Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Strudel_Lumpycakes 11-12-07, 02:24 AM	What makes monkey grip an appealing feat choice? In general, you get an average +2 to damage, but a -2 on attacks. Why not just take power attack? That way you could archive the same effect, but also be able to control the amount of trade off. Power attack is also a prerequisite for many more feats than monkey grip is. So why take monkey grip?
Aryxbez 11-12-07, 02:32 AM	For larger creatures in huge range I believe, so -2 penalty better than powerattack will give. Also just for coolness, that is about it.
InkBlot 11-12-07, 03:06 AM	Power attack has a limit, and Monkey Grip doesn't count towards it. If you always power attack to the limit, but still want more, then Monkey Grip may be for you. Other than that, it's as Aryxbez says. In general, the difference between medium and large is less than you'd get from Power Attack. Even a greatsword, which goes from 2d6 to 3d6, gains less than 4 damage on average. However, when going from huge to gargantuan, a greatsword goes from 4d6 to 6d6. That's a gain of 6.5 average damage. Longswords benefit starting at large (2d6 to 3d6) if you're using them one-handed. Bastard swords do as well (2d8 to 3d8).
runestar 11-12-07, 03:48 AM	Another drawback is that you cannot choose when you want to take the penalty. For power attack, if you are facing a foe with a high AC, you can at least opt not to power attack to keep your attack rating high. For monkey grip, the only alternative is to drop your current weapon and draw a normal-sized one.
The_Shaman 11-12-07, 06:21 AM	What makes monkey grip an appealing feat choice? In general, you get an average +2 to damage, but a -2 on attacks. Why not just take power attack? That way you could archive the same effect, but also be able to control the amount of trade off. Power attack is also a prerequisite for many more feats than monkey grip is. So why take monkey grip? I wouldn't, really - maybe except that it's a prerequisite for Wield Oversized Weapon in epic. As the people above said, unless you're Huge+, there's little point.
RobbyPants 11-12-07, 09:23 AM	Aside from some unusual situations that others mentioned (like being large), there are about two reasons to take the feat: For flavor (not mechanics) Because you haven't thought the math out :P In all seriousness, most people take the feat because they like the image of wielding a rediculously huge weapon.
Vloorshad 11-12-07, 10:09 AM	Aside from some unusual situations that others mentioned (like being large), there are about two reasons to take the feat: For flavor (not mechanics) Because you haven't thought the math out :P In all seriousness, most people take the feat because they like the image of wielding a rediculously huge weapon. Unless you wield a bastard sword, which goes from 1d10 to 2d8, or 5.5 average to 9 average. A 3.5 increase for a -2 penalty on a 1-handed weapon isn't too bad.
risner 11-12-07, 11:00 AM	What makes monkey grip an appealing feat choice? An Ogre Cleric with Righteous Might finds Monkey Grip appealing.
RobbyPants 11-12-07, 11:28 AM	Unless you wield a bastard sword, which goes from 1d10 to 2d8, or 5.5 average to 9 average. A 3.5 increase for a -2 penalty on a 1-handed weapon isn't too bad. Of course, you've spent two feats to do this... ;) Although I do agree that Monkey Grip outperforms Power Attack (assuming a -2 penalty) for one-handers for medium creatures. It's just that sword and board is considered somewhat sub-optimal, as is Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword).
Sledgerosaur 11-12-07, 11:56 AM	http://playstation3.files.wordpress.com/2005/12/cloud.jpg because he said so :D
Rulebook 11-12-07, 12:55 PM	Overcompensation.
Legdiwena 11-12-07, 01:05 PM	Don't you also get a bonus on disarm checks for using a larger weapon?
Dog_O_War 11-12-07, 01:07 PM	One-handed reach weapons, greatsword/shield action, finally being able to use a giant's weapons when you kill them (most have huge greataxes); for munchkins though, it is for the bonus damage. Remember that's +2 (on average) damage, in addition to full power attack.
