Dan bong grappling (useful?)


Rules Questions


17 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weilding a dan bong grants +2 on combat maneuvers to grapple.

Grappling without both hands free causes a -4 penalty.

So, are these weapons, apparently designed to aid in grappling,
LESS effective than "free hand" grappling, or is there something I missed?

Thanks,
Cer-


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ceruleus wrote:

Wielding a dan bong grants +2 on combat maneuvers to grapple.

Grappling without both hands free causes a -4 penalty.

So, are these weapons, apparently designed to aid in grappling,
LESS effective than "free hand" grappling, or is there something I missed?

Very perceptive. The aspects of the Dan Bong have confused me as well.

A stricter DM might interpret the weapon such that a Dan Bong serves to lessen the -4 penalty to a -2 penalty, while allowing the grappler to remain armed or perhaps even apply an enhancement bonus from the weapon to grappling.

A more lax DM would probably take the interpretation that I do, that this weapon nullifies that -4 penalty to grappling and adds a +2 on top of that. I realize that there is no explicit language that permits this, but I think that otherwise the weapon is too underpowered to be of use.

My reasoning is as follows. A character that grapples regularly enough to use one of these most likely has Improved Grapple, a prerequisite of which is Improved Unarmed Strike. This character is then always considered armed with a lethal damage dealing attack of 1d3 at minimum. The Dan Bong, which deals 1d3 at maximum would be of no help to this character as a weapon to begin with. It would not grant this character the benefit of being considered armed, as he already has that from IUS and will actually decrease his damage dice by one step (Small 1d3 US dmg -> 1d2 Dan Bong dmg, Medium 1d4 US -> 1d3 Dan Bong). This objectively weakens the character using the Dan Bong.

So then the grappling benefit is even more confusing. Why decrease the grappling penalty from -4 to -2 by using a Dan Bong when the character is already considered armed, has a higher base damage, and can grapple without penalty by not having a Dan Bong in his hand?

There is only one reason I can think of that Paizo would institute this otherwise useless weapon that otherwise weakens the user on all accounts, and that is that the Dan Bong was meant to not incur the -4 to grappling from wielding a weapon in one hand in addition to the +2 bonus to grappling that the weapon grants.

Finally, there is the fact that the weapon has a 10 ft. ranged capacity. I have no idea where this came from, and cannot find any evidence of Dan Bongs being thrown in real life in any martial arts. This weapon is very confusing and I feel as though there were some writing mistakes in its creation. As it is, the weapon is not worth the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat it would take in order to use the weapon proficiently.

Edit: Copy/Paste error


The Dan Bong is a monk weapon, which means no Exotic Proficiency necessary and it'll use the monk's unarmed damage regardless.

While it is possible that one could enchant a Dan Bong, it's not likely of much benefit.

In practical use, the Dan Bong does not inhibit grappling maneuvers, instead enhancing your hand with additional bony protrusions with which to apply pressure. This doesn't cause any real damage, but a nerve-fulcrum to gain leverage on your foe, and therefore a RAI +2 bonus to grapple.

Do note that other monk weapons add bonuses to other maneuvers: nunchaku/sai grant +2 to disarm attempts, and kama can be used for trip.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What if you were an Unarmed Fighter? Does the Dan Bong assume that you have two of them? I ask because many style feats require you to have one hand free.

Silver Crusade

Like so many questions in life, the answer is: grow an extra arm! Two levels of alchemist gives an extra arm (or two, with a feat), as well as the myriad other benefits an alchemist provides (extracts, wand use, mutagen, bombs or sneak attack).


AzraelFeather wrote:

The Dan Bong is a monk weapon, which means no Exotic Proficiency necessary and it'll use the monk's unarmed damage regardless.

Monks aren't proficient with the Dan Bong and needs the feat for it, and I'm not sure where you're getting that it will use the monk's unarmed damage.

As for using it, I wouldn't. You can get other things if you're looking to grapple and do more damage than a 1D3.


Tassadan wrote:
Ceruleus wrote:

Wielding a dan bong grants +2 on combat maneuvers to grapple.

Grappling without both hands free causes a -4 penalty.

So, are these weapons, apparently designed to aid in grappling,
LESS effective than "free hand" grappling, or is there something I missed?

Very perceptive. The aspects of the Dan Bong have confused me as well.

A stricter DM might interpret the weapon such that a Dan Bong serves to lessen the -4 penalty to a -2 penalty, while allowing the grappler to remain armed or perhaps even apply an enhancement bonus from the weapon to grappling.

A more lax DM would probably take the interpretation that I do, that this weapon nullifies that -4 penalty to grappling and adds a +2 on top of that. I realize that there is no explicit language that permits this, but I think that otherwise the weapon is too underpowered to be of use.

