What's the change to brass knuckles anyways?
|
What's the change to brass knuckles anyways?
I'm not sure. Monks might not be able to deal their unarmed damage with them.
Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.
Brass Knuckles: These weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles.
So, instead of changing the wording to that of the APG, they made it even more different.
Is there a list that gives the updated changes (without having to purchase the PDF)? Not looking for anything in detail, just would like to know what was errated, or at least an idea how much was updated.
The errata is avaliable on the product's page for free:
Oh, of course. I was thinking I had to purchase the PDF. Silly me.
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the change to brass knuckles anyways?I'm not sure. Monks might not be able to deal their unarmed damage with them.
Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.Brass Knuckles: These weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles.So, instead of changing the wording to that of the APG, they made it even more different.
In fairness, they're not that dissimiliar. I've compared the two texts you've quoted, and the only difference that I see is that they've left off that little bit at the end where it reinforces that monks can inflict unarmed damage when fighting with them.
However, that is an unnecessary clause, because the item description already says you can do lethal unarmed damage, regardless of whether you're a monk or not.
There's also that bit at the beginning about being close combat weapons, and that's a bit of common sense too. I guess you could hurl the brass knuckles at somebody, but that is a pretty cringe-worthy maneuver.
I did not work on this book, and I wouldn't presume to second guess the editors, but these texts look identical to me except that they're trimming the unnecessary word count.
And word count is no joke my friend. If they trim just 8 to 10 word off every paragraph, even in a small book they'll fit more spells, more feats, and add extra explanation to sections that really need them.
EDIT: That's just an RPG Superstar lesson I remembered from a certain Editor. "Don't re-explain the rules, Jim (with exceptions like the 'Normal' line in a Feat."
And I am absolutely not meaning to come across as snarky. I'm just saying, that because everyone can use brass knuckles to do deadly unarmed damage, should not mean that monks abruptly stop doing unarmed damage with them.
Hope that makes sense!
The APG version of brass knuckles is based on pre-errata AA brass knuckles (and yet is different from that, too, because the errata discussion took place after the APG went to print). Jason and I are discussing what to with the APG in regard to the updated version of AA.
Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.
Brass Knuckles: These weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles.
In fairness, they're not that dissimiliar. I've compared the two texts you've quoted, and the only difference that I see is that they've left off that little bit at the end where it reinforces that monks can inflict unarmed damage when fighting with them.
However, that is an unnecessary clause, because the item description already says you can do lethal unarmed damage, regardless of whether you're a monk or not.
Unfortunately the Adventurers Armory version only states that the weapon does leathal damage (which makes little sense, all weapons do leathal damage). It says nothing regarding unarmed attacks. That little bit at the end of the original weapon was the only rules anyone was interested in in the first place!
Unfortunately the Adventurers Armory version only states that the weapon does leathal damage (which makes little sense, all weapons do leathal damage).
sap
whipbolas
and so on.
Unfortunately the Adventurers Armory version only states that the weapon does leathal damage (which makes little sense, all weapons do leathal damage).sap
whip
bolasand so on.
Sap, Whip and Bolas all state that they are nonlethal weapons in their description (specifically under the special column of table 6-4). All weapons do lethal damage unless they have this quality. The description of Brass knuckles shouldn't need to point out they do lethal damage, unless they are not a weapon.
1) Sometimes the rules make redundant statements to prevent questions about ambiguity later.
2) I'm just pointing out that your statement "all weapons do lethal damage" isn't actually true.
Look at the category brass knuckles fall under. They're listed as "unarmed strike", rather than, say, "light". Much like the gauntlet, this implies that they deal normal unarmed strike damage, except as modified by the weapon's properties.
Actually, the AA update moves them and all other "unarmed" weapons out of that category entirely, making them light weapons. If you're armed with a weapon, you're not unarmed. :p
I for one don't think that monks needed that nerf.
SKR can you tell us why did you re-re-change the brass knuckles?
I for one don't think that monks needed that nerf.
SKR can you tell us why did you re-re-change the brass knuckles?
It's been said a bunch of times. If you're armed, you're not unarmed.
If you make an exception it creates a logistical nightmare.
Sucks for all those monk builds that dependeded on the exception, but it really is better overall from a rules sanity standpoint.
I for one don't think that monks needed that nerf.
SKR can you tell us why did you re-re-change the brass knuckles?It's been said a bunch of times. If you're armed, you're not unarmed.
If you make an exception it creates a logistical nightmare.
