 mins
Steel weapons were not lead, they were not heavy, sluggish and like swinging a lead pipe. Even the large swords could be swung fast and with control as they had balance. It was not like swinging a pipe or like some movies with wild swings..ugh
sorry that just bugs me
[/rant]
+1
I would love to see a redo of the weights but we work with what we have until then.
Whoooh, my post was eaten. LOVE THESE FORUMS GUYS!
Actually the way you increase your attack bonus is leveling, magic or feats. Strength is usually the slowest way to do that. If you wanted to base it off strength is by saying "Requires X Strength or take -Y penalty to hit and damage for every strength point your short of that mark".
They do have that, though. The only difference is, you never lose the -Y penalty to hit.
Ok, so a fighter can wield an improvised weapon or a table or another person as a weapon, but wielding a weapon that's a bit big requires a specialized feat with specialized strength? Not buying it. The whole purpose of your attack bonus is that it's your, well, bonus to attack. Leveling increases your ability to wield a bigger weapon because you're more experienced and trained. Strength is obvious. Feats emphasis your specialization in training. Magic is, again, obvious. There's no problems here. It does what you want it to. You seem to want to make it impossible to take, which isn't going to happen.
Maybe your missing the point where I'm not saying anything about oversized swords. I'm talking about the specific type of visual representation for large, thick, heavy, broad one handed swords made popular from anime (which is a style of animation attributed to Japan).
Don't be obtuse; I know what anime is. Is Beowulf from an anime? He wielded the sword of a giant. The X-Men had an overly large sword at one point, is it an anime? 1980's fantasy schlock The Sword and the Sorcerer had a stupidly large sword with three blades. I never knew it came from Japan!
see, here's the thing - anime isn't a genre. I've already said that, so lets say it again. Yes, some anime or manga feature overly large sword. Hey, some western mythology, or comic books, or movies do too! Just look at everything that came out of the comic book industry during the 90's! Beyond that, funny enough, I know at least three of those characters you brought up don't use their weapon one handed. Jesus, if you're going to reference something, at least know what you're referencing.
No benefit? Then you wont miss it will you?
Stop being purposefully obtuse. You claimed your character was a munchkin because he only took Monkey Grip for the mechanical reasons. I said that, if he's doing so, he's either trolling you, completely incompetant, or you're just wrong. Don't call me a troll if you're going to ignore legitimate points for the sake of witty bon mots.
You should probably keep some semblance of realism if your going to use 'human' as a race type.
Right, because Odysseus, Beowulf, and Sigurd were all in the realm of realism, right? Hey, all three of them were humans. And yet nobody seems to have an issue with Beowulf ripping off the arm of a massive beast. Nobody whines that Odysseus had a bow so powerful that only he could string it. And I've yet to hear you accuse Sigurd of being an anime character because he killed a dragon and bathed in it's blood.
Also for your information I'd like to point out that you don't a damn thing about how non-magic using classes are run in my game. Saying I insist that they are weak or any such thing is ignorant and insulting.
I haven't insinuated anything. My problem is with the idea that melee characters need to be based in "reality" whereas nobody else does. Cu Chulainn didn't become famous for being some wizards' meat shield. The Song of Roland isn't about Roland fighting goblins for a few levels and then stepping aside and letting a spellcaster do everything. Heroes in mythology are traditionally human people who accomplish extraordinary deeds - they're fighters who must assuredly do not stay rooted in "reality," because that's what makes them heroes. At level 8 you can have 20 strength as a human, easily - that's literally stronger then almost any other mortal man. Again, it's a fantasy roleplaying adventure, and the characters, as they level up, should be fantastic.
Let's use Monkey Grip. At level 1, the wizard is an apprentice. He's spent years of his life learning the basics of magic and how to manipulate the universe using complex formula and spells. The fighter has spent his years training with a weapon his granddad, a hero in his own right, brought back from his campaign - a large greatsword used by a giant. Now, the fighter can't use it too well (-2 hit is huge at level one), but he's learning, and soon enough, he'll be a master at it.
Bam.
Maybe humans are Homo sapiens superior and not Homo sapiens? Just a thought.
/cheer ProfessorCirno
Whoooh, my post was eaten. LOVE THESE FORUMS GUYS!
Firefox+Lazarus is your friend man. Never loose any post ever again.
