I actually had a player try that in one of my games.... he was trying to prove how tough he was. He was very upset when I told him his character sunk beneath the lava and was never heard from again.So you're one of the "I don't care if the rules say otherwise, your character is dead because I said so" GMs ?
Mmmmkay.
Did I say that? No, I didn't.
The guy JUMPED INTO A RIVER OF LAVA! Come on now. "He survives because he has the hitpoints" is ridiculous imo. Hit points are -not- a measure of how physically tough you are so much as it is experience and luck. Experience and luck are not going to help you if you're dumb enough to dive into a river a lava. I reward good RP and punish blatant stupidity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually had a player try that in one of my games.... he was trying to prove how tough he was. He was very upset when I told him his character sunk beneath the lava and was never heard from again.So you're one of the "I don't care if the rules say otherwise, your character is dead because I said so" GMs ?
Mmmmkay.
Did I say that? No, I didn't.
The guy JUMPED INTO A RIVER OF LAVA! Come on now. "He survives because he has the hitpoints" is ridiculous imo. Hit points are -not- a measure of how physically tough you are so much as it is experience and luck. Experience and luck are not going to help you if you're dumb enough to dive into a river a lava. I reward good RP and punish blatant stupidity.
No, you punish somebody for reading the rules (which say, well, what they do say about damage in lava). If you use any house rules, you should tell your players well ahead that something works different than RAW.
Because the next time a Dragon lands next to them, your players won't be sure if you will actually roll to hit and damage or you will just say "You're all dead. Come on, it's a dragon."
Come on, really? Lava man. Unless he's sporting crazy fire rest. magic, he deserved to die for that sort of thing. I think it desolves down to this, some group are in it just to play, others are in it to role-play.
|
power attack is still better in all ways and is it "broken"?actually it depends on the weapon. a bastard sword goes from d10 to 2d8 (5.5 avg to 9 avg). just sayinand i want people to know that -2 attack for +2 or 3 average damage does not a broken feat make
it may not fit reality but the mechanics are completely sound
on average its the same as power attack and stacks. so 1 handing a large bastard sword at 4th effectively doubles power attacks power
again i nver said it was broken (i actually said earlier monkey grip isnt broken), i said its weaboo wanna be final fantasy/wanna be anime bull crap
I actually had a player try that in one of my games.... he was trying to prove how tough he was. He was very upset when I told him his character sunk beneath the lava and was never heard from again.So you're one of the "I don't care if the rules say otherwise, your character is dead because I said so" GMs ?
Mmmmkay.
Did I say that? No, I didn't.
The guy JUMPED INTO A RIVER OF LAVA! Come on now. "He survives because he has the hitpoints" is ridiculous imo. Hit points are -not- a measure of how physically tough you are so much as it is experience and luck. Experience and luck are not going to help you if you're dumb enough to dive into a river a lava. I reward good RP and punish blatant stupidity.
No, you punish somebody for reading the rules (which say, well, what they do say about damage in lava). If you use any house rules, you should tell your players well ahead that something works different than RAW.
Because the next time a Dragon lands next to them, your players won't be sure if you will actually roll to hit and damage or you will just say "You're all dead. Come on, it's a dragon."
There is a vast difference between a combat encounter and jumping into a river of lava. If you really don't see the difference, I'm sorry.
My players nowadays know that common sense trumps the rules almost every single time in my games.
Come on, really? Lava man. Unless he's sporting crazy fire rest. magic, he deserved to die for that sort of thing. I think it desolves down to this, some group are in it just to play, others are in it to role-play.
Exactly. The guy was metagaming. He knew he had enough hitpoints that by the rules he'd survive, so he banked his character's in game actions on out of character knowledge he was sure would protect him. In that instance, he was wrong.
Complaints about monkey grip basically boil down to three categories:
1)It doesn't fit the feel of the person's game.
2)The person didn't bother to read how the feat works, and so is complaining that the feat points out their own ignorance.
3)The person house ruled the feat and other things and screwed up their game and is complaining about how they didn't really know what they were doing.
I can appreciate people in the #1 category, the others not so much.
Just seems as if there are quite of few people who's complaints against monkey grip are akin to Cartman's complaints about rainbows.
As for the length, since the weight is doubled, this means that the length is actually increased only by times the cuberoot(2) ~ 1.26 not by 2, which means a weapon that is originally 5 ft long will only be about 6.3 feet long in a large version. While that may be still difficult in a 5 ft wide hallway, which would be almost equally hard for the medium version anyway, not everyone sword fights in the fashion of a douchey Anakin, swinging their weapon over their heads half the time. Grasping the weapon on the blade was not an unheard of technique for people that actually did use swords (and wore gauntlets).
beyond personal opinions on weather or not it is silly to use a big sword, and weather or not it can be used in a small area it sounds to me like the feat isn't broken and in fact might be too weak.
i have always enjoyed the idea of a character dragging around a giant weapon only to freak the bad guys out when he actually starts to swing it around, i have considered the idea of a hallway being a problem but with the right build your first attack will be through the walls to to make room for your swing (a very cinematic scene)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys my fighters are trying to be fantastic in my fantasy game. They act like they're meant to be similar to historical and mythological heroes like Beowulf or Hercules or Roland.
