PDA

View Full Version : Use monk's weapon in grapple.



Morithias
2010-11-02, 05:25 AM
According to the SRD grapple rules you can.

"Use Opponent’s Weapon

If your opponent is holding a light weapon, you can use it to attack him. Make an opposed grapple check (in place of an attack). If you win, make an attack roll with the weapon with a -4 penalty (doing this doesn’t require another action)."

So can you say, do the "stop hitting yourself" move on a monk that you manged to out grapple?

Prime32
2010-11-02, 07:51 AM
Of course. What's special about monks that would make it harder for you to do that? :smallconfused:

CalamaroJoe
2010-11-02, 07:55 AM
If you intend to use monk's unarmed attack (that in other respects is treated as a weapon) against him/herself, I would say no, you can't.

Lev
2010-11-02, 07:57 AM
I think an arm counts as an improvised weapon.

Prime32
2010-11-02, 08:15 AM
I misread, I thought you meant to use a kama the monk was holding or something.

But still, I don't see why you couldn't use a natural weapon for this. It can be useful for overcoming DR - plenty of works have monsters whose armour can only be penetrated by their own attacks (The Incredibles, for instance).

Lev
2010-11-02, 08:22 AM
I misread, I thought you meant to use a kama the monk was holding or something.

But still, I don't see why you couldn't use a natural weapon for this. It can be useful for overcoming DR - plenty of works have monsters whose armour can only be penetrated by their own attacks (The Incredibles, for instance).
It wouldn't be considered a natural weapon if the weapon wasn't natural to you.

Diarmuid
2010-11-02, 09:43 AM
According to the SRD grapple rules you can.

"Use Opponent’s Weapon

If your opponent is holding a light weapon, you can use it to attack him. Make an opposed grapple check (in place of an attack). If you win, make an attack roll with the weapon with a -4 penalty (doing this doesn’t require another action)."

So can you say, do the "stop hitting yourself" move on a monk that you manged to out grapple?

The bolded part is pretty cut and dry. A monk fighting with his unarmed strike is not holding a weapon.

Quietus
2010-11-02, 09:58 AM
The bolded part is pretty cut and dry. A monk fighting with his unarmed strike is not holding a weapon.

Sure he is, in a grapple. He's holding your unarmed strikes. :smalltongue:

Lev
2010-11-02, 10:44 AM
Sure he is, in a grapple. He's holding your unarmed strikes. :smalltongue:
Then disarm your unarmed strikes from him and make an attack with them, as par for regular rules of grappling without weapons.

Morithias
2010-11-02, 12:27 PM
I'm more curious what people see the RAW as.

Personally I'd let any player in my campaigns do it, if just for the pure comical sociopath aspect part of it.

Thanks for the insight everyone. :D

Ruinix
2010-11-02, 12:31 PM
Then disarm your unarmed strikes from him and make an attack with them, as par for regular rules of grappling without weapons.

hahaha the image make me loled XDDDD


chop off his arms and smack him with them ... then the line "stop hiting your self" hahahaha

OracleofWuffing
2010-11-02, 12:35 PM
Well, an unarmed strike can be made with any part of one's body. So it doesn't have to be an arm you're hitting with. It could be a leg. Or a head. Or a spleen.

Diarmuid
2010-11-02, 12:42 PM
By RAW, the monk is not "holding a light weapon". Unarmed strikes are merely treated as light for purposes of things like TWF and other rules contingent on size of weapons.

Keld Denar
2010-11-02, 02:25 PM
I'm inclined to go with Diarmuid on this one. If they had used the term "wielding", then technically you could turn someone's natural weapons or unarmed strikes against them. Holding, however, is different from wielding. Holding implies that the weapon in question is something NOT of your person.

Regardless, I also get quite the chuckle from this concept.
That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.

FMArthur
2010-11-02, 02:42 PM
I'd allow it, but at the default unarmed damage. It is a real thing people can do in a grapple, so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to. The fact that it is more humiliating than effective opens up more options to use for weaving social and combat roleplay together.

Diarmuid
2010-11-02, 02:48 PM
I was mostly responding to the question as to what people saw the RAW as, not accounting at all for comical value.

Lev
2010-11-02, 04:39 PM
hahaha the image make me loled XDDDD


chop off his arms and smack him with them ... then the line "stop hiting your self" hahahaha
One of the things that drew me to DnD was the prospect of beating someone to death with their own arms.

Keld Denar
2010-11-02, 04:45 PM
Drunken Master's deal their UAS damage + 1d6 when beating someone to death with their own arm! Now you just have to figure out how to "disarm" them...

Lev
2010-11-02, 04:55 PM
Drunken Master's deal their UAS damage + 1d6 when beating someone to death with their own arm! Now you just have to figure out how to "disarm" them...
Is that errata? Because I think it's original posting is +1d4 ontop of any UAS damage which includes monks dice advancement for UAS.

Keld Denar
2010-11-02, 04:59 PM
Blah, you are probably right. I don't spend a lot of time looking at Drunken Master...

Psyren
2010-11-02, 06:07 PM
*thwack thwack*
"Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?"

Grommen
2010-11-02, 09:47 PM
I see this all the time when I teach my Karate class. Student puts up a block, and "Wham" someone hits the blocking hand and it recoils back into their own face.

Does very little damage but it's pretty demoralizing.

Coarse you learn pretty quick to hold your blocks out a ways away form you, just to prevent this from happening.

D&D wise, looks like it should still work. It would just not be very effective. funny as all hell though.