# Whats the point of monkey grip?



## Question (May 13, 2006)

Most PCs are medium sized. Using a large great sword jumps the damage from 2d6 to 2d8 or 2-12 to 2-16 damage, on average a 2 point damage increase.

With monkey grip that is a -2 penalty to attacks. With power attack you could subtract 2 points from your BAB and gain +4 damage, on average twice as good as simply using monkey grip.

The only way this breaks even is using exotic weapon proficiency and a fullblade, but that only breaks even, and uses 2 feats for something you can do with power attack.

Is it just me or is this feat only useful for PCs that are at least large sized?


----------



## 3d6 (May 13, 2006)

A Huge greatsword deals 4d6 points of damage, which means that it isn't worth it for a Large character either. You only get +1d6 damage for your -2 to attack rolls.

If you're Huge, though, you can go from weilding a 4d6 damage greatsword to weilding a 6d6 damage greatsword, so it may be worth it for a Huge character.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (May 13, 2006)

There's no real mechanical benefit. It's a style thing.


----------



## frankthedm (May 13, 2006)

3.0 monkeygrip let you do this

It was part enough of the 3e look to get concept art.


----------



## Bront (May 13, 2006)

Doesn't Monkey Grip let you use a large bastard sword one handed?

Mechanicaly, it's not that exciting, it's more a flavor thing.  Personaly, I don't care for it.


----------



## CrimsonWineGlass (May 13, 2006)

I use it, but like people stated before, its more for style.  I tend to give up power in favor of style, but I also tend to play RP heavy games.


----------



## Scharlata (May 13, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> [...]Is it just me or is this feat only useful for PCs that are at least large sized?




Hi!

My Shackled City Dwarven Fighter began with a Monkey Gripped Large Dwarven Waraxe (2d8 damage) in one hand and a Heavy *Shield* in the other hand.

Maybe that's the way you should look for an answer? 

http://de.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/sc...de.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/scharlata/my_photos
Enjoy!


----------



## Lorehead (May 13, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> Most PCs are medium sized. Using a large great sword jumps the damage from 2d6 to 2d8 or 2-12 to 2-16 damage, on average a 2 point damage increase.



This is incorrect.  A Large greatsword deals 3d6 base damage, on average a 3.5 point increase before factoring in crits (PH 114).  This is slightly worse than the same character could do simply by Power Attacking for two points of damage.

This would be a better deal for a sword-and-board fighter.  A Large longsword deals 2d6 points of damage instead of 1d8, a 2.5 point increase, which is significantly more than the same character could get with Power Attack.  A Large bastard sword is even better at 2d8 points of damage, a 3.5 point increase.  Additionally, this damage increase can exceed the cap on Power Attack.  If you frequently _polymorph_ into a Large creature, it's convenient to have a Large weapon on hand.

Even this isn't especially useful: sword-and-board fighting is a poor choice if floaty shields are in play (to use Design & Development's nickname), or even if they aren't.  You can choose how many points to put into Power Attack, but not to stop using Monkey Grip if your primary weapon is Large, or to alter the trade-off.  Power Attack gives you much more flexibility, but the added value of Monkey Grip for a character who already has Power Attack is small or even negative.

Monkey Grip does have one legitimate use for a powergamer: it's a prerequisite for Wield Oversized Weapon (_Complete Warrior_ 153).  This epic feat removes the penalty.  For greatsword users, it's still inferior to taking Epic Prowess twice and dropping the points into Power Attack,  It's great, though, for dwarf two-weapon fighters: by combining weapon familiarity, Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and Wield Oversized Weapon, they can wield dwarven waraxes in both hands, with -2/-2 on attack rolls, for 2d8 points of base damage plus bonus damage with both.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 13, 2006)

3.5 nerfed monkey grip.  I had a 3.0 fighter who wielded a guisarme in one hand.  Now, he could wield a Large guisarme in two hands, but not a Medium guisarme in one hand.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 13, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> With monkey grip that is a -2 penalty to attacks. With power attack you could subtract 2 points from your BAB and gain +4 damage, on average twice as good as simply using monkey grip.




But don't forget, the Monkey-Gripper who also has Power Attack has a higher _maximum_ damage than the pure Power Attacker.  His _average_ damage likely decreases, of course, but for the APAATT raging barbarian, it's just more of the same 



> The only way this breaks even is using exotic weapon proficiency and a fullblade...




Given that the Fullblade hasn't been reprinted for 3.5 anywhere, and given that the flavour text in 3E implied it was designed for Large creatures, I'd be inclined to call the 3E Fullblade a Large Bastard Sword under the 3.5 rules; it's almost identical to what the weapon was in 3E, with the exception of the new -2 for inappropriate size.

