Monkey Grip


Homebrew and House Rules

151 to 200 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Lyrax wrote:
If those 6 seconds are really high-level seconds, they can last for up to a minute.

Win.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

My take:

I don't really care if Monkey Grip is too powerful or too weak. I just don't like the visual flavor of someone wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. It feels silly to me. Like wearing two pairs of magical boots at once and gaining the benefits of both. Silly.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Don't nerf my magical overshoes! :(


Gorbacz wrote:
Shooting a longbow 5 times in 6 seconds is a gross violation of several laws of physics, but hey.

That's still a class feature helping them to achieve that effect... their iterative attacks combined with feats and (possibly) magic items. The point is there are rules for such an effect to occur. It's when players or DMs take the "well there isn't a rule that says you -can't- do this despite common sense saying you can't" stance that I shake my head.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:

My take:

I don't really care if Monkey Grip is too powerful or too weak. I just don't like the visual flavor of someone wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. It feels silly to me. Like wearing two pairs of magical boots at once and gaining the benefits of both. Silly.

I dislike you guys for changing spiked chains. Now I can't Monkey Grip them in each hand with Improved Trip and go nuts!

Damn your physics!


A max STR barbarian raging, without any magic, lift off ground, 3680LBS.

Can we get some pressure calculations here?

Or, you think rapid shotting is bad?
Crossbow Mastery.

Or, you do know RAW you can have rapid shot in multishot.

Or...
Pshaw, just keep your physics a decent distance away from my game. They're only allowed in enough to keep my suspension of disbelief going.


Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
Monkey Grip + Enlarge = trouble...

That's my position as well. It may be -2/+4 or +5 at regular size, but that just grows.

The balancing of Monkey Grip really depends on what else you allow in that will stack with it. Enlarge, monkey grip, platinum weapons, mercurial weapons, etc., all do the same thing almost. Allowing 2+ of them to stack breaks the balance, not any single of them.


Enlargen and monkey Grip can be problematic. The solution?

Nerf casters ;p


@Dork Lord: you *did* see my post above on "realistic" implementation of oversized weapons, right?

Oh my ... just some more Theatre of the Absurd entries here:

Firing a bow ... at it's longest range 5 times in 6 seconds ... and how long will it take to actually travel that distance? {by rules of physics ... maybe the 3rd round? by rules of D20 - the instant they leave the bow. FTW?!?!??!}

James hates magical galoshes??? The horror! The HORROR!!!!!

Senervi's list - priceless!

Ok, so Monkey Grip + Enlarge = broken, eh? Well ... how about this little INSANE counter? Disarm. {that -2 in the "to hit" category would in all likelihood apply to CMD on a Disarm, too, btw}

'nuff said.

;-)


My shiny 2 cents =/ (new to pathfinder):

I will try to recap all the reasons why Monkey grip should not get reach and only applies in certain cases, as well as why meta-gaming PCs deserve to die in lava.

First off - Monkey grip does not give any additional penalty to hit, this penalty already exists. Mg also only lets you use weapons +1 size larger than weapons that are properly sized for you at no additional effort meaning that the weapon class is maintained.

Next - Reach is inherent to the wielder: a giant (large or huge) would get reach, but a large club would not grant reach to a medium user. For consistency sake, this should remain true for reach weapons.

Third- Lava swimming may be possible, however remember that there is no such spell as lava breathing, and that even with complete fire immunity you would have to technically levitate to prevent eventual sinking and being lost in the earth's soft embrace.

Support for 1) 3.5e Monkey Fist states that the penalty does not change, though the effort taken to wield such a larger weapon does not (only of 1 size larger than your size).

Support for 2) recap only, my full explanation spanned about 1 page of text:
Thanks to pres man we have a maximum length difference per size categories, but according to my calculations, the length increase for each size beyond medium should be 1.1x current length. This means that a Spiked chain (favorite “abused” weapon) cannot actually increase from 10ft normal reach to 15ft, it comes just 0.4ft shy at colossal.

