Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AQuebman 04-11-07, 03:15 PM	Alright, I have a few questions regarding the feat Monkey Grip. Now I have a medium sized character whom I have the Monkey Grip feat with and there are no problems, you take up the same space etc.. and you take the -2 to wield a larger weapon which does more damage. The problem that I ran into is we had a character who wanted to play I think either a half-giant with powerful build or another large creature with this same feat. Giving them a huge 2 hander. This inspired a debate in which my DM felt the player should have at least a 10 foot reach. While as a fellow PC this would be very beneficial I felt that would be overpowering mechanically. I felt the reach given to larger creatures is based on their overall size and even if you have a huge weapon doesn't mean your reaching with it. Now my question is whether this feat gives you reach with a normal 2 handed greatsword or if it works as I assume which just gives you the benefits of the higher damage and the -2 to hit with it?? Please help it will be nice to know!
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 03:22 PM	According to Wizards customer service, this is not address in the rules, making it as issue for DM adjudication. By the RAW, if a fine creature figured out how to wield a colossal greatsword, mathematically, the greatsword would be about 100' long, but the fine creature would still have a reach of 0'. It makes sense that a bigger weapon would have more reach, but that is really a DM call. There are no rules to support it. (Thus the rules would indicate that reach remains constant for the weapon type and creature size category)
AQuebman 04-11-07, 03:25 PM	Well mechanically is why I go against it. I play with players that can't get their heads out of realism in a fantastical world and it kind of bothers me as some realistic sacrifices must be made. I also recently have seen a few television programs on people wielding large weapons such as greatswords, and most of the length is not used in the strikes as is shown in your typical videogame character. These weapons a lot of the time are held by the blade and used as a shortsword, it's weight being used to throw off the opponent. idk any other opinions from others who have run into this would be greatly appreciated. I think the extra reach a large creature or half-giant would get, would make this feat so much more beneficial just because of his natural size over say a human. So mechanically that seems like it would cause some unfair situations as well.
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 03:32 PM	A half-giant is a medium creature and has reach as a medium creature, even when wielding a Huge weapon (by the RAW). If you want to apply realism, yes, you can strike opponents much further away, but if they players really want realism, it is not that hard to give it to them. Attacking using the reach of the weapon is very difficult. The weapon is unwieldy already do to its large size and extra weight. Since it was weighted for someone much taller, it throws you off balance. You take an additional -2 to hit and a -1 to AC when attacking with a reach. The penalties might balance out the bonus range (after all, there is a feat that increases reach by 5' for a penalty of -1 to all melee attack rolls. This adds in the realism a bit, but gives them a penalty for it. Otherwise, you can put your foot down and tell them that it is just a game. If they don't like the ruling you are giving them, then you are banning Monkey Grip as a feat. Suck on that.
NoldorForce 04-11-07, 03:32 PM	Monkey Grip and Powerful Build do not stack. Additionally, reach is based off of the character's size, rather than weapon size.
AQuebman 04-11-07, 03:35 PM	What is the feat that increases reach and from what book?
AQuebman 04-11-07, 03:36 PM	How do Powerful build and Monkey grip not stack? I am pretty sure the powerful build lets you wield as if you were a large creature and then from that Monkey grip would increase the size increase of the weapon from wielding a large creatures 2 hander to a Huge Creatures 2 hander.
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 03:39 PM	Monkey Grip and Powerful Build do not stack. Additionally, reach is based off of the character's size, rather than weapon size. I disagree. The rules for wielding different sized weapons is fairly straightforward, and since Powerful build stacks with other abilities that affect size categories, I see no reason it would not stack: Inappropriately Sized Weapons A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies. The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all. Normally, when a creature uses an inappropriately sized weapon, the effort it normally takes to wield it changes by one effort category. With Monkey Grip, it does not change by one effort category. There is nothing to stack. He can normally wield a Large weapon, so with Monkey Grip, he can wield a Huge weapon. No stacking is taking place.
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 03:40 PM	What is the feat that increases reach and from what book? Inhuman reach--Lords of Madness (requires Aberration Blood)
Evil DM Mk3 04-11-07, 03:42 PM	Monkey grip and powerful build do not stack becasue they both refer to the creature's size. Powerful build lets them use weapons one size larger than their actual size without penalty. Monkey grip lets them use weapons one size larger than them at a -2 penalty. It is the same as two abilites that let you take a 10 on a skill check in combat, such as natural swim speed (to avoid hazards) and the rouge ability choosing swim. It is still only a natural 10 in combat. The other is redundant. If they where large they would probably have reach anywho. This is the best evidance I can find as of yet: Can I combine Monkey Grip and Powerful Build? Do they stack? No. Powerful build says that it treats the character as being one size category larger in many ways. And then it lists them: - he is treated as one size larger, if doing so is advantageous to him, when he is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check. - he is considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature’s special attacks based on size can affect him. Now, he is not treated as one size larger for the purpose of wielding weapons. Rather, he can wield weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. Monkey Grip(MG) would give him the same advantage, but with a -2 penalty. Monkey Grip(MG) allows you to use a weapon of larger size than yours without changing the effort you need to wield it, but with a -2 penalty to attack rolls. The Half-Giant and the Goliath, being Medium creatures, would be allowed to use weapons designed for Large creatures with a -2 penalty, penalty that they can avoid simply using their Powerful Build ability. Basicly you are never amde an effective size bigger, as some seem to think. You can allways "use one size bigger than you".
mvincent 04-11-07, 03:46 PM	According to Wizards customer service, this is not address in the rules, making it as issue for DM adjudication.Customer service is incorrect here. This is addressed in both the FAQ and core rules. You only get extra reach if you have a reach weapon. Note that the 3.0 Arms and equipment guide did allow for oversized weapons to increase reach somewhat, but this was removed in 3.5. As a compromise, I generally allow oversized weapons to be use as 'improvised' reach weapons (like as an improvised glaive or somesuch), and I also don't stack weapon size penalties with improvised weapon penalties.
Shinryouga 04-11-07, 07:44 PM	In my local group, we basically have an unspoken rule to not even bring up monkey grip. If it does, DMs generally give the critter reach, but also HEAVILY enforce the weight of the weapon in question, and its other dimensional ramifications. I had a PC of mine get stuck in a tunnel with his monkey-gripped greatsword; when I thought about it, the call was total legitimate. Best advice: strike Monkey Grip from the record. If not: give it reach, then let a titan play Spiked Chain hooka-jookery with them at well over 80 feet away. Fun times.