Help me stop them.
This is stupid.
Guys my fighters are trying to be fantastic in my fantasy game. They act like they're meant to be similar to historical and mythological heroes like Beowulf or Hercules or Roland.
Help me stop them.
This is stupid.
+1
Guys my fighters are trying to be fantastic in my fantasy game. They act like they're meant to be similar to historical and mythological heroes like Beowulf or Hercules or Roland.
Help me stop them.
This is stupid.
A Fighter can be quite fantastic without breaking the basic realms of plausibility. That's all I'm saying.
not to sound snarky or anything but it just sounds like you are implying that only spell casters can do fantastic awesome things that might not follow realism and combat classes should be only capable of what a real person can do and nothing else.
if i am wrong i am sorry but that is what it seems like you are saying
|
Guys my fighters are trying to be fantastic in my fantasy game. They act like they're meant to be similar to historical and mythological heroes like Beowulf or Hercules or Roland.
Help me stop them.
This is stupid.
Beowulf, Hercules, and Roland didn't wield comically large weapons. Seriously, if the PC fighter showed up to a fight with a sword as big as he was, I'm pretty sure that the bad guys would laugh at how silly that idea is.
This is why I like the Monkey Grip feat. It lets you wield an extra-big sword, but it doesn't really confer an advantage; no reach, and a bit of extra damage at a pretty respectable penalty to hit. My problem comes in when it grants reach (something I'm not allowing it do as a DM). Then it's just broken. As it is, it successfully conveys the stupidity of oversized weapons; they're not much better than standard weapons, and you have to waste a feat that you could be using on something useful, like Power Attack (which also leads to more cool stuff instead of being a dead end).
As Dork Lord said, a Fighter can be fantastic without breaking plausibility. Anyone who manages to take down a dragon, Lich, or greater demon is fantastic as it is; they don't need a ridiculous weapon to do it. A 20th level Figher, Barbarian, or Paladin wielding a normal-sized weapon can hold off a legion of inexperienced soldiers (quite fantastic), slay giants, survive huge number of offensive spells, and use a bow accurately at 500 feet. I see no reason why a character is less fantastic because he's wielding a reasonably sized longsword instead of some 12-foot long, 4-foot wide greatsword. Your mileage may vary, but I can't stand it when my games play like an anime.
To the reach issue, let's remember that there are large creatures with the same as medium creatures (e.g. centaurs). They wield large weapons and do not gain reach from them (unless the weapon is a reach weapon of course). It wouldn't make sense then for a medium creature to get reach from a weapon that a centaur does not get reach from.
And I do agree it is silly when people describe characters with ridiculously large weapons.
The feat it's self is not "broken" but it should be marked "fragile"
In the hands of a power gaming munchkin with the right feats and equipment this feat can be quite deadly.
Imagine such a player who creates a human fighter who focused on strength. He he then picked up the heritage(dwarf blood, that dwarven feat that lets you use two-handed weapons as a one handed, picks up every two weapon fighting chain feats, improved critical, monkey grip, and power attack.
This player then picks up something like an Earthbreaker Hammer to use one handed but it is also overlarge so instead of 2d6 it does 3d6 with a time 3 multiplier with the critical. He then picks another weapon he can make off hand attacks with. He then does all that he can do to raise his strength to unbelievable heights so he hardly every misses and to top it off he gets an item or a caster to cast enlarge on him. So now that one handed earthbreaker hammer does 4d6 + his strength + plus power attack + what ever bonuses may be enchanted on his weapon. He attacks four times with that weapon and if he should make a critical that hammer would do 12d6+ X3 his strength bonuses and magical bonuses + power attack. Now that is just his main weapon because OMG here comes those other three attacks from his off hand.
Now in the hands of a thematically motivated player I don't see the problem because odd are they pick their feats for theme as much as they pick their feats for tactics.
The feat it's self is not "broken" but it should be marked "fragile"
In the hands of a power gaming munchkin with the right feats and equipment this feat can be quite deadly.
Imagine such a player who creates a human fighter who focused on strength. He he then picked up the heritage(dwarf blood, that dwarven feat that lets you use two-handed weapons as a one handed, picks up every two weapon fighting chain feats, improved critical, monkey grip, and power attack.
