Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Brawling armor property: can you put it on bracers of armor, or are monks being trolled?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

UE Preview

Saw this armor property in the preview for UE. Does the line "The brawling property can be applied only to light armor." mean that bracers of armor are a no-go for this property?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FiddlersGreen wrote:

UE Preview

Saw this armor property in the preview for UE. Does the line "The brawling property can be applied only to light armor." mean that bracers of armor are a no-go for this property?

Correct. It's already been answered today in a different thread by a Dev. Well, by a link to something a dev said.

Bracers of armor are not light armor.


The Tiny Coffee Golem is indeed correct . . . though why it has that limitation on it is beyond me.

MA

Star Voter 2013

That armor property is absurd. +2 ti attack and damage, and +2 to grapple for only +1 armor enachemet, it seems like its only purpose is to make other classes better brawler that a monk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Its...looking more and more like the unarmed fighter will be better than the monk at unarmed combat...


Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Unfortunately, the Devs keep saying they don't intend to be the monk to be a heavy damage dealer like the full BAB classes, so I'm not surprised that other classes are getting buffs to their unarmed strikes. They want the monk to use its other abilities for support, and when the monk fix they keep mentioning comes THAT is probably the aspect of them that will be strengthened.


Nah, just play a monk who wears armor, sure you have to give up your 3 most iconic class features, but at least you're finally a decent unarmed fighter.


Well, the Sohei monk can wear light armor. They also aren't particularly good at fighting unarmed...

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The sensei archetype doesn't lose a whole lot by wearing armour. Put it on leather or masterwork studded leather (or masterwork chain shirt with the Armour Expert trait) and you don't even need proficiency!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, every time I heard people saying stuff like "Paizo hates monks" or similar phrase, I always thought they were just overreacting.

Then Ultimate Equipment comes along, bringing us the infamous handwraps of suck and this great upgrade to unarmed strikes that everyone but monks can use.

I'm starting to think there is quite a bit of truth mixed with all that overreaction.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

It's more "Paizo has a different vision for monks than the vocal members of the forums do" than "ahtes monk."


Theoretically, could you do something like enchant an everyday piece of clothing with a +1 bonus and the brawling property?

It wouldn’t technically be “armor” so should slip around class restrictions and while you won’t be using it for the pantry +1 AC bonus (get bracers for that), it’s still a pretty good deal for around 4000 gp.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My question is why was this even added? After all, the designers have said time and time again that they are not going to obsolete the amulet of mighty fists. But this just did. Except for monks and animal companions, anyway.

A +1 suit of armor (chain shirt) with the brawling property costs 4,250 gp. For that, you get a +2 untyped stackable bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls with unarmed strikes, and with grapple checks. What? No cost adjustment because your unarmed strikes cannot be disarmed or sundered? No price increase because the king's guards cannot take them away? And . . . gasp, they don't also apply to natural weapons.

It is really the perfect item and it does so many things that fans of the monk have asked for . . . but no, monks can't use it. Not even on bracers of armor which can have special armor properties. But not this one! Oh no.

So it costs 4,250 gp. Let's compare that with the price of a +2 amulet of mighty fists which does less. After all, you don't get that +2 bonus on grapple with the amulet of mighty fists. Should be around 4,250 gp, right?

Well, not exactly. 20,000 gp is the actual cost of the amulet of mighty fists +2.

And the brawling property STACKS with the enhancement bonus granted by the amulet.

Wow. I am . . . speechless by this. But you monks can't use it, you can't get your flurry with it, because the amulet of mighty fists is a monk item and we can't obsolete a core rulebook item!

Right.

MA


Wriggle Wyrm wrote:

Theoretically, could you do something like enchant an everyday piece of clothing with a +1 bonus and the brawling property?

It wouldn’t technically be “armor” so should slip around class restrictions and while you won’t be using it for the pantry +1 AC bonus (get bracers for that), it’s still a pretty good deal for around 4000 gp.

Nope, because brawling specifically says you have to place it on light armor.

MA


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just houserule it. "The heaviest armor it can be applied to is light armor". Therefore bracers of armor would work. I don't get you guys (never did) don't let the developers run your game. It's your game.


Unless you're inquiring for a PFS character...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Just houserule it. "The heaviest armor it can be applied to is light armor". Therefore bracers of armor would work. I don't get you guys (never did) don't let the developers run your game. It's your game.

Except that for someone who wants to actually play a monk rather than run one as as NPC it's not your game, it's the DM's game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master arminas wrote:

My question is why was this even added? After all, the designers have said time and time again that they are not going to obsolete the amulet of mighty fists. But this just did. Except for monks and animal companions, anyway.

A +1 suit of armor (chain shirt) with the brawling property costs 4,250 gp. For that, you get a +2 untyped stackable bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls with unarmed strikes, and with grapple checks. What? No cost adjustment because your unarmed strikes cannot be disarmed or sundered? No price increase because the king's guards cannot take them away? And . . . gasp, they don't also apply to natural weapons.

It is really the perfect item and it does so many things that fans of the monk have asked for . . . but no, monks can't use it. Not even on bracers of armor which can have special armor properties. But not this one! Oh no.

