Why do people say Monkey Grip is a wasted feat?

[BeholdenCaulf]

I have seen people saying that the Monkey Grip feat from Complete Warrior that lets you wield a weapon a size category larger at a -2 penalty is a wasted feat and that power attacking for 2 points is more effective but for a PC in a campaign I am running this seems not to be true.

He is a 3rd level fighter with exotic wep prof. Dwarven Waraxe and wep focus for the same weapon.

The base damage for this weapon at medium is 1d10 but at large it is 2d8.

By my calculations power attacking for 2 with a medium Dwarven Waraxe puts his damage (with his +3 str modifier) at 6-15.

With a Large Dwarven Waraxe that becomes 5-19, a trade-off of 1 off the minimum for 4 on the maximum which seems like a pretty good deal to me. So why do people reccommend against taking it?

[Greenish]

1d10 weapons do have an advantageous scaling, it's true, but your fighter there is burning two feats for that damage.

16 Str and Power Attack for 2 with a medium greatsword: 2d6+8, average damage 15.
16 Str, EWP, and Monkey Grip with a large dwarven waraxe: 2d8+4, average damage 13.


Power Attack's also adjustable and works with most weapons.

[Edit]: Oh, and Strongarm Bracers are cheap and don't come with the same drawbacks as the feat.

[Sliver]

As your attqck bonus with the medium weapon is 2 higher, you can PA for 2 more. It is more noticeable with a 2handed as the tradeoff is 2 for 4.

With the axe, medium has averqge damage of 10.5 (5.5 base, 3 str and 2 PA) while the large one has Average of 12. If the weapons were two handed, the medium one pulls ahead by 0.5, taking same damage dice. Also, 2 handed will give another +1 damage from Strength.

Difference is that with PA, you don't always have to take the penalty.

[DeltaEmil]

It's power attacking with a weapon held in both hands that makes Power Attack far more superior than getting a larger-sized weapon held with the Monkey Grip feat, and people normally use the Monkey Grip feat to get a two-handed larger-sized weapon, not to wield a larger-sized one-handed weapon. With the existence of animated shields, it would be pointless to only wield a weapon one-handed if you could wield it in both hands anyway, since you're benefiting from the defensive capabilities of the shield and the increased damage with your weapon at the same time. But even without animated shields, it's generally considered a wiser tactic to try to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible instead of hoping to survive another one or two rounds because you wield a shield in your other hand.

Even so, Power Attack is more flexible than Monkey Grip, as with Monkey Grip, you have to hope that you find weapons of larger-sized enemies to benefit from it, whereas with Power Attack, you can use any of your normal-sized one-handed or two-handed weapons to gain the bonus damage, and you can still use some weapons of larger-sized enemies to benefit from it too, as larger-sized weapons increase the "handedness" it requires to wield them anyway. And Power Attack is of course the prerequisite feat for many feat chains, whereas Monkey Grip isn't.

[Dgrin]

First of all, with two-handed weapons you add 2 points of damage for every point of attack
Then, you should look at average damage:
Power attack: Going from 1d10 (average 5.5) to 1d10 + 4 (average 9.5) = 4 damage increase
Monkey Grip: Going from 1d10 (average 5.5) to 2d8 (average 9) = 3.5 damage increase

I am not including Strength cause the bonus from it is the same in both cases, the attack bonus is the same too

[BeholdenCaulf]

I should have made clear that the PC is dead set on weapon and shield (Exotic Weapon Proficiency for a Dwarven Waraxe lets you wield it one-handed).

In this scenario is Monkey Grip a viable option?

[VariSami]

I have seen people saying that the Monkey Grip feat from Complete Warrior that lets you wield a weapon a size category larger at a -2 penalty is a wasted feat and that power attacking for 2 points is more effective but for a PC in a campaign I am running this seems not to be true.

He is a 3rd level fighter with exotic wep prof. Dwarven Waraxe and wep focus for the same weapon.

The base damage for this weapon at medium is 1d10 but at large it is 2d8.