This player then picks up something like an Earthbreaker Hammer to use one handed but it is also overlarge so instead of 2d6 it does 3d6 with a time 3 multiplier with the critical. He then picks another weapon he can make off hand attacks with. He then does all that he can do to raise his strength to unbelievable heights so he hardly every misses and to top it off he gets an item or a caster to cast enlarge on him. So now that one handed earthbreaker hammer does 4d6 + his strength + plus power attack + what ever bonuses may be enchanted on his weapon. He attacks four times with that weapon and if he should make a critical that hammer would do 12d6+ X3 his strength bonuses and magical bonuses + power attack. Now that is just his main weapon because OMG here comes those other three attacks from his off hand.
Now in the hands of a thematically motivated player I don't see the problem because odd are they pick their feats for theme as much as they pick their feats for tactics.
Considering that your fighter has to focus on both Str and Dex (for the twf feats), now they are MAD. They are taking at least a -4 penalty with their attacks with the on -hand (-2 for TWF, -2 for Monkey Grip). This character is actually pretty unoptimized. Going straight THF and focus on hitting, maybe with some power attack is much more efficient.
Considering that your fighter has to focus on both Str and Dex (for the twf feats), now they are MAD. They are taking at least a -4 penalty with their attacks with the on -hand (-2 for TWF, -2 for Monkey Grip). This character is actually pretty unoptimized. Going straight THF and focus on hitting, maybe with some power attack is much more efficient.
I disagree because at high levels those penalties mean very little and so does AC because even with the penalties they are going to hit very easily.
I disagree because at high levels those penalties mean very little and so does AC because even with the penalties they are going to hit very easily.
Considering that your fighter has to focus on both Str and Dex (for the twf feats), now they are MAD. They are taking at least a -4 penalty with their attacks with the on -hand (-2 for TWF, -2 for Monkey Grip). This character is actually pretty unoptimized. Going straight THF and focus on hitting, maybe with some power attack is much more efficient.
So -4 on the first attack, -9 on the second, -14 on the third, and -19 on the fourth is irrelevant?
Ok, I guess if you are still fighting 1st level goblins, you may have a point.
|
|
To the reach issue, let's remember that there are large creatures with the same as medium creatures (e.g. centaurs). They wield large weapons and do not gain reach from them
they dont wield large weapons
"Undersized Weapons (Ex)
Although a centaur is Large, its upper torso is the same size as that of a Medium humanoid. As a result, they wield weapons as if they were one size category smaller than their actual size (Medium for most centaurs)."
To the reach issue, let's remember that there are large creatures with the same as medium creatures (e.g. centaurs). They wield large weapons and do not gain reach from themthey dont wield large weapons
"Undersized Weapons (Ex)
Although a centaur is Large, its upper torso is the same size as that of a Medium humanoid. As a result, they wield weapons as if they were one size category smaller than their actual size (Medium for most centaurs)."
Oops, there is one of those little changes from editions that sneak up on me. Sorry, disregard my previous statement then.
Beowulf, Hercules, and Roland didn't wield comically large weapons. Seriously, if the PC fighter showed up to a fight with a sword as big as he was, I'm pretty sure that the bad guys would laugh at how silly that idea is.
Umm have you *read* these stories or mythology *at all* lately?
Hercules walked around with a tree-trunk that was so big hardly anyone else could *lift* the thing, let alone properly wield the thing effectively in combat. Amongst *other* outrageously large crap he could pick up/throw/use/whatever. NOT a great example.
Beowulf - he TORE OFF the arm of what would *at least* be classified a "large" creature (ie: has reach) in D20 terms. AND USED IT LIKE A DAMN CLUB!!! He goes underwater to fight Grendel's mother ... only to find a giant-magical sword ... he picks UP the thing and wields it effectively, taking her head and life.
I'll grant you Roland, but he's *hardly* the level of mythic as you're other two are, though.
Using 'big weapons' is certainly a trait that's observable in MULTIPLE mythological heroes from several cultures across several periods of time in history.
|
|
Beowulf, Hercules, and Roland didn't wield comically large weapons. Seriously, if the PC fighter showed up to a fight with a sword as big as he was, I'm pretty sure that the bad guys would laugh at how silly that idea is.Umm have you *read* these stories or mythology *at all* lately?
Hercules walked around with a tree-trunk that was so big hardly anyone else could *lift* the thing, let alone properly wield the thing effectively in combat. Amongst *other* outrageously large crap he could pick up/throw/use/whatever. NOT a great example.
Beowulf - he TORE OFF the arm of what would *at least* be classified a "large" creature (ie: has reach) in D20 terms. AND USED IT LIKE A DAMN CLUB!!! He goes underwater to fight Grendel's mother ... only to find a giant-magical sword ... he picks UP the thing and wields it effectively, taking her head and life.