Sucks for all those monk builds that dependeded on the exception, but it really is better overall from a rules sanity standpoint.
Yes i can understand that but it ruins those monks who want to have a normal cost weapon (like any other character) but not give up one of the said big advantages of the class, now (unless the UC's urumi is different) we will be seeing nearly every melee monk being a temple sword user.
It's been said a bunch of times. If you're armed, you're not unarmed.If you make an exception it creates a logistical nightmare.
Sucks for all those monk builds that dependeded on the exception, but it really is better overall from a rules sanity standpoint.
What logistical nightmare? It enabled monks to still fight with their fists but not have to bankrupt themselves.
That isn't a 'logistical nightmare', that's 'monks use brass knuckles, no one else cares about them'.
|
The APG version of brass knuckles is based on pre-errata AA brass knuckles (and yet is different from that, too, because the errata discussion took place after the APG went to print). Jason and I are discussing what to with the APG in regard to the updated version of AA.
Might I suggest this be a long discussion, as this change is a bit ridiculous considering the lack of enhancement options for monks primary combats method relative to other classes.
The increased damage of unarmed isn't so great when you factor in the limited number of damage reduction opportunities.
At the very least, some sort of "wrap" option needs to be in play, because the amulet of mighty fists is woefully insufficient.
The APG version of brass knuckles is based on pre-errata AA brass knuckles (and yet is different from that, too, because the errata discussion took place after the APG went to print). Jason and I are discussing what to with the APG in regard to the updated version of AA.Might I suggest this be a long discussion, as this change is a bit ridiculous considering the lack of enhancement options for monks primary combats method relative to other classes.
The increased damage of unarmed isn't so great when you factor in the limited number of damage reduction opportunities.
At the very least, some sort of "wrap" option needs to be in play, because the amulet of mighty fists is woefully insufficient.
I guess we have to go back to two hand weilding (for the power attack) temple swords. 1d8 19-20/x2 and -1 for +3 power attack and normal weapon enchantement sounds quite good to big unarmed damage die and insanely cost for enchantement (amulet of mighty fists).
The thing is now there is no way to make a DEX-based monk with a somewhat good damage potential. Before we could use brass knuckles (meaning we keep the good damage die but also get normal enchentement cost) and a light weapon to use piranha strike, but now if one wanted to do that must stick to a 1d6 x2 (one a monk's unarmed strike overcomes at 4th level).
|
At the very least, some sort of "wrap" option needs to be in play, because the amulet of mighty fists is woefully insufficient.
This would actually fit the flavor for more monks than brass knuckles anyway. That or some method for monks to enhance their unarmed strike through rituals whose cost would match up better with everyone else's expenses.
The only problem is getting it into the actual rules for players in PFS or players with by-the-book GMs.
This would actually fit the flavor for more monks than brass knuckles anyway.
I dunno, whenever I mentally picture the iconic martial artists of the 20th century, I think "brass knuckles."
|
|
This would actually fit the flavor for more monks than brass knuckles anyway.I dunno, whenever I mentally picture the iconic martial artists of the 20th century, I think "brass knuckles."
Do most monk players think of that though, or do they think of Bruce Lee, Ryu and Ken, Pai Mei, Kenshiro and so on?
Some of us would like options to play closer to that barehander flavor.
This would actually fit the flavor for more monks than brass knuckles anyway.I dunno, whenever I mentally picture the iconic martial artists of the 20th century, I think "brass knuckles."Do most monk players think of that though, or do they think of Bruce Lee, Ryu and Ken, Pai Mei, Kenshiro and so on?
Some of us would like options to play closer to that barehander flavor.
Look at the link and decide if you think I'm kidding. :)
|
|
Look at the link and decide if you think I'm kidding. :)This would actually fit the flavor for more monks than brass knuckles anyway.I dunno, whenever I mentally picture the iconic martial artists of the 20th century, I think "brass knuckles."Do most monk players think of that though, or do they think of Bruce Lee, Ryu and Ken, Pai Mei, Kenshiro and so on?
Some of us would like options to play closer to that barehander flavor.
Blocked at work. :(
Sorry if I keep coming across strong here and elsewhere, it's just...gah. No Good qinggong powers, no healthy alternatives to AoMF, no more base to reflavor into handwraps and finding out that everything I hoped would be in UC wasn't in it, save one which turned out to be the Flowing Monk...
Are there any more player option books on the horizen where any of this would have a chance of showing up?
|
|
Come on, scorching ray is an AWESOME quiggong monk ability.