Support for 3) there is a passage which specifically says “immunity to acid does not grant you the ability to survive if suffocated by it”. This applies to lava. Immunity to fire does not give you the ability to breathe lava, even if you didn’t have to breathe it wouldn’t mean you wouldn’t sink in lava unless you had some sort of lava swim speed (like burrow but needs to be explained by the DM). To have a player think just because he/she is immune to fire damage does not let the player breathe lava or swim in it.

For the first 2 reasons, I believe the use of monkey grip is warranted in 3.PF, but the PC needs to understand WHY weapon size is conducted in the way as shown above.
The third reason is to point out that even rules can be used to justify a DM for laying down the boundaries of imaginary and just plain impossible.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

Lunge eh? Well ... I say let them *both* grant reach. Monkeygrip = +5' (to 10' most likely), and Lunge another bit of melee range usable.

Give Monkey grip a +5' reach, but also point out that you have to have open space to use it. (The 180 degrees from the weapon hand back flank to the opposing hand forward angle and/or a +5' over head clearance. (About 15' ceilings.)


Monkey grip cannot not add reach:
the original intent was to allow you to use bigger weapons.

Those bigger weapons *could* add reach, even though I have shown this not to be the case for non-reach weapons and far fetched for reach weapons.


We're all well aware of what it *does* grant ... thank. ;-)

Somebody started talking about "realistically" and a greater reach dependent upon weapon size entered at THAT point.

There's also the concept of updating/upgrading the feat inherently a bit - NEITHER of those avenues of thought have anything to do with leaving Monkey Grip alone. Both involve expanding the concept, or updating it if you will.

Clearly - you're not a fan. Don't rain on anyone else's parade about it, though.

"Reach" weapons get reach because they're pole-arms and long. "Realistically" every pole arm should have this advantage, yet they do not - it's a game decision made for ... whatever reason (I'd hardly say "balance" at all, really as it doesn't make a lot of sense on any level). If something is longer than normal, it's going to have "reach" compared to any other version of the same weapon ("normal" here being relative to size of the critter doing the wielding). Longer weapon = poke/hit/whatever at a further distance. If you're using a +1 size category larger weapon, then you *should* "realistically" be able to poke/hit/whatever at a further distance.

It's not like the concept or idea is coming from left field.

@Shain: I like that idea of imposing "space" limitations on when/when you can even realistically use the thing. It's definitely not a dungeon delving weapon if you *do* go all "Monkey Grip" at all, so that makes perfect sense (and leads to at least 1 immediate back-up weapon to be equally skilled with).


To the lava issue, I think people are trying to rain on the player's parade too much. There is a much more elegant solution than claiming that the character can't make swim checks and such. Just have every item the character has, take the same damage from the lava. Sure that super powerful barbarian might survive a dip in a lava stream to cross, but get to the other side to find every items is either burned up or turned to slag. If that isn't reason enough for the player to avoid swimming through lava, I would be surprised.

As to the longer weapon and reach issue. I think you also have to consider the issue of center of mass. The smaller wielder is going to have to wield the weapon farther along it, in order to account for its greater size. This means they can't fully benefit from its greater length.


@pres man: well sure ... but that whole "center of mass doesn't apply" is what the original MG was about in the first place, no?

Anyway, if you want to get that involved with the "real" elements of it, then GURPS does it pretty well. If you're strong enough to use it effectively, it'd be an "unbalanced" weapon for YOU, but if you're even stronger than that bare minimum rating (say like 5 full points more or so), then you're now able to whip that thing around as if it *was* a balanced weapon since you *are* so darn strong. It's probably more tiring as you'd have to use more strength in general ... but so what? [that's all GURSPS btw]

D20 doesn't really support this level of detail, so why bother LIMITING or enhancing it either way (for the record I'm NOT a fan of "give it reach!!" but I've been using it as a counter point to "it's not realistic" comments that keep creeping up)? D20 uses feats to let things happen ... some people don't like the "big honkin' sword" style that MG allows ... fine. Don't use, or allow it in your games.

