Monk Houserule?

[DracoKnight]

Would anyone here on the forum houserule that if you got a weapon proficiency through your race, you could use that weapon as a Monk Weapon? (since the idea behind racial weapons is that they are so ingrained into your culture that you know how to use them)

[UXLZ]

Monk weapons aren't "Weapons a monk starts off knowing how to use", they're weapons that a monk's monk training incorporates. It wouldn't unbalance anything too greatly, but it also doesn't make too much sense from a thematic standpoint. If you want a monk using a Longsword, talk to the DM about it and ask if your monk's monastery could be one that focused on using Longswords (to the detriment of being able to use any other monk weapons.)

[Waazraath]

Would anyone here on the forum houserule that if you got a weapon proficiency through your race, you could use that weapon as a Monk Weapon? (since the idea behind racial weapons is that they are so ingrained into your culture that you know how to use them)

I think I would allow it. It's a small increase in damage (1d10 instead of 1d8, using a warhammer or longsword twohanded instead of a spear or quarterstaff), but nothing OP. It would give some differentiation to the monk class. I like the powers the monk gets, but there is so little to choose, also regarding weapons, that I would approve more ways to make monks 'different'. Having elf monks wielding swords or dwarf monks wielding hammers would be a small stap. Especially since the 'asian warrior' archetype definitely had examples that could wield swords and glaives, I tend to dislike the strict list of 'monk weapons'.

[MrStabby]

I think I would cap it at weapons with a d8 damage die but beyond that I can't see anything that would cause a problem.

[DivisibleByZero]

There's no point in capping the weapon's base damage dice, because if you allow it to be used as a monk weapon then after a few levels it will do more damage anyway via the monk's ability to use monk weapons with their unarmed damage dice.
The issue is one of training.
A racial proficiency isn't "that they are so ingrained into your culture that you know how to use them" as the OP calls it. The idea is that the weapon in question is so prevalent in the society that pretty much everyone learns how to use it/them at some point in their early-ish life.
Just because someone learns to use a weapon in their childhood does not mean that said individual will also learn to incorporate that weapon into a martial arts style.

Personally, I would not allow it. Monk weapons are monk weapons. Racial weapons are racial weapons. If they happen to be on both lists, feel free. If they do not, you're out of luck.
Does it break anything? Probably not. But then again it may unbalance things a bit if the weapon does more than base d6 (versatile d8). There's a reason that zero monk weapons exist beyond that scope. The reason is a balance reason, because monks can achieve more attacks per round than any other class in the early game on a somewhat regular basis. Limiting their damage dice for these attacks is a balancing factor.

[TopCheese]

Would anyone here on the forum houserule that if you got a weapon proficiency through your race, you could use that weapon as a Monk Weapon? (since the idea behind racial weapons is that they are so ingrained into your culture that you know how to use them)

I would allow it.

Narratively your Elf monk may be an open hand monk but it was trained differently than a Human open hand monk.

Damage dice doesn't really break anything, the difference between d8 and d6 is the average of one point.

As long as the weapon is one handed or versatile or whatever a monk can typically use.

So for my thoughts, in no specific order.

1A: Is it broken? No.
1B: Does it make narrative sense? Yes.
1C: Does it increase the player's fun? Yes.

In a game that's all that really matters. If I can't accommodate this in my game then I need to reevaluate my abilities as a DM.

This also makes racial weapon proficiencies worth something. I hate punishing players because things like this. It's a magical elf game not a job.

[PoeticDwarf]

Would anyone here on the forum houserule that if you got a weapon proficiency through your race, you could use that weapon as a Monk Weapon? (since the idea behind racial weapons is that they are so ingrained into your culture that you know how to use them)

Would make the wood elf monk even stronger, not a good idea. Monk with rapier also isn't ideal if you are a elf monk and a dwarf monk with an axe just isn't a monk.

[PoeticDwarf]

I would allow it.

Narratively your Elf monk may be an open hand monk but it was trained differently than a Human open hand monk.

Damage dice doesn't really break anything, the difference between d8 and d6 is the average of one point.

As long as the weapon is one handed or versatile or whatever a monk can typically use.

So for my thoughts, in no specific order.

1A: Is it broken? No.
1B: Does it make narrative sense? Yes.
1C: Does it increase the player's fun? Yes.

In a game that's all that really matters. If I can't accommodate this in my game then I need to reevaluate my abilities as a DM.

This also makes racial weapon proficiencies worth something. I hate punishing players because things like this. It's a magical elf game not a job.

1A: no
1B: maybe
1C: I don't see how, even for fluff not because you can refluff a shortbow to a longbow (and so on)

[TopCheese]

1A: no
1B: maybe
1C: I don't see how, even for fluff not because you can refluff a shortbow to a longbow (and so on)

If someone is a DM and can't make narrative sense of something so simple as *elf monk weapon prof* then I call into question that person's ability to be a competent DM.

A player who wants to choose elf but doesn't because their racial features doesn't match up to the monk is a player who's fun has been lessened.