By my calculations power attacking for 2 with a medium Dwarven Waraxe puts his damage (with his +3 str modifier) at 6-15.

With a Large Dwarven Waraxe that becomes 5-19, a trade-off of 1 off the minimum for 4 on the maximum which seems like a pretty good deal to me. So why do people reccommend against taking it?

The average damage - as in, the amount of damage you will do between hits, divided by the amount of hits on the long run - of a medium axe is 5,5. For the large axe, it is 9. (These only include the dice; also, multiple dice have biased distributions around the average.) On a glance, you gain +3,5 damage on average from this feat.

However, once using Power Attack for 2 is calculated in, the difference is +1,5 damage on average and a slightly more reliable damage output due to the distribution. However, with Power Attack, you may choose not to take a penalty - or you may choose to take a bigger penalty if hitting is not a problem for the time being. This flexibility far outweighs the benefits of Monkey Grip.

It is not as though one feat is strictly better in the sense used, for example, when comparing MtG cards. The numerical benefits of Power Attack are not greater in every each scenario. However, the amount of scenarios in which they outweigh the benefits of Monkey Grip is by far greater. Similarly, one may call one MtG card better than the other despite it not being strictly better.

From a role-playing perspective, carrying a bigger weapon is simply cool. If that is a big enough consideration, Monkey Grip might be an option.

[Urpriest]

I should have made clear that the PC is dead set on weapon and shield (Exotic Weapon Proficiency for a Dwarven Waraxe lets you wield it one-handed).

In this scenario is Monkey Grip a viable option?

It's still just 3.5 more damage on average for a feat, in exchange for -2 attack. That's worse than Weapon Specialization, if the character is a fighter. It's almost certainly worse than just taking the shield-focused feats that the player will want to take eventually anyway, seeing as those feats will be the only way the character justified their use of that particular fighting style.



From a role-playing perspective, carrying a bigger weapon is simply cool. If that is a big enough consideration, Monkey Grip might be an option.

Even this isn't really a concern in D&D. Unlike in video games, there isn't a pre-set way that you visualize your character's weapons, and nobody's visualization has much to do with the weapon's official size. You and your fellow players are allowed to imagine this character's Dwarven Waraxe as a humongous weapon without needing it to be officially Large.

[Necroticplague]

If you want more damage in one hand, your feat is better spent on proficiency (Heavy Dwarven Waraxe), then pick up a Platinum Dwarven Waraxe. A bigger increase in damage, lower feat cost (just one for profeciency, instead of one for proficiency and one for monkey grip), no loss in accuracy.

[Chronos]

Another problem with Monkey Grip is that due to the way it's worded, it doesn't stack with any similar ability (Powerful Build, Strongarm Bracers, etc.). So if you really want to pile on the effective size increases (which is where the oversized weapon tactic really starts to shine), Monkey Grip ends up doing exactly nothing for you.

[endur]

Monkey Grip is not a waste. However, Monkey Grip requires you to have a "larger" weapon than normal size. So if your character slew a giant and took the giant's magic weapon, then Monkey Grip (or some equivalent) is the only way the character can wield the giant's magic weapon.

That said, from an optimization perspective, the other posts in this thread explain why an optimized build would not spend a feat trying to use a magic weapon you found (with Monkey grip, etc.). But an optimized build would never be based on using a captured weapon from a giant ... the optimization builds assume you can buy or otherwise obtain whatever gear you want.

That said, why would a Dwarven Smith make a Giant-sized Dwarven Waraxe? Maybe Clangeddin (dwarven god of war) is large sized, so I suppose the weapon could be forged for his size. Or maybe there could be a special order of giant slaying dwarves who use monkey grip to wield giant sized axes.


I have seen people saying that the Monkey Grip feat from Complete Warrior that lets you wield a weapon a size category larger at a -2 penalty is a wasted feat and that power attacking for 2 points is more effective but for a PC in a campaign I am running this seems not to be true.