@nay-sayers: HOWEVER, screaming from the mountain tops that it's not "realistic" doesn't make the problem go away either. It just riles up the masses, IMO, since the whole system is not "realistic" in the slightest.


@SiD:
You have very good points, I initially thought that the point was to claim what MG would allow a PC to do, and what it wouldn't.

Lets try to do a conversion to Pathfinder which makes more sense and is a bit more amicable to all people:

Conversion to PF considers intent as the main reason for modification.
Changing the concise description is important to match the intent.

Monkey grip intent: Allows you to decrease the effort class down by 1 for a larger weapon regardless of weapon size (this allows you to use a large 2 handed, a huge 1 handed, and a gargantuan light as two handed weapons). Normal larger weapon penalties apply, and if the weapon is a reach weapon you are only able to use the reach weapon as if it were normally sized for you. If you wield a weapon 1 size increment larger than your size in this way with 1 hand you are unable to use an offhand weapon and also apply the normal larger weapon penalties to your CMD as well.

Reasons for the above intent: Reach should not be granted for larger weapons for balance problems (granting creatures reach who should not get reach), normal penalties should apply, and if trying to wield a larger weapon you *should* use both hands.

Monkey grip suggested PF conversion: This feat allows you to decrease the effort class to wield larger weapons by a single effort class. If this decrease in effort class still would not allow you to use this weapon, Monkey grip has no effect. Normal larger weapon penalties still apply, and non-reach weapons do not gain reach capabilities through this feat, nor do reach weapons gain increased reach beyond what is normal for your size of the weapon. In order to maintain the benefits of this feat, the weapon must be equipped to your mainhand. if you are using this weapon only in your mainhand, and not two handed, you take additional penalties to CMD equal to the size penalty. If you are using this weapon only in your mainhand you cannot use any other weapon in your offhand, or use an offhand attack.


Quote:

My take:

I don't really care if Monkey Grip is too powerful or too weak. I just don't like the visual flavor of someone wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. It feels silly to me. Like wearing two pairs of magical boots at once and gaining the benefits of both. Silly.

So does that mean you won't ever do a version of it James?


Berselius wrote:

Quote:

My take:

I don't really care if Monkey Grip is too powerful or too weak. I just don't like the visual flavor of someone wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. It feels silly to me. Like wearing two pairs of magical boots at once and gaining the benefits of both. Silly.

So does that mean you won't ever do a version of it James?

Monkey Grip never allowed a PC to wield a two handed weapon in 1 hand.

That was never the issue, the issue was mostly about reach arguments combined with wielding effort and the effect that it would have on a game's realism.

Although PCs should be allowed to do what they want to do in game, and feats allow PCs to do things which creatures in the game normally cannot do, this does not mean that the DM must allow everything to be acceptable. The game is controlled by the DM, and the players romp around in the world for which was designed in the confinds of that game.
World = player owned - game = DM owned


James Jacobs wrote:

My take:

I don't really care if Monkey Grip is too powerful or too weak. I just don't like the visual flavor of someone wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. It feels silly to me. Like wearing two pairs of magical boots at once and gaining the benefits of both. Silly.

I think that part of the issue is that there is a huge range of "medium-sized" characters. If the medium-sized character in question is a half-elf that's about 5-foot-8 and weighs 160 pounds and has a +0 STR modifier, then yeah, wielding a greatsword one-handed would be pretty comical. However, what if your medium-sized character is a 6-foot-8 human barbarian that weighs 260 pounds and has a STR modifier of +4 or higher?

All this talk about how silly it is for a medium-sized character to wield a large weapon doesn't really take into account the basic fact that a greatsword weighs 8 pounds. It's totally unreasonable to think that the half-elf given as an example above could wield an 8-pound sword in one hand without penalty. But, it's also totally reasonable to think that the barbarian given as an example above could wield that 8-pound sword one-handed with no problem at all.