Pick up quicken SLA at 10th level, and move to the groove.
"Good" good. :)
We got two evil ones, one of which was the most "Hadoken" out of all the powers but for some reason it was tagged as [Evil], and we didn't get any [Good] ones at all.
|
|
This would actually fit the flavor for more monks than brass knuckles anyway.I dunno, whenever I mentally picture the iconic martial artists of the 20th century, I think "brass knuckles."
I don't disagree with you that brass knuckles are a clunky option. I have no real issue with saying that isn't the way to go.
But at this point, the monk can't enhance their unarmed attacks except through an amulet that has a cap and takes a slot or from spells he himself has no direct access to.
I even understand why it costs twice as much, since it is all attacks, but the cap and the slot make it an unreasonable solution that will always leave monks significantly behind with regards to attack bonus and damage, two areas that were already problematic for the class.
The iconic martial artists of the 20th century aren't all wielding temple swords either, and at this point it is the most viable option for a class that seemed to be intended to be built for unarmed combat.
But at this point, the monk can't enhance their unarmed attacks except through an amulet that has a cap and takes a slot or from spells he himself has no direct access to.
I even understand why it costs twice as much, since it is all attacks, but the cap and the slot make it an unreasonable solution that will always leave monks significantly behind with regards to attack bonus and damage, two areas that were already problematic for the class.
I'm not saying the monk and the AMF couldn't benefit from some redesign. I'm just saying (1) the place to do so isn't in a supplemental book like AA, UM, or UC--the place to fix it is the Core Rulebook, and that doing so is (2) not my call.
|
|
I'm not saying the monk and the AMF couldn't benefit from some redesign. I'm just saying (1) the place to do so isn't in a supplemental book like AA, UM, or UC--the place to fix it is the Core Rulebook, and that doing so is (2) not my call.But at this point, the monk can't enhance their unarmed attacks except through an amulet that has a cap and takes a slot or from spells he himself has no direct access to.
I even understand why it costs twice as much, since it is all attacks, but the cap and the slot make it an unreasonable solution that will always leave monks significantly behind with regards to attack bonus and damage, two areas that were already problematic for the class.
I understand, but if it can't be addressed in those books, how can it be addressed until a new edition comes out.
It seems reasonable that a monk should have some way of adding enhancements to unarmed attacks that doesn't take a slot and has an unreasonable enhancement cap.
Something like a monk ability or even an monk "crafting" feat that would allow a monk (and a monk only) through some ritual mediation involving expensive components, to add enhancements to his body similar to weapon crafting without taking up a slot or having a cap as Amulet of Mighty fist currently has.
I appreciate I may be preaching to the choir at this point, but I feel like the answer we are hearing leads to no changes being available until a new edition, and I for one hope that is still some time off.
Basically, there's a difference between a redesign and a patch. And I'm not sure if it's better to try applying a bunch of patches, or if it's better to wait until you can redesign it.
|
|
Basically, there's a difference between a redesign and a patch. And I'm not sure if it's better to try applying a bunch of patches, or if it's better to wait until you can redesign it.
I may be in the minority, but I don't see the current general design of the monk as broken to a point where a patch wouldn't fix the problem.
As I see it, the general complaint of the class comes from two things.
A) They can't hit effectively.
This is due to two factors,
1) They are, generally, a 3/4 bab class.
2) They can't add enhancements to unarmed attacks in the same way other classes can add enhancements to weapons to allow them to hit more often.
B) They can't get past DR
This is largely due to the fact that they can't add enhancements to unarmed attack in the same way other classes can to bypass damage reduction.
Both of these can be fixed by a viable way to enhance a monks unarmed attack. If this damage stacking with the monks increased unarmed damage is the issue, simply have an archetype that it replaces it with the ability to enhance these things instead.
I don't think a full overhaul is needed. Most of us were content mechanically with the brass knuckles. Yes it was problematic from a fluff perspective, but it resolved the majority of the above issues.
As it stands, the temple sword is a fluff problematic patch that makes unarmed combat largely sub-optimal for the class.
Which is to me much more of a problem than the brass knuckles issue.
The current monk is successful conceptually with the only issue seeming to be his inability to add bonuses others get naturally.
On the armor side of the equation, this is addressed with the bracers of armor.
On the weapon side, the amulet of mighty fists doesn't cut it for two correctable reasons.
