Hi guys
You always seems to come through with an answer for me, so here goes.
I've been reading allot about the Monk on this forum, and was wondering:
Equipping a Monk with brass knuckles means that he has a magic weapon he can enchant or just make masterwork and still do his amount of unarmed damage - which is really nice.
But does he need one or two brass knuckles (e.g. two weapons to enchant) or just the one? Or does brass knuckles count as a pair (e.g. one dual-weapon, so to speak)?
I'll end this post with a little math ;-)
One enchanted brass knuckles
+1 - 2.000 GP
+2 - 8.000 GP
+3 - 18.000 GPTwo enchanted brass knuckles
+1 - 4.000 GP
+2 - 16.000 GP
+3 - 36.000 GPWhich is the correct one?
Anyway it's still cheaper then buying an amulet of Mighty fist.
One is enough. The monk can make his flurry with any combinations of unarmed or monk weapons, so nothing stops him from taking all attacks with one.
You could have an extra for another special material, but it might be better to keep it free for shurikens.
BTW, it is cheaper than AoMF, but there is no reason not to buy both. Throw a couple of special abilities in the amulet, and you are good to go.
EDIT: Thinking about it, it will properly not work, as they are not unarmed, eventhough the damage is the same.
They aren't on the monk weapon list so you wouldn't be able to Flurry with them.
Pretty much they are a weapon for a non monk to be able to deal lethal damage from what I remember reading. Being proficient doesn't mean being a monk weapon.
They aren't on the monk weapon list so you wouldn't be able to Flurry with them.
Pretty much they are a weapon for a non monk to be able to deal lethal damage from what I remember reading. Being proficient doesn't mean being a monk weapon.
Actually they are specifically mentioned on the APG to be a Monk Weapon with which the Monk could Flurry AND use his Unarmed Damage progression (maybe you are thinking of Gauntlets, which are non-Monk weapons with which the Monk is not proficient).
To the OP: just as HaraldKlak said, you need only one single Brass Knuckle to Flurry with. Moreover, if you enchant it to become a +3 weapon (later on, a +4 weapon) you would not need another one for bypassing DR, since a +3 weapon bypasses both DR X/Cold Iron and DR X/Silver (and as a +4 weapon, also DR X/Adamantine).
If you want to use Stunning Fist and Quivering Plam through your Breass Knuckle, though, you would need the Ki Focus Special Ability (+1 equivalent - see the Magic Weapon Special Ability Descriptions).
They aren't on the monk weapon list so you wouldn't be able to Flurry with them.
Pretty much they are a weapon for a non monk to be able to deal lethal damage from what I remember reading. Being proficient doesn't mean being a monk weapon.
Sure they are.
Being proficient with them does not make it a monk weapon, but having the special quality ' Monk' surely does so... ;-)
While they are not listed the core book under the flurry, it is pretty much a result that they were invented after that book came out. But they are clearly stated to be a monk weapon (which are the requirement for a flurry), other than that they goes to lenght to explain that it monks are proficient AND uses their increased unarmed damage.
I read the description, it wasn't there o.O
Here's to word count and multiple places to check for rules...
I have to disagree with you Sky.
BrassKnuckles are special for Monk and they can use them with Flurry of Blows and do their normal unarmed damage with them (1d6 from first level)
This is in the APG. Currently, I don´t have it with me in work place, but I can swear 100% that this is the case. You might even try from d20pfrpg site
@Mikaze Actually, now that you said it, IT IS really odd -> All the other classes have one or two weapon with masterwork quality-> they ALWAYS use this weapons, so they get that +1 to hit.