-Hyp.


----------



## Starglim (May 14, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> Most PCs are medium sized. Using a large great sword jumps the damage from 2d6 to 2d8 or 2-12 to 2-16 damage, on average a 2 point damage increase.
> 
> With monkey grip that is a -2 penalty to attacks. With power attack you could subtract 2 points from your BAB and gain +4 damage, on average twice as good as simply using monkey grip.




There's no reason you can't do both. But I agree it's a slightly silly feat. It would work better combined with some additional means to remove the -2 penalty for an oversized weapon.


----------



## Ditch (May 14, 2006)

Two-Weapon Fighting, dwarf fighter with Oversized TWF and Monkeygrip dual wielding large dwarven war axes.

He would have -4 to hit (instead of -2), but would deal 2d8 dmg with each (instead of 1d10).


----------



## Shin Okada (May 14, 2006)

Off topic



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Given that the Fullblade hasn't been reprinted for 3.5 anywhere, and given that the flavour text in 3E implied it was designed for Large creatures, I'd be inclined to call the 3E Fullblade a Large Bastard Sword under the 3.5 rules; it's almost identical to what the weapon was in 3E, with the exception of the new -2 for inappropriate size.
> 
> -Hyp.




I'd prefer to treat full-blade as simly a two-handed exotic weapon with 2d8 damages. This results in much similar mechanic as 3.0e rule. And Full-blade is meant to be "even bigger and longer greatsword" thing. Not something used in one-hand by a medium character (a large bastard sword + monkey grip feat). If I stick to the flavor text of 3.0e full-blade instead, it should be large greatsword instead of large bastard sword, because it is called "Ogre's greatsword".

Besides, considering that Great falchion is in sandstorm, there can be some great-greatsword thingy.


----------



## Tetsubo (May 14, 2006)

Firstly let me say up front that I would never allow the Monkey Grip Feat into any campaign I ran. I would also never use it as a player.

I see it as an effort to allow fighters to use Anime style weapons in D&D. Huge mucking swords that blot out the sun... just absolutely silly...


----------



## Shin Okada (May 14, 2006)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> I see it as an effort to allow fighters to use Anime style weapons in D&D. Huge mucking swords that blot out the sun... just absolutely silly...




Yeah. But if two-bladed sword and spiked chain are acceptable.....


----------



## Scharlata (May 14, 2006)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Two-Weapon Fighting, dwarf fighter with Oversized TWF and Monkeygrip dual wielding large dwarven war axes.
> 
> He would have -4 to hit (instead of -2), but would deal 2d8 dmg with each (instead of 1d10).




That would be the above mentioned Shackled City Dwarven Fighter.

BUT, the combination of Monkey Grip and Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting does NOT allow you to wield TWO oversized weapons. Only one oversized weapon and one normal sized weapon. So the Dwarven waraxes would be wielded with -4/-2 doing 2d8 + Str and 1d10 + 1/2 Str.

Going the route: Power Attack, Weapon Specialization and Exotic Weapon Master 

Enjoy!


----------



## Tetsubo (May 14, 2006)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> Yeah. But if two-bladed sword and spiked chain are acceptable.....




I guess that begs the question: Acceptable by whom?

I've banned the Spiked Chain in every game I've run. I would also not use it as a player. It has no basis in reality. (I am aware that there are real world chain weapons. But none of them do everything that a SC does. This has been argued to death...) It appears to be a weapon designed by the game writers to take advantage of the games mechanics. That sort of meta-gaming bugs me to no end...

The two-bladed sword at least has a passing resemblance to reality. There really are weapons out here in the world that have shafts and dangerous bits on both ends. Mostly esoteric Chinese martial arts weapons but they do exist, have been used and are still in use. So the two-bladed sword is OK in my book. Odd and not a choice I would make as a player but acceptable.


----------



## Ditch (May 14, 2006)

Good point Scharlata.  I didn't have the book in front of me at the time and didn't realize your off hand wasn't benefitted by monkey grip.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 14, 2006)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> I'd prefer to treat full-blade as simly a two-handed exotic weapon with 2d8 damages. This results in much similar mechanic as 3.0e rule. And Full-blade is meant to be "even bigger and longer greatsword" thing. Not something used in one-hand by a medium character (a large bastard sword + monkey grip feat). If I stick to the flavor text of 3.0e full-blade instead, it should be large greatsword instead of large bastard sword, because it is called "Ogre's greatsword".




The Fullblade is a 2d8 weapon that can be wielded in two hands by a Large creature, or in one hand with the appropriate EWP feat.  That's a Large Bastard Sword, not a Large Greatsword.