1. It takes one of the most valuable slots on the body.
2. It caps at +5.
Both of these limitations are absolutely needed when you consider monster interactions, but there is no reason some of these features, without the limitations couldn't be incorporated into another monk specific item or ability.
With Qinggong we even have a mechanism to introduce a crafting like feature into the class as a power.
I respectfully disagree that the class needs a full redesign to address the issue.
But I'll drop it going forward, since a back and forth isn't productive once we've each stated our positions.
|
|
Basically, there's a difference between a redesign and a patch. And I'm not sure if it's better to try applying a bunch of patches, or if it's better to wait until you can redesign it.
I was eagerly awaiting a patch in Ultimate Combat, especially one that plays to the flavor of the monk more than AoMF, like the above-mentioned self-enhancement rituals/crafting.
|
Honestly, the easiest fix would be to allow a monk to enchant a particular unarmed attack type as a magical weapon. Per the CRB, the unarmed strike is made with "fist, elbows, knees, and feet".
The monk may gain a weapon benefit in that he can't have his weapon taken away and stored in a closet *not without a lot of mess anyhow* but he can have that limb tied behind him so he can't use it. Just like you can't make a wizard forget his spells, but you can gag him and tie his hands up.
Heck, an ability like:
Masterful Fist: At 3rd level, the monk treats his unarmed strikes as masterwork weapons. He may have his unarmed strikes enchanted as weapons, though each attack type (fist, elbows, knees, and feet) are enchanted separately. When wielding a weapon, these enchantments stop functioning. They remain inactive until the monk is no longer wielding a weapon.
|
|
That goes back to one of the problems with brass knuckles though: It reduces a full-contact warrior whose entire body is a weapon to using a single attack over and over rather than being a dynamic whirlwind of fists, feet, elbows, etc. And trying to enchant every part of their body that they would like to use in a fight is going to break the monk's wallet even faster than AoMF.
Unarmed Strike is really a single abstracted weapon anyway. A monk with four arms isn't getting more out of it than a monk with one arm, or no arms.
Allowing a monk to enhance his own unarmed strike as a whole is sound though, especially if the monk has the option to do it himself. Just give the process a fair cost.
If it needs a weakness, let it be temporarily suppressable by dispels and such, or require that the monk needs at least X ki points to use the enhancements.
Absolutely agreed on such a thing not working when the monk is holding a weapon though and especially on the "counts as a masterwork weapon" idea. A monk's body should be a masterwork weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now...wait a minute.
I'm looking at the Weapons table in the Core Rulebook, and right there at the top, I'm seeing "Unarmed Strike" as a weapon with no cost, weight, or range increment, that deals 1d3 (20/x2) Bludgeoning and has the "nonlethal" special quality. I don't mean to imply that you can *buy* an unarmed strike. But Ultimate Magic brings us the spell "Masterwork Transformation"
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/masterwork-transformation
And then, later, we have rules on enchanting weapons, some of which are in the feat section, some in the skill section, and some in the Magic Item section...
I'm pretty sure you can give your monk a masterwork unarmed strike, and then enchant it, RAI be damned.
EDIT: Nail in the coffin
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
I believe that settles it, no? As of Ultimate Magic's Masterwork Transformation, Monks have had an ability to enhance their unarmed strike at comparable cost to other classes. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying the monk and the AMF couldn't benefit from some redesign. I'm just saying (1) the place to do so isn't in a supplemental book like AA, UM, or UC--the place to fix it is the Core Rulebook, and that doing so is (2) not my call.But at this point, the monk can't enhance their unarmed attacks except through an amulet that has a cap and takes a slot or from spells he himself has no direct access to.
I even understand why it costs twice as much, since it is all attacks, but the cap and the slot make it an unreasonable solution that will always leave monks significantly behind with regards to attack bonus and damage, two areas that were already problematic for the class.
Three points as to that:
1.) The way you make it sound is as if that will not happen until Pathfinder Second Edition.
2.) If there is any chance of that happening, but it is not your call, can we then get the opinion of Jason on that topic? I mean, by this point you guys at the Paizo office must have noticed that this is something which will not go away by simply ignoring it, but can we as anxious players get an update if there is a discussion at Paizo about fixing this?
3.) Why can't this be solved by simply introducing a Monk specific magic item ( "Handwraps of Power" or somesuch ), which give only the weapon category "Unarmed Strike" the normal weapon enchantment possibilities at normal pricing ( ignoring the whole "it's not masterwork" issue ), while specifically excluding natural attacks? This sounds like the single best solution to the dilemma for me, so that the whole class doesn't have to be re-designed.
