Monk weapons

[Wulfskadi]

A while ago I decided to get into D&D for the first time, and since I trained in the arts IRL I decided to roll up a monk. However looking through the rules for the "Monk weapons" I found this.

"monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property."


This was confusing to me as most martial arts styles include some form two handed of stave form, and many sects are renowned for their usage of pole-arms. Heck, the crescent moon spade is one of the most iconic "monk weapons" in history and it's discluded twice over by this rule.

My question is this "Are there any alternate rules, or rule interpretations, that would allow for me to incorporate two handed weapons with my monk character?"

[MeeposFire]

A while ago I decided to get into D&D for the first time, and since I trained in the arts IRL I decided to roll up a monk. However looking through the rules for the "Monk weapons" I found this.

"monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property."


This was confusing to me as most martial arts styles include some form two handed of stave form, and many sects are renowned for their usage of pole-arms. Heck, the crescent moon spade is one of the most iconic "monk weapons" in history and it's discluded twice over by this rule.

My question is this "Are there any alternate rules, or rule interpretations, that would allow for me to incorporate two handed weapons with my monk character?"


Make any such weapons based around the staff stats which is a one handed versatile weapon (change damage types where needed). Remember it is about the two handed property NOT using a weapon in two hands which is the issue. The staff is a one handed weapon but can be wielded in two hands.

[Wulfskadi]

That solves the staff forms but still leaves all the Glaive and pole arm wielding marital artists hanging

[RickAllison]

That solves the staff forms but still leaves all the Glaive and pole arm wielding marital artists hanging

Switch slashing for bludgeoning on quarterstaff. There, a lightweight glaive.

By the way, remember that not all martial arts are best represented by the Monk class. In many cases, Fighter or Rogue could be as good or better. Even Barbarian could show up for a few.

[coredump]

The DnD glaive etc are based on the western martial weapons. They are heavier and used differently.

The eastern or monk type polearms tended to be lighter. I would use a spear or quarterstaff two handed as a more or less equivalent.

[Lombra]

It has to do with balance: a monk with GWM would be game breaking, plus the two handed weapons listed in the manual are not used by monks IRL, whereas spears and quarterstaves are.

Edit: fixed typo

[Malifice]

That solves the staff forms but still leaves all the Glaive and pole arm wielding marital artists hanging

The spear is a monk weapon.

Frefluff it as a lajatang/ naginata/ mancatcher or whatever you want.

[BladeWing81]

It has to do with balance: a monk with GWM would be game breaking, plus the two handed weapons listed in the manual are not used by monks IRL, whereas spears and quarterstaves are.

Edit: fixed typo

Could you imagine a Monk with access to a Glaive or a Halberd at lvl 5 and GWM?
2 attacks of 1d10 +14 and two unarmed attacks of 1d6 +4

[HoodedHero007]

and anyone who has watched sword of destiny knows that longswords should be monk weapons

[Knaight]

Fighters are absolutely martial artists, just as much as monks are. I'd be inclined to use it for most martial artists, even if they happened to live and train in a monastery, and that does an end run around the monk weapon restrictions.


The spear is a monk weapon.

Frefluff it as a lajatang/ naginata/ mancatcher or whatever you want.

A whole bunch of the relevant weapons make no sense with spear stats, representing a Guan Dao without the heavy tag is just ridiculous, as is having a naginata with stats that match a spear and don't match a glaive. It's a glaive, it should have glaive stats.

[RickAllison]

Fighters are absolutely martial artists, just as much as monks are. I'd be inclined to use it for most martial artists, even if they happened to live and train in a monastery, and that does an end run around the monk weapon restrictions.



A whole bunch of the relevant weapons make no sense with spear stats, representing a Guan Dao without the heavy tag is just ridiculous, as is having a naginata with stats that match a spear and don't match a glaive. It's a glaive, it should have glaive stats.