I'm not a huge fan of racial features, as they are presently portrayed, I would prefer a different approach but if an elf wizard (someone who doesn't learn to use weapon all that well) can be just proficiency with a longsword then there is absolutely no reason a monk (someone who already uses weapons) wouldn't be able to learn to use a longsword with their monk abilities.

[Theodoxus]

Do you have to be so condescending? There are so many knee jerk reactionary folk on this board. It's sad, really.

Just because someone has a differing opinion doesn't make them incompetent. Some people like running games as the rules are presented.

That said, as with most houserules/homebrew - test it out. Run two monks, one RAW, one with this ruling. It'll become clear if one has a distinct advantage (over standard racial advantages already in game).

[TopCheese]

Do you have to be so condescending? There are so many knee jerk reactionary folk on this board. It's sad, really.

Just because someone has a differing opinion doesn't make them incompetent. Some people like running games as the rules are presented.

That said, as with most houserules/homebrew - test it out. Run two monks, one RAW, one with this ruling. It'll become clear if one has a distinct advantage (over standard racial advantages already in game).

It's actually quite embarrasing how conservative minded people can be when it comes to a fantasy magic elf game. This is kinda the reason fantasy has been stale for decades and RR Martin is considered a good writer.

[Kajorma]

talk to the DM about it and ask if your monk's monastery could be one that focused on using Longswords (to the detriment of being able to use any other monk weapons.)

Yeah.
This would obviously be a house-rule.

I would totally allow it, because an order of High Elf Monks would absolutely train in the Longsword.
I see it like the gun-katas in Equilibrium. You can make a martial art out of any combat style.

Dwarves? I'd be willing to replace the current list of monk weapons with the dwarf list. It changes the flavor of the order completely, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

[JoeJ]

A player who wants to choose elf but doesn't because their racial features doesn't match up to the monk is a player who's fun has been lessened.

A player who wants to have Eldritch Blast and a familiar as a monk but doesn't because those aren't monk class features is also a player whose fun has been lessened. Or a a player who wants to start with ability scores of 20, 20, 20, 18, 18,16, but doesn't because the method the table uses for generating ability scores doesn't make that possible.

I'd say that a player who chooses not to play an elf just because they can't use elf weapons as monk weapons obviously didn't want it very much.

[Raphite1]

1C: I don't see how, even for fluff not because you can refluff a shortbow to a longbow (and so on)



I'd say that a player who chooses not to play an elf just because they can't use elf weapons as monk weapons obviously didn't want it very much.

You don't think that the player in question might be a better judge of their own subjective experiences and desires, rather than the DM?

[JoeJ]

You don't think that the player in question might be a better judge of their own subjective experiences and desires, rather than the DM?

Of course I do, that was my point.

[JellyPooga]

Myself, I wouldn't allow it.

There are two Races that get Racial Weapon Proficiency; Dwarves and Elves.

Elves aren't so much of a problem; I can see using Dex for a longsword.

Dwarves, on the other hand, stretch my suspension of disbelief some. Wielding a Battleaxe or Warhammer using Dex just doesn't fly for me. You could build a Hill Dwarf Monk with Str:8 that's swinging a Warhammer around with equal proficiency as a Shortsword. The mental image just doesn't work for me.

From a balance point of view there's nothing much in it, so if you're ignoring fluff it won't break your game. I wouldn't recommend allowing it though.

[Theodoxus]

Myself, I wouldn't allow it.

There are two Races that get Racial Weapon Proficiency; Dwarves and Elves.

Elves aren't so much of a problem; I can see using Dex for a longsword.

Dwarves, on the other hand, stretch my suspension of disbelief some. Wielding a Battleaxe or Warhammer using Dex just doesn't fly for me. You could build a Hill Dwarf Monk with Str:8 that's swinging a Warhammer around with equal proficiency as a Shortsword. The mental image just doesn't work for me.

From a balance point of view there's nothing much in it, so if you're ignoring fluff it won't break your game. I wouldn't recommend allowing it though.

Fluff the warhammer into a meteor hammer - nothing says it can't be on a chain; a 5' chain, so no reach ;) Battleaxe, yeah, that'd be harder... a kama might work, though the blade is smaller than an axe blade... meh - dwarves are odd critters - they'd probably laugh at a dwarf monk anyway - lol

[Mara]

Would anyone here on the forum houserule that if you got a weapon proficiency through your race, you could use that weapon as a Monk Weapon? (since the idea behind racial weapons is that they are so ingrained into your culture that you know how to use them)

I would not. I reskin monk weapons liberally, but I stick to the same basic stats.

[JellyPooga]

Fluff the warhammer into a meteor hammer - nothing says it can't be on a chain; a 5' chain, so no reach ;) Battleaxe, yeah, that'd be harder... a kama might work, though the blade is smaller than an axe blade... meh - dwarves are odd critters - they'd probably laugh at a dwarf monk anyway - lol

At this point, we're not talking about the Dwarven racial weapons, though, are we? Unless you change Dwarves to have an "eastern" flavour instead of the typical nordic one, of course...