I'm not saying the monk and the AMF couldn't benefit from some redesign. I'm just saying (1) the place to do so isn't in a supplemental book like AA, UM, or UC--the place to fix it is the Core Rulebook, and that doing so is (2) not my call.But at this point, the monk can't enhance their unarmed attacks except through an amulet that has a cap and takes a slot or from spells he himself has no direct access to.
I even understand why it costs twice as much, since it is all attacks, but the cap and the slot make it an unreasonable solution that will always leave monks significantly behind with regards to attack bonus and damage, two areas that were already problematic for the class.Three points as to that:
1.) The way you make it sound is as if that will not happen until Pathfinder Second Edition.
2.) If there is any chance of that happening, but it is not your call, can we then get the opinion of Jason on that topic? I mean, by this point you guys at the Paizo office must have noticed that this is something which will not go away by simply ignoring it, but can we as anxious players get an update if there is a discussion at Paizo about fixing this?
3.) Why can't this be solved by simply introducing a Monk specific magic item ( "Handwraps of Power" or somesuch ), which give only the weapon category "Unarmed Strike" the normal weapon enchantment possibilities at normal pricing ( ignoring the whole "it's not masterwork" issue ), while specifically excluding natural attacks? This sounds like the single best solution to the dilemma for me, so that the whole class doesn't have to be re-designed.
*ahem* *Cough cough*
My post. Read it.
*ahem* *Cough cough*
My post. Read it.
Your post is speculation at this point.
|
|
Now...wait a minute.
I'm looking at the Weapons table in the Core Rulebook, and right there at the top, I'm seeing "Unarmed Strike" as a weapon with no cost, weight, or range increment, that deals 1d3 (20/x2) Bludgeoning and has the "nonlethal" special quality. I don't mean to imply that you can *buy* an unarmed strike. But Ultimate Magic brings us the spell "Masterwork Transformation"
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/masterwork-transformation
And then, later, we have rules on enchanting weapons, some of which are in the feat section, some in the skill section, and some in the Magic Item section...
I'm pretty sure you can give your monk a masterwork unarmed strike, and then enchant it, RAI be damned.
EDIT: Nail in the coffin
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.I believe that settles it, no? As of Ultimate Magic's Masterwork Transformation, Monks have had an ability to enhance their unarmed strike at comparable cost to other classes. XD
It's a bit too Ravingdorksian for comfort, a lot like his fix for the UM Vow of Poverty. It would be a pleasant surprise to see this confirmed by the designers as actually possible though.
The thing that irks me about it is it requires a monk, whose entire schtick is training himself towards self perfection, has to seek out a caster to make himself masterwork, which a monk's body should already be by virtue of being a bloody monk.
But if there's a way for the monk to access that spell effect himself or through some other means that doesn't require going through a caster, no matter how obscure, I'd be happy to use it.
How is it speculation? If his unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon for the effects of spells, then it can be affected by masterwork transformation. Pretty clear cut. I'll allow a slight degree of uncertainty there, since Masterwork Transformation didn't exist in core, so this may have slipped by. However, failing that, Greater Magic Fang costs 7,500 to affect with Permanency. GMF was in core, and is a spell that affects natural weapons. As such, GMF affects the monk's unarmed strike. That much leaves no room for uncertainty. After all, why would the Unarmed Strike text for the monk even SAY that if not for effects like GMF to be applicable?
And @Mikaze. If MW transformation is too iffy, certainly GMF isn't. That much is plain and simple.
First off, I think the monk's body-weapon is accounted for, as he considers his attacks lethal, AND counts them as manufactured weapons as well as natural weapons. No, they don't count as masterwork manufactured weapons, but y'know.
Furthermore, why does it bother you that you need casters for things? I mean, every class needs their magic gear (AC enhancers, Stat-boosters, +5 weapon, and so forth.) And as a fighter, without master craftsman, I have to get that gear from *somewhere.* Even if I just chance across it, *somebody,* presumably a wizard, made my "big six" for me, even though my whole shtick is training myself at the "perfect" use of certain specific styles of combat, so I don't see that big a difference. Like it or don't, every class has to work with casters at some point, unless the adventure(s) they go on are specifically designed around the absence of casters. To be fair, I'm not a FAN of dependence on casters. I'd LOVE a self-sufficient, totally mundane fighter, but that's just not how the system goes.