My reasoning is as follows. A character that grapples regularly enough to use one of these most likely has Improved Grapple, a prerequisite of which is Improved Unarmed Strike. This character is then always considered armed with a lethal damage dealing attack of 1d3 at minimum. The Dan Bong, which deals 1d3 at maximum would be of no help to this character as a weapon to begin with. It would not grant this character the benefit of being considered armed, as he already has that from IUS and will actually decrease his damage dice by one step (Small 1d3 US dmg -> 1d2 Dan Bong dmg, Medium 1d4 US -> 1d3 Dan Bong). This objectively weakens the character using the Dan Bong.

So then the grappling benefit is even more confusing. Why decrease the grappling penalty from -4 to -2 by using a Dan Bong when the character is already considered armed, has a higher base damage, and can grapple without penalty by not having a Dan Bong in his hand?

There is only one reason I can think of that Paizo would institute this otherwise useless weapon that otherwise weakens the user on all accounts, and that is that the Dan Bong was meant...

Yeah this came across my head recently as well, and I wondered and thought the same thing as you.

Paying a weapon proficiency for the +2 grapple seems perfectly fair.

Sober Caydenite wrote:
Like so many questions in life, the answer is: grow an extra arm! Two levels of alchemist gives an extra arm (or two, with a feat), as well as the myriad other benefits an alchemist provides (extracts, wand use, mutagen, bombs or sneak attack).

Personally I always thought it would make sense that vestigial arm would give +1 or +2 on grapple per arm (at least if the hands are empty), and I guess with the dan bong this can technically (RAW) be the case, even if you don't have the proficiency? (it doesn't say you need to use the dang bong in the attack, although I'm sure it's RAI/implied.)


Sorry to revive the threat, but another question:
if it is a MW Dan Bong, would it add another +1 to the grapple check or not?


CrystalSpellblade wrote:
AzraelFeather wrote:
The Dan Bong is a monk weapon, which means no Exotic Proficiency necessary and it'll use the monk's unarmed damage regardless.
Monks aren't proficient with the Dan Bong and needs the feat for it, and I'm not sure where you're getting that it will use the monk's unarmed damage.

Thanks for clarifying that right way CrystalSpellblade! For half a second I was thinking, "OMG, did I miss something critical in the Monk rules? Are they, in fact, awesome with weapons?"

Shadow Lodge

if you read the description of the dan bong, it "goes around the thumb" so as long as you are not "wielding it" you should be able to have it in hand and gain the +2 without occupying your hands. that is how i intreperated.

the UE description and the PFsrd.com description are different...


Anyone a clue for MW Dan Bong? Or if it is a +2 Dan Bong, would it be +4 to grapple?


Tassadan wrote:
Finally, there is the fact that the weapon has a 10 ft. ranged capacity. I have no idea where this came from, and cannot find any evidence of Dan Bongs being thrown in real life in any martial arts. This weapon is very confusing and I feel as though there were some writing mistakes in its creation. As it is, the weapon is not worth the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat it would take in order to use the weapon proficiently.

I think the 10' range is supposed to be associated with the Emei Piercer listed below it on the table (which can be thrown in real life). They just put it on the wrong line.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

Sorry to resurrect this but I was curious if this question had been answered?


This would be simpler if they'd made a grapple weapon property that nullified the "hands free" penalty associated with holding the weapon.

*chalks another house rule*

Silver Crusade

I am curious as to this answer as it is relevant to my future Tetori.

Can a character wield Dan Bongs while gaining the bonus to grappling and not taking the penalty to grappling from not having two free hands?

Scarab Sages

People keep mentioning proficiency withthis weapon but the description doesn't mention this, like it does with the sawtooth saber or the aldoin blade. I think you still get the bonus even if you can't attack too well with it, and since grappling is a standard action and not an attack, using it should be fine

The Exchange

In real life, these weapons are used singularly, as one arm is used to hold and maneuver the opponent, and the other, with the Dan Bong, is used to manipulate joints and pressure points, including chokes and limb locks. Making the maneuvers extremely painful. Thus the plus 2 to grapple.

Eventually you grab the Dan Bong with both hands to complete the lock, hold or choke. Using two of them would in fact make you less effective as a "grappler." It would hurt, but your opponent would never end up grappled.

When I trained with one, we were never taught to attack with one like you would a nunchaku or staff. It just didn't make any since. You could throw it, just like a rock.

But, back to the rules, I wouldn't attack with the Dan Bong, only grapple with it, and never throw it. So no need for the -4, only the +2.

Grand Lodge

Sorry for the necro, but I am also looking for an answer to this question. I honestly can't see a reason that a character would want to wield this weapon in a grapple if it essentially gives -2 for a downgrade in damage, and no change in damage type. Even a MW Dan Bong would give -1 if there is no exception for the lack of two open hands.

Malokay wrote:
People keep mentioning proficiency withthis weapon but the description doesn't mention this, like it does with the sawtooth saber or the aldoin blade. I think you still get the bonus even if you can't attack too well with it, and since grappling is a standard action and not an attack, using it should be fine

Except that "Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll." And lack of proficiency gives a -4 penalty to attack rolls.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dan bong grappling (useful?) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.