I'll grant you Roland, but he's *hardly* the level of mythic as you're other two are, though.
Using 'big weapons' is certainly a trait that's observable in MULTIPLE mythological heroes from several cultures across several periods of time in history.
Hercules also had godlike strength. Not exactly a fair example; if your players are playing demigods with 25+ Strength, I'm fine with them using big weapons. In any case, the size of the club he wielded varied from story to story; in most artwork, it's what I would consider it a greatclub, a perfectly reasonable (if underpowered) two-handed weapon.
As for using Grendel's arms: First, tearing it off really doesn't need emphasis for the point you're trying to make. Whether or not you can tear of a monster's arm has nothing to do with whether or not you can actually wield it [/nitpick]. In all seriousness, though, I would call it a greatclub. It's just a big club. The giant-magical sword also varies in size based on the version of the story; I would call it a Greatsword, another two-handed weapon. It wouldn't be comically large.
Overall, this argument is kind of impossible for either of us to win, since neither of us have conclusive proof to back our points.
Beowulf, Hercules, and Roland didn't wield comically large weapons. Seriously, if the PC fighter showed up to a fight with a sword as big as he was, I'm pretty sure that the bad guys would laugh at how silly that idea is.Umm have you *read* these stories or mythology *at all* lately?
Hercules walked around with a tree-trunk that was so big hardly anyone else could *lift* the thing, let alone properly wield the thing effectively in combat. Amongst *other* outrageously large crap he could pick up/throw/use/whatever. NOT a great example.
What was that story where he went to ask Atlas for some help getting some apples? :D
Broken, eh?
Monkey Grip on a Large rapier ... wpn finesse, dwarf thing, grab a Large Main-Gauche, twf chain ... yippee!!!!
Sure, it *can* be broken ... but who the HELL's playing THAT guy up there? And *why* the hell did the GM allow these choices? They just don't even make sense.
Some things I like about modifying it so far in this thread:
1) High Str requirement - seriously, this just makes SO much sense for what's being attempted, it's just a good, good, good idea to make it work this way.
2) Reach - if you're going all "within reason" then if someone *is* going to be granted use of such a long damn weapon ... it ought to behave like a LONG DAMN WEAPON!! (see my previous thought on making it behave like a pole-arm by default - WHATEVER it is at it's core. 10' reach, but anything within 5' imposes penalties to be fought against effectively. Combo this w/Step Up ... and all you need to do is get *close* and you mess up his whole freakin' combat day).
3) In addition to High Str, maybe use some sort of feat-chain to get there in the first place.
4) Not sure if it was here, or some other thread, or just my own head/inner voice (quiet down you!!!), but I *think* that the idea of increasing effort to 2-hands would/could be a way to counter-balance some benefits. Doesn't matter *what* the hell it is, you CAN NOT use it with anything less than 2-hands because it's MUCH larger than default.
Oh - and I totally back the Prof on this one, too.
+1 from me, dude!
*thumbs up*
This whole argument just feels like picking at a reason to nerf fighters. In all honesty, this this feat doesn't seem game breaking at all; but hey if you really don't like it, as a DM, houserule it out, you can. Just like you can houserule out spells that you don't like, don't fit with your campaign, or you feel are actually overpowered.
I honestly don't feel that a warrior carrying around an oversized sword would be anywhere out of place next to the sorcerer with dragon wings flying around clawing at enemies. If anything there should possibly be a STR prerequisite for getting the feat.
|
|
This whole argument just feels like picking at a reason to nerf fighters. In all honesty, this this feat doesn't seem game breaking at all; but hey if you really don't like it, as a DM, houserule it out, you can. Just like you can houserule out spells that you don't like, don't fit with your campaign, or you feel are actually overpowered.
I honestly don't feel that a warrior carrying around an oversized sword would be anywhere out of place next to the sorcerer with dragon wings flying around clawing at enemies. If anything there should possibly be a STR prerequisite for getting the feat.
I do like the feat. I feel like its general underpowered-ness reflects the ridiculous nature of using an oversized weapon, something I'm personally not a fan of. Obviously, if people want to make it more effective in their campaigns, that's a decision that they have a right to make. It may not be my style, but it is theirs. I just don't like the concept. I feel like a martial character can be fantastic enough without a huge weapon. It's not a nerf in any way; there's nothing wrong with normal-sized weapons.
|
|
I do like the feat. I feel like its general underpowered-ness reflects the ridiculous nature of using an oversized weapon, something I'm personally not a fan of. Obviously, if people want to make it more effective in their campaigns, that's a decision that they have a right to make. It may not be my style, but it is theirs. I just don't like the concept. I feel like a martial character can be fantastic enough without a huge weapon. It's not a nerf in any way; there's nothing wrong with normal-sized weapons.
