|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
While my son has been playing this character recently in PFS we have been looking for gear upgrades for him.
Currently the only items we have on the list are:
Thats about as far as we got. Outside of normal items (cloak of resistance, ring of protection, stat boosters, etc.) I don't know of a lot more that can add to this kind of build. Does anyone have any suggestions on equipment?
I would. It seems like it should add to it. And honestly, an additional +1 to a check that is already +28 is a proverbial drop in the bucket.
Anyway, I think it would be pretty similar to a Druid summoning a Dire Wolf and casting Greater Magic Fang on it. THAT actually works. It makes no sense that the same wouldn't work in your Froghemoth example.
Understand I'm not trying to argue with you. The ruling just makes no sense.
...so because you are using your body to trip them it adds your AoMF bonus. But when you are using your body to grapple them, it doesn't. *shakes head* Yeap. That makes no sense. Especially when you consider the text in Grab.
I have read that Blog several times before. I feel that it is outdated (from 2011) and didn't consider grappling for an unarmed combatant. I think it desperately needs to be revisited as it just plain doesn't make sense why an unarmed strike can be used to trip but not grapple.
I know this isn't a rules thread but since I didn't get any answers over there I thought I would pose the question here:
1. A Maneuver Master Monk doesn't lose Flurry of Maneuvers when wearing armor.
Does that look like it adds up? Would that allow me to add enhancement bonuses from AoMF to CMB for grapple checks?
If so, would the enhancement bonus to CMB stack with the enhancement bonus from the Adhesive armor enhancement? One says it adds enhancement bonus to attack roles, the other says it adds an enhancement bonus to grapple checks.
Bump to make sure the above adds up correctly.
Also a separate question:
Originally I was inclined to say "no". But then I thought about if you had a Trip weapon with an enhancement bonus like a Whip and then you had an item that gave you an enhancement bonus to your CMB. I am thinking that one is giving an enhancement bonus to a weapon and the other is giving it to your CMB... I would probably let those stack. I'm a bit unclear though. I'm not sure why they went with the wording that they did on the Adhesive armor enhancement.
Ok. Correct me if I am wrong here:
1. A Maneuver Master Monk doesn't lose Flurry of Maneuvers when wearing armor.
Right? Did I miss anything there?
Check with your GM, and expect table variation in PFS.
I loath that answer. I know it is the best I will get but I hate having to deal with table variation. In home games it is a non-issue. I can just ask the GM and then adjust my character accordingly. Can't do that in PFS.
Anyway, your answer is what I expected. I guess worse case scenario if they did make the rule change they would probably let me sell the armor at full value or some such thing.
So, yeah... I am thinking +1 Light Armor with Brawler and Adhesive is going to be choice for this build.
Hm. Does a Maneuver Master Monk lose Flurry of Maneuvers when he wears armor?
I mean I don't care if I lose the small armor bonus as my character doesn't have a stellar Wisdom score to begin with. He doesn't get the class based bump yet and as I am only planning on 2 levels of Maneuver Master he would never get it short of getting a Monk's Robe anyway. I also don't care about losing the movement speed as I would never get that either with only 2 levels. I think I would be further ahead just wearing some +1 Light Armor with Brawler and Adhesive on it. ...unless I lose Flurry of Maneuvers.
I think it would work if you used the Anaconda Coils belt in conjunction with it as then you are using your unarmed strike to deliver the grapple combat maneuver, right?
Provided that IS how it works then it is making me rethink if I want to use armor despite the loss of Monkness. I have to go review what would be lost if I do so. +4 bonus for a +1 enhancement and a 7,000gp add on ability is pretty hard to turn down.
Sniggevert: Yeah. You can technically qualify by getting the Belt of Anaconda Coils as well if you don't mind being dependent upon an item to qualify for a feat.
Actually... thinking about that, I guess that would be one way to subvert this whole disagreement, right?
After getting that belt I would gain Grab and then use unarmed strikes to grapple. Right?
Mmmm, yeah. Ok. I can see that reading of it. They could have chose better wording, I guess.
What is the ability that lets you add Grab to your unarmed strike? I want it. I thought I had recalled something but the only thing I could find was Final Embrace ... but that has fairly steep restrictions that most would not qualify for.
Alright, so I found this in another thread: the Adhesive armor enhancement.
It doesn't have the same clause as Brawling armor enhancement does that says that it can only be applied to "light armor". So that makes it fair game for bracers of armor, does it not?
edit: Crap, it doesn't. Just caught the clause in bracers of armor about not being able to add flat gp bonuses. *sigh* ...nevermind.
Ok, I know that Gauss is going to say that this is just another exception but I found something else. Someone mentioned in the thread that Jiggy linked the Adhesive armor enhancement. I will quote the relevant part here:
This is not from a splat book. It is from Ultimate Equipment.Now does that not clearly state that you can use an unarmed strike to attempt a grapple combat maneuver? No splitting hairs here. It doesn't just imply it, it outright says it.