InkBlot 11-12-07, 01:07 PM	Don't you also get a bonus on disarm checks for using a larger weapon? You do not get any bonuses to disarm for using a bigger weapon. You only get a +4 for using the weapon in two hands. It doesn't matter how big the weapon is. If you use a medium one-handed weapon in two hands, you get a +4. If you use a large two-handed weapon in two hands, you get a +4.
Dog_O_War 11-12-07, 01:09 PM	You do not get any bonuses to disarm for using a bigger weapon. You only get a +4 for using the weapon in two hands. It doesn't matter how big the weapon is. If you use a medium one-handed weapon in two hands, you get a +4. If you use a large two-handed weapon in two hands, you get a +4. Actually, to ammend this, your opponent gets a penalty for every size category smaller his weapon is, in addition to the above. That is when he attempts to disarm you.
DM-Scott 11-12-07, 01:09 PM	-4 if it's a light weapon, +0 for standard, +4 for two handed. Can't recall at the moment if it has anything to do with the weapon's size (maybe in 3.0 where weapon size was better :P).
RobbyPants 11-12-07, 01:20 PM	One-handed reach weapons, How would you get one-handed reach weapons? Reach is a function of the creature's size, not the weapon they're using. It might not make much sense, but by RAW, a large greatsword used by a medium creature grants the same reach as a medium greatsword wielded by the same user. That, and the feat won't let you use two-handed medium reach weapons one haneded either. Either way, you're stuck with your normal reach.
Dog_O_War 11-12-07, 02:02 PM	Monkey grip a glaive; normally a two-handed reach weapon, now a one-handed reach weapon. This is what I was implying
risner 11-12-07, 02:18 PM	You can not monkey grip to lower the difficulty of the weapon, so a monkey grip two handed weapon is still a two handed weapon.
RobbyPants 11-12-07, 02:30 PM	Monkey grip a glaive; normally a two-handed reach weapon, now a one-handed reach weapon. This is what I was implying I think you're getting confused with 3.0 monkey grip. 3.5 monkey grip allows you to use a weapon of a larger size, but without increasing the difficulty of wielding it. Basically, you could use a large one-hander in one hand instead of two hands. You could also wield a large two-hander in two hands as opposed to not being able to use it at all. The only option you have with a glaive with monkey grip is to use a large glaive, which will increase your damage from 1d10 to 2d8, but it will not allow you to wield it in one hand. The feat does not give you the ability to use medium two-handers in one hand.
Dog_O_War 11-12-07, 02:37 PM	Originally Posted by RobbyPants 3.5 monkey grip allows you to use a weapon of a larger size, but without increasing the difficulty of wielding it. Basically, you could use a large one-hander in one hand instead of two hands. You could also wield a large two-hander in two hands as opposed to not being able to use it at all. One might say that an enlarged glaive made for a gnome has to be wielded in two-hands by a human, unless that human has the monkey-grip feat which would allow him to hold it in one hand, and that they would do the same damage.... .....Which is one of the options (as I have said) with monkey grip.
RobbyPants 11-12-07, 02:43 PM	Actually, per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize), you can wield a smaller weapon with less effort. So you could use a small reach weapon with one hand without the feat. Thus you could use a small two-hander in one hand (with the typical -2 penalty). 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. I'd have to look at the exact wording of monkey grip, but my understanding is that you can't extrapolate this to use a medium two-hander in one hand. I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure it works.
kalstrand 11-12-07, 07:03 PM	Except you lose reach if you are using an inappropriately sized reach weapon. So wielding your small glaive with one hand won't give you reach.
Dog_O_War 11-12-07, 07:11 PM	Nowhere within all the books does it say that you lose the function of a weapon based on it's size. If it does, I'd like the books/pages it states this.
archerpwr 11-12-07, 07:18 PM	http://playstation3.files.wordpress.com/2005/12/cloud.jpg because he said so :D Overcompensation. Beaten to it.
risner 11-12-07, 07:48 PM	One might say that an enlarged glaive made for a gnome has to be wielded in two-hands by a human, unless that human has the monkey-grip feat which would allow him to hold it in one hand, and that they would do the same damage..... That is either quote from some 3.0 book or you have a flavor text that disagrees with rules text and rules text trumps flavor.