+1
I do like the feat. I feel like its general underpowered-ness reflects the ridiculous nature of using an oversized weapon, something I'm personally not a fan of. Obviously, if people want to make it more effective in their campaigns, that's a decision that they have a right to make. It may not be my style, but it is theirs. I just don't like the concept. I feel like a martial character can be fantastic enough without a huge weapon. It's not a nerf in any way; there's nothing wrong with normal-sized weapons.
I agree, they can be heroic without over-sized weapons, they can also be heroic with over sized weapons. Allowing the option no way makes it the only valid choice.
|
|
I do like the feat. I feel like its general underpowered-ness reflects the ridiculous nature of using an oversized weapon, something I'm personally not a fan of. Obviously, if people want to make it more effective in their campaigns, that's a decision that they have a right to make. It may not be my style, but it is theirs. I just don't like the concept. I feel like a martial character can be fantastic enough without a huge weapon. It's not a nerf in any way; there's nothing wrong with normal-sized weapons.I agree, they can be heroic without over-sized weapons, they can also be heroic with over sized weapons. Allowing the option no way makes it the only valid choice.
Agreed. In my campaign, there isn't a choice. You will be a heroic fighter with a normal-sized weapon, or you'll play some class that isn't dependent on weapons (like Monk or Sorcerer) in my campaigns. I just don't like the flavor that over-sized weapons add to a campaign; it makes it feel too much like anime for my taste. Obviously, it's a matter of personal preference; you're entitled to your opinion. If you would like to add effective use of larger weapons to your game, be my guest; it's style more than anything. We're all entitled to our opinions here.
I'm just saying that my opinion is that oversized weapons are stupid.
I do like the feat. I feel like its general underpowered-ness reflects the ridiculous nature of using an oversized weapon, something I'm personally not a fan of. Obviously, if people want to make it more effective in their campaigns, that's a decision that they have a right to make. It may not be my style, but it is theirs. I just don't like the concept. I feel like a martial character can be fantastic enough without a huge weapon. It's not a nerf in any way; there's nothing wrong with normal-sized weapons.I agree, they can be heroic without over-sized weapons, they can also be heroic with over sized weapons. Allowing the option no way makes it the only valid choice.Agreed. In my campaign, there isn't a choice. You will be a heroic fighter with a normal-sized weapon, or you'll play some class that isn't dependent on weapons (like Monk or Sorcerer) in my campaigns. I just don't like the flavor that over-sized weapons add to a campaign; it makes it feel too much like anime for my taste. Obviously, it's a matter of personal preference; you're entitled to your opinion. If you would like to add effective use of larger weapons to your game, be my guest; it's style more than anything. We're all entitled to our opinions here.
I'm just saying that my opinion is that oversized weapons are stupid.
Do you allow someone with EWP(Bastard Sword) to use an over-sized bastard sword? I merely ask, because some would think that would be too anime-ish.
|
|
Do you allow someone with EWP(Bastard Sword) to use an over-sized bastard sword? I merely ask, because some would think that would be too anime-ish.I do like the feat. I feel like its general underpowered-ness reflects the ridiculous nature of using an oversized weapon, something I'm personally not a fan of. Obviously, if people want to make it more effective in their campaigns, that's a decision that they have a right to make. It may not be my style, but it is theirs. I just don't like the concept. I feel like a martial character can be fantastic enough without a huge weapon. It's not a nerf in any way; there's nothing wrong with normal-sized weapons.I agree, they can be heroic without over-sized weapons, they can also be heroic with over sized weapons. Allowing the option no way makes it the only valid choice.Agreed. In my campaign, there isn't a choice. You will be a heroic fighter with a normal-sized weapon, or you'll play some class that isn't dependent on weapons (like Monk or Sorcerer) in my campaigns. I just don't like the flavor that over-sized weapons add to a campaign; it makes it feel too much like anime for my taste. Obviously, it's a matter of personal preference; you're entitled to your opinion. If you would like to add effective use of larger weapons to your game, be my guest; it's style more than anything. We're all entitled to our opinions here.
I'm just saying that my opinion is that oversized weapons are stupid.
Yeah, I do. But they still take the large penalty to hit, which screws them in the long run. It differs a lot from anime, because while stuff like that is usually portrayed as awesome and extremely successful in anime, it crashes and burns in my campaign.
Do you allow someone with EWP(Bastard Sword) to use an over-sized bastard sword? I merely ask, because some would think that would be too anime-ish.Yeah, I do. But they still take the large penalty to hit, which screws them in the long run. It differs a lot from anime, because while stuff like that is usually portrayed as awesome and extremely successful in anime, it crashes and burns in my campaign.