What about monk? Unarmed Strike with masterwork Brass Knuckles -> +1 to hit. But if we think about it only by using your arms, what about the other body parts? Knees, Feets, Headbutts, Elbows, Fingers (not necesarily with fist). They would be all the time suffering the non +1 to hit rate. That is really unfair I would say
That would mean-> Monk has to buy "variant" masterwork Brass Knuckle to all body parts-> 2 feet, 2 knees, 2 elbow, 2 hands, 1 head? thats already 9 different... item for monk-> in price: 9x150= 1350 gp.... yap yap
|
@Mikaze Actually, now that you said it, IT IS really odd -> All the other classes have one or two weapon with masterwork quality-> they ALWAYS use this weapons, so they get that +1 to hit.
What about monk? Unarmed Strike with masterwork Brass Knuckles -> +1 to hit. But if we think about it only by using your arms, what about the other body parts? Knees, Feets, Headbutts, Elbows, Fingers (not necesarily with fist). They would be all the time suffering the non +1 to hit rate. That is really unfair I would say
That would mean-> Monk has to buy "variant" masterwork Brass Knuckle to all body parts-> 2 feet, 2 knees, 2 elbow, 2 hands, 1 head? thats already 9 different... item for monk-> in price: 9x150= 1350 gp.... yap yap
Yeah, srsly. :( Personally, if a monk has to go the enchanted brass knuckle route, I would just let the player say that the magic from the knuckles courses through their entire body.
Ideally though, I'd much rather the monk were able to permanently "enchant" himself through martial/mystical training so that when they go "MY FISTS THEY ARE MADE OF STEEL" they're not dependent on gear for it to be true.
From a purely mechanical standpoint there's no reason not to allow them to "use any body part" even with just one brass knuckle.
it would only be iffy if they got tied up somehow or were climbing or some other activity with both hands occupied.. but that'd be rare enough I would think that you could just make the adjustment on the fly.
I mean- really- the knuckles are what should have been included instead of that Amulet crap anyway :)
-S
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
1) Equipping a Monk with brass knuckles means that he has a magic weapon he can enchant or just make masterwork and still do his amount of unarmed damage - which is really nice.
2) But does he need one or two brass knuckles (e.g. two weapons to enchant) or just the one? Or does brass knuckles count as a pair (e.g. one dual-weapon, so to speak)?
1) Yes, but you lose things that Apply to Unarmed Strikes (like for example Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike) and feats/abilities like Belier's Bite. The Brass Knuckles deal your unarmed strike damage (20th monk 2d10) but are not Unarmed Strikes.
2) Ask your DM. I think the rules suggest strongly that only one weapon is needed and you can Flurry with one weapon taking all your flurry attacks but there is a small group that believe that is because you have a near infinite amount of Unarmed Strike body parts therefore a lot of "unarmed strike" weapons. If you used a single Kama you could not flurry with just the Kama.)
|
1) Equipping a Monk with brass knuckles means that he has a magic weapon he can enchant or just make masterwork and still do his amount of unarmed damage - which is really nice.
2) But does he need one or two brass knuckles (e.g. two weapons to enchant) or just the one? Or does brass knuckles count as a pair (e.g. one dual-weapon, so to speak)?
1) Yes, but you lose things that Apply to Unarmed Strikes (like for example Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike) and feats/abilities like Belier's Bite. The Brass Knuckles deal your unarmed strike damage (20th monk 2d10) but are not Unarmed Strikes.
2) Ask your DM. I think the rules suggest strongly that only one weapon is needed and you can Flurry with one weapon taking all your flurry attacks but there is a small group that believe that is because you have a near infinite amount of Unarmed Strike body parts therefore a lot of "unarmed strike" weapons. If you used a single Kama you could not flurry with just the Kama.)
1) I disagree - the brass knuckles just change damage type from non-lethal to lethal but the attack itself comes from unarmed strike so I would rule this could still use any feats that use unarmed strike & you get to enchant it for that attack instead of using AoMF.