Lecen_of_Mitran 04-11-07, 08:06 PM	Powerfull Build and Monkey Grip DON´T stack. The FAQ has the answer for it. It´s unbelievable that there still are many player who thinks that both stack.
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 08:07 PM	Monkey grip and powerful build do not stack becasue they both refer to the creature's size. Powerful build lets them use weapons one size larger than their actual size without penalty. Monkey grip lets them use weapons one size larger than them at a -2 penalty. It is the same as two abilites that let you take a 10 on a skill check in combat, such as natural swim speed (to avoid hazards) and the rouge ability choosing swim. It is still only a natural 10 in combat. The other is redundant. If they where large they would probably have reach anywho. ... Basicly you are never amde an effective size bigger, as some seem to think. You can allways "use one size bigger than you". Powerful Build: The physical stature of half-giants lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger... The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category. Powerful build always stacks with size effects. So, since for the purpose of wielding weapons, he can wield weapons one size category larger than himself, this stacks with monkey grip, and he is treated as Large for determining the effects of Monkey Grip, allowing him to wield Huge weapons. On the flip side, the quote from the FAQ here on the boards limits this saying that because you are not technically larger, you gain no benefit from Monkey Grip. I disagree with the interpretation from the FAQ you posted. First of all, weapons do not have a size category. They are made for a specific size category, but they themselves do not have a size category. They can be referred to as made for a specific size, but that only affects the amount of effort a creature of a different size needs to wield them. To a half-giant, a Medium Longsword is just a longsword that deals 2d6 damage. If an Ogre was wielding it, he can wield it. If you animate the Ogre's Longsword, it does not become a Large Construct. Therefore, it is not truly Large. That is a misnomer, and a poor choice of naming convention, but that doesn't change the fact that the rules for wielding oversized weapons are pretty clear on how it works. If the half-giant wants to wield a Huge weapon, to him, it is as though a Medium creature were attempting to wield a Large weapon. Edit: For a better description of how this works, let's use the rules of wielding oversized weapons to figure this out. A Huge creature wields a dagger as a light weapon. A Large creature can wield that dagger in one hand with a -2 penalty. The dagger can now be treated as a one-handed Large weapon with a -2 penalty on attack rolls. Now, the dagger can be wielded by a medium creature with two hands at an additional -2 penalty. If the dagger were Gargantuan, it would be a Large creature who could wield it in two hands at a total of -4 penalty. This makes it a Large weapon that can be wielded in two hands a a -4 penalty. Is there any reason that a half-giant cannot wield a Garguantuan dagger (which deals 2d6 damage) in two hands at a -4 penalty? No problems there, right? Because the dagger is not Gargantuan. It is made for a Gangantuan creature. The only restriction for wielding weapons of a different size is if the change in effort makes it so that it is no longer a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon. Now, the same half-giant with Monkey Grip attempts to wield a Colossal dagger. What would the penalties be: A Collossal dagger could be wielded by a Gargantuan creature in one hand with a -2 penalty. It could be wielded by a Huge creature in two hands with a -4 penalty. Now, it is a Huge weapon with a -4 penalty wielded in two hands. The Goliath can now treat it as a Large weapon in two-hands (using monkey grip) at an additional -2 penalty. He now has a Colossal dagger in two hands (dealing 3d6 damage) at a -6 penalty to attack. Seems to fit still.
Evil DM Mk3 04-11-07, 08:12 PM	The vital part of the phrase you bold is "change the subject's size catergory". Money grip DOESNT.
mvincent 04-11-07, 08:18 PM	Powerfull Build and Monkey Grip DON´T stack. The FAQ has the answer for it.The "FAQ" referenced above is a board FAQ (located here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=305458)), compiled by posters like us. It is not the "FAQ" that we typically refer to, and it is not official. However, this answer (http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=992) from the WotC custserv database is indeed technically official: "Does the Monkey Grip feat stack with the Powerful Build racial ability so a character/creature can wield a weapon two size categories larger? Answer Since both abilities look back at your actual size, Monkey Grip and Powerful Build are redundant and do not stack. They both give you the ability to wield a weapon one size category larger than yourself, but neither actually increases your size."
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 08:21 PM	Powerfull Build and Monkey Grip DON´T stack. The FAQ has the answer for it. It´s unbelievable that there still are many player who thinks that both stack. An FAQ here on the boards has the answer for it. That means it is made by players. The official FAQ does not have the answer for it.
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 08:24 PM	Customer service is incorrect here. This is addressed in both the FAQ and core rules. You only get extra reach if you have a reach weapon. Note that the 3.0 Arms and equipment guide did allow for oversized weapons to increase reach somewhat, but this was removed in 3.5. As a compromise, I generally allow oversized weapons to be use as 'improvised' reach weapons (like as an improvised glaive or somesuch), and I also don't stack weapon size penalties with improvised weapon penalties. I think this is excellent advice.
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 08:29 PM	The vital part of the phrase you bold is "change the subject's size catergory". Money grip DOESNT. Lol, I only mentioned the size category stacking because you said that size category effects do not stack. For Powerful Build, they do.
mvincent 04-11-07, 08:32 PM	he can wield weapons one size category larger than himself, this stacks with monkey gripNope. I understand your point (and, sans the previous rulings, I would acknowledge the matter to be open to some interpretation). However, this matter has been concluded for some years now (after much suitable discussion) Is there any reason that a half-giant cannot wield a Garguantuan dagger (which deals 2d6 damage) in two hands at a -4 penalty?That would technically go against a strict interpretation of RAW because the rules say that they can "use weapons designed for a creature one size larger". Mind you, the RAI (Rules As Intended) seem to allow for it. Indeed the 3.5 FAQ clarifies the powerful build ability to allow for this, and even provides an example of a someone using powerful build to wield a huge weapon. However, this is different from monkey grip and powerful build stacking.
Frugal 04-12-07, 12:04 PM	Wow, I can't believe people still think monkey grip stacks with powerful build, even when looking at the exact wording. Here's the thing, in 3.5 weapons do still have a size category, it's the size of the wielder its designed for, anything that's not that size takes penalties for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon. Powerful build clearly states it allows you to wield weapons designed for creatures 1 size category larger than you are at no penalty. So a medium creature with powerful build is still a medium creature, even for the purposes of wielding a weapon. Monkey grip clearly states it allows you to wield weapons 1 size larger than you are at a -2 penalty. So a medium creature can wield weapons designed for a large creature at a -2. Neither ability changes your size category or treats you as a larger size for the purpose of wielding weapons so they both work off of you being a medium creature, so they don't stack.