Now I find that confusing. Are you saying that you add extra penalties besides just the -2 size penalty when someone uses an oversized bastard sword (assuming they have EWP)? If you are only talking about the -2 penalty as the "large penalty" (maybe plus the feat cost), then I am confused why you say you wouldn't allow monkey grip?
EWP(BS)+Oversized BS = -2 attack penalty + cartoonishly large weapon
MG + Oversized Weapon = -2 attack penalty + cartoonishly large weapon
If you had said that you didn't view oversized bastard swords as cartoonish, then I guess it would make sense to me. But how I am reading your statement, it seems to me that you are saying the penalty is enough to ignore the cartoonishness of the oversized BS, but not the cartoonishness of other oversized weapons.
the thing i find funny about the example is that Amire the example barbarian uses an oversized bastard sword
the thing i find funny about the example is that Amire the example barbarian uses an oversized bastard sword
Which is exactly my point.
Look at the iconic barbarian and her oversized bastard sword.And tell me it isn't as anime-ish as say someone with a buster sword.
It is why I find it strange when someone seems to indicate that oversized bastard swords (or waraxes) is ok, but other oversized weapons are somehow less rational.
But, but... As someone else pointed out, Beowulf, wields a giant's sword as if it were natural when he behead Grendel's mother. I'm fairly certain Beowulf existed long before anime. Men are funny like that, they like to carry around the biggest thing they can get their hands around. It doesn't mean it's anime just because it appears in anime.
Spontaneous casting always appears in anime, does that mean you also ban sorcerers because their wild use of magic appears in anime? Do you limit the rogues acrobatic skills because even though they legitamately poured all their ranks into that skill, they are jumping 15 ft in the air? That appears in anime too.
|
Ban the mind flayers, they're in the same games as giant swords!
The concept of 'ban it cause it's too anime' can die in a fire. Be honest and admit you don't like the concept, not because it shows up in Japanese film and video games.
Are you against magic dolls? "Rozen Maiden"
Vampires? "Vampire Hunter D"
Elves and dwarves? "Record of Lodoss War"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anime = "I don't like fighters doing something cool."
Right, mystical heroes like Beowulf never wielded the giant's sword.
Mystical heroes like Osla Big Knife never wielded a sword so large he once used it as a bridge
Mystical heroes like David never wielded Goliath's sword when he beheaded the giant
Mystical heroes never broke the laws of plausibility, like when Gilgamesh wrestled with a god and won.
Mystical heroes never broke the laws of plausibility, like when Sigurd changed shapes with Gunnar to win him a bride.
Mystical heroes never broke the laws of plausibility, like when Cuchulain fell into a horrifying warp spasm, a berserker rage that caused his actual body to twist and alter shape.
Know what? No. That's exactly what mystical heroes do. It's what they should do. It's what D&D fighters should do. Let's quote the 2e book on what fighters should be like, shall we?
"The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy. There are many famous fighter from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique."
Let's stop the garbage on how fighters need to be "realistic" when nothing else in the game is, and accept that fighters should be awesome protagonists.
Gonna have to go with the Prof on this one. Honestly, I flavor all of my fighter-types as wielding weapons I know would work, and that's my choice. If someone wants to use, oh, I dunno, a giant metal ball on a stick as a weapon, and it fits with the flavor of the game, I say go for it. Hell, at some point down the line I plan on playing a half-red dragon whose weapon is made from superheated adamantine. Obviously it depends on how crazy your fantasy is, but real people can use big, somewhat unwieldy weapons. Like, I dunno, Miyamoto Musashi. In his famed duel with Sasaki kojiro, he carved a sword from an oar, making it around 4 feet long. He won using this weapon instead of a sword.
And that's someone who has actual documentation. Not even a legendary or fictional character. If he can use a four foot sword made out of wood, your fighter can use a bastard sword in one hand, hell maybe even a thick bastard sword.
That said, I would suggest that players exhaust other options before taking monkey grip simply because it's unlikely to find weapons of that size. In PF I'd say it's fine, but in 3.5 you could get ridiculous at low levels if you let the fighter use stuff like say a mercurial fullblade. Fortunately this conversation is not about that and let's make this the last mention of it.
Prof and Madcap are both correct and as a GM if a player wants to go on that direction then that is fine but instead of just saying no say OK but I am going to make it hard for you to achieve. That big weapon is probably going to be a custom job and if you don't get someone good to do it then odds are the weapon will break at some point. That character is also not likely going to find a magic weapon of that size so he will need not only save up cash but find a wizard or artificer to enchant the weapon.
Anime = "I don't like fighters doing something cool."
Right, mystical heroes like Beowulf never wielded the giant's sword.
