one arm missing

[Jlooney]

So in a 5th ed game I'm starting today my dm thought it would be collection for my battle master fighter to only have one arm. I told him that I wanted a great sword and he said he would give me a mithril great sword that I could swing one handed if I chose to only have one arm.

What do you guys think about this and other implications? Should I limit my str score to like 15 or not be eligible for feats etc

[Giant2005]

I sure wouldn't lower your strength score - you will be gimped enough by having only one arm, there is no sense in gimping yourself further.
Having said that, if your DM is still going to let you use your two-hnaded sword one-handed, then it won't hurt you too much, not in combat at least (Unless you want to grapple or do other things with your hands). It will be quite the hinderence in general play though. Expect a lot of disadvantages on checks that you take for granted in real life.

[Berenger]

It's impossible to use a Greatsword one-handed.

It's not about weight, the fighting techniques just don't work out.

[Shaofoo]

The only thing that could cause friction is depending on what other people might say (Hey if this guy can hold a two handed sword in one hand, then why can't I?).

If everyone understands that only you can do the corner cases that you do and no one else can then I don't think you should be truly penalized, no restrictions in mechanics needed here. Just be mindful that you can't carry two objects at once and everything should be fine.

[Ralanr]

It's impossible to use a Greatsword one-handed.

It's not about weight, the fighting techniques just don't work out.

I'd imagine that you'd wouldn't be allowed to use your proficiency bonus when attacking. You'd probably just be swinging it madly with strength alone.

[Shaofoo]

I don't see why we have to tack on a penalty of any kind.

The change is purely fluff, there are no gameplay changes that are affected that the guy wields a two handed sword with one hand and treated as if it was wielding it with two hands.

As long as only this character is allowed to do the two handed sword with one hand schtick then I don't see how the game can break down unless there is some other hidden thing that I am not seeing.

Note that this about a new character starting out with one hand, obviously a guy that starts with two and has one lopped off would definitely get some ad-hoc penalties if he wishes to keep using his great sword.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

Hello Jlooney,
Your situation isn't unique, but really, there are no rules for what your DM wants you to do. How effective you will be is largely determined by your DM.
I am currently running a 5e game, and one of my players, a dualist fighter, decided that she wants her character to have only one arm. I allowed this with no penalty, as I don't like to penalize my players for creating unique characters.
This has worked fine so far, she is having fun, and I haven't placed any limitations on her other than the fact that she only has one arm, so she can't grapple while holding a weapon, or use a sword and shield, etc.

The only issue that I have noticed so far, is that some of the other players at my table get a bit argumentative about her capabilities. I've had it argued that she shouldn't be allowed to reload her crossbow because she only has one arm. I just clear up the fact that her one arm is a flavorful part of her character, and I will not impose large penalties because of it.

All in all, there is no reason for mechanical limitations due to a missing arm, just the obvious ones.

[Person_Man]

This is not meant as a criticism, but rather a statement of personal taste - I personally really dislike it when players or authors create a character with a major disability/drawback of some kind that is basically negated by some workaround. You most commonly see it as a "blind" character who has some sort of magical/psionic sense that allows them to perceive the world in a way that's superior to normal sight but with some compensating drawback. This situation is similar, in that you're playing someone with one arm, but using a special weapon that normally requires two arms. In sci-fi oriented games, this frequently manifests as a player who is missing something, but gets has a cybernetic/genetically enhanced replacement.

But for me, its a cop-out. If you want to play someone who is disabled in some way, that's cool. But then you should own up to the disability for whatever it is and deal with its implications. Alternatively, if you just want some cool mystic sense or cybernetic arm or whatever, that is also cool. But don't present your character as being disabled, because they're not.

[Shaofoo]

This is not meant as a criticism, but rather a statement of personal taste - I personally really dislike it when players or authors create a character with a major disability/drawback of some kind that is basically negated by some workaround. You most commonly see it as a "blind" character who has some sort of magical/psionic sense that allows them to perceive the world in a way that's superior to normal sight but with some compensating drawback. This situation is similar, in that you're playing someone with one arm, but using a special weapon that normally requires two arms. In sci-fi oriented games, this frequently manifests as a player who is missing something, but gets has a cybernetic/genetically enhanced replacement.

I am also against the min maxing by trying to cherry pick disabilities and compensations.

If someone wanted to play a blind character with special senses then I will sit down with the player and say that while they can pretend that they are blind and can't do certain fluff things I will not change how the character plays. You will still be blinded (by the condition) by bright light, deep darkness, sand in the eyes and anything else that can normally blind a normal person nor do you get special senses that you don't already gain as a function of your race or class.

As long as you strip apart the back story and the mechanics are identical then I don't see any problem. Of course it is up to the player to enforce his choice. If the players ignores his restriction for too long I will consider it null and void and retcon everything that he was always fully abled from the beginning and everything has played the same way.

