To GM's: has a player ever tried to justify something ridiculous for an extra bonus?

Eh. Is there that much of a difference?

>Player said his 1 rank in weapon smithing, meant he could carve a stone greatsword, using other stones and it would be equal in all ways to a normal great sword
In his defense, crafting is usually pretty shit in games. I'd have been tempted to be generous to justify his otherwise wasted point in most systems.

Nature Guy and Wallchains though, holy shit.

If he can't roll like an adult than you're just going to have to roll for him.

Listen, user, I know you want to be mad at your GM because he has a shitty DMPC, but I think that's entirely reasonable.

Not sure which system you were using, but in all modern D&D editions, "Deflect Arrows" doesn't just deflect "arrows", it's a bit of a misleading name. The descriptions in the actual feature tend to specify ranged weapon attacks, not arrows or thrown projectiles.

And I'm guessing it's a fair assumption that your character's gun use comes in the form of ranged weapon attacks.

I play in a 5th edition game set in a late 1800s-esque setting, and if my Monk couldn't catch bullets from the widespread firearms that have long since replaced bows, it would be a completely useless feature.

>Player claimed that since he smoked a pipe, and had a beard, the University sages wouldn't charge him their standard fee

Honestly, that's funny enough to me to warrant a slight discount.

It seems obvious to me that this is a Deception roll.

Oh boy oh boy is this thread built for me.
>Tinker class in PF, already have robots and shit, decide I want a better crossbow than a standard repeating heavy
>In tinker college I made a crossbow with 3 vertical rails that can all fire at same spot
>Even go so far as to make a model drawing to give credit to it
Got away with that one, can do 3d10 damage per shot with it and my army of robots have them so in total I can do something like 18d10+ like 30 between me and my robots every round at 16th lvl.

>Eh. Is there that much of a difference?
Arrows have a large enough surface area to grab. Bullets do not, and go faster than arrows regardless.

I'd throw monks a bone and enable them to use Arrow-Snaring or the like to destroy incoming bullets, though, since this has legitimately been done in real life. Maybe even to redirect the shards of a split bullet to hit enemies behind them. That would be cool. But you ain't catching a fucking bullet like it's an arrow.

>Player said his 1 rank in weapon smithing, meant he could carve a stone greatsword, using other stones and it would be equal in all ways to a normal great sword
Sure. Tell you what, guy. It even does an additional die of damage more than a steel greatsword. However, it deals bludgeoning damage instead of slashing, you take a -4 penalty to hit until you take Exotic Weapon Proficiency for it, it weighs five times as much, and I most definitely am using encumbrance rules.

Or I can give it the stats of a maul. Your call.

The only way I can see this not being bullshit is if the Monk was epic level and had shit like Epic Deflection that already lets him deflect shit like spells. But them there's the issue of the DM having an epic level monk DMPC running around.

I remember in a D&D Basic (Or some retroclone, I forget which one) one of the players insisted that his fighter would be able to use magic. He said that he should have been able to get the party Elf to make potions of Read Magic, which would have let him read scrolls due to the fact that cursed scrolls apparently trigger when you read them rather than when you cast them. It was the longest and most awful argument I have ever had to put up with, and it was in the middle of the game too. I remember talking to a player in confidence after that who said that the guy was a munchkining faggot (True, it wasn't the first time that shit was pulled). He used to play Pathfinder exclusively before he joined our game, so ultimately I shouldn't have been surprised.

Catching arrows is a show trick. The one firing the arrow and the one catching it need to be in perfect syncrony, and the bow is pulled way less than an usual so the arrow travels slowly enough to be caught and not burn through the catcher's gloves and hands through sheer friction.

So yeah, a monk catching arrows thrown by archers all around him with the intent to kill is already superhuman fantasy, as high-magic games should be. I say if they can do superhuman stuff and have feats specifically geared towards that, he can deflect a bullet without further ado. The gunslinger class is a late addition too, so it's expected to have some conflict with core definitions of "projectile" and such - yet, it's a ranged damage class just like an archer and should be treated as such.

That's working RAW, man. Projectile is projectile.

catching bullets has been a magic trick ever since bullets were still being slung in slings. catching them in a game as silly over the top as D&d is perfectly acceptable.

Why over complicate it, extra weight, and it will most assuredly break after a swing or two.