"Exalted" is the king of oversized weapons. Nothing says "I've got a big unit" quite like a grand goremaul does.


I always thought of a monkey griped large two-handed weapon is not that much bigger, but has more weight, like the Executioners sword ( or something like this) in some D&D book.


Liporteryu wrote:
Monkey Grip never allowed a PC to wield a two handed weapon in 1 hand.

I realize this comment is over a year old, but I wanted to point out that it is factually incorrect.

In 3ed, weapon sizes were based on the size of the weapon. If a creature and the weapon size were the same, that meant the creature could use it one handed. So you had = Tiny: dagger; Small: shortsword; Medium: longsword; Large: greatsword.

In 3ed, Monkey Grip allowed you to select one weapon that was one size larger than you and you could use it with one hand instead. Thus a human with 3ed Monkey Grip could use a greatsword with one hand (IIRC there was still a -2 penalty).

When 3.5 came about the weapon sizes were changed. Each creature size had a list of "light, one-handed, and two-handed" weapons specially designed for them (halfling's greatsword vs. human's greatsword for example).

In the 3.5 version of Monkey Grip you then could use any weapon one (creature) size larger than you with the same effort it took for a correctly sized creature, at a -2 penalty.

So originally Monkey Grip in 3ed was very much about wielding two-handed weapons in one hand. Later in 3.5, it no longer was.


I have a bit of hands on experience with foam larp weapons, which are relatively light compared to steel.

Lifting a weapon and swinging a weapon in a combat situation are vastly different animals. In combat you're not only swinging the weapon in a simple arc but also changing the angle mid swing to compensate for the opponent's attempts to block/dodge. Using a huge sword one handed is wildly impractical for this.

If I were forced to write a PF feat simulating monkey grip I would limit the character to one attack a round, at a -4 to hit penalty. Further it wouldn't be compatible with other feats like vital strike.


Maugan22 wrote:

I have a bit of hands on experience with foam larp weapons, which are relatively light compared to steel.

Lifting a weapon and swinging a weapon in a combat situation are vastly different animals. In combat you're not only swinging the weapon in a simple arc but also changing the angle mid swing to compensate for the opponent's attempts to block/dodge. Using a huge sword one handed is wildly impractical for this.

If I were forced to write a PF feat simulating monkey grip I would limit the character to one attack a round, at a -4 to hit penalty. Further it wouldn't be compatible with other feats like vital strike.

...

*blink*

Because ... arbitrarily imposing "realism" on Fighters, but not on caster's is the only reasonable course of action, right?

lol

*sighs and shakes head*


James Jacobs wrote:

My take:

I don't really care if Monkey Grip is too powerful or too weak. I just don't like the visual flavor of someone wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand. It feels silly to me. Like wearing two pairs of magical boots at once and gaining the benefits of both. Silly.

? Sorry, maybe I am taking this out of context (Or could be wrong), but wielding larger weapons does not exactly equal wielding a two handed weapon in one hand.


My take.

Monkey grip style makes sense if you are in a lower magical area/game and you still have to fight monsters with DR.

From those of use who actually watch some historical weapons fighting and have studied weapons (college course) slashing is not the only thing done with weapons that are supposedly slashing. I would be okay about bringing in things like swing area and using larger weapons to a degree when two handed weapons if one would allow most slashing weapons to also do piercing. My point is that this is a GAME, swing room is commonly ignored the same as the actual damage type for game balance reasons!

So, monkey grip 3.5 (non-epic) is fine at only -1 hit. The damage bonus is minimal, and the problems gained, such as weapon cost and availability.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Whew, this thing is shambling along nicely I see...


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Whew, this thing is shambling along nicely I see...

Yeah I was noticing the necro as well.