Marcus Majarra 04-12-07, 12:15 PM	I think it's also worthwhile to mention that both powerful build and monkey grip design weapons of a specific size category relative to the wielder. This is important to note, as even though characters can normally wield larger weapons with extra effort, they are still larger weapons. Let me explain: a large dagger, a large light weapon, can be wielded by a medium creature as a one-handed weapon. However, it still remains a large weapon. By the same virtue, a huge dagger, a huge light weapon, can be wielded by a medium creature as a two-handed weapon. It remains a huge weapon nonetheless. While monkey grip would allow the medium creature to wield the large dagger at less effort than normal, it would provide no benefit at all when wielding the huge dagger, since it's not a weapon one size larger than the wielder. Conveniently, this also rules out the possibility of abusing monkey grip to use two-handed weapons of the creature's size category in one hand, since these weapons are not one size category larger than the wielder.
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 12:44 PM	The FAQ appears to disagree with all of you (at least with respect to powerful build, but has nothing on monkey grip). Normally, the smallest creature that could wield a Huge fullblade (that is, a fullblade sized for two-handed use by a Huge creature) would be a Large creature. A Medium creature with the powerful build racial trait, such as a goliath or halfgiant, with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (fullblade) feat could also wield a Huge fullblade. Please note that here, the powerful build trait is allowing a creature to wield a Huge weapon (a fullblade is essentially a bastard sword made for a Large creature, so a Large fullblade is essentially a bastard sword made for a Huge creature, which is wielded in two hands unless they have the exotic weapon proficiency). So, with the exotic weapon proficiency, it is wielded in one hand by a Huge creature, and in two hands by a Large creature or a Medium creature with Powerful Build!!! This indicates that the RAI (Rules as Intended) had the desire that weapons "designed" for creatures of a size category is relative. You could treat a Huge one-handed weapon as if it were a Large two-handed weapon, but you must take a -2 penalty to wield it. Edit: Please note that my point is that Huge is TWO size categories larger than Medium, and Powerful Build Still allows the character to wield the weapon at NO penalty.
Frugal 04-12-07, 12:54 PM	Please note that here, the powerful build trait is allowing a creature to wield a Huge weapon (a fullblade is essentially a bastard sword made for a Large creature, so a Large fullblade is essentially a bastard sword made for a Huge creature, which is wielded in two hands unless they have the exotic weapon proficiency). So, with the exotic weapon proficiency, it is wielded in one hand by a Huge creature, and in two hands by a Large creature or a Medium creature with Powerful Build!!! This indicates that the RAI (Rules as Intended) had the desire that weapons "designed" for creatures of a size category is relative. You could treat a Huge one-handed weapon as if it were a Large two-handed weapon, but you must take a -2 penalty to wield it. Edit: Please note that my point is that Huge is TWO size categories larger than Medium, and Powerful Build Still allows the character to wield the weapon at NO penalty. Yes and no, a fullblade is a weird weapon, it's a large weapon that can be wielded by a medium creature (at no penalty) with the proper EWP. So the case can be made that it's a weapon designed for a medium creature. A huge fullblade can be wielded by a large creature with the proper EWP at no penalty so the case can be made that it's designed for a large creature, which then means that a medium creature with powerful build could wield it at no penalty as it works off of what size creature the weapon is designed for. Now with monkey grip you're out of luck as it works off of the size the weapon is.
mvincent 04-12-07, 12:56 PM	The FAQ appears to disagree with all of you Considering that I'm the one that told you about this entry, I'm surprised you're not putting more stock in the veracity of my statements. The FAQ answer allows for powerful build to assist a medium character in wielding a huge weapon. It does not imply that monkey grip and powerful build stack. As indicated earlier, the stacking issue has already been officially ruled on (look above in case you missed the link and quote I gave).
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 01:33 PM	Considering that I'm the one that told you about this entry, I'm surprised you're not putting more stock in the veracity of my statements. The FAQ answer allows for powerful build to assist a medium character in wielding a huge weapon. It does not imply that monkey grip and powerful build stack. As indicated earlier, the stacking issue has already been officially ruled on (look above in case you missed the link and quote I gave). Thank you, I did miss that link and quote.
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 02:23 PM	Several questions about Dervishes and scimitars: 1. A dervish treats the scimitar as a light weapon for all purposes. Does that mean that the dervish can no longer gain 1.5x strength when wielding a scimitar in two hands? 2. By the rules for size category adjustments, would a dervish be able to wield a Huge scimitar in two hands taking a -4 to the attack roll? 3. If the answer to 2 is yes, would the dervish be able to wield a Gargantuan scimitar in two hands taking a -6 to attack rolls with Monkey Grip? 4. If the answer to 2 is yes, based on what the FAQ is stating, would a character with Powerful Build be able to wield a Gargantuan scimitar in two hands taking a -4 penalty? If the answer to #2-#4 is "yes" then I understand how this works, but I am expecting people to have a problem with #3, in which case I am still having trouble understanding it. Edit: #1 is unrelated, but I am curious.
Frugal 04-12-07, 02:35 PM	3. If the answer to 2 is yes, would the dervish be able to wield a Gargantuan scimitar in two hands taking a -6 to attack rolls with Monkey Grip? Absolutely not! As mentioned already, Monkey Grip only applies to weapons 1 size category larger than you are. There is no way to apply Monkey Grip to a weapon larger than that. Or put another way, the scimitar is gargantuan, is that 1 size category larger than medium? No. So Monkey Grip doesn't work.
mvincent 04-12-07, 02:35 PM	Several questions I believe the answer is yes for all four questions. Note: some DM's may have a problem with #3 and #4 (i.e. going off strict RAW rather than RAI), so you may want to ask them first.
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 02:37 PM	I believe the answer is yes for all four questions. Note: some DM's may have a problem with #3 and #4 (i.e. going off strict RAW rather than RAI), so you may want to ask them first. Since I am the DM, I don't think I will have to worry about that :P. Thank you. I think I understand it now.
Frugal 04-12-07, 02:38 PM	I believe the answer is yes for all four questions. Note: some DM's may have a problem with #3 and #4 (i.e. going off strict RAW rather than RAI), so you may want to ask them first. I still fail to see your RAI argument on Monkey Grip, it explicitly works off of weapons 1 size category larger. Can you show me anything in the feat that should suggest that it's intended to work on anything larger than that? I'd say the intention is pretty clear, to allow you to wield a weapon 1 size larger but to close off any possibility of using the feat to wield any weapon larger than that.
mvincent 04-12-07, 02:40 PM	Absolutely not! As mentioned already, Monkey Grip only applies to weapons 1 size category larger than you are.Dude... you haven't been keeping up. Powerful build says the same thing, but the Sage interpreted it (in two separate answers even) as being applicable to even larger weapons. Whether you agree with his interpretation or not does not mean that others "absolutely" must not.