I have a player in my Dark Heresy campaign who really wants to play as an Ork, and keeps trying to fudge his way into becoming one
>could a heretek turn me into an Ork?
Even if they could, it's doubtful they'd want to, as this could easily lead to their demise.
>I'm going to try and find an Old One to turn me into an ork!
The Old Ones were wiped out by the Necrons millions of years ago.
>Can I pray to Gork and Mork to turn me into an ork?
You can, but I don't see why they would want to, you're a pretty puny git compared to their other worshipers.
>What if I roll a critical success? Can I become an Ork then?
All of these were presented with absolute seriousness.

To be honest here, he *could* do it if he had enough ranks in Use Magic Device to activate the scroll. Read Magic does shit because scroll rules specifically say you need to have the spell in your spell list, and UMD is the one skill to simulate this. This is how Rogues usually do this, and it takes a lot of skill points to pull off thanks to the lowest UMD check being around 20. The guy is an asshole though, he wanted the spells guy to do all the effort so he doesn't have to invest anything into it.

>catching them in a game as silly over the top as D&d is perfectly acceptable.
Sure. It's acceptable if you have DR higher than the bullet's damage. Otherwise it's going right through your hand.

>Why over complicate it, extra weight, and it will most assuredly break after a swing or two
Because dipshittery needs to be curtailed before players start trying to cheese the system to they can make le epik Dinduh threads on Reddit. Good point on the fragility, though. I'd work that in there as well.

Reread that post, user. He said they were playing D&D Basic or some other retroclone, there's no shit like Use Magic Device in these.

>Catching arrows is a show trick.
So is cutting bullets.
youtube.com/watch?v=Qzhs1Z8Rwnk
In DnD's verisimiltude, both should be possible.

>Sure. It's acceptable if you have DR higher than the bullet's damage. Otherwise it's going right through your hand.
Funny, I was thinking about catching it with my teeth.
>Because dipshittery needs to be curtailed before players start trying to cheese the system to they can make le epik Dinduh threads on Reddit. Good point on the fragility, though. I'd work that in there as well.
All I see is you making more work for yourself and your players, all in the name of passive aggressive faggotry. Just say no if you're so against it.

>Just say no if you're so against it.
"No" makes people react. It doesn't make them think.

Just tell him to be a Digganob and let him use Ork weapons. He'll die in the first mission anyway because Orks are not great at investigations.

>Sure. It's acceptable if you have DR higher than the bullet's damage. Otherwise it's going right through your hand

You should inform your players of your houserules before the game starts, it curtails a lot of these kind of conflicts.

I do. But then, this problem has never come up with my players before because I don't tend to attract the players who think "well they're both (projectiles) so a bullet is the same as an arrow!"

I'm sorry you have to beat common sense into your players, user. I don't accept those without it.

Yes, that's my point. Thanks for more info supporting it.

Ok, that's bullshit. The guy should be banned for stopping the game to argue about this with a straight face.

Hense why i'm calling you a passive aggressive faggot.

Katanas were a mistake.

I don't think you understand that my point is "cutting bullets is different than catching bullets".

You know what, hell, I'll even try to curtail my own shitposting by bringing this up again:
>I'd throw monks a bone and enable them to use Arrow-Snaring or the like to destroy incoming bullets, though, since this has legitimately been done in real life. Maybe even to redirect the shards of a split bullet to hit enemies behind them. That would be cool.
That's some straight-up Afro Samurai shit right there, and is way cooler than just catching the fucking bullet.

its almost like its a fucking fantasy game or something you dribbling ass-cruncher

Eh, if a player wants to play a monk thay catches bullets, I'd allow it. Its fine ruleswise, follows an established trope, and doesn't break the game.
The only reason not to is if you require D&D to be realistic, which means you should probably change systems.

One of the player in a campaign I was playing in tried to bullshit that he was distantly related to a previous character he played as, and as such he should be able to access the huge amount of gold he has. It didn't fly.

This

Not that guy, but the feature should be modified in that case to specify. I know D&D is a bit OTT as systems go, but a bullet is a higher velocity projectile with a much smaller profile; I'm with the player on this one.

I'm curious as to what your opinion on my houserule is, as featured .

That's probably a good idea, especially since he's so determined that he'll probably find out about them and try to play as one eventually.

It's VERY VERY clear in the CRB that it works on any ranged weapon not of extraordinary size.

Hey, if it gets him to stop. If you feel nice, you could let him use Ork weapons without the "Only orks can reliably use this" rule. Assuming it's just like a slugga and a choppa. Nix power klaws at the get go.