So it costs 4,250 gp. Let's compare that with the price of a +2 amulet of mighty fists which does less. After all, you don't get that +2 bonus on grapple with the amulet of mighty fists. Should be around 4,250 gp, right?

Well, not exactly. 20,000 gp is the actual cost of the amulet of mighty fists +2.

And the brawling property STACKS with the enhancement bonus granted by the amulet.

Wow. I am . . . speechless by this. But you monks can't use it, you can't get your flurry with it, because the amulet of mighty fists is a monk item and we can't obsolete a core rulebook item!

Right.

MA

Don't forget it doesn't take a item slot and can possibly be used with medium (mithral) armor too. The fact that is costs about 25% of an similar AoMF is just to add insult to the injury.

I never undestood this worry Paizo has about obsoleting AoMF. It's still a great item for summoners, druids, rangers and anything else with an Animal Companion. Damn, even this armors doesn't obsolete it since its bonus stacks with AoMF.

Anyway, I gave up hope for vanilla monks (archetypes and PrC may or may not help), I don't think they'll be much better even after the upcoming patch.

Even so, I truly wish Paizo proves me wrong. I do think its devs do an amazing job much more often than not.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skylancer4 wrote:
It's more "Paizo has a different vision for monks than the vocal members of the forums do" than "ahtes monk."

If they'd let us know just what that vision actually is, it would kind of help settle things. Right now, it's... run around really fast and maybe be kind of good at maneuvers, but not as good as a dedicated fighter.


Lemmy wrote:
Don't forget it doesn't take a item slot...

I'm pretty sure "armor" counts as a slot for magic item pricing purposes. Same goes for weapons.

Honestly, I think people are overreacting. So it's a (primarily) non-monk armor that boosts unarmed strikes. So what? The monk still tends to be a better unarmed striker than most of those who don't get the scaling damage to their strikes. All this armor really does is put an non-monks average unarmed strike damage (before Str or other modifications) on par with a 1st to 3rd level monk, and gives them a slight advantage to landing hits.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Matrixryu wrote:
the Devs keep saying they don't intend to be the monk to be a heavy damage dealer like the full BAB classes, so I'm not surprised that other classes are getting buffs to their unarmed strikes. They want the monk to use its other abilities for support, and when the monk fix they keep mentioning comes THAT is probably the aspect of them that will be strengthened.

I suspect there's a lot to this. The incredulity with which those various 'monks suck' posts are made seems, to me, to be operating from an assumption that monks should be comparable to other frontline melee classes and I'm not sure that that's the same base assumption the rules designers have been using. (They might have been - I dont claim any special insight).

I for one dont care if the different classes operate on different power levels. I'm happy to pay a mechanical cost for flavor reasons (and in fact I prefer to do so). Once the monk is reviewed, hopefully it will become clearer exactly what the design goals are.


The thing that bothers me is that for so long an unarmed fighter had to rely on amulet of mighty fists, which is stupid expensive, for its various unarmed enhancement needs. Now, Ultimate Equipment comes out and there's the brawling armor and the bodywrap, and both of them look like a godsend until you realize that one only works on light armor, and the other only applies to one attack per iterative, which means lolflurrynope. It's a bit of a slap in the face. It's like, the monk's robes look neat until you realize that for 13,000gp, you get 1 use of stunning fist, probably just 1 more point of average damage, and probably just 1 point of AC. It's not terrible, but it's not really as amazing as it looks on the tin.

Honestly, monk's have some good defensive abilities, and their saves are lovely, but unless paizo's plan for monks was "hey, let's have a fighter that's not nearly as good at fighting, and they don't have to worry as much about getting dominated, not that a dominated monk is that scary since they don't do much damage." A neat, flavorful class, and I'm not even saying I don't like it, but sometimes I get frustrated by how hard they get the shaft on this kind of stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gluttony wrote:
I'm pretty sure "armor" counts as a slot for magic item pricing purposes. Same goes for weapons.

What I mean is that it won't prevent you from using another magical amulet. Armors are pretty much a "free" slot since everyone'll most likely be using them anyway. Except monks. (Well, and full arcane casters, but let's not bring wizards into the equation, okay?).

So a Fighter with a brawling armor spends 4250gp and can still wear, let's say, an Amulet of Natural Armor. A monk on the other hand, gotta spend almost 4x as much gold and use his neck slot with an AoMF.

Gluttony wrote:
Honestly, I think people are overreacting. So it's a (primarily) non-monk armor that boosts unarmed strikes. So what? The monk still tends to be a better unarmed striker than most of those who don't get the scaling damage to their strikes. All this armor really does is put an non-monks average unarmed strike damage (before Str or other modifications) on par with a 1st to 3rd level monk, and gives them a slight advantage to landing hits.

Landing hits is one of the core problems with Monks. The term "Flurry of Misses" exists for a reason.

The problem is that this item would be a great help for monks to do their thing. But instead, it makes everyone else better at doing said thing.