It's too large to be wielded by a Medium creature, unless he has the EWP feat, in which case he can use it in two hands.  Which, if we ignore the FAQ answer about bastard swords, again describes a Large Bastard Sword.

-Hyp.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 15, 2006)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> I guess that begs the question: Acceptable by whom?
> 
> I've banned the Spiked Chain in every game I've run. I would also not use it as a player. *It has no basis in reality.* (I am aware that there are real world chain weapons. But none of them do everything that a SC does. This has been argued to death...) It appears to be a weapon designed by the game writers to take advantage of the games mechanics. That sort of meta-gaming bugs me to no end...
> 
> The two-bladed sword at least has a passing resemblance to reality. There really are weapons out here in the world that have shafts and dangerous bits on both ends. Mostly esoteric Chinese martial arts weapons but they do exist, have been used and are still in use. So the two-bladed sword is OK in my book. Odd and not a choice I would make as a player but acceptable.




What does "reality" and "the real world" have to do with anything in D&D?  Might as well ban magic and monsters too, no?


----------



## Question (May 15, 2006)

Yea i mean, wizards dont exist in real life.


----------



## Shin Okada (May 15, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The Fullblade is a 2d8 weapon that can be wielded in two hands by a Large creature, or in one hand with the appropriate EWP feat.  That's a Large Bastard Sword, not a Large Greatsword.
> 
> It's too large to be wielded by a Medium creature, unless he has the EWP feat, in which case he can use it in two hands.  Which, if we ignore the FAQ answer about bastard swords, again describes a Large Bastard Sword.
> 
> -Hyp.




If you stick to the 3.0e Fullblade's rule for medium-sized creature .... 2d8 two-handed exotic weapon is similar.

If you stick to the 3.0e Fullblade's rule for large-sized creature .... Large Bastard Sword is similar.

If you stick to the 3.0e Fullblade's flavor text .... Large Greatsword (and Large Greatsword was 2d8 weapon in 3.0e)

But anyway, any of those interpretation should be house rule until the actual stats for Fullblade is shown in 3.5e.


----------



## Shin Okada (May 15, 2006)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> I guess that begs the question: Acceptable by whom?
> 
> I've banned the Spiked Chain in every game I've run. I would also not use it as a player. It has no basis in reality. (I am aware that there are real world chain weapons. But none of them do everything that a SC does. This has been argued to death...) It appears to be a weapon designed by the game writers to take advantage of the games mechanics. That sort of meta-gaming bugs me to no end...
> 
> The two-bladed sword at least has a passing resemblance to reality. There really are weapons out here in the world that have shafts and dangerous bits on both ends. Mostly esoteric Chinese martial arts weapons but they do exist, have been used and are still in use. So the two-bladed sword is OK in my book. Odd and not a choice I would make as a player but acceptable.




It is hard to talk about reality and realism in sword and sorcery world.

I don't say all the double weapons are non-realistic. Quarterstaff is realistic and the double-weapon rule seems to suit the way it is used. Two-bladed sword seems unrealistic in some degree. And if we start to argue if some of Chinese martial arts weapons are really practical for combat or mainliy for exhibition, that argument will never end.   

And yeah, while there are many weapons which is using chain or being chain itself (both European ones and Asian ones). But Spiked Chain looks more like something used by animation characters (Samurai-Trooper or St. Seiya ..)

And, if we start to talk about the size of swords, many fantasy games including D&D are often not dipictiong the real swords well in weight, length nor shape anyway.

Well, for me, D&D is a world where a human hero with a sword can fight toe-to-toe against Godzilla sized dragons. Then why not he can't use a height length sword?

But each guy has one's taste, anyway.


----------



## frankthedm (May 15, 2006)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> It is hard to talk about reality and realism in sword and sorcery world.



Not really, as long as the "It's magic" excuse is only applied to _magic_ effects and the only "hand waving" is for somatic components.


----------



## Tetsubo (May 15, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> What does "reality" and "the real world" have to do with anything in D&D?  Might as well ban magic and monsters too, no?




The game has a foundation in reality. It's for the most part based on Europe of the Middle Ages. It has magic layered over that foundation. The "reality" parts of the game should in my opinion reflect reality. Cows don't normally fly, wagons roll along the ground, crops grow in a normal manner, armour is made much as it is in our world, etc. I also want he weapons in the game to refl;ect reality. Certain ones have been introduced into the game that make no sense to me. The Spiked Chain, Dire Flail and Mercurial weapons are some examples. 

If you want a game that has NO basis in reality what so ever... I'd love to see it. But D&D is based on our world. I've been studying weapons for almost thirty years. I want my game world weapons to look like they would actually work. The SC would be a greater danger to its user and his allies then to any enemy...