Where there's a will, there's a way. You should probably figure out exactly what it is he wants out of playing an ork and either find a workaround or ensure he fully understands and agrees it's not appropriate for this particular campaign. Otherwise you're just asking for eternal friction.

Arrows are Tiny. Bullets would be Diminuitive. I'd personally say that qualifies as bieng as extraordinary as a Gargantuan projectile, just in the opposite direction.

>Diminuitive
*diminutive, natch

Poor git. 'E just wants ta' WAAAGH!!!.

Let him go Digganob or Blood Axe, or even Freeboota'. Might not be the best at diplomacy, but he can always intimidate, and if they're on a fringe world it might make sense they hired an ork as some muscle.

Nah. the issue is that Orks
A: Deal too much damage and are too hard to kill for a DH campaign
B: Would be shot on sight by most arbites and enforcers. And the ministorum. And any armed citizens.

Get magic bullets next time, if you don't want them treated like any other projectile.

I'd give him this one after putting him through various rp loops. If he was good enough then let him have it, if hes terrible at it then make him roll a social persuasion check.

Solution:
Paint him light tan, give him a helmet, and call him an Ogryn.
Or paint him purple.
Also, just figure out ways of sending tougher mobs against the ork and leave some gangly ones for the rest of the party. If you're the DM, I'm sure no one would mind if some huge bastard chose to duke it out with the ork instead of fighting the little guys. On top of all that, orks are weaker when not around other orks, so you could just say he's a little under the weather without the influence of the Waaagh!!!.

While for a lower level monk I could see things like "you need a weapon to deflect a bullet" or such, at a certain level (in most editions, I think) monks hands count as straight up magic weapons. So, yeah, bullets are fancier than an arrow, but not better than magic fists powered by ki. I assume whatever DMPC was being talked about was AT LEAST that level, so catching bullets is fine.

>While for a lower level monk I could see things like "you need a weapon to deflect a bullet" or such, at a certain level (in most editions, I think) monks hands count as straight up magic weapons
First-level monks hands count, in my opinion, although this would be a good reason for them to actually use the monk weapons in which they are proficient.

>catching bullets is fine
I still vehemently disagree. You wanna cut the bullet in half with a karate chop? That's Kool and the Gang, man. You wanna catch it? Have bulletproof skin.

Catching arrows does not mean "blocking them with your hands". Catching bullets does, by necessity, unless you wanna Mr. Miyagi and the fly and the chopsticks that shit. Which is also cool, I suppose, if you can honestly justify it.

>I still vehemently disagree. You wanna cut the bullet in half with a karate chop? That's Kool and the Gang, man. You wanna catch it? Have bulletproof skin.

Fucking wut? You're fine with someone hitting a bullet, with their fist, and cutting it in half. That's super ok with you.
But grabbing the bullets by the side, doing a little spin to "redirect the momentum of some such explanation", whipping it back or otherwise, that's the line you draw.

If anything the karate chop should require bullet proof skin, not the catch.

>But grabbing the bullets by the side, doing a little spin to "redirect the momentum of some such explanation", whipping it back or otherwise, that's the line you draw.
That doesn't sound like "catching" to me.

I'll elaborate, with 5e terms so even the newfags are tracking. Normal Arrow Catching lets you catch the projectile and return it to the firer. In the case of handgun bullets as opposed to arrows, this, to me, is retarded and unconcionable. In return, I offer an alternative, that the same ability be used to destroy the projectile and redirect its damage to enemies behind the deflector, as featured in such media as Afro Samurai, Rurouni Kenshin, Soul Calibur yadda yadda weeaboo shit blah blah.

I don't know why we're arguing.

I forget the exact rules in 3rd ed, but in 5th ed at least catching arrows is already tied to the damage of the projectile. You reduce the damage by 1d10+dex mod+monk level, reducing it to 0 means you catch it. Anything that makes a bullet special should be having higher damage than an arrow, so if a monk is good enough to make the roll, he catches the bullet. Normally with his MAGIC HANDS. Are you seriously telling me a guy who is IMMUNE ALL DISEASE AND POISON at 10th level can't "realistically" catch a lump of lead flying at him at high speeds?

