Fighters and Monster Weapons?

[Unoriginal]

Hi everyone!

The PHB makes pretty clear the Fighter is trained in the use of all weapons, even if not necessarily amazing with each of them.

But, my question is, what about weapons presented in the MM and Volo's that are specific to monsters? Weapons such as the Kuo-Toa's pincer staff or the Tlincalli's spiked chain ?

I would personally say that a Fighter is proficient with those weapons (as long as size isn't an issue), both because they're not that different from weapons a Fighter would know to use and because I like the idea of the Fighter as the master of all weapons.

What do you think?

[Lombra]

I would give proficiency through downtime training, maybe with some penalties (prolongued training time) if the character is not proficient in a similar weapon.

[LeonBH]

I think that the Fighter wouldn't be proficient in them because the Fighter is only proficient in martial and simple weapons. An entire class of weapons, improvised weapons, needs a feat to be proficient in.

So a Fighter with Tavern Brawler will be proficient in all the items listed in the simple weapons table, the martial weapons table, and everything else not listed in that table. But a regular Fighter only knows the weapons they've been trained for.

[DarkKnightJin]

I'd allow them to use the weapons like normal, under the condition that it be similar enough to something on the weapon table already.
I might have it be a different damage type (bludgeoning instead of slashing, for example), and maybe up or downgrade the damage die as seems appropriate.

Not that a lot of enemies would be using weapons too far off the beaten path anyway. Just because a new design is unique, doesn't necessarily mean it's useful.

[Anonymouswizard]

It depends on the campaign really.

Note that the standard D&D weapons and armour list assumes a European-esque culture. Therefore, as the Fighter gets full proficiency with both sections of the list, we can assume a fighter is proficient with all weapons from their culture (from what I hear many weapons are similar enough that skills transfer). Therefore if a Fighter is from a culture that has a weapon similar to a pincer staff then they can use it effectively (maybe at half proficiency bonus until they spend downtime training with it, but still effectively). But if a fighter comes from say fantasy Middle America then they shouldn't be proficient in halberds, even though normal Fighters are (this is of course a bad choice from an optimisation perspective, and so I recommend not using such a culture alongside the standard equipment list).

On the other hand, it is certainly within the bounds of high and heroic fantasy for a hero to pick up a weapon that they should have no training in and use it as effectively as their primary weapon, so I'd also happily play in a game that just gave Fighters proficiency in all weapons.

[rollingForInit]

I might allow it, but if the weapon is different than martial and simple weapons (e.g. it has special abilities like the pincer staff), I'd require the PC to train for proficiency with it during downtime, or take a feat for it. Seems like a fair investment for getting a really good weapon.

If the special effects are more magical (e.g. doing extra damage) I'd just call it a magical weapon that would require attunement. If it were a weapon that I really didn't want the PC's to have because it would be too powerful, I'd just say that it disappears when the monster dies.

[the_brazenburn]

Anatomy must also be taken into account. A tlincali uses a huge spiked chain that might be too heavy for a normal fighter. A bipedal human has a much higher center of gravity than a sextepedal (?) scorpion man, so the weapon might throw them off balance.

[Lombra]

Anatomy must also be taken into account. A tlincali uses a huge spiked chain that might be too heavy for a normal fighter. A bipedal human has a much higher center of gravity than a sextepedal (?) scorpion man, so the weapon might throw them off balance.

Well, we're talking about exceptional beings here, PCs are special (insert campaign-dependant circular argument here), so normal reasoning shouldn't really apply imho, but I agree that unreasonably encumberant weapons shouldn't be easily handled, like a fire giant's swords or similar.

I say that these situation require a rule of cool ruling, to give a bit more love to martials. I could very well concede a large-sized weapon to a PC if it has reasonable stats to wield it, and puts time into it by training with it.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well, we're talking about exceptional beings here, PCs are special (insert campaign-dependant circular argument here), so normal reasoning shouldn't really apply imho, but I agree that unreasonably encumberant weapons shouldn't be easily handled, like a fire giant's swords or similar.