Many people love the SC. I don't grasp that. The SC was the first thing I saw in 3.0 that I said, "Not in my game."


----------



## Shin Okada (May 15, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Not really, as long as the "It's magic" excuse is only applied to _magic_ effects and the only "hand waving" is for somatic components.




Hm. But HP is not a magical ability by the rule. And a 20th-level barbarian don't die even if he is fallen from Empire State Building (Max 20d6 damages from falling).


----------



## mvincent (May 15, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> Is it just me or is this feat only useful for PCs that are at least large sized?



Large size (or having enlarge cast on you) greatly improves the effectiveness of monkey-grip. However, you could also use monkey-grip to say, wield a gargantuan sunblade (medium PC's can normally wield a huge ones), increasing the damage from 3d8 to 4d8.

If you were later enlarged, it would become 6d8.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 15, 2006)

mvincent said:
			
		

> However, you could also use monkey-grip to say, wield a gargantuan sunblade (medium PC's can normally wield a huge ones), increasing the damage from 3d8 to 4d8.




No, you can't.

A Medium creature can wield a Huge Shortsword as a two-handed weapon (at -4).  A Large creature can wield a Huge shortsword as a one-handed weapon (at -2), or a Gargantuan shortsword as a two-handed weapon (at -4).

A Medium creature with Monkey Grip cannot wield a Huge shortsword as a one-handed weapon, nor can he wield a Gargantuan shortsword as a two-handed weapon; neither of them are weapons designed for a creature one size larger than himself, and the feat therefore has no effect.  (They are weapons designed for a creature two or three sizes larger respectively.)

-Hyp.


----------



## Sejs (May 15, 2006)

mvincent said:
			
		

> ...However, you could also use monkey-grip to say, wield a gargantuan sunblade...




Just so long as you never, ever had to fight indoors or in any sort of restricted terrain.


"Curses! Hallways! My one weakness!"


----------



## mvincent (May 16, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, you can't.



Depending on your DM, yes you certainly could.



> neither of them are weapons designed for a creature one size larger than himself, and the feat therefore has no effect.  (They are weapons designed for a creature two or three sizes larger respectively.)



While that is the literal interpretation of the feat, the intent of the writer here can also be reasonably interpreted a bit more openly. Hopefully you can already see that side... i.e. many would consider the writer's intent to allow it to assist in wielding a huge longsword similarly to how it assists one to wield a large greatsword.

In fact, the 3.5 FAQ gives an example of a medium character using powerful build (which uses similar wording to monkey grip) to aid in wielding a huge-sized weapon. As much as you malign the FAQ, it would seem over-reaching to insist that one '_can't_' follow it's interpretation or examples.

But perhaps I should have clarified that the tactic may not _always_ be allowed (in fact, I don't even allow monkey-grip in my game at all), but merely that it _can_ be allowed (and has FAQ support).


----------



## mvincent (May 16, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Just so long as you never, ever had to fight indoors or in any sort of restricted terrain.



Yes, the example is ridiculous (much like many monkey-grip examples, none of which I personally allow) but it does give what was asked for; an example of getting the most out of the feat.

A monkey-gripped Shillelagh (using oil of Shillelagh perhaps) is another possibility.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 16, 2006)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Hopefully you can already see that side... i.e. many would consider the writer's intent to allow it to assist in wielding a huge longsword similarly to how it assists one to wield a large greatsword.




Would those same people also consider that it allows the Medium creature to use a Medium two-handed weapon in one hand?

I can't agree that this is the intention of the feat, but if you allow it to work on Huge weapons, the same logic demands that it be allowed to work on Medium weapons as well...



> In fact, the 3.5 FAQ gives an example of a medium character using powerful build (which uses similar wording to monkey grip) to aid in wielding a huge-sized weapon.




Powerful Build is very badly written. Literally as written, it only removes the inappropriate size penalty for a weapon designed for a creature one size larger; it doesn't actually change the designation of the weapon.  So a Large longsword is still a two-handed weapon for a half-giant, and a Large greatsword is still too large to wield.  The fact that the sample half-giant wields a Large greatsword suggests that the intention was to change the designation... but even once we allow this, the ability still has no effect on a weapon designed for a creature two sizes larger.  The FAQ's answer is in contradiction to the rule.

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (May 16, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Would those same people also consider that it allows the Medium creature to use a Medium two-handed weapon in one hand?



Some might, but it would likely be a smaller portion, and many view it as a separate issue. Personally: since a large creature could wield a medium two-handed weapon in one hand at -2, I would likely allow a monkey-gripper to do it at -4 (assuming I was allowing monkey-grip in the first place)... but that's just me.