I get it, people sometimes have a love of guns and the idea of guns bordering on worship. But this is D&D. Nothing except making the gun or the bullets MAGIC is going to overcome the fact that a superhuman with magic hands can catch a bullet, and that's one of his lesser feats. I can see them having problems with modern sniper bullets and shit (stuff that probably should do well over their possible roll on average), but aren't we talking flintlock or a bit better?

>argues he can use Profession (Monster Hunter) in place of every knowledge check to identify enemies
>says he should be allowed to coup de grace a guard if they can't see him, because "they're helpless to defend themselves"
>rules all of his arrows target flat-footed AC for the extra sneak attack damage because he made them out of transparent glass
>wants to disarm a man of his sword without rolling, because he (the player) "trained in the military to learn how to do it, and it's easy"
>argues he can kill an enemy instantly if he headshots him, using the rules for targeting an object the size of his head
>takes 20 for every Perception check, claiming that since reactively rolling Perception doesn't take an action, taking 20 times as long with it is still not an action

Same player, same campaign, and the GM was enough of a doormat to allow all of it because he knew the guy personally. I'm still salty to this day.

>rules all of his arrows target flat-footed AC for the extra sneak attack damage because he made them out of transparent glass
Wha... what nigga? That doesn't even.. I mean... what?

My genuine thanks for your earnest effort to re-rail the thread. Your That Guy is an actual shitter.

The monk can already survive several bullets to the chest anyway thanks to having 30+ HP. He can punch an iron golem to death more likely than not.

Catching bullets is childs play, especially if he's just whirlwind tossing them back immediately. After all, most of the damage from a bullet comes from the speed, so if he's simply redirecting that speed back at the firer with a circular motion, he wouldn't even need bulletproof skin. Just really, really, really good reflexes. The type a ki-empowered monk would have that would allow him to catch knives, arrows, crossbow bolts, bullets, etc.

Because your alternative is equally as ridiculous as the thing you dislike if not more so (significantly more so), yet you offer it as if it were the more reasonable choice.

>knives, arrows, crossbow bolts
These are all Tiny. A cat is Tiny, and these are all about the same length as a large or small cat.

>bullets
In the case of sling bullets, I'd agree. Handgun bullets, I would not.

>yet you offer it as if it were the more reasonable choice
Because I genuinely believe it is. Handgun bullets, even from a medieval matchlock pistol, travel at speed greater than the fastest arrow. What I'm doing is:

#1 - Giving a reason to use weapons, even if those weapons are ki-charged hands
#2 - Trying to work with physics, which still apply even in the craziest DnD settings (gravity, power = force x speed, etc.)
#3 - offering a monk a chance to use his ability to damage two or more enemies as opposed to just one, as RAW arrow catching does

How is my alternative bad?

His logic was that if the enemy can't see it, they can't react to it. Originally he wanted to make all his ammunition invisible, but when that turned out to be too expensive he bought arrows made of glass instead, arguing that it should have the same effect, which the GM allowed after he raised a fuss about it. That was just the stuff that popped to mind immediately, but I'm sure I have more examples if I combed my mind for them.

Because it's changing the rules for no real reason other than realism in an attempt to tell a martial player that he can't actually do a cool thing, and has to do some other janky thing that you think is cooler.

He can already catch literally everything else that he can hold in the palm of his hand, why not bullets?

>but physics!

Physics isn't going to let someone catch a crossbow bolt and throw it back at the person shooting it either.

Bro when I run games with systems for flaws I have to put a hard cap on the flaws they can take or my players just go fucking wild. They will make a deaf blind one-armed cripple with a bad back, asthma, arthritis, and a knife made of radioactive metal permanently lodged in his chest just to get some bonuses to whatever the fuck.

I have to keep my idiot bitch players on a short leash or they pull the dumbest shit. Pic related is me, according to them. They're why we don't play 3.PF anymore, because other systems force them to actually make characters instead of thought experiment builds to try and break the game wide open.

>Physics isn't going to let someone catch a crossbow bolt and throw it back at the person shooting it either.
Given superhuman reflexes, yes, it would, because a crossbow bolt has a large enough surface area for a human hand to grab and entirely stop its momentum.

Like.. the WHOLE ARROW was made of glass? How would he even shoot that without breaking it immediately? There are reasons for the flexibility of an arrow! Where the FEATHERS made of glass as well?

Man, your GM needed to put his foot down on that shit. People don't always "see" arrows coming at them, but they know they're in a fight, they're moving around and would probably move a lot if they saw a guy with a bow drawn back, even if they don't immediately register the glass arrow... which, I mean, glass isn't INVISIBLE. It's hard to see at times, birds might fly into them but... this just hurts my brain.