Bopple 11-12-07, 10:53 PM	A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away. Emphasis mine.
Bopple 11-12-07, 10:56 PM	And anyway, more damage is more damage. A high-level straight fighter with lots of feats might want Monkey Grip, for even more damage.
Tedronai 11-12-07, 11:07 PM	@Bopple: A large (tall) creature has 10' reach A small or medium reach weapon grants 10' reach Since both of these factors GRANT reach, rather than INCREASING reach, they do not stack. Thus a large creature wielding a small or medium reach weapon would not increase their reach by virtue of that weapon. Thus the need for your bolded text.
Bopple 11-12-07, 11:09 PM	No. Reach weapon doubles your natural reach. It does not give you fixed reach number. There is no grant or stack of reach with reach weapon.
Tedronai 11-12-07, 11:17 PM	No. Reach weapon doubles your natural reach. It does not give you fixed reach number. There is no grant or stack of reach with reach weapon. Evidence please. As far as I can see, reach weapons GRANT a reach that just happens to be double what a typical creature of that size would normally have. But that's not the real point here. The point is that there is insufficient evidence for your original conclusion regarding reach weapons.
Bopple 11-12-07, 11:21 PM	Most reach double the wielder’s natural reach There is nothing in the rules that says reach weapons give you actual number of reach.
Bopple 11-12-07, 11:31 PM	How do reach weapons work if they are of a different size than the creature wielding them? Say, an ogre wielding a Small or Medium glaive, or a human with the Monkey Grip feat wielding a Large ranseur? What is the reach for each situation? A reach weapon doubles its wielder’s natural reach, but only if the weapon is at least of an appropriate size for the wielder. Wielding a “too-small” reach weapon grants no reach. An ogre (Large) wielding a Medium or smaller reach weapon gains no reach from the weapon, and could thus attack foes either 5 feet or 10 feet distant (as normal for a Large creature wielding a non-reach weapon). A human (Medium) wielding a Large or larger reach weapon could attack a creature 10 feet away (but no further), and could not use the weapon to attack a creature 5 feet away (as normal for a Medium creature wielding a reach weapon). A human wielding a Small reach weapon would gain no reach from the weapon. The Player’s Handbook isn’t as clear on this as it could be, although an example of reach in action on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook provides pretty strong support: “A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away . . .” [italics added]. While this reference doesn’t mention the ability to wield a reach weapon larger than the appropriate size, allowing such a weapon to grant reach to its wielder is a reasonable extension of the spirit and intent of the rule. The description of the spiked chain states that it is a reach weapon that can be used against adjacent foes. What if a Large creature wields a Large spiked chain? Can it attack the squares that are 10 feet away? What are the adjacent foes of a Large or larger creature? As with the vast majority of examples in the Player’s Handbook, the spiked chain description assumes that the wielder is a Small or Medium creature wielding a spiked chain appropriate to her size. What the description really means is that a character wielding a spiked chain can attack creatures that are within her natural reach (in addition to those at the normal range of a reach weapon). For a Medium or Small creature, that means creatures that are 5 feet away (i.e., “adjacent”). A Large creature wielding a spiked chain (or similar reach weapon that also allowed attacks against adjacent creatures) could attack creatures within her natural reach (that is, who are either 5 or 10 feet away), in addition to those at the normal range of a Large reach weapon (15 or 20 feet away). A Huge creature wielding a spiked chain could attack creatures 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 feet away. A Gargantuan creature wielding a spiked chain could attack creatures 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, or 40 feet away, and a Colossal creature wielding a spiked chain could attack creatures anywhere from 5 to 60 feet away. Insufficient evidence? Happens to be double? Yeah, whatever.