I've lost lots of posts with firefox :'(
I too have had firefox lose quite a few posts. I actually lose less using IE.
+1
Two Fingers to the firefox dbags!
I too have had firefox lose quite a few posts. I actually lose less using IE.+1
Two Fingers to the firefox dbags!
Oh my. Firefox is bad and IE is good? Have we come to a total turnaround? Is up down as well? o.O
Oh my. Firefox is bad and IE is good? Have we come to a total turnaround? Is up down as well? o.OI too have had firefox lose quite a few posts. I actually lose less using IE.+1
Two Fingers to the firefox dbags!
I've never had a positive experience with firefox where its functionality extended above that of IE. I've never had a negative experience with IE. I'm honestly baffled by the elitist attitude of some in regards to chosen web browser.
|
Oh my. Firefox is bad and IE is good? Have we come to a total turnaround? Is up down as well? o.OI too have had firefox lose quite a few posts. I actually lose less using IE.+1
Two Fingers to the firefox dbags!
Well generally, I like firefox better...especially with all the security upgrades...just not for this board...
I've never had a positive experience with firefox where its functionality extended above that of IE. I've never had a negative experience with IE. I'm honestly baffled by the elitist attitude of some in regards to chosen web browser.Oh my. Firefox is bad and IE is good? Have we come to a total turnaround? Is up down as well? o.OI too have had firefox lose quite a few posts. I actually lose less using IE.+1
Two Fingers to the firefox dbags!
Well, back in the days before Firefox when I had to use IE, I had all kinds of security problems. I switched to the (then new) Firefox and all my problems seemed to go away. YMMV, but I've never looked back to the (at least back then) awful IE.
Well, back in the days before Firefox when I had to use IE, I had all kinds of security problems. I switched to the (then new) Firefox and all my problems seemed to go away. YMMV, but I've never looked back to the (at least back then) awful IE.I've never had a positive experience with firefox where its functionality extended above that of IE. I've never had a negative experience with IE. I'm honestly baffled by the elitist attitude of some in regards to chosen web browser.Oh my. Firefox is bad and IE is good? Have we come to a total turnaround? Is up down as well? o.OI too have had firefox lose quite a few posts. I actually lose less using IE.+1
Two Fingers to the firefox dbags!
I hear that a lot. I have just never had any security issues. I was a Netscape junkie for a long while, until it was abandoned, and IE's functionality has grown by leaps and bounds in the last decade by doing what microsoft does best-imitating better platforms. I use IE for your regular boring old browsing, buying stuff, and watching porn and have never had a security issue or gotten a virus. It's not like I'm some IE convert, microsoft is still the great satan (whereas Apple is the lil' satan, but I digress) and Firefox is a fine browser, I'm just used to IE at this point and barring something catastrophic I feel no reason to change my heretical ways.
this is what I ment guys lazarus It is a plug in for firefox. Well loved here.
I'm not worried about realism, or whether Anime is a genre or not, or whether the feat is mechanically balanced (especially since almost none of the core feats are balanced against each other). In my game, fighters can FIGHT -- as TOZ can attest -- I've rewritten all the martial classes (and the combat mechanics) to put them on even footing with the spellcasters again.
My issue is that none of that requires absurdly gigantic weapons, which, in my opinion, are nothing more than an overcompensation mechanism for lacks elsewhere.
Having a bigger weapon does not make you a better fighter. Being a better fighter makes you a better fighter. It's a matter of training and experience, not equipment -- but sadly, the existing rules don't reflect this well. Mine do. So if you want to claim your character's sword is 18 feet long and six feet wide, fine -- but don't expect me to share your inner toon, and I'm still using the standard Medium longsword stats for it.
|
|
:p I don't see a reason to tell a player he can't wield a 10 ft sword, or an 18ft sword even, if it is a concept that entertains him. I'd rather find a way to let a player do what he wants than to stop him. A lot of gaming is about compensating. Sometimes it's a way to compensate for a job you hate. Sometimes it's a way to compensate for a life that is otherwise boring. Sometimes it's a way to compensate for something in your life that you feel you've failed at. So what? Let the player enjoy the stress relief. Does the psychoanalysis really matter beyond whether or not the player and the group is having fun? Honestly, that player is going to have enough problems fighting in narrow hallways, caves, forests, and being a huge *chuckle* target for any sort of sundering attempts.