Frugal 04-12-07, 02:40 PM	Since I am the DM, I don't think I will have to worry about that :P. Thank you. I think I understand it now. Well as I stated, I completely disagree with mvincent's argument that the rules on monkey grip intend to allow you to wield anything larger than a weapon 1 size category larger than you are. If anything, the very specific wording of the feat seems to go completely against this.
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 02:43 PM	Absolutely not! As mentioned already, Monkey Grip only applies to weapons 1 size category larger than you are. There is no way to apply Monkey Grip to a weapon larger than that. Or put another way, the scimitar is gargantuan, is that 1 size category larger than medium? No. So Monkey Grip doesn't work. The Powerful Build racial trait ALSO applies to weapons 1 size category larger than you are, and yet works for weapons two size categories larger (as per the FAQ). If you note in the FAQ, it discusses the fact that the fullblade is 3.0 rules, but their description indicates that it is a Huge weapon that with a feat can be wielded by a Large creature in two hands taking no penalty. This does not make it a Large weapon, it makes it a Huge weapon that can be wielded by a large creature. Even though it is two size categories larger, the Medium character with Powerful Build can wield it without penalty. Since the wording is nearly identical and does not stack was the point of my question. If it works for Powerful Build, why would it not work for Monkey Grip with identical wording?
mvincent 04-12-07, 02:49 PM	Can you show me anything in the feat that should suggest that it's intended to work on anything larger than that? As mentioned, Powerful build has the same wording (i.e. "can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty"). However the intent of Powerful build (as also given in it's description) is to allow someone to "function in many ways as if they were one size category larger". The Sage himself interpreted this to mean that Powerful build would still be useful in wielding even larger weapons. The conclusion seems pretty darn logical to me... so what's wrong with you? ;) I reckon that the writer's simply didn't think to use wording that included even larger weapons. The writer's aren't perfect, and sometimes the literal meaning of the text isn't the intended meaning. Examples: 1) “A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can't be disarmed.” Taking the Rules As Written literally here would imply that spiked gauntlets prevents someone from disarming any of your weapons. 2) “A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.” RAW implies that a dwarf cannot hide within 60’ of himself 3) “Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor.” RAW implies that a rogue cannot use a ring of evasion while in armor, even though other PC’s can. 4) "Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small." RAW implies that elven chain would make Dwarves go faster, but Barbarians, Monks, Flyers, etc. would go slower. 5) "When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). " Taken literally, this could allow someone below 0 hp to have their hp increased when drowning. 6) "Suffocation: A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. " Strictly as written, the suffocation rules would technically apply to non-breathing creatures. 7) "a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding". As written; natural attacks, unarmed strikes, armor spikes and animated shield bashes cannot benefit from haste’s extra attack. etc.
Frugal 04-12-07, 02:52 PM	Dude... you haven't been keeping up. Powerful build says the same thing, but the Sage interpreted it (in two separate answers even) as being applicable to even larger weapons. Whether you agree with his interpretation or not does not mean that others "absolutely" must not. No, powerful build is worded differently, as I've already pointed out to you in a different thread, and in this thread. Powerful build says it allows you to wield weapons designed for creatures 1 size category larger than you are. A fullblade is a large weapon but it's designed to be used by a medium creature (as they can wield it without penalty). Which by extension makes a huge fullblade a weapon designed for a large creature, and thus able to be wielded by a medium creature with powerful build. Now then, monkey grip works off the size of the weapon, which I already mentioned in another thread, with a direct quote from CW, which you thought must've been the 3.0 version which indicates your own lack of familiarity with the feat. So no, monkey grip cannot work with anything larger than 1 size larger than you are, it's explicitly stated in it's feat description and I still haven't seen you cite any reference to counter this claim. Or in other words; Monkey Grip and Powerful Build may do similar things (wield a larger weapon) but their mechanics do not work the same way.
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 02:53 PM	Another question about monkey grip. To what extent does "You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand..." apply? Take the following scenarios: 1. The dervish decides to wield a Large longsword and a Large Dagger taking a -2 to each and treating the longsword as a one-handed weapon and the dagger as a light weapon (this is obviously wrong). 2. The dervish decides to wield a Large longsword and a Large Dagger taking a -2 to each and treating the longsword AND dagger as one-handed weapons (this is less obvious, but may still be wrong). Can the character with use monkey grip and normal rules for the off-hand weapon? Or when using monkey grip, can the character not use larger weapons in the off-hand at all?
Frugal 04-12-07, 02:55 PM	As mentioned, Powerful build has the same wording (i.e. "can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty"). However the intent of Powerful build (as also given in it's description) is to allow someone to "function in many ways as if they were one size category larger". The Sage himself interpreted this to mean that Powerful build would still be useful in wielding even larger weapons. The conclusion seems pretty darn logical to me... so what's wrong with you? ;) No it doesn't, read the damn feat! When I posted a direct quote from Monkey Grip you didn't even recognise it as being the 3.5 version. Monkey grip and powerful build are not worded the same way and if you read the damn feat you'd know that!
Frugal 04-12-07, 02:58 PM	Can the character with use monkey grip and normal rules for the off-hand weapon? Or when using monkey grip, can the character not use larger weapons in the off-hand at all? I believe that it's intended to mean that you can't use monkey grip with your off-hand. So you can wield a large dagger as an off-hand weapon but it's at -2 for being inappropriately sized and you're at -4/-4 for fighting with an off-hand weapon that's not light, for a total of -4/-6.
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 02:59 PM	A fullblade is a large weapon but it's designed to be used by a medium creature (as they can wield it without penalty). Which by extension makes a huge fullblade a weapon designed for a large creature, and thus able to be wielded by a medium creature with powerful build. You are using 3.0 rules in a 3.5 debate. In 3.0 rules, a medium longsword could be wielded by a small character as a small greatsword at no penalty. This was changed in 3.5. As described in the FAQ, the Fullblade is a Large weapon that when a medium character has the appropriate feat can be wielded by the medium character at no penalty. This does not make it a medium weapon. It keeps it a Large weapon that can be wielded by a medium character at no penalty.
