Can I choose unarmed strikes as my focus for weapon focus and specialization as given to me by the class ability "Way of the Weapon Master" even though I can't use unarmed strike with Perfect Strike. I know the flavor of the archetype is supposed to be a monk that focuses on a manufactured weapon, but the way I see it, there is nothing RAW that prohibits what I want to do.
An Unarmed Strike is not a Monk Weapon. You cannot select Unarmed Strike for this ability.
Way of the Weapon Master (Ex): At 2nd level, a weapon adept gains Weapon Focus as a bonus feat with one of his monk weapons. At 6th level, the monk gains Weapon Specialization with the same weapon as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. This ability replaces evasion.
Unarmed strike is in the monk weapons group. So yeah you can.
It's in the Weapon Training category of Monk, but it is not a Monk Weapon. If it were a Monk Weapon, it would be labeled as such in the Equipment chapter of the CRB.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'd allow it if I were a GM. If I had a euro for every time someone got confused by monk rules....
If we both did, we could bail out the Greek economy.
So what you are saying is that an unarmed strike is not a melee weapon because it is not in the equipment chapter? Considering this system has two types of weapons... melee and ranged, I think it is and is counted as a "monk weapon".
Well one of the Devs has said that the class should be re-written. I very much hope they do...
Amen.
Soo.. your saying an attack in the monk weapon group, that you can flurry with.. and remember without special rules you can only flurry with monk weapons, that the entire class is built around being able to get increased damage from.. isnt a monk weapon?.
You can flurry with unarmed strikes, and monk weapons. Unarmed strikes do not have the monk weapon quality.
This is true. It is also true that even with ki strike a monk's unarmed strike is not a magic weapon, and so, for example, cannot strike an incorporeal creature. Interestingly, magic weapon is the same - it doesn't actually make a weapon into a 'magic' weapon.
In other words, the monk needs some serious thought applied to it.
We aren't talking about monk weapon qualities here, we are talking about monk weapons... if the devs wanted to differentiate between monk weapons (any weapon available to a monk) and a manufactured weapon that has the monk special quality, they would have called it out as "special monk weapons" or "manufactured monk weapons". Language that is used throughout the Monk class description.
Here is an example coming from a developer being specific on their terminology that supports my case in the above post.
Monk weapons are weapons that in the special part of the chart say Monk Notice that unarmed strike doesn't have that qualifier.
Flurry of Blows: Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon
Notice the terminology difference between FOB and your statement that Monk Weapons means "Special Monk Weapons". Clearly stated as two different things. Special Monk Weapons and Unarmed Strike are all Monk Weapons.
Weapon Adept is an archetype designed to focus on monk weapons, not the unarmed strike.
To complain that you cannot use the abilities of the archetype on something that it is not meant to focus on is a bit silly.
I don't remember seeing anyone complain here, I just asked a simple question and was giving examples of things that supported my view. The flavor of the class is a monk that uses manufactured weapons... but by RAW there is nothing in that ability that limits it to manufactured weapons. You are looking at it from a RAI perspective based on the descriptive text for the class when I asked for a ruling by RAW in my original post.
The flavor of the class is a monk that uses manufactured weapons... but by RAW there is nothing in that ability that limits it to manufactured weapons.
No, there's nothing that limits it to manufactured weapons. However, it is limited to monk weapons. There just so happens to be a weapon property called "monk":
Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows.
Thus, any weapon with the "monk" qualifier can be the focus of a Weapon Adept. The Unarmed strike has an entry in the weapon tables, and that entry does not say that it's a monk weapon. Therefore, an unarmed strike is not a monk weapon. Therefore, it isn't valid for a Weapon Adept.
Martial Arts Master (Ex)
At 4th level, a martial artist may use his monk level to qualify for feats with a fighter level prerequisite when those feats are applied to unarmed strikes or weapons with the monk special quality.
Another example of the developers being specific in their terminology. Notice how they don't call them "monk weapons" but "weapons with the monk special quality" the same way they call them out in FOB.