Also, I get if this "feels" cheesy, or if it's seen a bit of a stretch. But it definitely follows RAW, and I don't doubt it could be RAI. Take it or leave it, but I learned not to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Finally, I get that GMF isn't the end-all-be-all solution, since it caps out at +5, and doesn't get there until 20th, but if you don't like MW transformation, it's better than nothing, am I right?
Now...wait a minute.
I'm looking at the Weapons table in the Core Rulebook, and right there at the top, I'm seeing "Unarmed Strike" as a weapon with no cost, weight, or range increment, that deals 1d3 (20/x2) Bludgeoning and has the "nonlethal" special quality. I don't mean to imply that you can *buy* an unarmed strike. But Ultimate Magic brings us the spell "Masterwork Transformation"
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/masterwork-transformation
And then, later, we have rules on enchanting weapons, some of which are in the feat section, some in the skill section, and some in the Magic Item section...
I'm pretty sure you can give your monk a masterwork unarmed strike, and then enchant it, RAI be damned.
EDIT: Nail in the coffin
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.I believe that settles it, no? As of Ultimate Magic's Masterwork Transformation, Monks have had an ability to enhance their unarmed strike at comparable cost to other classes. XDIt's a bit too Ravingdorksian for comfort, a lot like his fix for the UM Vow of Poverty. It would be a pleasant surprise to see this confirmed by the designers as actually possible though.
The thing that irks me about it is it requires a monk, whose entire schtick is training himself towards self perfection, has to seek out a caster to make himself masterwork, which a monk's body should already be by virtue of being a bloody monk.
But if there's a way for the monk to access that spell effect himself or through some other means that doesn't require going through a caster, no matter how obscure, I'd be happy to use it.
I think even if you could transform all your limbs into masterwork weapons, then you'd still have to enchant them separately, returning us to the "prohibitive cost" problem.
|
|
Furthermore, why does it bother you that you need casters for things? I mean, every class needs their magic gear (AC enhancers, Stat-boosters, +5 weapon, and so forth.) And as a fighter, without master craftsman, I have to get that gear from *somewhere.* Even if I just chance across it, *somebody,* presumably a wizard, made my "big six" for me, even though my whole shtick is training myself at the "perfect" use of certain specific styles of combat, so I don't see that big a difference. Like it or don't, every class has to work with casters at some point, unless the adventure(s) they go on are specifically designed around the absence of casters. To be fair, I'm not a FAN of dependence on casters. I'd LOVE a self-sufficient, totally mundane fighter, but that's just not how the system goes.
It's not so much that as it is the idea that a monk would need a caster's help to make himself considered masterwork. It just really deflates the monk's flavor for me.
But on the whole caster-dependency just stings more when it comes to monks. Their whole flavor is about self-perfection and enlightenment, but they're still just as magic-item dependant, if not more, as everyone else. It's a big part of why I was so frustrated with Ultimate Magic's Vow of Poverty(don't wanna go off on that derail again).
Letting the monk make himself masterwork(or simply just already be that) at least maintains some of his pride even if he has to get the actually enhancements from a caster. At least there it can be flavored as "All you have to do is put the fire/ice/lightning/holy-light in front of me and I'll grab it".
Ideally though, I'd rather have something like Revan's method for monk enhancement that he's shared on the boards.
I think even if you could transform all your limbs into masterwork weapons, then you'd still have to enchant them separately, returning us to the "prohibitive cost" problem.
I was looking at it as taking care of unarmed strike as a whole. Full body solution or nothing, as far as I'm concerned. :)
I think even if you could transform all your limbs into masterwork weapons, then you'd still have to enchant them separately, returning us to the "prohibitive cost" problem.
The argument, as you have been making it, repeatedly (and I don't remember seeing anyone argue against you on this point,) is that the monk's "Unarmed Strike" is one weapon, one attack "type." In fact, core rules say "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed," which supports the claim.
If an "unarmed strike," as full body contact (knees, elbows, fists and feet, according to the core) is one unit, one entity, one...weapon, then it counts as one weapon for the purpose of enchanting. Have no clue where you get the idea you'd have to enchant limbs separately.
Even if it did require that, which it doesn't, Magic Fang says, emphasis mine: "Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls." and GMF says it "functions like magic fang, except that the enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a natural weapon or unarmed strike to bypass damage reduction aside from magic." There you have it.
The bit I bolded means, again, it's not a perfect solution, but it makes hitting easier, allows for better damage, and is a cheap way of enhancing.
So, if MW transformation is a no go, GMF won't solve all your issues, but again, better than nothing.