Frugal 04-12-07, 03:05 PM	You are using 3.0 rules in a 3.5 debate. In 3.0 rules, a medium longsword could be wielded by a small character as a small greatsword at no penalty. This was changed in 3.5. As described in the FAQ, the Fullblade is a Large weapon that when a medium character has the appropriate feat can be wielded by the medium character at no penalty. This does not make it a medium weapon. It keeps it a Large weapon that can be wielded by a medium character at no penalty. No I'm not. It's a special property of the weapon. In 3.0 the fullblade (for a medium creature) was a huge weapon with the special property that it could be wielded 2-handed by a medium creature who had the EWP. In 3.0 rules a medium creature could wield a (3.0 size) large weapon 2-handed (a greatsword was size large for instance). And we're saying the same damn thing, I said it's a large weapon, I never claimed that it wasn't a large weapon, I never claimed it was a medium weapon. All I said is that I can see the reasoning that the special property that a medium creature can wield it without penalty (not normally possible with a large weapon) could allow you to make the case that the weapon is "designed" to be wielded by a medium creature, which would then make a huge fullblade "designed" to be wielded by a large creature, which is why powerful build can allow a medium creature to wield a huge fullblade. Now as I've stated several times, and which mvincent seems to not get, is that monkey grip is not worded the same way. It has no clause about the size the weapon is designed for but simply works off the weapon's size. As you've already stated, a fullblade is a large weapon, whether it can be wielded without penalty by a medium creature doesn't enter into the equation at all, it's a large weapon. A huge fullblade is definitely a huge weapon, which means that there is no way a medium creature can use monkey grip to wield it.
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 03:07 PM	No it doesn't, read the damn feat! When I posted a direct quote from Monkey Grip you didn't even recognise it as being the 3.5 version. Monkey grip and powerful build are not worded the same way and if you read the damn feat you'd know that! Monkey Grip ... Benefit: You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are... A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger... Differences, the Complete Warrior version is wrong. Objects do not have size categories. They can be designed for a size category, but they cannot have size categories (A Medium dagger that is animated using the Animate Object spell is probably treated as a Diminutive creature, not a Medium one). So, monkey grip must be interpreted as saying, "You can use melee weapons designed for a creature one size category larger than you are..." as this is the only way it will make sense. If you want to use size categories for weapons, then keep in mind that your Medium weapon probably belongs in the hands of a Huge creature. Edit: If you want to stick to your argument that weapons have size categories, then a Large greatsword in the hands of a medium character would be utterly rediculous. It would be a weapon large enought that if animated would be a Large construct. That is one damn large weapon!!!
mvincent 04-12-07, 03:11 PM	No it doesn't, read the damn feat! When I posted a direct quote from Monkey Grip you didn't even recognise it as being the 3.5 version. Monkey grip and powerful build are not worded the same way and if you read the damn feat you'd know that!See, now you are being rude. Continue and I will report it. I have been unable to find a direct rules quote from you on the feat (perhaps you could post it again?). Here is all that I found from you (maybe you were referring to this?): "Powerful build clearly states it allows you to wield weapons designed for creatures 1 size category larger than you are at no penalty. So a medium creature with powerful build is still a medium creature, even for the purposes of wielding a weapon. Monkey grip clearly states it allows you to wield weapons 1 size larger than you are at a -2 penalty. So a medium creature can wield weapons designed for a large creature at a -2" (emphasis was yours) They certainly seem similar to me. Perhaps someone else can tell me what the substantial difference is here (and maybe even why Frugal is being so rude)? Edit: hm... perhaps Frugal believes there is a difference between weapons "one category larger than you are" and weapons "designed for creatures one category larger than you are". In 3.0, those might've meant different things (since weapons size ran differently), but in 3.5, those two phrases mean the same thing.
Frugal 04-12-07, 03:21 PM	Differences, the Complete Warrior version is wrong. Objects do not have size categories. Oh really? Weapon Size Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. (Emphasis mine) Now yes, it does say this is the size the weapon is designed for. However, I'll still point out that it clearly states that weapons have size categories. Now, how does this apply to monkey grip, powerful build and the fullblade? Well let's see, once again we see that powerful build explicitly works on weapons designed for creatures 1 size larger than you are. Okay, cool. The fullblade is a large weapon with the property that it can be wielded by a medium creature, so I can see the argument that it's designed for medium creatures. This is the only way I can explain the ruling in the FAQ that a creature with powerful build can wield a huge fullblade (which personally I'm not sure I even agree with, I'm just saying that's the only justification I can remotely come up with for the reasoning). Now monkey grip doesn't care about the size the weapon's designed for, it's only concerned with the weapon's size category (which as I've shown, every 3.5 weapon does, in fact, have) and since a huge fullblade is (by definition) a huge weapon there's no way you can wield it as a medium creature with monkey grip.
Frugal 04-12-07, 03:23 PM	See, now you are being rude. Continue and I will report it. I have been unable to find a direct rules quote from you on the feat (perhaps you could post it again?). Here is all that I found from you (maybe you were referring to this?) I'm away from my books right now, will do when I'm home. I apologise for being harsh but it gets really annoying to be debating something with someone who hasn't even read one of the pertinent pieces of information (the monkey grip feat) yet still continues to insist that it's worded the same way as the other piece of information (powerful build). I'd liken it to fundamentalist groups who complain about the content of books, tv shows or movies that they haven't read or watched.
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 03:30 PM	Weapon size category IS the size for which it was designed! You are arguing against yourself at this point. In one sentence, you reject your assertions in the previous. Look at your own quote. Look at the description in Powerful Build. Look at the description for Monkey Grip. They are using synonyms. When I say that a weapon does not have a size category, I am referring to the Creature size category which has been given so inappropriately the same name. This is a misnomer. They should not have given two separate ideas the same name. For weapons, the "size category" is not a creature size category. It is the size category for which the weapon was designed. This is not the same as the size category used to describe a creature. Now, the target of a weapon size category (the size category of the creature for which is was designed) is the same as the creature size category. It is like saying that 1" socket wrench is 1" long. It is not. It is used to screw in sockets that are 1" in diameter. That 1" has nothing to do with the size of the wrench, but it does have to do with the size of the socket it was made for. That said, an object does not have a size category in the way that you are claiming it does. It only has a size category in the way that it is designed for a creature of a certain size. Now this is exactly what is written for powerful build AND monkey grip.
mvincent 04-12-07, 03:33 PM	Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.That's exactly my own thoughts in response to your apparent confusion. I'm glad we can agree on that The fullblade is a large weapon with the property that it can be wielded by a medium creature, so I can see the argument that it's designed for medium creatures.Well, that goes against the rule you just quoted. The "designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed". In 3.5: if it's a large weapon, then it is not designed for a medium wielder. This is the only way I can explain the ruling in the FAQ that a creature with powerful build can wield a huge fullblade Then you're just not getting it. Try this: the 3.5 FAQ also says: "The powerful build racial trait (found in the goliath entry in Races of Stone and the half-giant entry in Expanded Psionics Handbook) spells out exactly when the character is treated as one size larger than normal: --- 3) When determining what size of weapons the character can use." So, if a medium creature is treated as large for the purposes of wielding a weapon, and he has the fullblade feat, then he could wield a huge fullblade.