>entirely stop its momentum.

At which point it wouldn't do damage by throwing it back at the person. The only way that part makes sense is if you guide it along in a circle and basically airbend the fucking thing back at them like a living tornado.

Which of course, is already ludicrous enough that you should just let the guy treat the bullet like a fucking leaf on the wind.

OK so bullshit though that may be, you did a fair amount of work to commit to the gag and you were probably at the point in the campaign where things were getting silly powerful anyway.
I might tolerate this in the right setting

But what if it was not the hand catching the bullet, but a chi barrier or something?

>At which point it wouldn't do damage by throwing it back at the person
Monks are supernaturally strong, too. Strong enough to deal lethal damage with a punch.

>The only way that part makes sense is if you guide it along in a circle and basically airbend the fucking thing back at them like a living tornado.
Nothing in the feature itself describes this being the case. The monk catches, stops damage, and returns via weeaboo fightan magic. I'm okay with that, as long as they can realistically (in the environment of Dungeons and Dragons) catch it, as they would be able to with and arrow, or a crossbow bolt, or a sling bullet.

Magic hands. You keep saying it needs to do this and that due to physics, but magic is stuff that does not require the laws of physics. There is no conservation of energy, there is no equal and opposite reaction, magic just fucking happens. That's why it's called magic.

You use Ki to fire the shot back, which probably means using Ki to return all the momentum the monk took from the projectile (with his magic) while redirecting it at the attacker. If you're having a hard time picturing something like this, it's just the ending of Kung Fu Panda 2. I mean, it's cannonballs, but considering the entire point of the movies is a Panda that is already epic level by the start of the movie, I guess it's fair game. I'm sure there are a tons of other examples, but the point is that is the intent. To the magical mind and body of a monk, bullets are not that special. Even most magic projectiles could be caught and redirected like this, if the monk's roll is good enough.

>Honestly, that's funny enough to me to warrant a slight discount.
In fairness to me..
It sounds funny now, reading it.
It's not so funny when a guy is seriously trying to get you to accept it as "totally reasonable" in the game.

>Monks are supernaturally strong, too. Strong enough to deal lethal damage with a punch.

Except this lets you toss the thing right back at the person from the range of their bow. Why can't a monk throw crossbow bolts with the force of a heavy crossbow all the time if he's stopping them completely?

>Nothing in the feature itself describes this being the case.

The feature itself is also called 'catch arrows' despite working on plenty of things that aren't arrows.

>The monk catches, stops damage, and returns via weeaboo fightan magic.
>I'm okay with that, as long as they can realistically (in the environment of Dungeons and Dragons) catch it

So to use their weaboo fightan magic to catch an arrow, it needs to be realistic, but to throw it, it gets handwaved?

All you're doing is raising more issues with realism when a monk can only use his bare hands as a longbow while being shot at.

>You keep saying it needs to do this and that due to physics
Physics are one point out of three.

>You use Ki to fire the shot back, which probably means using Ki to return all the momentum the monk took from the projectile (with his magic)
Except Monks are inspired by kung-fu movies, where this is not the case. In said Kung-fu movies, aforementioned monks catch projectiles with superhuman reflexes. In Dungeons and Dragons, said monks can also return said projectiles back to the firer via throwing, not because of redirected momentum.

> it's just the ending of Kung Fu Panda 2. I mean, it's cannonballs,
Monks in DnD cannot use Arrow Snaring on cannonballs. They are projectiles of extraordinary size. I'm willing to cede said rule in the case of sling bullets which would also be Diminutive because sling bullets only travel as fast as arrows and I have actually caught one with my hand in real life. It fucking hurt.

Veeky Forums used to agree in the futility of dragging real life physics into fantasy settings

>Veeky Forums used to agree
Liar.

>I have actually caught one with my hand in real life

You wouldn't happen to be a developer for Pathfinder would you?

>D&D
>modern handguns
Pick one.

I Ban monks in my games because they don't fit into European settings. It also stops weeb faggotry like this entire thread.

I wish. I make my money digging poop out of butts.

>modern handguns
Matchlock bullets travel at speeds an order of magnitude greater than arrows. I never once specified "modern".

>I make my money digging poop out of butts.