By re-skinning the weapon, you still have the issue of fluff dissonance.

[Person_Man]

The rules are carefully balanced to prevent certain synergies, particularly with Feats or multiclass combos (Rogue or Druid). An extra 1ish average damage is not that big of a deal (though it's not really needed either, especially once the Monk hits mid-levels). But if it opened the door to some combo that dramatically increased damage or to-hit, I'd be opposed to it.

[DracoKnight]

The rules are carefully balanced to prevent certain synergies, particularly with Feats or multiclass combos (Rogue or Druid). An extra 1ish average damage is not that big of a deal (though it's not really needed either, especially once the Monk hits mid-levels). But if it opened the door to some combo that dramatically increased damage or to-hit, I'd be opposed to it.

Which it doesn't, without magic items.

[Boci]

Myself, I wouldn't allow it.

There are two Races that get Racial Weapon Proficiency; Dwarves and Elves.

Elves aren't so much of a problem; I can see using Dex for a longsword.

Dwarves, on the other hand, stretch my suspension of disbelief some. Wielding a Battleaxe or Warhammer using Dex just doesn't fly for me. You could build a Hill Dwarf Monk with Str:8 that's swinging a Warhammer around with equal proficiency as a Shortsword. The mental image just doesn't work for me.

From a balance point of view there's nothing much in it, so if you're ignoring fluff it won't break your game. I wouldn't recommend allowing it though.

Given that monks have exotic fighting styles, maybe don't picture it being wielded as a warhammer, but as a quarterstaff with a heavy weight and hook on one end.

Dunno if that help or not.

[JellyPooga]

Given that monks have exotic fighting styles, maybe don't picture it being wielded as a warhammer, but as a quarterstaff with a heavy weight and hook on one end.

Dunno if that help or not.

Again, the point of Racial weapon proficiencies is that the character has a familiarity with a particular weapon, not one that has the same stats. Dwarves are good with Warhammers, specifically. To refluff that weapon as a meteor hammer or a peculiar quarterstaff is to miss the point of it being a Racial weapon proficiency.

As I mentioned, if you want Dwarves to be eastern themed, then go right ahead, but you might also want to refluff their love of ale for sake, their beards for a distinct lack thereof and their stoicism and aggressive attitude for a zen-like calm.

This is an entirely fluff based concern; I see no problem from a mechanical perspective with a warhammer being treated as a Monk weapon; it's just a 1d8/1d10 bludgeoning weapon, which on average is only 1pt greater damage than a quarterstaff. What is a problem is that a warhammer is an unbalanced weapon, with a heavy weight on the end of a stick; not a weapon that lends itself to Dex-based use, where other Monk weapons could be (even though they don't have the Finesse property).

[Boci]

Again, the point of Racial weapon proficiencies is that the character has a familiarity with a particular weapon, not one that has the same stats. Dwarves are good with Warhammers, specifically. To refluff that weapon as a meteor hammer or a peculiar quarterstaff is to miss the point of it being a Racial weapon proficiency.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying change the weapon, I'm saying picture the dwarven monk wielding a run of the mill warhammer as another would wield a quarter staff. Twirling it, constantly switching up their grip on the handle, almost as if it were perpetually falling.

[JellyPooga]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying change the weapon, I'm saying picture the dwarven monk wielding a run of the mill warhammer as another would wield a quarter staff. Twirling it, constantly switching up their grip on the handle, almost as if it were perpetually falling.

What I'm saying is that image might be good for a display of skill, but it's not going to actually achieve anything in combat. A warhammer requires strength to do anything, not dex. A quarterstaff can be used dexterously; jabbing, entangling, parrying and so forth. With a warhammer, on the other hand, it doesn't matter how skillfully you wield it, it needs strength behind the lever of the handle to do something useful, much as it doesn't matter how accurate you are with an axe, if you don't put any force behind the blow, you won't split a log.

[Boci]

What I'm saying is that image might be good for a display of skill, but it's not going to actually achieve anything in combat. A warhammer requires strength to do anything, not dex. A quarterstaff can be used dexterously; jabbing, entangling, parrying and so forth. With a warhammer, on the other hand, it doesn't matter how skillfully you wield it, it needs strength behind the lever of the handle to do something useful, much as it doesn't matter how accurate you are with an axe, if you don't put any force behind the blow, you won't split a log.

Not incorrect, but the context here is someone who can go up unarmed against a guy in a chain shirt armed with a great sword, and whilst I wouldn't give them 50/50 odds of survival, its not a forgone conclusion. I'm not saying you're wrong, because everyone is entitled to their own view on the game, but it does seem a little strange to me at least.

As for how the warhammer actually damage the opponent, I imagine the dwarf twisting it and allowing it to "fall" into the point on his opponent's body.

[ad_hoc]

I would allow it.

For those naysaying the warhammer here is some Sledgehammer fighting in Bushido Blade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt_q_7Z39VQ


Maybe I just played that game too much but I don't have a problem picturing it. Monks can use spears and quarterstaffs two-handed for extra damage anyway.