Toki_Wartooth 04-12-07, 03:39 PM	"Powerful build clearly states it allows you to wield weapons designed for creatures 1 size category larger than you are at no penalty. So a medium creature with powerful build is still a medium creature, even for the purposes of wielding a weapon. Monkey grip clearly states it allows you to wield weapons 1 size larger than you are at a -2 penalty. So a medium creature can wield weapons designed for a large creature at a -2" (emphasis was yours) They certainly seem similar to me. Perhaps someone else can tell me what the substantial difference is here They seem the same to me. It seems like the confusion is with Frugal, but then I have to ask: How the heck is he not getting this!!!
Frugal 04-12-07, 03:42 PM	Well, that goes against the rule you just quoted. The "designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed". In 3.5: if it's a large weapon, then it is not designed for a medium wielder. I agree that the fullblade is a strange weapon and quite honestly, I think that it doesn't have any place in 3.5. It had a place in 3.0 because the weapon sizes were based on the weapon, not the wielder so there's a clear need for larger weapons, if for nothing else then to give larger creatures something to wield (what did they do in 3.0? I mean what did a large creature do if he wanted to wield a 2-handed weapon?). With 3.5 you scale the weapon to the size of the wielder and scale its damage, which means you don't need a whole new crop of weapons just to accommodate larger (or smaller) creatures, you just grow (or shrink) the ones you already have. So yeah, personally I think the fullblade is just a plain stupid weapon with no need to exist in 3.5. And personally, I also disagree with the ruling in the FAQ that someone with powerful build can wield a huge fullblade, but that goes back to my whole thinking that fullblades shouldn't exist in 3.5. And all I've said is that the only way that I can see ruling that a huge fullblade can be wielded by a medium creature with powerful build is if you take its special property to mean that it is, in fact, designed to be wielded by a creature 1 size category smaller, despite the weapon's size category.
mvincent 04-12-07, 03:48 PM	all I've said is that the only way that I can see ruling that a huge fullblade can be wielded by a medium creature with powerful build is if you take its special property to mean that it is, in fact, designed to be wielded by a creature 1 size category smaller, despite the weapon's size category.I've indicated why there is another (more likely) reason. Can you understand it yet? Let's ignore fullblade and instead claim that the 3.5 FAQ allows Powerful build to be used to wield a huge longsword (in both hands), because the 3.5 FAQ says that Powerful build allows you to be treated as large for purpose of wielding weapons (I believe this to be the writer's intent, rather than restricting you to weapons of just one sizer larger). So a medium half-giant is treated as large for this purpose, and so could wield a huge longsword in two-hands. My later FAQ quote (and indeed even a line from the powerful build description) support this. I'm unsure why you are overlooking, avoiding and/or not understanding this possible interpretation. You are causing much confusion (and needless arguing) by deliberately doing so.
Frugal 04-12-07, 03:53 PM	They seem the same to me. It seems like the confusion is with Frugal, but then I have to ask: How the heck is he not getting this!!! As I've said, the only way I can see ruling that a huge fullblade can be wielded by a medium creature with powerful build is if you rule that in spite of the weapon's size category (huge) that it's designed to be wielded by a large creature. Since this does go against all the standard 3.5 rules with regards to weapon size categories in 3.5 I agree that it's pretty odd and that's why I'm not too keen on the ruling. Given that elsewhere in the FAQ it incorrectly states that powerful build treats you as large for the purposes of what weapons you can wield (incorrect), I'm more inclined to believe that the Sage isn't very up on the rules around this.
Frugal 04-12-07, 04:01 PM	I've indicated why there is another (more likely) reason. Can you understand it yet? Let's ignore fullblade and instead claim that the 3.5 FAQ allows Powerful build to be used to wield a huge longsword (in both hands), because the 3.5 FAQ says that Powerful build allows you to be treated as large for purpose of wielding weapons (I believe this to be the writer's intent, rather than restricting you to weapons of just one sizer larger). So a medium half-giant is treated as large for this purpose, and so could wield a huge longsword in two-hands. My later FAQ quote (and indeed even a line from the powerful build description) support this. I'm unsure why you are overlooking, avoiding and/or not understanding this possible interpretation. You are causing much confusion (and needless arguing) by deliberately doing so. I'm ignoring that interpretation because doing so makes powerful build stack with monkey grip and I'm inclined to believe that they shouldn't. If you're treated as large for the purpose of what weapons you can wield then monkey grip stacks. I believe this is an incorrect ruling, and it wouldn't be the 1st one in the FAQ, look at the question where the Sage incorrectly states that the PHB says you can sheathe a weapon as a free action as part of a move action.
Toki_Wartooth 04-12-07, 04:15 PM	As I've said, the only way I can seeI believe that is because you might be denser than a sun's interior, but that's not the fault of the posters who have been trying to help you. elsewhere in the FAQ it incorrectly states that powerful build treats you as large for the purposes of what weapons you can wield (incorrect), I'm more inclined to believe that the Sage isn't very up on the rules around this.Or perhaps he (gasp) possibly has a greater intuitive grasp of the rules than you? You probably don't believe that's even possible (given your stellar propensity), but that's kinda why he was chosen to be Sage in the first place. Plus (as previously mentioned) even the description for Powerful Build itself specifically says it "lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger". Is it even occurring to you that an interpretation different from your own is possible? Can you even comprehend why someone might take the Sage's word over yours? Given how you seem be begging for serious, passionate pwning throughout this thread, I've gotta ask: you're not doing this for debate purposes are ya ;)
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 04:23 PM	I'm ignoring that interpretation because doing so makes powerful build stack with monkey grip and I'm inclined to believe that they shouldn't. If you're treated as large for the purpose of what weapons you can wield then monkey grip stacks. I believe this is an incorrect ruling, and it wouldn't be the 1st one in the FAQ, look at the question where the Sage incorrectly states that the PHB says you can sheathe a weapon as a free action as part of a move action. He is not incorrectly stating that. While the PHB is not clear in that assertion, it does make reference in the text. Where the text and the table contradict, the text is correct. This has always been the case. Just because the table does not point it out does not mean that he is wrong. Draw or Sheathe a Weapon Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one. Emphasis mine. The PHB describes two things that require a move action. Then, they refer to those two things as "This action" indicating that they require the same amount of effort, and then they add additional items that also act in the same way. Now, all of those actions are grouped under one action type. When it goes on to say that you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move, it does not say you can also draw any weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, but it is definitely implied, just as it is implied that it works for sheathing a weapon.