Im reminded of an OotS comic: #209 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

[Fighting_Ferret]

Martial Arts is just that... the art of war. There are styles that deal in weapons and those that deal in unarmed combat. D&D goes into the unarmed realm with its definition and even grants monks the use of a variety of weapons while maintaining it's definition of martial arts. Personally, I think the monk class sticks out like lighthouse on a clear night, in the more western based theme of the rest of D&D.

The argument has been made that several other classes would indeed fit the description of a martial artist quite well, but if you just have to have monk... then nothing is stopping you from learning how to use those weapons... just that you won't get to use unarmed strikes as a bonus attack when you attack with your main weapon (if is has the heavy property).

[JumboWheat01]

The argument has been made that several other classes would indeed fit the description of a martial artist quite well, but if you just have to have monk... then nothing is stopping you from learning how to use those weapons... just that you won't get to use unarmed strikes as a bonus attack when you attack with your main weapon (if is has the heavy property).

You also won't be able to use your Dexterity to Hit and for Damage, plus you won't be able to use your monk weapon damage die, which can get really high! Only weapons monks can use from their class, without racial, feat or multiclass additions, can be done with any of their kung-fu ways.

[Wulfskadi]

You also won't be able to use your Dexterity to Hit and for Damage, plus you won't be able to use your monk weapon damage die, which can get really high! Only weapons monks can use from their class, without racial, feat or multiclass additions, can be done with any of their kung-fu ways.

This is the thing that bothers me. I get that other styles of the arts can be represented in the fighter class, but larger weapons can then only be wielded by strength based brutes, whereas many Glaive forms rely much more on agility and speed.

[RickAllison]

This is the thing that bothers me. I get that other styles of the arts can be represented in the fighter class, but larger weapons can then only be wielded by strength based brutes, whereas many Glaive forms rely much more on agility and speed.

Speed IS the fighter's shtick. Remember that the fighter using a glaive (with PAM) can make eventually make 9 attacks in 6 seconds, all with the glaive. The monk can only make three with the glaive or two with the glaive and two with the body. Remember that Strength doesn't just mean hitting harder, but also having better control over the weapon.

In the case of a glaive, the monk uses his Dexterity to make additional body-blows off the movement of the weapon, (supposing he could use it). By contrast, the fighter is using his strength to arrest the motion of the weapon and return it to attack again.

This even makes sense with the mechanics. The monk uses his mastery of movement to get those extra attacks by transferring the motion of his body into an attack, but this only allows for so much conservation, which is why he reaches his zenith earlier. The fighter learns how to operate the weapon itself better, which is why he continues getting more adept until he reaches level 20.

[Fighting_Ferret]

But your argument revolves around using the actual defined weapons in the PHB, instead of re-skinning as proposed in the monk section on monk weapons.

The class level determines the weapon damage die... do you really care about what you are wielding? Sure you want your 1d10 until your fist damage gets that high... but when it moves up, you want the weapon to move up as well towards the 1d20. At that point in time... you don't care what you are wielding other than is it magical and can I get my unarmed damage die to apply.

Monks are further pushed into Dexterity by the virtue of it adding to their unarmored AC. And they are even given a unique dual wielding, with the style and most of the feat built in! If you care about the aesthetics...then re-skin a monk weapon to be a spear/staff and change the damage type. Given that you were given dual wielding, I for one would not see a problem with you using the butt of the quarterstaff as a bonus attack (as per PAM), as it does the exact same amount of damage (although if you re-skinned to slashing, then you'd do bludgeoning with the butt end), or allow you to hit two-handed with your weapon and then also strike 2x with your unarmed strikes (knees, kicks, forehead, elbows, etc) for flurry of blows.

Other than that, being a fighter gets you bonuses as well... you could be a champion and get better critical strikes, a battle master for maneuvers, both with 2 more ASIs than monk. Everyone is proficient with their unarmed attacks, everyone can shove/grapple. Taking tavern brawler nets you a 1d4 unarmed strike instead of 1 damage/hit. So what is more important being the monk class, or fighting with your chosen (non-monk) weapon type?

[Tanarii]

whereas many Glaive forms rely much more on agility and speed.With a western Glaive?