> The FAQ's answer is in contradiction to the rule.



I said as much earlier, but then, I'm ok with taking many things less literally and instead going with what seems like the writer's intent, like:
“_A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can't be disarmed.” _ a literal interpretation might be that spiked gauntlets prevent any of your weapons from being disarmed

“_A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover_.” a literal interpretation might be that a dwarf cannot hide within 60’ of himself

“_Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor_.” a literal interpretation might be that a rogue cannot use a ring of evasion while in armor, even though other PC’s can.

“_This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius_”. the literal interpretation might be that the Darkness spell can improve the ambient lighting conditions in a pitch-black room.

"_Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small."_ the literal interpretation might be that elven chain would make Dwarves go faster, but Barbarians, Monks, Flyers, etc. would go slower.

etc.

There are other less absurd examples, but you get the idea. Deciphering writer's intent is part of knowing the rules. Many of us do not expect the rules to be perfect nor cover every situation. 

I'm not saying how to run your own game, just showing that the FAQ supports an interpretation different from your own, so other people are justified in using it if they so desire.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 16, 2006)

mvincent said:
			
		

> “_This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius_”. the literal interpretation might be that the Darkness spell can improve the ambient lighting conditions in a pitch-black room.




That's how I've used Darkness ever since 3.5 came out... 

There's a world of difference between "... can wield weapons as though he were a creature one size larger", and "... can wield weapons designed for a creature one size larger as though he were one size larger".

Similarly with Monkey Grip; the feat specifically limits the weapons based on the weapon's size category - the size of creature it was designed for.  Yes, a Large creature can wield a Medium weapon, but that Medium weapon is not a weapon designed for a Large creature.

The wording of Monkey Grip is specific enough that I don't see any reason to assume that the intent differs from what was written.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 16, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The wording of Monkey Grip is specific enough that I don't see any reason to assume that the intent differs from what was written.



My monkeygripping fighter's prowess is well-known to the party's wizard.  The party wizard presents him as a gift with a magic greatsword, intended to be wielded in one hand.  I decline it, since I can't wield it that way.

"But wait a minute,"  the wizard says.  "We just fought a hill giant wielding a greatsword in one hand, and you've always been able to pick up the weapons of the giants we fought and wield them just as the giants wield them.  What's different this time?"

How do I answer him, without referring to the rules?

As for the point of the feat:  I've got a new sig line.

Daniel


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 16, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> "But wait a minute,"  the wizard says.  "We just fought a hill giant wielding a greatsword in one hand, and you've always been able to pick up the weapons of the giants we fought and wield them just as the giants wield them.  What's different this time?"
> 
> How do I answer him, without referring to the rules?




This is the wizard who can cast all his spells flawlessly with one arm tied behind his back, cased in concrete, or even _cut off_, but who starts flubbing every sixth or seventh one if we chip away the concrete and give him a shield to hold instead?  That's the wizard who's asking the question, right?

-Hyp.


----------



## Luthien Greyspear (May 16, 2006)

As many have already stated, Monkey Grip is a flavor feat.  It allows you to make a totally manga-esque character that wields an insanely oversized sword with one hand, like Cloud Strife from FF VII.

I myself have made a character that uses two Large scimitars with Monkey Grip and Oversized TWF.  He is a Scout/Dervish/Swashbuckler.  Because of his Dervish levels, he treats all scimitars as light weapons for any purposes, even oversized scimitars.  He gets to add bonuses for Weapon Finesse to these great honkin' scimitars, and adds his Intelligence bonus to damage on top of his Strength and skirmish bonuses.  Because of the Dance of Death, he's almost always getting skirmish bonuses in every round.  And it looks REALLY cool.


----------



## mvincent (May 16, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't see any reason to assume that the intent differs from what was written.



You don't but others do (one of them being the Sage). Again, I'm not telling you how _you_ should rule, but you seem incapable of understanding or emphasizing with their POV, to the point that you said earlier that they "_can't_" play that way (even though it may coincide with the FAQ), and you now appear unwilling to ammend that statement.


----------



## Shin Okada (May 16, 2006)

One benefit of Monkey Grip is that a large sized weapon has twice as many HP as a medeium sized one. Thus, hard to be broken.


----------



## Seeten (May 16, 2006)

In Hypersmurf's defense, this is the rules forum, where the RAW is followed, and discussed, and hashed out. Liberal interpretations are welcome in many forums, and we even have a forum for making up your own cool interpretations, and rules(The House Rules Forum) but the rules forum isn't that place. While you can say, "I use monkey grip like this in my game" you cannot say,(well you can, it just isn't productive) "This feat, as written works one way, but surely you see the writers intent to mean x v and z, and thus surely you agree that everyone should actually be playing with a big set of house rules, instead of the RAW...surely!"