mvincent 04-12-07, 04:23 PM	I'm ignoring that interpretation because doing so makes powerful build stack with monkey gripNope. As established earlier, even with this they need not stack (even tos_shai_hulud agreed on that). They still both look back on the original size (i.e. doing the exact same thing), effectively overlapping. This was officially ruled on.
mvincent 04-12-07, 04:32 PM	it wouldn't be the 1st one in the FAQI've studied the FAQ far more than just about anyone here. I can even point to several genuine errors. That has nothing to do with its validity (or it being official) in regard to matters that are subject to interpretation. The Sage could've well ruled the other way on any of these issues (and I would then show why those rulings were viable interpretations). At a minimum, the Sage's interpretation should be a good indication to you that an alternate interpetation is possible. The fact that you cannot see how this matter is subject to interpretation more deprecates your credibility rather than mine.
Frugal 04-12-07, 04:57 PM	I've studied the FAQ far more than just about anyone here. I can even point to several genuine errors. That has nothing to do with its validity (or it being official) in regard to matters that are subject to interpretation. The Sage could've well ruled the other way on any of these issues (and I would then show why those rulings were viable interpretations). At a minimum, the Sage's interpretation should be a good indication to you that an alternate interpetation is possible. The fact that you cannot see how this matter is subject to interpretation more deprecates your credibility rather than mine. Yes I do agree that usually the FAQ is bang on. But, what bothers me is when the FAQ references rules differently than in the main source and then does not clarify that this is a change to the rules. It's amusing because in another thread I've been arguing over whether the FAQ is "official" and been saying that it is. Stating that powerful build treats you as large for the purposes of wielding weapons does change the wording of the trait. At least acknowledging that this is a clarification to the wording, or that it was the intention of the trait would be fine (for me) but referencing the trait and saying that it says that you're treated as large for the purposes of wielding weapons (it doesn't) just makes it sound like an error, which then causes other people to argue that the FAQ isn't "official".
Marcus Majarra 04-12-07, 05:01 PM	I wish to do two things in this post. First, I'll post the entire reference for both powerful build (as per the SRD description from the half-giant race) and Monkey Grip from the Complete Warrior (I do not believe that quoting such a small portion of a book constitutes a copyright infringment nor a violation of the CoC). Second, I'll supply a mechanical reason why the Sage's suggestion from the FAQ becomes problematic. The physical stature of half-giants lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger. Whenever a half-giant is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the half-giant is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him. A half-giant is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature’s special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category. You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size. Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1. Benefit: You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a –2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change. For instance, a Large longsword (a one-handed weapon for a Large creature) is considered a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat. For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered a one-handed weapon. You can wield a larger light weapon as a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands. You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand, and you cannot use this feat with a double weapon. Normal: You can use a melee weapon one size category larger than you are with a –2 penalty on the attack roll, and the amount of effort it takes to use the weapon increases. A larger light weapon is considered a one-handed weapon, a larger one-handed weapon is considered a two-handed weapon, and you cannot use a larger two-handed weapon at all. In both cases, I believe all can agree that both feat and feature allow the wielder to use weapons one size category larger than him at the same effort (where effort is defined by whether a weapon is light, one-handed, or two-handed). I believe the FAQ entry on powerful build was written with the intent to simplify, but there's an important omission the Sage has made here (and, let's face it, the Sage has made some omissions before, see my end note): if a character with the powerful build trait is considered one size larger for the purpose of determining what weapons he can wield, it becomes evident that weapons of the character's size now provide penalties and a reduction in effort to the same character. Here's an example: if a half-giant is considered large for the purpose of what weapons he can wield, then a medium greatsword would not only be wielded as a one-handed weapon by the half-giant, but it would also entail a -2 penalty on the attack roll for being one size category difference from his allowed weapon size category. In other words, if the half-giant is considered large for the purpose of wielding weapons, using medium weapons now becomes a hindrance for him. This is where the FAQ, regrettably, fails and where the RAW stays true. Both the feat and feature allow for the character to wield weapons one size category larger than he is without affecting the effort required to wield the weapons. This is why weapon size is important in determining whether or not such a character can wield any given weapon. Now, the fullblade is a legacy from 3.0, where weapon size categories were associated with the actual size of the weapon, as opposed to the size of the wielder. Before adjudicating any ruling as to how it can be used in conjunction with either powerful build or monkey grip (two 3.5 features that depend a lot on the new weapon size system), the fullblade needs to be converted to 3.5 standards. Here's my analysis: 1) The fullblade's size is Huge, by 3.0 standards. By 3.5 standards, wielding it requires an effort equivalent to that of a large two-handed weapon, a huge one-handed weapon, or a gargantuan light weapon. 2) Medium creatures can wield it as a two-handed weapon by virtue of the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat. 3) Large creatures can normally wield this weapon in one hand, albeit with a -4 penalty to hit for nonproficiency. 4) Large creatures can wield the weapon as a martial two-handed weapon. 5) With Exotic Weapon Proficiency, a large creature can wield it as a one-handed weapon. 6) With Exotic Weapon Proficiency, a medium creature can wield it as a two-handed weapon. This weapon seems to me like a specialized bastard sword intended for large creatures. If you make an abstract of medium creatures in this scenario, you'll notice that this weapon acts, for Large characters, just like a bastard sword (considered a martial two-handed weapon or an exotic one-handed weapon). The penalties are even the same. The problem here has to do with putting medium creatures in the equation. If we take this parallel on a more familiar scale, let's look at the scenario of a small creature trying to wield a medium bastard sword. It is literally impossible for a small creature to wield a medium bastard sword as a one-handed weapon, even with Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Without the feat, it's impossible for the small creature to even wield the weapon at all, as it would be considered a two-handed medium weapon. See any resemblance? I know I do. With Exotic Weapon Proficiency, the small creature is now able to wield that medium bastard sword as a two-handed weapon. To make a long story short, a fullblade acts in almost every aspect as a large bastard sword, with respect to medium creatures. Now, how do we adjudicate this with the 3.5 system? The simple answer would be to have the fullblade act exactly like a bastard sword, and that the statistics printed in the Arms and Equipment Guide would be describing a large fullblade. However, I find this to be a poor choice, as it's now merely a bastard sword with a different damage figure and no mechanical interest. A more complicated and interesting answer would be to make the printed fullblade into a medium weapon and making it work from there (as well as keeping it playable for your regular PCs). Here's my proposed description for the weapon (listing it as an exotic two-handed weapon, with the damage figure printed in the A&EG associated to a medium weapon): "A fullblade, also known as an ogre's greatsword, is different from other exotic weapons in that it cannot be wielded by a character without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat. For creatures one size larger than the fullblade, it can be wielded as a martial two-handed weapon, or as a one-handed exotic weapon." Statistically, this description changes in no way the mechanical benefits and drawbacks this weapon carried in 3.0, and yet plays well into 3.5 standards well and is available to regular PCs. This, conveniently, solves any issues that might arise from monkey grip and powerful build, as what was conceived to be a huge fullblade is now a large fullblade. Any thoughts? END NOTE: The Sage's omission I mentioned earlier was in the entry about combining a monk's unarmed strike with natural attacks. The old entry had an 8th-level centaur monk as an example, and the Sage had made some mistakes in resolving the attack bonuses, but I've noticed that this error has been corrected since (I do believe the Sage now mentions a 4th-level centaur monk).