He is a 3rd level fighter with exotic wep prof. Dwarven Waraxe and wep focus for the same weapon.

The base damage for this weapon at medium is 1d10 but at large it is 2d8.

By my calculations power attacking for 2 with a medium Dwarven Waraxe puts his damage (with his +3 str modifier) at 6-15.

With a Large Dwarven Waraxe that becomes 5-19, a trade-off of 1 off the minimum for 4 on the maximum which seems like a pretty good deal to me. So why do people reccommend against taking it?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Monkey Grip is not a waste. However, Monkey Grip requires you to have a "larger" weapon than normal size. So if your character slew a giant and took the giant's magic weapon, then Monkey Grip (or some equivalent) is the only way the character can wield the giant's magic weapon.

4e has a convenient rule I like. Magic weapons can scale to any size.

[Necroticplague]

Monkey Grip is not a waste. However, Monkey Grip requires you to have a "larger" weapon than normal size. So if your character slew a giant and took the giant's magic weapon, then Monkey Grip (or some equivalent) is the only way the character can wield the giant's magic weapon.

Actually, this is false.

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.

[Darrin]

Monkey Grip becomes more worthwhile once you get your damage up to 6d6 or 6d8. Then the average damage increase is more comparable to Power Attack, where you get +7 average damage (4d6 -> 6d6) or +9 average damage (4d8 -> 6d8) for the -2 offsize penalty. However, a properly built ubercharger with a x4 or higher damage multipier will still probably outperform you.

[P.F.]

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.

So ... if you are a Medium-sized creature wielding a Large weapon you are proficient with, that was intended for a Large creature ... you can use it at a -2 penalty ... but with the Monkey Grip feat, you could use that same weapon ... at a -2 penalty?

I'm assuming then that the only benefit of Monkey Grip is that it allows you to use the weapon one-handed, whilst otherwise you would wield it two-handed with the exact same penalty?

[Greenish]

The benefit of Monkey Grip is that the "handedness" or weight class or whatever of the weapon doesn't change. Without the feat (or similar effect), a medium character simply couldn't wield a large two-handed weapon, and would treat large one-handed weapons as two-handed weapons.

[georgie_leech]

In other words, there's not much benefit, as the designers didn't quite manage to balance one- vs two-handed weapons very well. If you need a one handed option though, it at least does something.

[Kalirren]

I always assumed Monkey Grip was for Small characters in a world where all the found weapons were Medium-sized. The point is to not have to sell the halfway decent sword that the NPC dropped just because it's Medium.

[P.F.]

The benefit of Monkey Grip is that the "handedness" or weight class or whatever of the weapon doesn't change. Without the feat (or similar effect), a medium character simply couldn't wield a large two-handed weapon, and would treat large one-handed weapons as two-handed weapons.

Well. I know in Sword and Fist it was for one-handed wielding only which is why no one ever took it. Now I have discovered that I have two copies of Complete Divine and three copies of Complete Arcane but no copies of Complete Warrior, but I'm guessing it was upgraded?

Even so, this "simply couldn't wield" doesn't seem to mesh right with the -2 cumulative penalty. Is that just for situations of extreme mis-match?

Take Mr. Underhill, a halfling. He is Small. He would like to use a big weapon, like a greatsword. He finds a dagger which was meant for a Mr. Thunderhead, who is Huge. The Huge dagger is a Medium-sized object and a light weapon. Therefore, the Mr. Underhill may wield it as a two-handed weapon, albeit at a -6 penalty. Would Monkey Grip reduce this to a -2 penalty, or merely allow him to wield it one-handed at -8?

[Greenish]

Mr. Underhill is out of luck with the huge dagger, with or without the feat, since Monkey Grip specifies it only works for weapons one category larger.

A small dagger would be a light weapon for Mr. Underhill, a medium dagger would be one-handed weapon (light with Monkey Grip), a large dagger would be a two-handed weapon, and a huge dagger wouldn't, for him, be usable as a weapon (except conceivably an improvised one) at all.