Mystical heroes like Osla Big Knife never wielded a sword so large he once used it as a bridge
Mystical heroes like David never wielded Goliath's sword when he beheaded the giant
Mystical heroes never broke the laws of plausibility, like when Gilgamesh wrestled with a god and won.
Mystical heroes never broke the laws of plausibility, like when Sigurd changed shapes with Gunnar to win him a bride.
Mystical heroes never broke the laws of plausibility, like when Cuchulain fell into a horrifying warp spasm, a berserker rage that caused his actual body to twist and alter shape.
Know what? No. That's exactly what mystical heroes do. It's what they should do. It's what D&D fighters should do. Let's quote the 2e book on what fighters should be like, shall we?
"The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy. There are many famous fighter from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique."
Let's stop the garbage on how fighters need to be "realistic" when nothing else in the game is, and accept that fighters should be awesome protagonists.
Your (apparent) argument that Fighters don't need to adhere to basic plausibility is completely ridiculous imo, Professor. Why should they be able to ignore that in a 5 foot wide corridor they can't swing an 8 foot sword? You can cry "Melee characters never get nice things" till you're blue in the face (and to an extent I agree), but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If a Wizard told the DM he wanted to walk through a 6 inch doorway without magic, the DM would (rightly) say "ah, no way". If a Fighter suggested doing the same thing, would you allow them to just to "let them be awesome"? I'll bet not... and you know what? The 5 foot corridor/8 foot sword example is no different. They are basic examples of things that common sense would tell the DM the PC isn't allowed to do. That's all I'm saying... give your Fighters and other Melee types feats, class abilities and magic items that -do- help them be awesome, but you don't need to ignore plausibility entirely to do so.
Also, saying "magic and dragons exist so nothing else should be realistic" is freaking stupid. Seriously... that argument needs to stop being used. It's beyond inane.
Your (apparent) argument that Fighters don't need to adhere to basic plausibility is completely ridiculous imo, Professor. Why should they be able to ignore that in a 5 foot wide corridor they can't swing an 8 foot sword? You can cry "Melee characters never get nice things" till you're blue in the face (and to an extent I agree), but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If a Wizard told the DM he wanted to walk through a 6 inch doorway...Anime = "I don't like fighters doing something cool."
Right, mystical heroes like Beowulf never wielded the giant's sword.
Mystical heroes like Osla Big Knife never wielded a sword so large he once used it as a bridge
Mystical heroes like David never wielded Goliath's sword when he beheaded the giant
Mystical heroes never broke the laws of plausibility, like when Gilgamesh wrestled with a god and won.
Mystical heroes never broke the laws of plausibility, like when Sigurd changed shapes with Gunnar to win him a bride.
Mystical heroes never broke the laws of plausibility, like when Cuchulain fell into a horrifying warp spasm, a berserker rage that caused his actual body to twist and alter shape.
Know what? No. That's exactly what mystical heroes do. It's what they should do. It's what D&D fighters should do. Let's quote the 2e book on what fighters should be like, shall we?
"The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy. There are many famous fighter from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique."
Let's stop the garbage on how fighters need to be "realistic" when nothing else in the game is, and accept that fighters should be awesome protagonists.
Carrying oversized weapons isn't ridiculous. Sure you can rule sensibly that the fighter can't swing an 8 ft sword in a 5 ft corridor; I wouldn't argue with that. No one would want to be the fighter in that situation anymore than anyone would want to be the spell caster in the middle of an antimagic zone. Nor would anyone want to be the one carrying an amulet of fireballs in a volcano and fighting fire casting wizards.
This doesn't mean it's breaking plausibility just because there are some situations where your choices just aren't feasible. Everywhere else, that 8 ft sword can be swung just fine.
Carrying oversized weapons isn't ridiculous. Sure you can rule sensibly that the fighter can't swing an 8 ft sword in a 5 ft corridor; I wouldn't argue with that. No one would want to be the fighter in that situation anymore than anyone would want to be the spell caster in the middle of an antimagic zone. Nor would anyone want to be the one carrying an amulet of fireballs in a volcano and fighting fire casting wizards.
This doesn't mean it's breaking plausibility just because there are some situations where your choices just aren't feasible. Everywhere else, that 8 ft sword can be swung just fine.
Then we're on the same page. I'm not saying oversized weapons in and of themselves are too against plausibility (though it is getting close)... I'm talking about situationally. I've had folks argue that as long as the rules don't say you can't do it, you should be able to do it regardless of whether it flies in the face of basic common sense.