This just isnt the forum for it, and more, Hypersmurf isnt the guy to agree with it. 

Not to forum cop, just a friendly reminder of which forum you're discussing the house rule in.


----------



## Seeten (May 16, 2006)

Speaking of which, how about a standing still horse, and a fighter, on that horse, with a lance, and the whirlwind feat. Does he get 1.5x str dmg against every foe he hits with the lance in one hand?

Answer that one if you are so smart.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 16, 2006)

mvincent said:
			
		

> You don't but others do (one of them being the Sage). Again, I'm not telling you how _you_ should rule, but you seem incapable of understanding or emphasizing with their POV, to the point that you said earlier that they "_can't_" play that way (even though it may coincide with the FAQ), and you now appear unwilling to ammend that statement.




I'm not willing to amend the statement, if we're using Monkey Grip as it appears in Complete Warrior.

Huge shortswords are not weapons designed for a creature one size larger than Medium.  A Medium creature with Monkey Grip gains the benefits of the feat with weapons designed for a creature one size larger than Medium.  A Medium creature with Monkey Grip does not gain the benefits of the feat with Huge shortswords.

... if we're using Monkey Grip as it appears in Complete Warrior.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 16, 2006)

*Moderator's Notes*:

Just a friendly reminder to folks that the rules forum is a big place, big enough to encompass discussions of rules balance, different rules philosophies, and minor rules tweaks.  RAW (rules as written) is not the only acceptable way to talk about things here; other approaches are just fine.

*/Moderator's Notes*

*Hypersmurf*, the wizard who wields a shield might answer that question by pointing out that wielding a shield means jerking it around to block blows, taking blows on the shield, and otherwise behaving in an unpredictable fashion that can unexpectedly disrupt the casting hand.  If your hand is tied behind your back, that's a predictable problem for which the wizard can adjust.  And I'd be fine ruling that a wizard holding a shield in his hand outside of combat can choose not to gain any AC benefit from the shield in exchange for suffering no casting penalty.

So how about that Monkey Grip question?

(This, for spectators, is an ongoing difference between the two of us:  I've got a much squishier approach to the rules than *Hypersmurf's* .  Both approaches are fine in this forum.)

Daniel


----------



## glass (May 16, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Not really, as long as the "It's magic" excuse is only applied to _magic_ effects and the only "hand waving" is for somatic components.



All of D&D is a fantasy game, not just the magic chapter: Dragons can fly, giants don't break there legs every time they take a step, giant arthropods can breathe through their inches thick chitin...


glass.


----------



## glass (May 16, 2006)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> The Spiked Chain, Dire Flail and Mercurial weapons are some examples.



Mercurial weapons are based on real world inspirations (baseball bats, IIRC).


> _Many people love the SC. I don't grasp that. The SC was the first thing I saw in 3.0 that I said, "Not in my game."_



'I don't like it' is a perfectly fine reason for not wanting it in your game. 'It's not real' is not, unless you are going to take out a whole lot of other things too.


glass.


----------



## username_ (Aug 11, 2008)

I know that this thread is a couple years old, but I must make a stand to defend the reality and more-or-less practicality my beloved oversize swords.

*Ōdachi*

'Nuff said.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 11, 2008)

The feat is fine. Open ended _2 for 1_ [or worse] power attack was too good.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 11, 2008)

One thing that most people overlook is that Power Attack has a prerequisite of Str 13.

Monkey Grip has no such prereq.

Thus, it opens up Power Attack type damage to PCs without a high strength.

Another feat that dovetails nicely with these are Magic of Faerun's Heavy Weapon feats, which allow PCs to use weapons made of alchemically altered heavy metals- Gold & Platinum- which similarly bump damage dice.

If you then go nuts, running a PC with Power Attack, Heavy Weapon, and Monkey Grip...and then use Enlarge (one size bump) or Expansion (two size bumps), your damage can get quite silly indeed- and you could do almost all of that as a first level Human PsiWar.


----------



## Thurbane (Aug 11, 2008)

You start getting silly stuff like this:







I can't even get a mental picture of someone trying to fight with those without him falling all over himself and coming off like a spaz...


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 11, 2008)

Strongarm Bracers to the rescue!  Use weapons one size larger with no penalty, 6000 gp.
-blarg


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 11, 2008)

Girderbladetm
_Flattening I-beams for your Anime & Manga combat needs._


----------



## Creeping Death (Aug 12, 2008)

Question said:


> Yea i mean, wizards dont exist in real life.




I do too.  And I am not late in answering you, I answered you at precisely the moment I intended.  We wizards are always on time.