My understanding is that even with eastern Naginata and various chinese polearms, modern "martial arts" forms rely on super-light weight, probably unsuitable for battlefield use versions of the ancient pole-arms. It's the difference between someone trained to fight with an ancient samurai sword vs someone trained in Kendo. Or someone trained to fight with a classical rapier, vs someone trained in modern fencing (with an epee or sabre).

(I'm not an expert, I'm just going off various fan-boy debunking stuff I've read over the years, and my admittedly *very* limited weapons training in a modernized chinese martial art. So take with huge dumpings of salt. :smallwink: )

[Joe the Rat]

How much does a glaive weigh? Where's the weight centered? How much is in the wrist, how much is in the shoulder? Part of the idea behind Strength - and how it adds to your to hit rolls when there is no armor to punch through - is the idea of being able to move a big heavy (and long!) thing with speed and control. That said, the biggest issue for me is not that you can't Dex with it, but you can't make unarmed strikes with it.

As it stands, you can Extra Attack with any weapon, or you can Unarmed strike the crap out of someone (3-4) in a given round. Actually, flurry of blows says nothing about using Martial Arts or monk weapons, just that it follows the attack action. So you can mix and match with a bit of ki expenditure.

What we lack is a way to freely combine these in a single round. I'm going to suggest a houserule taking a page out of the Spellcaster's book. If a caster is proficient with an armor, they can cast in it. So why not if a monk is proficient with a melee weapon, they can make their Martial Arts unarmed strikes? What will that break?

[Fighting_Ferret]

GWM and PAM come to mind.

GWM: the extra attack is nothing here, as you are already getting a bonus action attack. The -5 to hit for +10 kicks in though... especially if you allow the flurry of blows to be used in conjunction.

PAM: You could argue (successfully) that this is already an option for the monk, however, the only weapon that they can qualify with is the quarterstaff, which lacks the reach attribute. The bonus attack again is already null, unless it too can use the monk level progression damage. The monk weapons available are also d4-d6, with the exception of the quarterstaff (versatile option) for d8.

You are then stepping on the toes of the fighter... who doesn't get 4 attacks until level 20.

[Knaight]

With a western Glaive?

Speed still matters a great deal, and as per usual technical skill is by far the most valuable thing, and a reasonable argument can be made to tie it to dexterity, particularly as tying melee skill to only one attribute is odd regardless. Strength is helpful with just about any melee or thrown weapon, as it gives you better control and speed (it's also needed for most ranged weapons, but in a lot of cases it's where you need a certain level and then having more past that isn't particularly useful). Dexterity is helpful with just about any weapon, as it gives you precision and reflexes, and is probably a better stat than most for representing footwork quality.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

With a western Glaive?

Basically an 18-inch single-edged blade on a 6-foot stick.

[Tanarii]

Speed still matters a great deal, and as per usual technical skill is by far the most valuable thing, and a reasonable argument can be made to tie it to dexterity, particularly as tying melee skill to only one attribute is odd regardless. Strength is helpful with just about any melee or thrown weapon, as it gives you better control and speed (it's also needed for most ranged weapons, but in a lot of cases it's where you need a certain level and then having more past that isn't particularly useful). Dexterity is helpful with just about any weapon, as it gives you precision and reflexes, and is probably a better stat than most for representing footwork quality.But that's a more general problem with the D&D system of combat. Regardless, a Glaive weighs about the same as a Greatsword or Greataxe, or about double a Spear. And it's two-handed and heavy. So it definitely fits the bill for being a D&D Str-based weapon, and not being appropriate as a monk weapon. There's no particular reason for it to fit.


Basically an 18-inch single-edged blade on a 6-foot stick.Not sure what your point was? Just eager to describe a western glaive?

[georgie_leech]

Not sure what your point was? Just eager to describe a western glaive?

For those confused as to what makes a Western Glave ill-suited to combat maneuvers based around speed and careful positioning, rather than strength. Since, you know, most D&Ders probably aren't aware of the difference off-hand, myself included :smallwink:

[Wulfskadi]

With a western Glaive?