Tedronai 11-12-07, 11:33 PM	...except that using that method does not produce the results you are quoting as the basis of your argument, is too vague to have any real meaning, and simply does not work in conjunction with any degree of logic. If a reach weapon doubles your reach, then it doesn't matter what size of creature it is designed for short of a clause that is included nowhere in any book I am aware of. Assuming I gained the ability to wield a Gargantuan reach weapon as a medium creature, your method would still have my effective reach as 10', despite the fact that the weapon itself is likely more than twice that length. That sentence also references (through the use of the word 'most') reach weapons that don't double natural reach, without giving any guidelines, or even examples, for what those weapons actually do.
Bopple 11-12-07, 11:45 PM	It's no big deal, considering the fact that the biggest size that a medium character can wield, is huge. And that in epic. And it's 'most' because Spiked Chain and similar weapons do not just double it(thus not leaving the adjacent squares open). And logic? What kind of logic can explain Dire Flail or Gnome Hooked Hammer. You can easily find that they are just suicidal, if you logically think about it.
Dog_O_War 11-13-07, 12:17 AM	So...then...a medium character wielding an enlarged glaive...made for a small character...with monkey grip...has reach, with a one-handed weapon. Just like I said.
Bopple 11-13-07, 12:24 AM	No, you can't.
Dog_O_War 11-13-07, 12:30 AM	And why? Remember, a small character has the same reach as a medium one. As such, and by the very wording of the feat, this character would qualify. An ogre does not because he already has a longer reach than the two listed, thus the "too small" entry. But for medium characters, they have the same reach as a small one, and as such the weapon would not be too small. A tiny glaive, yes. But a small one? Said character qualifies.
Bopple 11-13-07, 12:39 AM	It does not matter if a small character has 5' natural reach or not. Small weapons are not of appropriate size for medium character.
Dog_O_War 11-13-07, 01:09 AM	Your logic is flawed. When two things are the same, they react the same. If a lance for a small character gives him a ten foot reach, then so too will it grant a ten foot reach for a medium and large character. As you can clearly tell, a large character will not gain any benefit because his reach is already ten feet. This then would be a weapon that is "too small". This also holds true for a medium or small character wielding a lance made for a tiny character, as this sized lance only grants a 5 foot reach - Which small and medium characters already have. Appropriate is relative to size - but as stated above a small lance is appropriate enough for a medium character to gain reach. Even the pictures of the two weapons - small and medium lances - support this (though I will admit that a picture is subject to artistic license).
Bopple 11-13-07, 01:28 AM	That is your personal opinion. The rules say otherwise.
risner 11-13-07, 01:42 AM	A large (tall) creature has 10' reach A small or medium reach weapon grants 10' reach Since both of these factors GRANT reach, rather than INCREASING reach, they do not stack. Thus a large creature wielding a small or medium reach weapon would not increase their reach by virtue of that weapon. Thus the need for your bolded text. You seem to be quite confused about reach. Reach weapons allow for attacks at double your natural reach. Inclusive reach weapons (like Spiked Chain) allow for natural reach and double natural reach inclusively. Your natural reach is a factor of only your size. There are a few ways to change this (aberrant reach feat is one), but for the most part, them is ze rules. So...then...a medium character wielding an enlarged glaive...made for a small character...with monkey grip...has reach, with a one-handed weapon. What? No, you are way confused. Let me see if I can parse: Medium = reach 5 Small Glaive with enlarge (to Medium) somehow. Monkey Grip (unused, since the glaive is now Medium) You end up with a Medium wielding a Medium Glaive which uses the same number of hands of a Medium Glaive and provides reach since Medium player = Medium glaive (so same size, so reach.) If a reach weapon doubles your reach, then it doesn't matter what size of creature it is designed for short of a clause that is included nowhere in any book I am aware of. PHB p113 is your "no where in any book", so are you unaware of PHB?
risner 11-13-07, 02:23 AM	Also Rules Compendium explicitly states if a reach weapon does not equal your size, you gain no reach from it on page 151.
RobbyPants 11-13-07, 10:27 AM	So...then...a medium character wielding an enlarged glaive...made for a small character...with monkey grip...has reach, with a one-handed weapon. Just like I said. Wouldn't an enlarged small glaive simply be a medium weapon? The feat only works for wielding larger weapons.