----------



## Uber Dungeon (Aug 29, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> Strongarm Bracers to the rescue!  Use weapons one size larger with no penalty, 6000 gp.
> -blarg



I was thinking that the whole time i was reading along. really underlines the uselessness of monkey grip. 
The only issue i have with gaining the ability from the bracer's is that if they wore stolen or broken, you end up stuck with a difficult to wield great sword for instance.
Anyways, I always take the bracer route when my character concept calls for it.


----------



## HoboGod (Aug 29, 2010)

Yeah, that's necromancy for ya, I mean, monkey grip.


----------



## Fearbreed (Sep 1, 2010)

*The Point*

I know I'm WAY late to this topic but I just stumbled onto it and feel like setting some things straight.

I had an old 3.5 fighter that used Monkey Grip with fantastic results.  First I had him take Exotic Prof. (Fullblade), then Monkey Grip (making Fullblade a Huge weapon), then proceeded to specialize with it to reduce the penalties for carrying this BFB.   I even liked using expansion....

The base Fullblade is a 2d8 (2-16) weapon and Monkey Grip makes it a 3d8 (3-24), the regular blade is roughly 5ft long (not counting hilt) while Monkey Grip makes it 9-10ft long (still no hilt) which would give you a 10ft reach on all your attacks w/o a polearm penalty of attacking things within 5ft.  Meaning I would run up to someone and hit them from 10ft away, when they tried to attack me they would have to move forward and provoke an attack.  If they had a reach weapon too then I'd get within 5ft so I could hit and they couldn't.  Once I started to use expansion, things just slipped sideways.  The first step made the blade do 4d8 (4-32) with an even greater reach of something like 20-25ft.  Then I got a psionic one and went up two sizes increasing dmg to 6d8 (6-48) with a insane reach that covered most of the battle field, giving me the chance to make full attacks instead of moving.

BTW, I was a mounted fighter w/ Spirited Charge.  So when horsie and I went up a size I could do MASSIVE damage on a regular basis.  When I crit things tended to die.

Though I'll admit things got hairy when I was in tight spaces.  Just had to start using the blade like a spear.

Also, if you get a lenient DM you could stack the effects on Monkey Grip and the Bracers.......8d8 dmg anyone?  Or you could use it as a +2 to hit the larger weapon.


----------



## Fearbreed (Sep 1, 2010)

*off topic*

just a tad off topic but has anyone heard of d20pro?  It seems to be an awesome gaming program that people could use when nobody lives close enough to gather.  

If you've used it...whats it like?  I've been without game for 4 years and need a good fix.


----------



## Dandu (Sep 1, 2010)

Monkey Grip is only useful when you can get a bunch of size increases, like via Psychic Warrior. That's pretty much it as far as redeeming qualities go.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2010)

Dandu said:


> Monkey Grip is only useful when you can get a bunch of size increases, like via Psychic Warrior. That's pretty much it as far as redeeming qualities go.



Again, it's also effective for low-Str PCs who want a little more base damage: with no Str min, it is as effective as Power Att over a certain range.


----------



## Fearbreed (Sep 1, 2010)

*???*

Did we seem to miss somewhere the fact that you do a d8 more dmg from the get go, or the fact you have reach?  The d8 dmg gives you more base damage potential than Power Attack the moment you take it and has a higher damage potential that only costs a -2 to hit.  That -2 also has a chance of being negated at some point while the -2 to -5 you take from power attack never can.

All in all the feat really depends on how you create your character over the long run and what kind of game setting you'll be playing in.  Monkey Grip can be extremely useful, far more than Power Attack, if you are in the right campaign.  Its just like a cleric specializing in turning undead in a campaign that will only have a few middling level fights against undead, if any, while the rest might be against deamons.  Or even a wizard who specializes in Illusions and ends up fighting undead all the time. Not all combinations are going to work all the time.  But as a generic rule of thumb, in optimal settings Monkey Grip is a great feat.


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 1, 2010)

Fearbreed, it sounds like you have a number of house rules in place that make Monkey Grip a more attractive option.


----------



## Fearbreed (Sep 1, 2010)

Not really.  I used the Exotic Prof for the fullblade as listed in the weapons description, used Monkey Grip as described.  The only thing that might be a house rule might have been the tattoo of improved Expansion.  The idea of reach should be common sense since the blade is nearly 10ft long and business end of the blade includes all of it makes it capable of attacking adjacent targets, unlike polearms that are at the end of a stick. As you grow in size your weapon doubles in size so you begin to factor in weapon length and arm length so you really start to gain a good threat zone. You could use a house rule on the bracers in order to eliminate the -2 penalty that Monkey Grip leaves behind or just use Weapon Focus to offset some or all of it like I did.