I say that these situation require a rule of cool ruling, to give a bit more love to martials. I could very well concede a large-sized weapon to a PC if it has reasonable stats to wield it, and puts time into it by training with it.

In one particular playstyle. In my worlds PCs aren't that exceptional, not only are small groups of mercenaries part of the social order (while larger companies exist they tend towards large scale actions, small bands will essentially hire out for odd jobs) but PCs are assumed to only be a cut above average. While I'm generous about starting equipment (because I don't run 5e, and otherwise nobody would begin with better than leather armour) I'll point out during the low levels that there's a lot of people doing similar work. This stops at about level five, where most NPCs peak, and PCs can become legends by level eight, but they're still just really skilled ordinary people.

[Ganymede]

Those weapons often have monster special powers baked into them. I'd really hesitate to give a player mundane weapons that grant things like automatic grappling.

In either case, as already pointed out, Fighters do not actually have any special proficiency rules; they are proficient in all the same weapons that Barbarians, Rangers, and Paladins are.

[UrielAwakened]

4e had the exotic weapons category. You needed to take a feat to become proficient with any exotic weapon.

I'd rule any monster weapon not in the player's handbook to be an exotic weapon that doesn't gain their proficiency bonus if they really insist on using that stupid staff that deals like 4d6 lightning damage.

[Willie the Duck]

I'd rule any monster weapon not in the player's handbook to be an exotic weapon that doesn't gain their proficiency bonus if they really insist on using that stupid staff that deals like 4d6 lightning damage.

It really depends on if you see that staff as a found treasure, no different from a magic item, or as a gimmicky workaround of the basic (on the chart) weapon constraints. This probably is based on whether the PCs will ever be able to simply purchase the things, or find enchanted ones, or the like.

If it's a one-of-a-kind spoil of victory which lasts until broken or lost, I'd let them use it with proficiency.

Unless that's part of the fun. "it's a weapon, which does 3d6 (+ all normal weapon bonuses), but... you will never find a magic one, and you don't get to add your proficiency. Is it worth it to use?"

[Regitnui]

If the fighter was trained in a similar weapon (halberd/spear to pincer staff) I'd allow them to use it as that weapon. A pincer staff picked up off the ground by a fighter does the same amount of damage, but no proficiency bonus and no attack riders (auto grapple, in this case), because they're essentially swinging it around inexpertly.

If the weapon is a direct take from the equipment list, then fine. A fighter should have no trouble picking up javelins thrown at them and throwing them back.

If there's no reasonable approximation in the PHB or the fighter's player has no good reason why they'd have trained in that weapon (a tlincalli spiked chain, a drow edged boomerang or a thri-keen gythka), they're improvising. 1d4 of the appropriate type of the weapon.

[UrielAwakened]

It really depends on if you see that staff as a found treasure, no different from a magic item, or as a gimmicky workaround of the basic (on the chart) weapon constraints. This probably is based on whether the PCs will ever be able to simply purchase the things, or find enchanted ones, or the like.

If it's a one-of-a-kind spoil of victory which lasts until broken or lost, I'd let them use it with proficiency.

Unless that's part of the fun. "it's a weapon, which does 3d6 (+ all normal weapon bonuses), but... you will never find a magic one, and you don't get to add your proficiency. Is it worth it to use?"

I mean I can think of a lot of reasons that giving a staff that deals 4d6 damage to a Fighter after a CR 6 encounter is not great for balance.

[Arcangel4774]

I think its fine for the fighter to use the monster weapons but to havr a reduced effextiveness when it comes to functions that are beyond normal.

Take the kuo-toa pinser staff for an example. The fighter would still get the weapons 1d6 weapon die, but would have a heavily reduced save until a sufficient amount of time usinf the weapon has passed