Frugal 04-12-07, 05:12 PM	If we take this parallel on a more familiar scale, let's look at the scenario of a small creature trying to wield a medium bastard sword. It is literally impossible for a small creature to wield a medium bastard sword as a one-handed weapon, even with Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Without the feat, it's impossible for the small creature to even wield the weapon at all, as it would be considered a two-handed medium weapon. See any resemblance? I know I do. With Exotic Weapon Proficiency, the small creature is now able to wield that medium bastard sword as a two-handed weapon. Actually, the FAQ states that for sizing purposes weapons with the "bastard" property (1 handed exotic or 2 handed martial) should be treated as 2 handed martial weapons for the purposes of weapon sizing. I know this ruling is frequently disputed on the boards though. Other than that though, the post is excellent and well thought out. I hadn't considered the inappropriately sized weapon implications with treating you as large with powerful build and that was an extremely astute point.
mvincent 04-12-07, 05:58 PM	I believe all can agree that both feat and feature allow the wielder to use weapons one size category larger than him at the same effort (where effort is defined by whether a weapon is light, one-handed, or two-handed). I believe the FAQ entry on powerful build was written with the intent to simplify, but there's an important omission the Sage has made here (and, let's face it, the Sage has made some omissions before, see my end note): if a character with the powerful build trait is considered one size larger for the purpose of determining what weapons he can wield, it becomes evident that weapons of the character's size now provide penalties and a reduction in effort to the same character.I understand your point. This is possibly why the writer's phrased it the way they did. However, they still omitted how the abilities might effect weapons two-sizes larger (likely because they never considered it, or considered it such an edge case that it didn't need to be addressed). However, divining their general intent on the matter seemed fairly straightforward: they would have no real reason to restrict its utility to only one size larger (after all: a huge shortsword isn't that much different than a large longsword). I'm rather surprised that someone could not see how this might be concluded. Such an interpretation is both reasonable and possible (despite the exact literal implications of the text), and the Sage does so. That doesn't mean that one cannot play by the literal interpretation, but stating that other players "absolutely" cannot interpret it a differently seems both over-reaching and hide-bound. Mind you, the point is moot for me because these things generally aren't even allowed in my games, but I can certainly see how one could come to either conclusion... I was merely hoping to share such understanding. We all want understanding, right? Right?
Frugal 04-12-07, 06:06 PM	I understand your point. This is possibly why the writer's phrased it the way they did. However, they still omitted how the abilities might effect weapons two-sizes larger (likely because they never considered it, or considered it such an edge case that it didn't need to be addressed). True, how powerful build scales is really up in the air. Simply treat them as large and then scale from there (so a huge is -2), or say powerful build only works with weapons 1 size category larger, anything bigger works on the normal sizing rules (so a huge is -4)? Monkey grip? I suppose it depends on if you focus on the 1 size larger part (only works on 1 size category larger) or the without change of effort part (it doesn't change the effort for the 1 size larger and then scales from there).
mvincent 04-12-07, 06:14 PM	True, how powerful build scales is really up in the air. Simply treat them as large and then scale from there (so a huge is -2), or say powerful build only works with weapons 1 size category larger, anything bigger works on the normal sizing rules (so a huge is -4)?Woohoo. Yup that's all we were asking for: acknowledging that either interpretation is possible. Now, to me it seemed like the general intent was the former option (despite the literal text) and the Sage seemed to use this option also, but hey; that's for each DM to decide for their own campaigns.
Frugal 04-12-07, 06:30 PM	Woohoo. Yup that's all we were asking for: acknowledging that either interpretation is possible. Yeah, I really should stay away from monkey grip discussions when I'm having a bad day at work.
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 06:33 PM	Woohoo. Yup that's all we were asking for: acknowledging that either interpretation is possible. Actually, I am asking for his pledge of infinite fidelity and loyalty to the great FSM (http://www.venganza.org/)!
Marcus Majarra 04-12-07, 06:35 PM	While I'll agree that either intepretation is possible, in the long run, I see game balance favoring the "only works with weapons one size larger" option. Powerful build is already a great ability, even with this kind of limitation. If you also take into account that the LA normally associated with this ability also includes some hefty bonuses (i.e. strength bonuses, constitution bonuses, psionic ability, jumping, etc.) for only +1, I see it as perfectly reasonable to stick to the RAW here. Also, VICTOLY > UNDERSTANDING!!!!!
tos_shai_hulud 04-12-07, 06:49 PM	Also, VICTOLY > UNDERSTANDING!!!!! Pastafarianism > UNDERSTANDING!!!!
mvincent 04-12-07, 07:17 PM	I see game balance favoring the "only works with weapons one size larger" option.I see flavor working better with that option also (i.e. it reduces majorly oversized anime sword compensation). It's just that I have trouble reconciling it with intuitive, logical progression.
mvincent 04-12-07, 07:21 PM	Pastafarianism"natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates" UNDERSTANDING!!!!"Windle shook his head sadly. Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind." -Discworld: Reaper Man