My understanding is that even with eastern Naginata and various chinese polearms, modern "martial arts" forms rely on super-light weight, probably unsuitable for battlefield use versions of the ancient pole-arms. It's the difference between someone trained to fight with an ancient samurai sword vs someone trained in Kendo. Or someone trained to fight with a classical rapier, vs someone trained in modern fencing (with an epee or sabre).

(I'm not an expert, I'm just going off various fan-boy debunking stuff I've read over the years, and my admittedly *very* limited weapons training in a modernized chinese martial art. So take with huge dumpings of salt. :smallwink: )

While it is true that some alotment of strength is necessary to lift and successfully handle polearms, this requirement is often more than filled by the average strength of an athletic human. effective styles using these weapons often revolve around accuracy, hand eye coordination, grace, speed, and most importantly technique. Strength works as a finish, polishing over and filling in any gaps in the woodwork, despite being less solid that the core material.

As for your query on too-light weight weapons. I train with a boken. while it is slightly lighter than a steel katana, this is made up for by the balance. Metal blades are balanced so that the combat motions they were made for can be performed with relative ease. Wooden training weapons cannot be balanced as well because they are often made out of a single piece of wood. However they are made lighter to compensate for the lack in balance.

This applies to glaives as well, despite the centralization of weight in the head of the weapon. The leverage from the longer handle makes up for added weight and the transition from a wooden training "glaive" to a (properly balanced) metal naginata or yari is relatively easy.


As for fencing. Rapier is just too da** broad a term. I assume you mean the Inigo Montoya fencing style rapiers, to which I once again reply, balance. The weight is in the hilt, this makes it easy to swing with merely a flick of the wrist.

[Naanomi]

While it is true that some alotment of strength is necessary to lift and successfully handle polearms, this requirement is often more than filled by the average strength of an athletic human. effective styles using these weapons often revolve around accuracy, hand eye coordination, grace, speed, and most importantly technique. Strength works as a finish, polishing over and filling in any gaps in the woodwork, despite being less solid that the core material.
Athletic human, don't most monks have 8 strength? :smallwink:

I would say that most of that sounds like Proficiency Bonus and not necessarily dexterity

I would also argue that how 'real weapons work' isn't as important as how 'fictional weapons work'; the thematics and imagery of it all is what determines a Dex VS Strength weapon... of course in real life a strong guy with a knife is going to do more damage; and using a long-sword requires finesse... but in the mind's eye one is a DEX weapon and one is a STR weapon

[RickAllison]

While it is true that some alotment of strength is necessary to lift and successfully handle polearms, this requirement is often more than filled by the average strength of an athletic human. effective styles using these weapons often revolve around accuracy, hand eye coordination, grace, speed, and most importantly technique. Strength works as a finish, polishing over and filling in any gaps in the woodwork, despite being less solid that the core material.

As for your query on too-light weight weapons. I train with a boken. while it is slightly lighter than a steel katana, this is made up for by the balance. Metal blades are balanced so that the combat motions they were made for can be performed with relative ease. Wooden training weapons cannot be balanced as well because they are often made out of a single piece of wood. However they are made lighter to compensate for the lack in balance.

This applies to glaives as well, despite the centralization of weight in the head of the weapon. The leverage from the longer handle makes up for added weight and the transition from a wooden training "glaive" to a (properly balanced) metal naginata or yari is relatively easy.


As for fencing. Rapier is just too da** broad a term. I assume you mean the Inigo Montoya fencing style rapiers, to which I once again reply, balance. The weight is in the hilt, this makes it easy to swing with merely a flick of the wrist.

Just from some viewing of championship naginata matches, I think I can firmly say Strength is the appropriate attribute. Those polearms were not wielded with the dexterous, elegant movements that the monk was based off of, but the precise and fast application of strength.

After seeing those championship matches, I think it is easy to declare the contestants as Fighters, probably BM. The fights seemed to be about not just hitting the opponent, but controlling their space through the polearm. This is a distinctly BM fighter thing to do.