Also, anime IS a genre of entertainment. My netflix tells me so, thus it must be true. I believe the point that the poster was making was that he was referencing the huge sword style found in a lot of anime instigated a trend in oversized weaponry due to its pervasive cultural and entertainment influence. As opposed to claiming that the style is ONLY found in anime. The scottish might have something to say about that.
In the end, the DM will decide whether the feat fits within the particular world view of their campaign. There is no intrinsic automatic acceptance or denial of material until the dm makes the call.
Not a big deal if one dm uses it and another dm doesn't. There is no right or wrong choice in deciding whether to allow it. Mechanically speaking, it's a sub-par feat for what you get out of it without some significant stacking with it. And if you feel it makes the character too powerful in an encounter, you can always talk to the player about the effect on balance.
IMO the 'realism' Vs 'fantasy' debate seems to be recursive. As what are the min & max sizes of a great sword in d&d?
IRL is a Claymore a Great sword or a Large Greatsword? This seems to me where the perspective of the player/GM changes the rule interpretation. A player could want a "massive" sword, which the GM could interpret as a Zweihander/Claymore (ie. can be used by a warrior IRL), which could be a 3d6 sword or std 2d6.
[Darn, this sounds better in my head, I'm basically saying that this is down to interpretation of sword sizes and what can be 'realisitically' wielded]
|
|
Let me get on my soap box here. Weapon size should not change damage dice rolled.
Why? Because you already get bonuses to damage from being larger. Your Str score is increased, and if you're using weapons, you probably have a huge Str score already.
If anything, a larger weapon should deal more minimum damage, not maximum damage. 1d8 should go to 2d4. Thus you deal 2-8 instead of 1-8. The only trouble being the lack of appropriate dice to simulate this for all weapons.
On the subject of unrealistic swords, tell your player he can use a bigger sword if he wants, but has to use the Medium size stats. If he suddenly decides he doesn't want the bigger sword, you'll know that he wanted the larger dice, not the larger sword. I blame the weapon stats themselves for encouraging this, with larger weapons dealing more.
I think Kirth said it upthread, it shouldn't be the size of the weapon that matters, only your skill in using it. A 20th level Fighter should be able to do more minimum damage with a dagger than a 1st level Fighters maximum with a greatsword.
I'm going to say this again, Monkey Grip is not all that great, sure your weapons die goes up but it's been shown quite a few times that Power Attacking deals more damage. Even with the BAB thing in Pathfinders Power Attack you'll still be dealing more damage at later levels (especially with a 2 handed weapon) and at lower levels your penalty on attack rolls isn't as much.
I think Kirth said it upthread, it shouldn't be the size of the weapon that matters, only your skill in using it. A 20th level Fighter should be able to do more minimum damage with a dagger than a 1st level Fighters maximum with a greatsword.Level 1 Fighter with 18 strength using a greatsword and Power Attack (maximum damage 21)
Level 20 Fighter with 34 strength(18+5[level]+5[tomes]+6[enhancement], Weapon Spec and Greater Weapon Spec Dagger, Weapon Training Light Blades +4) Minimum Damage 1(dagger)+12 (strength)+4 (feats)+4(weapon Training) Using a Dagger and Power Attack = 31 minimum damage.
Looks like that's already the case ToZ :P
Min is 33 (-6/+12 for PA).
Just in the interest of being factually accurate.
:p I don't see a reason to tell a player he can't wield a 10 ft sword, or an 18ft sword even, if it is a concept that entertains him. I'd rather find a way to let a player do what he wants than to stop him. A lot of gaming is about compensating. Sometimes it's a way to compensate for a job you hate. Sometimes it's a way to compensate for a life that is otherwise boring. Sometimes it's a way to compensate for something in your life that you feel you've failed at. So what? Let the player enjoy the stress relief. Does the psychoanalysis really matter beyond whether or not the player and the group is having fun? Honestly, that player is going to have enough problems fighting in narrow hallways, caves, forests, and being a huge *chuckle* target for any sort of sundering attempts.
I find it amusing that people target large swords and make "overcompensation" jokes while ignoring the obese sweaty guy who's playing the loincloth wearing oiled up barbarian.