If I had gotten to play the character long enough I would have actually taken Power Attack too just so I could do an even greater shock and awe attack at the beginning of combat.


----------



## aarondirebear (Sep 4, 2010)

Thurbane said:


> You start getting silly stuff like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 How do you live without an imagination? And I am NOT just saying. I have a point to make.


----------



## Dandu (Sep 4, 2010)

He has an imagination, he's just not stupid.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 4, 2010)

Fearbreed said:


> The idea of reach should be common sense since the blade is nearly 10ft long and business end of the blade includes all of it makes it capable of attacking adjacent targets, unlike polearms that are at the end of a stick. As you grow in size your weapon doubles in size so you begin to factor in weapon length and arm length so you really start to gain a good threat zone.



That is the house rule.
You didn't grow in size: your weapon didn't grow in size. You used a weapon that is larger.
Only larger size grants reach not larger weapons (there was your houserule).

Expansion/Enlarge Person grants reach, but it no effect on weapon used: a Medium creature becominglarge still only has 10ft reach. Even a gargantuan warhammer wielded by a meduim creature (granted by Titan Bloodline for example) has 5 ft reach even though it is the size of a car.

Common sense changes = houserules. Why? Because unless you make that an official rule in everyone's house it is a rule for your house and not ours (dubbed houserule).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2010)

Starbuck_II said:


> Only larger size grants reach not larger weapons ...
> _ <snip>_
> Common sense changes = houserules. Why? Because unless you make that an official rule in everyone's house it is a rule for your house and not ours (dubbed houserule).




I wouldn't exactly call that a houserule- as stated upthread, while the first line of yours is 100% RAW, at least one of the game's designers has said that larger weapons granting reach is within the spirit of the rule.

This kind of ruling could be considered a different reading/interpretation of the rule or possibly even RAI (in some cases), which (at least to me) lies between RAW and a true houserule.


----------



## aarondirebear (Sep 8, 2010)

Dandu said:


> He has an imagination, he's just not stupid.




What is stupid about being able to imagine a man wielding a sword twice his size? It's a fantasy role playing game where characters slay dragons and can kick down metal doors.


----------



## Hughjefender (Sep 10, 2010)

the idea is a bit trite and overdone in all matters of anime shows. It gets old real fast.


----------



## Dandu (Sep 10, 2010)

aarondirebear said:


> What is stupid about being able to imagine a man wielding a sword twice his size? It's a fantasy role playing game where characters slay dragons and can kick down metal doors.



Oh, there's nothing stupid about _being able_ to imagine it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 10, 2010)

Hughjefender said:


> the idea is a bit trite and overdone in all matters of anime shows. It gets old real fast.




Not if you don't watch a lot of anime.

(Personal collection: Slayers, Dragon Half...and looking for Fooly Cooly.)


----------



## Fearbreed (Sep 11, 2010)

You have to try to think outside the box on these kinds of things.  In this case the box is silly combat abilities.  I'll admit when I created the monstrosity of a sword I called Buford the BFB (spelled Beufjord), my main goal was combat devastation.  However, I did also keep in mind its roleplaying applications in that it is really long blade that in tight spots could be used as a potential weight, a short bridge to span small gaps, a ramp, an impressive intimidation device, an attention gatherer when the party needed or other players wanting not to be noticed, a 10ft + pole that I was willing to touch things with, or just something I could slam into place to bar/lock a door. 

I believe my usage of the feat was rather appropriate and well within the spirit of the feat considering the Epic version they have shows a halfling wielding a frost giants axe that has a blade bigger than he is.  The feat is meant to be silly and absurd, to be useful in combat, and FUN for the player to have.  If you are the player and its not fun for you don't take it.  If you are the DM and its not fun for you....deal with it cause its not really meant for you.  Everyone has to remember that this is a FANTASY RPG where you are supposed to have and fun and be creative.  Otherwise there's no point in playing.


----------



## Hughjefender (Sep 11, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not if you don't watch a lot of anime.
> 
> (Personal collection: Slayers, Dragon Half...and looking for Fooly Cooly.)




Sorry, I must've meant to say Final Fantasy .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 11, 2010)

Ah, yes, something else not on my personal radar.


----------



## aarondirebear (Sep 12, 2010)

Hughjefender said:


> Sorry, I must've meant to say Final Fantasy .




ONE final Fantasy Game. ONE Final Fantasy Game had a couple of superhuman guys with massive swords. ONE!!!


----------



## Dandu (Sep 12, 2010)

FF 13, right?


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 12, 2010)

Surely he meant FF7:


----------



## Dandu (Sep 12, 2010)

What about FFX?


----------