Another example of the developers being specific in their terminology. Notice how they don't call them "monk weapons" but "weapons with the monk special quality" the same way they call them out in FOB.Martial Arts Master (Ex)
At 4th level, a martial artist may use his monk level to qualify for feats with a fighter level prerequisite when those feats are applied to unarmed strikes or weapons with the monk special quality.
Is there a reason you consider "monk weapons", "weapons with the monk special quality" and "a monk's special weapons" to be non-synonymous? Can you define "monk weapons" in any way other than referring to the monk weapon property?
You can define it as any weapon available to a monk, including unarmed strike as I mentioned in a previous post. I think if the developers wanted "monk weapons" to be synonymous with "weapons with the monk special quality" or "special monk weapons" they wouldn't have used the later two in their descriptions and would have just called them monk weapons. That's not the case though as they are very specific in how they word things.
I gave a perfect example of a quote directly from a developer in a later post supporting that:
If it meant "manufactured weapon," it would say "manufactured weapon" rather than "melee weapon".
Maybe the devs are just not legal specialists with razor sharp editors?
You can define it as any weapon available to a monk, including unarmed strike as I mentioned in a previous post. I think if the developers wanted "monk weapons" to be synonymous with "weapons with the monk special quality" or "special monk weapons" they wouldn't have used the later two in their descriptions and would have just called them monk weapons. That's not the case though as they are very specific in how they word things.
I gave a perfect example of a quote directly from a developer in a later post supporting that:
If it meant "manufactured weapon," it would say "manufactured weapon" rather than "melee weapon".
That's not relevant. Manufactured means something different than melee. Some weapons are both (longsword), some are neither (manticore tail spikes). But they're two distinct properties. You're trying to use that quote to argue that "monk" and "special" are two distinct properties. Specificially, you're trying to argue that "___A___ ___B___ weapons" can be filled in as:
A = manufactured, B = melee -> "manufactured melee weapons"A = manufactured, B = monk -> "manufactured monk weapons"
A = special, B = monk -> "special monk weapons"
A = special, B = melee -> "special melee weapons"
The rules just don't support that train of thought.
I repeat: Can you define "monk weapons" in any way other than referring to the monk weapon property?
Without a definition of what a "monk weapon" is (if it's not the same thing as a "special monk weapon"), then the sentance "A weapon adept gains Weapon Focus as a bonus feat with one of his monk weapons" has no meaning.
Is it "any weapon a monk is proficient with"?
Is it "any weapon the monk can flurry with"?
Is it "any weapon with monkish/eastern flavor"?
Or is it "any weapon with the monk property"?
--------
Edit: I realized after posting that I might be misrepresenting you - you might consider "monk" and "special monk" as two separate descriptors for weapons. But if that's your logic, then your quote is still irrelevant, and you still have to define what the difference is.
Is it "any weapon a monk is proficient with"?
Bingo! The word monk as used here is not a weapon descriptor, it is stating ownership with the word "his" that precedes it "his monk weapons". If monk was a weapon descriptor in this case, it would have been "special" monk weapons as they have used in other descriptions.
Look how they specifically called out what you cannot use with perfect strike... don't you think they would make the same effort with this ability if they wanted it to be limited to special monk weapons? Were they lazy? Maybe... but by RAW, you can't tell me that "his monk weapons" = "special monk weapons". IF we are going to use the "they are lazy" or "they aren't legal specialists" points then you can refute half the rules in the books so I refuse to accept argument :P
When I first started this thread I really didn't mean to debate these points so much... it has taken on a life of its own. Thank you all for the replies though, even if they didn't agree with mine :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of if they meant the ones he owns or not Unarmed strike is still not a monk weapon.
The term "monk weapons" actually has rules meaning in the game the same as "finesse weapons" or "reach weapons".
As much as it pains me to say... I concede.
Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows
Here they clearly equate "monk weapon" with "weapon with the special monk descriptor". I was misled by their use of 3 different ways of saying the same thing. My apologies and thanks for helping to clarify.