2) I would rule that the hand (assuming using just 1 of these) gets the bonuses it is enchanted with but not the other hand. So while there is no rule saying you cant make a flurry with just one hand (picture Bruce Lee doing multiple quick strikes with one hand) and you could apply the dame bonuses from the BK's you could not make stikres with the other hand and gain bonuses - the only time this might come up though is if the hand with the BK equipped is somehow tied up or pinned etc in which case the monk would have to use the other non equipped hand or his feet so no bonuses
3) monks can be permanently enchanted using magic fang or greater version and permanacy (I know higher level stuff)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
the brass knuckles just change damage type from non-lethal to lethal but the attack itself comes from unarmed strike so I would rule this could still use any feats that use unarmed strike & you get to enchant it for that attack instead of using AoMF.
There are a few people that share your opinion and just as many (if not more) that share mine.
I think the APG p176 line makes it clear you are not using Unarmed Strike weapon when attacking with a Brass Knuckle, you just happen to deal the same damage dice as your Unarmed Strike weapon deals.
"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."
This is one of the big problems with 3.5 Monks they didn't entirely button up. There really needs to be a FAQ addressing this, because I've just read 3 different threads about this today. And pretty much every week this comes up. I'd wager this is the most commonly asked (debated) disagreement on the forums. But that might just be because I've seen it in three threads just now (like I do most weeks.)
On the other side:
"Benefit: Brass knuckles allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. "
So considering them only a modification of actual unarmed attack and thus benefit from feats and abilities improving unarmed attack would be sensible.
The part I don't actually get is everyone's insistance that monks should be "non-equipment dependent" -- can anyone actually explain why that should be to me?
Martial Artist archetype. The one who is living weapon regardless of the circumstances and look goods and kicks bottom parts of his enemies while wearing nothing but white, black or red pyjamas. Sandals/socks optional.
Martial Artist archetype. The one who is living weapon regardless of the circumstances and look goods and kicks bottom parts of his enemies while wearing nothing but white, black or red pyjamas. Sandals/socks optional.
So basically bad cinema? That's all we got for everyone thinking "Oh I'm a monk I must forsake all physical possessions and be all mystical and crap."
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"Benefit: Brass knuckles allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. "
At best you have shown there is slight inconsistency with the rules.
As my point wasn't crystal clear, let me try again.
Neither position is proven, but I think the two things saying they are not Unarmed Strikes (they are listed as a weapon and they refer to using themselves as a weapon) vs your side (the one line saying unarmed strikes you quoted which is probably to assert that people without IUS can still deal lethal damage.)
Either way, you can't prove your interpretation is correct and evidently neither can I. So there is nothing to be done but to say:
There are two interpretations and one must ask their DM which one he/she subscribes.
|
|
The part I don't actually get is everyone's insistance that monks should be "non-equipment dependent" -- can anyone actually explain why that should be to me?
It wrecks the feel of what a lot of people who want to play monks are shooting for. Training one's self and one's body into a weapon and all that.
It's doubly frustrating when magical items become absolutely necessary for the monk to catch up with everyone else in the areas he's supposed to rock.
Thricely frustrating that Mr. Lethal Weapon still doesn't get a full BAB progression...
The part I don't actually get is everyone's insistance that monks should be "non-equipment dependent" -- can anyone actually explain why that should be to me?It wrecks the feel of what a lot of people who want to play monks are shooting for. Training one's self and one's body into a weapon and all that.
It's doubly frustrating when magical items become absolutely necessary for the monk to catch up with everyone else in the areas he's supposed to rock.
Thricely frustrating that Mr. Lethal Weapon still doesn't get a full BAB progression...
But most of the people that trained in martial arts did so for when they didn't have a weapon -- having a weapon was still consider superior and a better choice. Heck Northern eagle style for example used unarmed techniques to get a weapon back (while breaking you of course).
Also the emperor, bureacrats and the like were all supposed to be trained in these techniques -- much like people go to school for a college degree.
Nothing about the martial arts suggests "I'm going to go out and be a lethal weapon without armor or weapons and never need anything at all."