Am I wrong?
I decided while I was at it to look up the Brawling armor enhancement. Here is the relevant part:
That one isn't so direct. I can see taking that to mean two different things. The way I read it is "+2 bonus on unarmed attack and damage rolls and +2 bonus when you use an unarmed strike to make a grapple".
Now I already know that people are going to disagree with me on this and say that you can't use unarmed strike to make a grapple attempt. I would refer back to the Adhesive enhancement from the same book quoted above.
So what the hell?! Can you use an unarmed strike to make a grapple attempt or not? If you can, when you do so would you get to add bonuses from an AoMF then?
edit: I am thinking this may need a separate thread. Hm.
So I was reading the thread that Jiggy linked and came across a post that rings true with my perspective on the issue. Mydrrin I think said it better than I could have so rather than try I am just going to quote him here.
Chess Pwn: I think I must have looked past that spell dozens of times. Interesting.
Jiggy: Thanx for the info.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not going to sit and disagree with the Pathfinder Design Team. But I will state that their explanation is rather weak and the logic behind it doesn't hold up.
Also, I see you were the first to post in that thread. No "Firsties!"? ;)
Gauss: First of all, I'm not even the first person to bring up the Dan Bong. In any thread. Ever. Same with Dueling. Both were from Aydin D'Ampfer. I think they are good points to consider, though.
This is the crux of our disagreement, I believe. You think everything presented (an item description and a weapon enhancement) is an exception to a rule. You are basing your stance on a FAQ that only mentions "unarmed" in it once and doesn't really talk about what adds to CMB (the topic of this thread) and a FAQ that mentions some exceptions but doesn't seem completely inclusive and doesn't address this topic.
I know it is too much to expect for a completely inclusive answer as books continue to come out after existing rules are printed. However, this topic comes up frequently and I can understand where the confusion is from. Coming down on me for asking the question and inquiring about "exceptions" that others brought up isn't really helpful.
Bob Bob Bob: I disagree. ...with everything except your assessment of the +1 Dueling Amulet of Mighty Fists, anyway.
Bob Bob Bob: Hey, lemme take my try at bolding that same text.
Dirty Trick wrote:
Who do you think is making that stuff (the bolded bits) up? I'm pretty sure that is the player.
The GMs that I play with reward creative players and their descriptions. I'm betting you are that kind of person too. I think there is a big difference between a player saying, "I use Dirty trick to sicken him." and a player saying, "I use Dirty Trick to jump on his grundle and use my high heels to grind a bit." Don't you?
As I said, I don't want to turn this thread into a series of anecdotal stories and hypothetical scenarios. My point is that whether the GM is going to allow something to be delivered with an unarmed strike or not does not solely rest in the hands of the GM. That is different than him being the final arbiter. That is just restating rule 0. Of course he is. He always is. But what he bases his decision on is in the hands of the player.
Lune, I don't care if Dueling allows you to use a weapon for Dirty Trick or not. A magic item is NOT a general rule. You can argue it defines a general rule all you want but it doesn't.
I did not ever say that it is a general rule. Not sure where the aggression is coming from.
Taking a magic item effect out of a splatbook and saying that the main rule works a given way because of the magic item rule is not conducive to a rules discussion.
Once again, I didn't say that the magic item changed the general rule.
However, I would say that it is just as conducive to a rules discussion as pointing at a Dev blog that only talks about unarmed strikes and doesn't directly target this discussion isn't all that conducive either. The original question in this post is what adds to CMB and that blog doesn't even mention CMB once.
Until you understand that there is really no point in continuing this discussion with you.
I'm not twisting your damn arm to keep you here, Gauss. You got something better to do, go do it. Don't pretend like I should be honored for you to have graced my thread with your presence. You wanna be constructive? Groovy. Stay. You wanna attack points I didn't make? Well, I doubt this is the place for you.
Bob Bob Bob: Actually I do not think that leaves Dirty Trick solely in the realm of GM fiat. I think a lot of that Combat Maneuver rests in the hands of a creative player. I'm not going to give examples ad nauseum but I haven't had problems at table so far with giving convincing descriptions of Dirty Tricks that are done with my unarmed strikes. If the "weapon" is Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Unarmed Strike is basically your whole body then I think it is harder to come up with ones that AREN'T done with unarmed strikes.
But then, I anticipate this conversation going very anecdotal soon. So, I guess I'll just say that I do not think that it rests solely in the hands of a GM but heavily in the hands of a creative player as well.
I so totally just called that. Read my second paragraph in my last post, Gauss. You can only use the excuse that something is an "exception" to a rule so many times before that rule is no longer a rule.