Berselius wrote:
I for one hope Paizo will in fact introduce a Monkey Grip like feat. My paladin is starting to miss his red haired female human chain mail bikini wearing large greatsword wielding berserker cohort. :(

Personal fluff aside, you just described the Titan Mauler archetype to a tee.


Instead of a feat, this is now an Archetype


Ion Raven wrote:
Instead of a feat, this is now an Archetype

1. Dam they had the same exact idea I had about wielding larger weapons and hunting monsters!

2. Not sure I like how they did this. You can only wield a one handed large weapon in two hands, or use a two handed weapon in one hand. Very minor benefit for what lose from what I can tell, as you can't use a large two handed weapon in two hands while medium sized.

P.S.

3. Combining this class with that feat would be REALLY bad. Now we can never get this feat officially... :(


Which may have been the point. They gave folks wanting this a way to get it, but limited its impact and possible abuse to one class.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Which may have been the point. They gave folks wanting this a way to get it, but limited its impact and possible abuse to one class.

The feat was broken, in the week manor. Now it is probably not worth it.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


The feat was broken, in the week manor.

I disagree, but to each his own.


My problem with Monkey Grip has nothing to do with its relative power as a feat.
It has nothing to do with MG being "Weaboo" or whatever someone said about that.
It has nothing to do with MG being "unrealistic."

My issue with Monkey Grip is that EVERYONE thinks it's SOOOOOOOOO COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL to use a sword that's bigger than they are. Have you ever played in a campaign in which every PC was a good-aligned drow ranger with paired scimitars? If so, then you can understand my intense disgust with Monkey Grip, Fullblades, "bastard swords stolen from giants," and all the rest of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
The feat was broken, in the week manor.

"Weak manner."

Week [n.] A unit of time consisiting of seven calendar days.
Weak [adj.] Antonym of "strong."
Manner [n.] A way or fashion.
Manor [n.] A house or mansion.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


The feat was broken, in the week manor.
I disagree, but to each his own.

The best increase in damage average increase is +3, that is with a D12 which increases to 3D6 with a +2 minimum damage. While this is nice, your still suffering from a -2 to hit and a harder weapon to obtain, even the weapon materials are double cost, and in some games getting such a weapon made will take time. You might be able to start with a large weapon, but a masterwork able to be enchanted will probably be out of reach till level 3 if not later, and the feat is already starting to lose its value, not being worth it by about level 5.

This is a slight increase to par with Power Attack, but stagnate where power attack continues to improve. Also, in the later games bonus damage is much better than base weapon damage so getting that multiplied is a usual goal so getting a nat-twenty or 19-20 with improved critical/keen.

So a -1 with the additional requirements would make for a good feat,


Stuffy Grammarian wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
The feat was broken, in the week manor.

"Weak manner."

Week [n.] A unit of time consisiting of seven calendar days.
Weak [adj.] Antonym of "strong."
Manner [n.] A way or fashion.
Manor [n.] A house or mansion.

Yeah, Dyslexic value confusion and switching here. Common problem I have.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

My problem with Monkey Grip has nothing to do with its relative power as a feat.

It has nothing to do with MG being "Weaboo" or whatever someone said about that.
It has nothing to do with MG being "unrealistic."

My issue with Monkey Grip is that EVERYONE thinks it's SOOOOOOOOO COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL to use a sword that's bigger than they are. Have you ever played in a campaign in which every PC was a good-aligned drow ranger with paired scimitars? If so, then you can understand my intense disgust with Monkey Grip, Fullblades, "bastard swords stolen from giants," and all the rest of that.

I made one character total only with monkey grip.

P.S. I have never seen any good aligned drow using two scimitars in actual game play.


I had to outlaw good drow in the mid 90's. Things like that happen.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Which may have been the point. They gave folks wanting this a way to get it, but limited its impact and possible abuse to one class.
The feat was broken, in the week manor. Now it is probably not worth it.

People who are better at math than me ran the numbers, and it did come up short. I am pretty sure if you based a character around the concept, and found a way to make the base weapon damage increase a lot it could be better, but if I have to go through a lot of trouble to make it work......