Same place you get your houserule ideas, I see

>The feature itself is also called 'catch arrows'
Read again, if we're talking 5th ed. It's called catch missiles. Which means anything propelled at a target, basically.

>Monks in DnD cannot use Arrow Snaring on cannonballs.
You mean DEFLECT MISSILES which says nothing at all about the missile's size, so a D&D monk could totally deflect a cannonball if the numbers were with them. But a cannonball is probably doing like 50 pts of damage on average or some shit, meaning even an epic monk is very unlikely to make that roll. You keep fighting against this, but you have no real reason other then "I don't like it". You never even said how much damage the bullets we're talking about are doing, so why are you stuck on this?

Magic. It's, in every way imaginable, not rocket science.

Eighth-grade at best. Up your insult game, user. You're on Veeky Forums, not Facebook.

Yeah, stuff like that is how I normally know not to play at a guy's table. I mean you have all this fantasy stuff and they're mind can only think "Europe". Means the DM probably has little idea how to make the fantasy races interesting and just plugs in various European countries for them.

As I've stated earlier, arrows fired at normal strenght have enough force to burn through leather gloves and your skin, losing little momentum while giving you a 1st or 2nd degree burn if you ever try to catch an actual arrow in real life(that is assuming you have superhuman reflexes to even follow the arrow's trajectory and extend your hand in time). And a crossbow bolt is fired with more force than a conventional bow's arrow. So no, catching arrows is already fantasy and everyone's okay with that being possible in D&D, catching bullets is just the next step and you're the only one buttblasted enough to complain about it because you have a gun fetish like 80% of USA.

>You mean DEFLECT MISSILES which says nothing at all about the missile's size,

Actually, it does say that the missile has to be small enough to hold in one hand, although that might still allow for smaller cannonballs, assuming they were a level 20 monk and could reduce the damage that much. Either way, they'd also still be flinging it aside at the very least.

I played two different campaigns where I asked the GM for the same homebrew to be used so I could play Undeads in 5e.

The first game I played a skeleton satyr cleric. The homebrew said I could detach my arm to use it as a simple weapon, but the GM didn't like that, and neither did I. There was also the ability to pick locks with fingers but that was removed as well and I didn't mind.

The second campaign I played a weak ghost cleric that could fly. I told the GM the flight could be limited to 15 feet and he agreed. The flying only came to be useful about once or twice

>DEFLECT MISSILES
>Starting at 3rd level, you can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your monk level. If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, you can spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack with the weapon or piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction. You make
this attack with proficiency, regardless of your weapon proficiencies, and the missile counts as a monk weapon for the attack.

user, you are entirely right about that. In 5e, at the very least. I'm going to be perfectly honest with you and admit that I do not know if 5e has included rules for firearms like 3e did, or what their damage is. If 5e firearms are anything like 3e firearms, however, my point remains, because they're so much more damaging than arrows that only a top-tier monk could catch and redirect one. In which case I'm cool with it.

>you have a gun fetish like 80% of USA.
And so the actual issue reveals itself.

Firearms are in the DMG. Flintlocks and muskets are 1d10 and 1d12 respectively, and modern firearms range from 2d6 to 2d10. Not exactly impossible even from lower levels.

Of course, those numbers are pretty fitting, since early firearms were basically on par with crossbows in many regards anyway, rather than being some sort of weird death ray.

On a side note, the 5e DMG stats for a weird death ray is 6d8 necrotic.

>On a side note, the 5e DMG stats for a weird death ray is 6d8 necrotic.
We'll have to remember that for anyone who wants to end their D&D campaign with a Mars Attacks adventure.

>Flintlocks and muskets are 1d10 and 1d12 respectively
In which case I concede, even though it seriously irks me. That's ridiculous. I did just dive into my 3e books, I'll admit, and the damage is ridiculous there, as well, in the interest of not making the guy with the gun an instakiller.

>Of course, those numbers are pretty fitting, since early firearms were basically on par with crossbows in many regards anyway
No, user. They were certainly not. Regardless, I concede the argument. Monks can and should be able to catch and return handgun bullets similar to any arrow, even if it makes no sense, because that's how the rules work.

That said, with the argument won, how would you propose to enable a character who does want to be Mitsurugi?

"If you move the die before I see it, it's a one."

What edition was it? If Pathfinder or 5e then yeah that's what should have happened

It's magic either way, who cares?

Dude, he's playing a Monk. Hasn't he suffered enough?