I gave an exception and SKR mentioned exceptions in his post as well.
Anyway, you can tote your rule all you like. Since I was specifically talking about putting Dueling on an Amulet of Mighty Fists I think that breaks your rule right there. Am I wrong? Do I get to use unarmed strike on dirty trick now?
Gauss: I think that is untrue. I mean, I think you were right maybe at one time but something must have changed along the way. Look at the Dueling enhancement. That enhancement specifically states that it applies to Dirty Trick Combat Maneuvers. It says, "If you’re using the additional combat maneuvers in the Advanced Player’s Guide, this also includes any dirty trick maneuvers that utilize the weapon, as well as reposition combat maneuvers, but not drag or steal combat maneuvers." In fact, it goes so far as to say, "Note that this luck bonus stacks with the weapon’s enhancement bonus, which in and of itself adds to CMB checks normally." Now, I know from the conversation we have had that one can take "normally" to mean different things. But if the first bit of text is any indication then you CAN use weapon bonuses to Dirty Trick.
Now, I'm sure you will say that this is the one exception but I do not see it that way. If you wanted to get a bonus on your weapon that helped improve your CMB, which enhancement would you get? If you don't answer Dueling I call you a liar. ;) I think that means that this is less the exception and more enhancement that matters most.
It only goes up to a DC of 40 which gives 150gp. So yeah. Even if you are cheesing it up it doesn't amount to a lot. Still helps bring you above WBL, though.
Also, if you have a link to the cheesing thread, I would enjoy seeing it. It is hard to imagine how much you could invest in the skill if your investment isn't going to pay for itself over 12 levels. Still, I'm sure it would be an interesting read.
Gauss: I knew what you meant. You meant that it doesn't matter what kind of weapon they are as some Combat Maneuvers do not use weapons or the use of the weapon is incidental to the CMB modifiers.
I can dig on that. But it doesn't really make logical sense to me WHY that should be.
As an example: It is established that when using an unarmed strike or a weapon with the Trip ability. I suppose this makes sense as what else would you be tripping them with if you were unarmed? You would be using some part of your body to trip them, right?
...then why does this same logic not work for grapple? If you are unarmed what are you grappling with? I think any answer would be something that you can unarmed strike with.
Honestly, Dirty Trick makes even less sense than the above two for allowing unarmed strike bonuses to apply being that I can often see not using your body at all for completing that maneuver. Like throwing sand in someone's eyes, pulling their shirt over their head, etc. I could see it applying sometimes (stooges finger to the eyes routine, stomping on their foot, etc), though.
It really bothers the logical part of my brain. Even in SKR's Dev Blog he mentions, "Of course, the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers, such as when using a sap in a dirty trick maneuver to hit an opponent in a sensitive spot." I can see that for Dirty Trick. But for Grapple, I think his exceptions would be my rule. To me any time you are grappling you are using your body. And since when you have an AoMF or Magic Fang cast on you it enchants your whole body to me it seems that the enhancement bonus should apply.
I mean... right? Did my logic fail there somewhere? Should I just stop trying to apply logic to Pathfinder and shut up?
I am thoroughly in with BBT on this. In fact, I think I know exactly how this went:
The Story of What Really Happened with SLAs Qualifying for PrCs wrote:
And that, kids is how this guide was born. It's death was short and sweet. Upon the gravestone of Blurring the Lines for Arcanes and Divines - A Guide to the Mystic Theurge appears the following passage, "Nope. It turns out this is unbalanced. - JJ"
One thing I am having trouble deciding on is which item to use in which slot. I'm sure many a Monk player has had to decide on this before as well.
If I use an Amulet of Mighty Fists I cannot use an Amulet of Natural Armor.
For some things the choice is easy, for others not so much. Gloves of Dueling seem better than Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver mostly because GoD applies to both Trip and Dirty Trick while GotSM only applies to a single Combat Maneuver. Also the GoD give extra damage in a normal attack. I will still probably buy the GotSM first and replace them later with the GoD when I can afford it due to the difference in price.
For others I'm not sure which item pulls higher priority. Opinions?
Start with the assumption that the only combat maneuvers that can have ANY weapon applied to them are Disarm, Sunder, and Trip. Then all else will fall into place.
Well, you are correct there. The problem is that this is not spelled out in the rules anywhere and it should be. As a player, having to dig through Dev Blogs, FAQs, obscure weapons and obscure weapon enhancements to get to an answer seems like too much. This is especially true because I think this is a fairly common question.
I'm still not certain that we have arrived at the intended conclusion. I know you are certain of your viewpoint and I am not trying to debunk your theory. Even the part you are talking about with Unarmed Strikes being a weapon but not a Manufactured Weapon isn't completely true. They are counted as a Manufactured Weapon "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons". Which makes things like the above mentioned Dueling enhancement a bit confusing if applied to Improved Unarmed Strikes via an Amulet of Mighty Fists. From what I understand this does work but only for certain maneuvers according to your understanding?