Then we're on the same page. I'm not saying oversized weapons in and of themselves are too against plausibility (though it is getting close)... I'm talking about situationally. I've had folks argue that as long as the rules don't say you can't do it, you should be able to do it regardless of whether it flies in the face of basic common sense.Carrying oversized weapons isn't ridiculous. Sure you can rule sensibly that the fighter can't swing an 8 ft sword in a 5 ft corridor; I wouldn't argue with that. No one would want to be the fighter in that situation anymore than anyone would want to be the spell caster in the middle of an antimagic zone. Nor would anyone want to be the one carrying an amulet of fireballs in a volcano and fighting fire casting wizards.
This doesn't mean it's breaking plausibility just because there are some situations where your choices just aren't feasible. Everywhere else, that 8 ft sword can be swung just fine.
I see no problem, as long as it is being consistently applied. Oversized longsword in 5 ft wide hallway? No. Medium greatsword? No. Medium non-stabbing polearms? No. Which is really the big problem. Too often I see DMs get their dice in bunch over a guy with a large sized longsword in a small space, but then have rampaging orcs swing greataxes all over the place in the same sized place.
I see no problem, as long as it is being consistently applied. Oversized longsword in 5 ft wide hallway? No. Medium greatsword? No. Medium non-stabbing polearms? No. Which is really the big problem. Too often I see DMs get their dice in bunch over a guy with a large sized longsword in a small space, but then have rampaging orcs swing greataxes all over the place in the same sized place.Then we're on the same page. I'm not saying oversized weapons in and of themselves are too against plausibility (though it is getting close)... I'm talking about situationally. I've had folks argue that as long as the rules don't say you can't do it, you should be able to do it regardless of whether it flies in the face of basic common sense.Carrying oversized weapons isn't ridiculous. Sure you can rule sensibly that the fighter can't swing an 8 ft sword in a 5 ft corridor; I wouldn't argue with that. No one would want to be the fighter in that situation anymore than anyone would want to be the spell caster in the middle of an antimagic zone. Nor would anyone want to be the one carrying an amulet of fireballs in a volcano and fighting fire casting wizards.
This doesn't mean it's breaking plausibility just because there are some situations where your choices just aren't feasible. Everywhere else, that 8 ft sword can be swung just fine.
Nah see I'd have just as much of a problem with most long weapons, even if they're medium in such a situation. I do agree though that a Large Bastard Sword or Greatsword should have +5' reach. If that's gonna be added to the situation I'd have it be like two feats in a chain in order to get the increased damage -and- the increased reach, representing the warrior's mastery of using a weapon so large. I would however like to know how the warrior is carrying the 8 foot long weapon... at his side dragging on the ground, across his back, etc. It's going to be awkward at the very least.
I would however like to know how the warrior is carrying the 8 foot long weapon... at his side dragging on the ground, across his back, etc. It's going to be awkward at the very least.
You mean like a glaive or a longspear?
|
|
Nah see I'd have just as much of a problem with most long weapons, even if they're medium in such a situation. I do agree though that a Large Bastard Sword or Greatsword should have +5' reach. If that's gonna be added to the situation I'd have it be like two feats in a chain in order to get the increased damage -and- the increased reach, representing the warrior's mastery of using a weapon so large. I would however like to know how the warrior is carrying the 8 foot long weapon... at his side dragging on the ground, across his back, etc. It's going to be awkward at the very least.I see no problem, as long as it is being consistently applied. Oversized longsword in 5 ft wide hallway? No. Medium greatsword? No. Medium non-stabbing polearms? No. Which is really the big problem. Too often I see DMs get their dice in bunch over a guy with a large sized longsword in a small space, but then have rampaging orcs swing greataxes all over the place in the same sized place.Then we're on the same page. I'm not saying oversized weapons in and of themselves are too against plausibility (though it is getting close)... I'm talking about situationally. I've had folks argue that as long as the rules don't say you can't do it, you should be able to do it regardless of whether it flies in the face of basic common sense.Carrying oversized weapons isn't ridiculous. Sure you can rule sensibly that the fighter can't swing an 8 ft sword in a 5 ft corridor; I wouldn't argue with that. No one would want to be the fighter in that situation anymore than anyone would want to be the spell caster in the middle of an antimagic zone. Nor would anyone want to be the one carrying an amulet of fireballs in a volcano and fighting fire casting wizards.
This doesn't mean it's breaking plausibility just because there are some situations where your choices just aren't feasible. Everywhere else, that 8 ft sword can be swung just fine.
extra reach is what the feat lunge is for
I would however like to know how the warrior is carrying the 8 foot long weapon... at his side dragging on the ground, across his back, etc. It's going to be awkward at the very least.You mean like a glaive or a longspear?
Exactly. Any weapon (even the really long medium weapons) that has reach could be a bit awkward to carry, but oversized weapons moreso. It's not a huge deal, but I'd like to know how characters would carry such things without it being awkward to go through doors and such.