Dog_O_War 11-13-07, 11:10 AM	Point I was trying to make is that a medium creature can wield a weapon smaller than himself in one hand. This is not debateable, as this is what the rules say. With monkey grip, it allows you to wield a weapon with the same effort it normally takes, if it is of an increased size. An enlarged (large)longsword would normally take two hands to wield, but with the feat it will only take one hand. It will not make a regular longsword a light weapon, as this is not one of the abilities of the feat. It will however allow a person to wield a normally two-handed weapon in one hand, as by the examples I have laid out previously the feat covers this description. Remember as always common sense applies, even if the "rules" or the RAW don't explicitly say so.
RobbyPants 11-13-07, 11:20 AM	Point I was trying to make is that a medium creature can wield a weapon smaller than himself in one hand. This is not debateable, as this is what the rules say. True. With monkey grip, it allows you to wield a weapon with the same effort it normally takes, if it is of an increased size. An enlarged (large)longsword would normally take two hands to wield, but with the feat it will only take one hand. It will not make a regular longsword a light weapon, as this is not one of the abilities of the feat. True. It will however allow a person to wield a normally two-handed weapon in one hand, as by the examples I have laid out previously the feat covers this description. False. Remember as always common sense applies, even if the "rules" or the RAW don't explicitly say so. Well, that'd be a house-rule. Feel free to do so in your game. You can't however, argue in a thread that "that's how it works", when it's not.
Dog_O_War 11-13-07, 11:55 AM	Dude, if a small glaive can be held in one hand by a medium character, then he can monkey grip a small glaive that has been enlarged. As by definition of the feat (...Can wield a weapon with the same effort, despite an increase in size)
solbergb 11-13-07, 12:20 PM	What makes monkey grip an appealing feat choice? In general, you get an average +2 to damage, but a -2 on attacks. Why not just take power attack? It isn't an appealing feat choice, unless your vision of your character involves weilding oversized weapons. Like some anime character with a really big sword, or some little halfling barbarian guy who wants to weild a full size greataxe because the image amuses the player. Not every feat has to be fantastic. It at least provides some benefit, which puts it above a lot of feats. But it certainly not a top tier feat by any means. More of a "flavor feat that helps a little".
Someone 11-13-07, 12:32 PM	What is this "enlarged small weapon" you keep referring to if not a medium weapon? A small character can MG a medium weapon, but a medium character cannot MG a medium weapon, nor can a medium character MG a small weapon, nor can a small character MG a small weapon. MG only covers the inappropriate-size (too big) weapons, it does nothing about inappropriate-size (too small) weapons.
RobbyPants 11-13-07, 12:45 PM	Dude, if a small glaive can be held in one hand by a medium character, then he can monkey grip a small glaive that has been enlarged. As by definition of the feat (...Can wield a weapon with the same effort, despite an increase in size) But it's not an increase in size. It's the same size. A medium weapon is the same (effective) size as a medium creature. The feat referes to weapons or larger size than the user. Period. Thus, if you're a medium creature, monkey grip refers to large weapons.
risner 11-13-07, 01:15 PM	Dude, if a small glaive can be held in one hand by a medium character, then he can monkey grip a small glaive that has been enlarged. As by definition of the feat (...Can wield a weapon with the same effort, despite an increase in size) No, it can't by RAW.
Dog_O_War 11-13-07, 01:29 PM	Instead of perpetuating this pointless arguement, I've sent an e-mail to the "sage". I will stand by his ruling, even if it goes against my position. This was my wording for the e-mail (may not be exact) "The feat Monkey Grip; does it cover using a two-handed weapon in one hand? Example: a human holding a greatsword (made for a character his size) in one hand. Does the feat allow this?" I'd rather find out the correct information than argue over cryptic wording between us. EDIT: Will this be satisfactory? Or should I have posed the question in another manner?