Still pretty confused on how that would work if you instead enchanted a Dan Bong...
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Now, does unarmed strike have similar language?
Of course not. But while you are making the assumption that means that you cannot use it in a grapple, I am making the assumption that you can but you just do not get the +2 bonus that the weapon gives innately.
Gauss: Let me change the topic up a bit here.
For your 1 - Does that mean that if a Monk has an Amulet of Mighty Fists that the enhancement bonuses to that weapon (Unarmed Strike) can be used for the Combat Maneuvers that you mentioned?
C'mon, Gauss. It is like you are purposefully looking past what I wrote.
I am reading what you write and I can see your point. Please read my last post. Normally can mean a lot of different things. You can see in my last post that before the clarification made in the FAQ that only Trip weapons used to apply the enhancement bonuses to trip Combat Maneuvers. Now they are saying you get those bonuses with any weapon. That includes Unarmed Strike.
By that logic why would you not get the bonus to the Grapple Combat Maneuver as well?
Perhaps I missed the FAQ entry on Unarmed Strikes and grappling?
I did actually find this part which is interesting:
Does that not seem to indicate that you could do the same for grapple Combat Maneuvers?
Also, just reading the next entry in the FAQ it talks about Magic Fang affecting Unarmed Strike which is similar to question above about Greater Magic Weapon. In the FAQ it says, "Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body...". That leads me to question what part of your entire body are you using to perform a grapple Combat Maneuver? I am thinking that regardless of the answer that this clause means that it would get the bonus from Magic Fang if the above clause is true.
Is my logic flawed here?
NikolaiJuno: Oh. Oh, I see what you are saying. I read it a different way. I think you are right. So what you are saying is that you get your normal iterative attacks and then get your Flurry of Maneuvers after it?
Yeah, that does look right. I take it back, my mistake.
So that would make a Monk 8/Fight 4 have a Flurry BAB of +12 thus giving him 3 attacks at +10/+10/+5 with the second attack having to be a Combat Maneuver and either of the other two attacks being able to be a Combat Maneuver as well? But not both. And only if they can be done as an attack (like Trip, Disarm, Sunder or Quick Dirty Trick) rather than a standard action. Right?
Gauss: It is the "normally" bit that I am concerned with. I would rather not have to deal with GM fiat. I would rather it be explicitly stated one way or the other. Even the "normally" part isn't based on anything written in the rules for Combat Maneuvers. Its based on some text for an item (which is in DIRECT opposition from text of another item) and a Dev Blog that doesn't talk much about unarmed Combat Maneuvers.
Since you didn't answer it in my last post:
EvilTwinSkippy: Already aware of it but thanx for the tip. :) Unfortunately I do not own the book (and not going to buy it for just that trait) and this character is for PFS.
Wait...what? No, that doesn't look right at all.
For the moment, let us address simply Flurry of Blows: Did you read the second spoiler in my original post? It says:
The FAQ wrote:
That should make a Monk 2/Fighter 4 have a +6 BAB for Flurry of Blows giving him +4/+4/+1, correct?
Gauss: I did read the blog. It doesn't clear up much from an unarmed perspective.
Is it just your opinion that the Dan Bong is an exception rather than setting a precedent? Let me ask that a different way: how many exceptions does it take to make it a precedent rather than several exceptions?
I guess what I am getting at is that the only things saying that you cannot make grapple Combat Maneuvers are an item enhancement description and conjecture made from a developer's blog (he doesn't outright say that you aren't making grapple checks with your unarmed strike). It doesn't make a very strong case. It would be different if a Dev said outright that Unarmed Strikes are completely incapable of making grapple Combat Maneuvers.
As an example: Can you get the Dueling enhancement from Pathfinder Society Field Guide (which specifically states that it can not give it's bonus to your grapple checks) added to your Dan Bong (which specifically states it can be used in a grapple)?
Could you also add that same enhancement to an Amulet of Mighty Fists? If so... how would that work?
It is in the post right above your last post, but I'll put it here:
Earlier I wrote:
Gauss: Read the example of the Dan Bong linked above, please.
So, I guess my question is that if Dan Bong sets a precedent for weapons being usable in a grapple or if it is an exception to the rule?
I guess since I have always believed that you can complete Combat Maneuvers with Unarmed Strikes (what other game term is there for using your body to complete an attack?) that I believe that the Dan Bong is just a Manufactured Weapon that allows you to use it as part of the grapple Combat Maneuver. Just like while normally you would use an Unarmed Strike to complete a Trip you can use the Manufactured Weapon of a Scythe to make that Trip instead.