In short, I agree with you.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

My problem with Monkey Grip has nothing to do with its relative power as a feat.

It has nothing to do with MG being "Weaboo" or whatever someone said about that.
It has nothing to do with MG being "unrealistic."

My issue with Monkey Grip is that EVERYONE thinks it's SOOOOOOOOO COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL to use a sword that's bigger than they are. Have you ever played in a campaign in which every PC was a good-aligned drow ranger with paired scimitars? If so, then you can understand my intense disgust with Monkey Grip, Fullblades, "bastard swords stolen from giants," and all the rest of that.

Did your group also rip the arms of their enemies off and go under water to take on Grendel's mom?


Ion Raven wrote:
Did your group also rip the arms of their enemies off and go under water to take on Grendel's mom?

I'd be OK with that... once. But Beowulf isn't cool anymore if Ceowulf, Deowulf, Feowulf, and Geowulf are all doing the same thing. And the obsession with Berzerk/Cloud/whatever Anime has the 10-foot swords has gotten really tiresome, especially because, as you point out, the old Geat beat them to it.


But dammit, giant swords ARE "SOOOOOOOOOOOOO COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!"

http://images.wikia.com/fairytail/images/e/e4/Bustermarm_Sword.JPG


Name Violation wrote:


and yes, its a weaboo, final whaaaaantasy inspired feat.

kill it with fire

Why is it a bad thing that a feat is inspired by a popular video game series? Is it because it wasn't based of "Medieval European history"? As if anything in D&D/PFRPG is truly based off Medieval Europe.


"Ummmm I love the smell ol Necromacy in the Morning, well In the Evening to, afternoon as well. Just well not when I am baking you see. Well ok, sometimes when I am baking, but not always. Necromacy seem to make the yest do odd things"


Originally I wasn't into allowing Monkey Grip, until it was explained to me in a different manner. I had always envisioned it as hauling around Cloud's sword (which I have a replica of and I can do just fine with it personally, but it is only useful against cars...silly).

As it was explained to me was it would allow someone to use a 2 handed weapon with one hand (kind of like the new Qtr Staff feet, and also like the barbarian in Diablo). I couldn't help but to agree, seeing as how a large creature could wield a medium 2 handed weapon with one hand w/o the feat.

However, I would be tempted to up the Str requirement for it's use.

Shadow Lodge

What, again?


I have no problem with oversize weapons and Monkey Grip from a game balance perspective. Indeed, I'd rather have a feat that says "Take this feat with a weapon type, and its effective size for damage purposes is increased by 1 step when wielding one of them," and you wouldn't even have an attack penalty. That would not hurt my feelings at all.

I have no problem with the fact that mythological heroes occasionally pick up outrageously giant stuff and hit people with it.

I don't know anything about Anime, so I won't comment on that specifically, either, except as it feeds into what follows.

My problem with oversized weapons is the exact same problem I had with the Driz'zt clones a while back. Come ON, people! Find a new gimmick! Look at Amiri; the mercenary guy in Pathfinder #1; the earthbreaker pictures where the hammer head part is like 5 feet across; half the people I see at Ren-Fest have got a sword cut out of cardboard or plywood with a blade that's 3 feet wide. Every PC doesn't need them, too. Especially when the mechanical advantages are negligible and they're doing it solely to jump on the popularity bandwagon. A giant weapon does not make you unique. It makes you like every other gimmick copycat out there.

As DM, I reserve the right to request that you not roll up a 2-scimitar-armed, good-aligned drow ranger with a pet kitty-cat, especially if there are already 15 of them in the game world. Likewise, I reserve the right to question whether you *really* need that "Cloud Buster Sword" thing that you think is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL that every single one of your characters has to have one.


Wouldn't the new Qtr Staff feat, which allows one to use it one handed, sort of like monkey grip for staff users?

151 to 200 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Monkey Grip All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.