[R.Shackleford]

Truth be told the current 5e weapon system is laughable. So much so that the 3e and 4e weapon tables look great in comparison (they are not all that good).

I suggest going with a set up ike 13th Age.

A lot of issues are resolved.

[Vogonjeltz]

A whole bunch of the relevant weapons make no sense with spear stats, representing a Guan Dao without the heavy tag is just ridiculous, as is having a naginata with stats that match a spear and don't match a glaive. It's a glaive, it should have glaive stats.

Use of the Guan Dao as a historic weapon may simply be apocryphal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guandao

"However, while the famous novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong describes him as wielding the guandao, this description may have been an anachronistic one intended to make the character seem more imposing: historically speaking there was no evidence to show that Guan Yu used the weapon that is thus attributed to him, and indeed there is no indication of the existence of what is now known as the guandao prior to the 11th century, when it was first illustrated in the military manual Wujing Zongyao. The guandao, therefore, possibly did not even exist during Guan Yu's era, meaning that it is somewhat of a pop culture-derived misnomer."

and probably unrealistic as a weapon:

"Historically, the guandao, for the most part, was not actually intended for field use, but was instead used as a tool to test the strength of those who wished to become military officers: weapons of various weights were made, the test composed simply of performing various required maneuvers using such weapons."

All bolding is for emphasis.

At any rate, the DMG has a suggested list of Wuxia weapon names on page 41.

Naginata and Guandao would correspond to the Glaive (albeit being from different cultures entirely).
A spear could convert to the qiang or yari, respectively.


You also won't be able to use your Dexterity to Hit and for Damage, plus you won't be able to use your monk weapon damage die, which can get really high! Only weapons monks can use from their class, without racial, feat or multiclass additions, can be done with any of their kung-fu ways.

That's fine, we're discussing weapons that were only usable by those with great strength to begin with, they have never been nor were ever intended to be finesse (dexterity) based weapons.

[quinron]

The deciding factor for finesse weapons is that they're weapons more focused on precision damage than brute force. While handling a polearm definitely requires a degree of dexterity, you're not focusing on precision strikes the way you are with a finesse weapon; a normal melee weapon is "I chop at his torso," where a finesse weapon is "I stab him in the kidneys." There's a reason almost all the finesse weapons are piercing.

As for the slashing weapons, while I'd argue that striking effectively with a whip is more about precision than power, I side with some arguments I've seen that say scimitars are only light finesse weapons so Drizzt Do'urden can keep being a demigod in 5e.

[Knaight]

Use of the Guan Dao as a historic weapon may simply be apocryphal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guandao

Sure, but it's still a pretty good representation of a weapon that has no business being dex based. Plus, this is D&D, land of the gyrspike and that stupid antler club.

[Dimolyth]

Well, you know, that D&D where being proficient with a dagger is traditionaly more simple, than being proficient with a spear.

The weapons in D&D are subject of balance logic (and, which is more terrifying - D&D tradition), not real-world physics and/or history. So it is much more simple to refluff existing weapon option (making a slashing staff and using it as eastern-based polearm). We are still at the mechanic system, where a dagger has the same reach range as does longsword, after all, so "light monk glaive without reach" is not an unique problem.

But that`s the fact, that fighter is no less a martial artist than a monk - and supposely even more. Skill and techniques represented by proficiency bonus, not stats, the fighter is faster or equal to the monk, and the class as far more universal and well-rounded, than a monk.

[Malifice]

Meh. Spear works for everything from a kusuri gama to a naginata.

Heck Ive seen shortwords as katanas and Jians and nine ring broadswords.

Ive also seen 1d6/1d8 versatile weapons [spear and staff] simply have damage converted to slashing or whatever and refluffed accordingly as sabres/ dragon swords/ katanas/ dao. Im surprised they didnt just include this rule to begin with.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Not sure what your point was? Just eager to describe a western glaive?