You have to be sure if the guy asking to be blind thinks that it is a cool idea or if he wishes to game the system by min maxing, that is up to you

I wouldn't even allow straight penalties because I don't want the player to drag down the others with their penalties.


But for me, its a cop-out. If you want to play someone who is disabled in some way, that's cool. But then you should own up to the disability for whatever it is and deal with its implications. Alternatively, if you just want some cool mystic sense or cybernetic arm or whatever, that is also cool. But don't present your character as being disabled, because they're not.

I wouldn't think such characters would call themselves as disabled, certainly not people who are going to go on grand adventures.

[The Shadowdove]

How about a mid sized blade?

Or a versatile down jet for being 1 handed.

Versatile longsword is 1d10 with Two hands and1d8 for a reason.

So maybe a 1 handed greatsword is 1d10 versatile?

[rhouck]

I think you are fine allowing a 2h-sword as one-handed and leaving it as that.

Consider that you still:
1. Can never choose to fight 1h plus shield
2. Cannot drink a potion, catch something thrown to you, etc. unless you put your sword away or drop it first.
3. Cannot cut your own steak at dinner without awkwardly holding your fork between your teeth

Those are all relatively mild disadvantages but they still exist and can come up in combat and non-combat scenarios. And you are gaining zero benefits from it. It adds some flavor and mild penalties without any combat advantages -- I would say that is fine as proposed.

[Bugworlds]

I see nothing wrong with letting them have one arm for flavor and acting with the normal rules for two arms. This does bring up some issues, especially with other players perception of what they can and cannot do. Work around for that could be simple as, "Well, he's only had one arm for the duration of his training. We can lop one of your arms off if you want, but it'll take several years before you're proficient at using only one arm." If someone has been training with one arm perhaps their one is strong as a normal two? It seems realistic to limit the strength score, but not practical for game mechanics. You've already limited yourself enough. That ability isn't only dedicated to arm strength. Good lifting form comes from the knees after all.

A shield? Perhaps there's enough of a nub left that simple shields can be attached. Looking at game mechanics, you would need to only use one handed weapons for this. Loosing an arm and gaining two handed damage plus shield AC is over powered.

Where would it be appropriate to have a disadvantage? Some strength checks, but perhaps those could be substituted with dexterity checks. If you know your character is strong enough to keep their handhold then forget about the strength check (take 10, essentially) and sub with a dex check. You may be strong enough but can you move with enough agility to grab the next wrung of the old, uneven ladder? This approach would create a disadvantage (wait, or just check with disadvantage?) but wouldn't put you behind the party curve.

[Yagyujubei]

It's impossible to use a Greatsword one-handed.

It's not about weight, the fighting techniques just don't work out.

you can't bring real world physics into DnD like that though...

however, the PHB clearly calssifies a Gsword as a 2H weapon, therefor no one handed wielding for you.

and aside from all of that I would never go along with having a 1 armed character from the start. If I lost it during the campaign due to my own mistakes that's one thing but the handicap from having only one arm is so ludicrously large I can't imagine having fun playing like that in any serious campaign.

[lonewulf]

On a related note: a one armed Monk would be pretty flavorful without breaking any rules. But wielding a strictly 2handed sword is hard to believe...i guess if he is swinging it through brute force with no technique...i would disallow prof bonus to attack. Or just say you want both arms. Whatever floats your boat...just dont let your dm sink your battleship.

[Celcey]

Hello Jlooney,
Your situation isn't unique, but really, there are no rules for what your DM wants you to do. How effective you will be is largely determined by your DM.
I am currently running a 5e game, and one of my players, a dualist fighter, decided that she wants her character to have only one arm. I allowed this with no penalty, as I don't like to penalize my players for creating unique characters.
This has worked fine so far, she is having fun, and I haven't placed any limitations on her other than the fact that she only has one arm, so she can't grapple while holding a weapon, or use a sword and shield, etc.

The only issue that I have noticed so far, is that some of the other players at my table get a bit argumentative about her capabilities. I've had it argued that she shouldn't be allowed to reload her crossbow because she only has one arm. I just clear up the fact that her one arm is a flavorful part of her character, and I will not impose large penalties because of it.

All in all, there is no reason for mechanical limitations due to a missing arm, just the obvious ones.

I agree with basically everything he said, but I would definitely make sure you talk to your entire table first, just so everyone is on the same page. Explain that it's just for fluff reasons, so there won't be any serious disadvantages. Maybe a couple of small things, like the grappling (although the shield maybe could work if she had a stump, which someone else mentioned). Either way, I see no reason not to let her have her character. This is D&D, not the real world, so real world rules don't have to apply if you don't want them to.