RobbyPants 11-13-07, 06:25 PM	Instead of perpetuating this pointless arguement, I've sent an e-mail to the "sage". I will stand by his ruling, even if it goes against my position. This was my wording for the e-mail (may not be exact) "The feat Monkey Grip; does it cover using a two-handed weapon in one hand? Example: a human holding a greatsword (made for a character his size) in one hand. Does the feat allow this?" I'd rather find out the correct information than argue over cryptic wording between us. EDIT: Will this be satisfactory? Or should I have posed the question in another manner? Well, I think I can save you the wait. I think this falls under the fair use clause, so I'll print out the feat verbatim (emphasis mine): Monkey Grip 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.I think the blue part states everything needed. The feat only applies to weapons one size larger. So for a medium creature, Monkey Grip applies to large weapons, and large weapons only. Thus, you could not use it on a small glaive or an enlarged small glaive, or anything like that. You can still go to Sage Advice if you want, but I really don't see how this can be interpreted any other way. Of course, you could use a small glaive without the feat, but you'd have a -2 penalty to hit and it would deal less damage. People will argue both ways whether or not you will get the reach. The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm) strongly implies that the weapon needs to be of the appropriate size. Reach Weapons Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away. Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.) It's one of those things that isn't in the initial ruling, but it's stated immediately afterward. My understanding is the general consensus is that a medium creature wielding a small reach weapon would not gain the reach. Of course, feel free to house-rule otherwise ;)
Ace_of_time 11-13-07, 06:34 PM	There is also a loop hole. You can use monkey grip to wield large clubs one handed. Then go ranged with them. My fav is trident.
imakuni67 11-13-07, 06:57 PM	I'm expecting a whole section on monkey grip and powerful build in Rules Compendium...
RobbyPants 11-13-07, 08:48 PM	There is also a loop hole. You can use monkey grip to wield large clubs one handed. Then go ranged with them. You'd only be throwing clubs for 1d8 damage. You can do better than that without the feat :P
Ace_of_time 11-13-07, 11:13 PM	You'd only be throwing clubs for 1d8 damage. You can do better than that without the feat :P I use it on tridents most only clubs if money is low. A range weapon that is free and deals 1d8 is not bad. Note: reach weapons only double your own reach. It wouldn't matter if the weapon is bigger. It would still only double your reach.
Frugal 11-14-07, 09:01 AM	Dude, if a small glaive can be held in one hand by a medium character, then he can monkey grip a small glaive that has been enlarged. As by definition of the feat (...Can wield a weapon with the same effort, despite an increase in size) The mistake you're making is that it's not whether the weapon has been enlarged, the text of Monkey Grip refers to wielding a weapon one size category larger than you are. So no, it has nothing to do with whether the weapon has been enlarged, it's based on the size of the weapon relative to your size. An "enlarged small weapon" not only doesn't exist (it would be a medium weapon) it has nothing do do with the way the feat works. You simply look at your size (medium in this case) and the size of the weapon (medium as well), therefore Monkey Grip has no affect. Read the CW version of the feat (the 3.5 version) to confirm (I can't post it here due to copyright reasons).
Dog_O_War 11-14-07, 11:58 AM	mass appology I didn't get a reply from the sage, and apon review of the feat's wording, I will submit and attest that it cannot be used to wield a two-handed weapon the same size as the wielder in one hand. I was wrong. You can't win 'em all.
RobbyPants 11-14-07, 12:16 PM	Just need to get home today and read the feat again, I already posted it once, but what the hey, I'll do it again. ;) Monkey Grip 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. I think the blue part says it all. Just to make sure we're all on the same page (literally :P), you are talking about the 3.5 version in Complete Warrior page 103 and not the 3.0 version in Sword & Fist on page 7, right?
Dog_O_War 11-14-07, 02:36 PM	As nice as that is, I still need to check my e-mail for a ruling. If one is there when I get home, then we'll know for sure. If no e-mail is there, then I will submit and...well see my above post. I can't check my personal e-mail at work (because it's blocked), otherwise I would've already. Besides, waiting another 3 hours will give me time to craft a masterpiece apology;) And yes, I am refering to the 3.5 version in complete warrior. EDIT: Read previous post.