Sorry, thought that said what rather than with. This is why one does not go on the forums after going to the pub.

Though I am always eager to describe big pointy things, and what georgie said about it is correct, it's not really something with much finesse.

[Arkhios]

The thread was pretty long to try and find this small detail, apologies for possible repeating:

Monk's Martial Arts lets you use the increased damage die with ALL your monk weapons (which include, as mentioned, the spear), not just unarmed strikes, in case the Martial Arts die is better. Eventually, you get to use a spear with 1d10, which equal to most polearms without reach, and it's pretty decent, imho.
If it still bothers you, think about it this way: Instead of the normal strength, you have learned techniques to use your dexterity for all those weapons. It may start as relatively low, but your experience as a monk grows as you gain levels, and you end up being amazing with them.

Off-note, I do agree that a Longsword should be eligible as a monk weapon, similarly as a Shortsword is.

[Tanarii]

The deciding factor for finesse weapons is that they're weapons more focused on precision damage than brute force. While handling a polearm definitely requires a degree of dexterity, you're not focusing on precision strikes the way you are with a finesse weapon; a normal melee weapon is "I chop at his torso," where a finesse weapon is "I stab him in the kidneys." There's a reason almost all the finesse weapons are piercing.
Yes, but we're talking about the Monk here, not finesse weapons.

In D&D 5e, the Spear and Quarterstaff are Strength weapons, not Dexterity weapons. Warriors who learn to fight with them use power to control their movement, not agility. The exception is the wuxia inspired Monk class, who get to step outside the normal requirements for every other warrior, and use Dex instead.

In other words, talking about real world fighting techniques and use of weapons (which is what I managed to get side tracked by) is pointless. The Monks is already doing what no one can do with those weapons, even with a Quarterstaff or spear. It's like talking about how a fireball spell works in the real world.

[Anonymouswizard]

Naginata and Guandao would correspond to the Glaive (albeit being from different cultures entirely).
A spear could convert to the qiang or yari, respectively.

What does it suggest for a Jian or a Dao? Because I'm considering a Xia for my next character, possibly a Taoist priest, and was going to be taking monk for the lightfoot abilities. And as I really like the Jian I was considering it as my character's main weapon. I know that I could fluff a shortsword as one, but it doesn't feel right, and my GM agrees it would likely be a different weapon (I suggested a longsword, she thought that they're too thin and suggested rapier).

Would it break the game to add a slashing Rapier to the list of monk weapons? It increases the damage of my primary attack(s) until level 11, but no more than a quarterstaff or spear does.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

What does it suggest for a Jian or a Dao? Because I'm considering a Xia for my next character, possibly a Taoist priest, and was going to be taking monk for the lightfoot abilities. And as I really like the Jian I was considering it as my character's main weapon. I know that I could fluff a shortsword as one, but it doesn't feel right, and my GM agrees it would likely be a different weapon (I suggested a longsword, she thought that they're too thin and suggested rapier).

Would it break the game to add a slashing Rapier to the list of monk weapons? It increases the damage of my primary attack(s) until level 11, but no more than a quarterstaff or spear does.

A Jian's blade is actually quite a bit shorter than a Rapier, IIRC - about 70cm on average, while your Rapier will be more like 100cm.

[MeeposFire]

The thread was pretty long to try and find this small detail, apologies for possible repeating:

Monk's Martial Arts lets you use the increased damage die with ALL your monk weapons (which include, as mentioned, the spear), not just unarmed strikes, in case the Martial Arts die is better. Eventually, you get to use a spear with 1d10, which equal to most polearms without reach, and it's pretty decent, imho.
If it still bothers you, think about it this way: Instead of the normal strength, you have learned techniques to use your dexterity for all those weapons. It may start as relatively low, but your experience as a monk grows as you gain levels, and you end up being amazing with them.

Off-note, I do agree that a Longsword should be eligible as a monk weapon, similarly as a Shortsword is.

Also the scimitar. it is a short sword that trades piercing for slashing. Also fits some of image of a curvy blade that some may like to use for their character.