The guardian stance for example would have a sword in the upper hand (back hand) and a shield on the lower arm (front) -- the whole thing translates into weapon forms just as well as unarmed...
|
|
The part I don't actually get is everyone's insistance that monks should be "non-equipment dependent" -- can anyone actually explain why that should be to me?It wrecks the feel of what a lot of people who want to play monks are shooting for. Training one's self and one's body into a weapon and all that.
It's doubly frustrating when magical items become absolutely necessary for the monk to catch up with everyone else in the areas he's supposed to rock.
Thricely frustrating that Mr. Lethal Weapon still doesn't get a full BAB progression...
But most of the people that trained in martial arts did so for when they didn't have a weapon -- having a weapon was still consider superior and a better choice. Heck Northern eagle style for example used unarmed techniques to get a weapon back (while breaking you of course).
Also the emperor, bureacrats and the like were all supposed to be trained in these techniques -- much like people go to school for a college degree.
Nothing about the martial arts suggests "I'm going to go out and be a lethal weapon without armor or weapons and never need anything at all."
The guardian stance for example would have a sword in the upper hand (back hand) and a shield on the lower arm (front) -- the whole thing translates into weapon forms just as well as unarmed...
Most people aren't shooting for historical accuracy dude. It's the romantic vision of those archetypes. Same thing for many other classes, really. Such is also the appeal of the bare-handed fighter holding his own against weapon-users.
or
"We eat what we like!"
Most people aren't shooting for historical accuracy dude. It's the romantic vision of those archetypes. Same thing for many other classes, really. Such is also the appeal of the bare-handed fighter holding his own against weapon-users.
or
"We eat what we like!"
So why can't the guy be all "I'm better than you, and because of that I want stuffs" -- always with the "Don't need nothing" stuff.
I'm just saying it's boring is all -- one of those Drizzt's clones things -- "Oh look it's another zen monk that doesn't want to have to rely on stuffs... looks just like the last one I saw."
I get that historically accurate isn't always what is wanted -- I don't get complaining because gear is good.
It's like saying "I want a wizard that doesn't use items" or "I want a fighter that doesn't use items" or "I want a (x) that doesn't use items"... ok so build one -- talk to the GM about a low magic game or something sheesh just quit complaining the class doesn't do what it's supposed to do when it does do what it's supposed to do.
|
|
Most people aren't shooting for historical accuracy dude. It's the romantic vision of those archetypes. Same thing for many other classes, really. Such is also the appeal of the bare-handed fighter holding his own against weapon-users.
or
"We eat what we like!"
So why can't the guy be all "I'm better than you, and because of that I want stuffs" -- always with the "Don't need nothing" stuff.
I'm just saying it's boring is all -- one of those Drizzt's clones things -- "Oh look it's another zen monk that doesn't want to have to rely on stuffs... looks just like the last one I saw."
I get that historically accurate isn't always what is wanted -- I don't get complaining because gear is good.
It's like saying "I want a wizard that doesn't use items" or "I want a fighter that doesn't use items" or "I want a (x) that doesn't use items"... ok so build one -- talk to the GM about a low magic game or something sheesh just quit complaining the class doesn't do what it's supposed to do when it does do what it's supposed to do.
Sorry for wanting to play an effective bare-handed monk, I guess?
Sorry for wanting to play an effective bare-handed monk, I guess?
That's not what I'm saying -- but it's alright I forgive you ;D
You already can play an effective bare-handed monk. It comes with costs just like playing a monk using brass knuckles comes with a cost (i.e. you aren't bare handed) -- the cost in the first case is the need for either permanent greater magical fang or an amulet of the mighty fist.
My over arching compliant would really be with the people that want to play a monk that owns "nothing at all" including things like bracers of armor. I can get the thought but it's not in the base assumptions of the game -- a sidenote or variant that provides this at other costs? Maybe but it shouldn't be a "core" thing.