Lemmy wrote:

What I mean is that it won't prevent you from using another magical amulet. Armors are pretty much a "free" slot since everyone'll most likely be using them anyway. Except monks. (Well, and full arcane casters, but let's not bring wizards into the equation, okay?).

So a Fighter with a brawling armor spends 4250gp and can still wear, let's say, an Amulet of Natural Armor. A monk on the other hand, gotta spend almost 4x as much gold and use his neck slot with an AoMF.

That's fair. The armor really should be priced the same as a +2 AoMF to be fair to everyone.

Lemmy wrote:
Gluttony wrote:
Honestly, I think people are overreacting. So it's a (primarily) non-monk armor that boosts unarmed strikes. So what? The monk still tends to be a better unarmed striker than most of those who don't get the scaling damage to their strikes. All this armor really does is put an non-monks average unarmed strike damage (before Str or other modifications) on par with a 1st to 3rd level monk, and gives them a slight advantage to landing hits.

Landing hits is one of the core problems with Monks. The term "Flurry of Misses" exists for a reason.

The problem is that this item would be a great help for monks to do their thing. But instead, it makes everyone else better at doing said thing.

I've become fairly convinced over my years of running games for several monk-lovers that the reason the term "flurry of misses" exists is that people play monks, try to do everything at once with them, and then complain when it doesn't work.

You'll end up with a flurry of misses if you try to build your monk to be strong, nimble, sturdy, wise, and with lots of skill ranks all at the same time, but that's not because of the monk itself, it's because the monk has been spread too thin. I've never seen a monk who was actually built to hit things have any trouble with hitting standard bestiary or Adventure Path foes, and I'd say monk is the most common class I've ever seen at the table.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I hardly ever see monks at my games. Two, in my lifetime, and one was a full blown cheater, and the other was a Diva who played a NPC angering, loudmouth, obnoxious, melee focused pacifist that I later my PC killed.

I call recall many times, speaking with new players who assume that monks are some kind of Dragonball hero mixed with Spiderman, and Sun Zhu, at first level.

I have to break it to them, that those assumptions are not true, and in fact, they will never be quite be all those things, or any combination.

Monks always seemed like weird rogues to me.


tenieldjo wrote:

It's like, the monk's robes look neat until you realize that for 13,000gp, you get 1 use of stunning fist, probably just 1 more point of average damage, and probably just 1 point of AC. It's not terrible, but it's not really as amazing as it looks on the tin.

It was worse in 3.5: The item was a shape that let it get put on wildshaped druids, who got their (sky-high) wisdom to AC (which was added to the natural armor of the form and IUS to use with their natural attacks.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

With the latest additions a Fighter (Brawler) becomes a somewhat viable alternative to weapon fighters (although, imho, Jason Bulmahn values the few advantage that unarmed brings with it too highly).

How is this trolling the Monk?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Just houserule it. "The heaviest armor it can be applied to is light armor". Therefore bracers of armor would work. I don't get you guys (never did) don't let the developers run your game. It's your game.

We all understand that we can houserule things, but this is the "rules" section. The purpose is to find the intent when we post here. If I decide to houserule anything I won't be trying to use vague(assuming it is vague) wording to justify my decision I will just change it. The same thing goes for most other GM's that play away from PFS.

Star Voter 2013

Gluttony wrote:


Honestly, I think people are overreacting. So it's a (primarily) non-monk armor that boosts unarmed strikes. So what? The monk still tends to be a better unarmed striker than most of those who don't get the scaling damage to their strikes. All this armor really does is put an non-monks average unarmed strike damage (before Str or other modifications) on par with a 1st to 3rd level monk, and gives them a slight advantage to landing hits.

Fighters and barbarian can hit (with unarmed strike) more and harder than a monk.

For example an unarmed fighter have weapon training (+1 to attack and damage), with glove of dueling and bralwer property (they cost the same of AoMF +2) he will have +4 to attack and damage. SO the fighter have at lest a +3 advantage over the monk.

And that is just the start, bodywrap of migthy strikes are enachement bonus they do not stack with AoMF but they d stack with glove of dueling and Brawling property, so the gap between the monk and the fighter broader(not to mention that weapong raning increase with levels and greater weapon focus).

So, no the monk are not better unarmed striker than other classes.

Marathon Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The brawling property was specifically made to not include monks and to help non-monks, like ninjas, bards, clerics, etc, out with unarmed fighting. It does not work on bracers of armor. source: the author.


Static bonuses to damage almost always outweigh the benefits of a larger random die. Sure, if you get a good roll, you do more damage. The thing is, with 2d10, you have an equal chance of rolling poorly for your damage as you do rolling well.

Let's take a look at two 10th level characters (both human). A fighter (plain-jane vanilla fighter) and a monk, both built on a 20-point buy.

Fighter: Str 16 (10 pts), Dex 14 (5 pts), Con 14 (5 pts), Int 10, Wis 12 (2 pts), Cha 8 (-2 pts). Put the +2 stat bonus in Str, with the 4th and the 8th level increase both in Str. Final Stats: Str 20, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8.

Both characters have 62,000 gp available.

Fighter buys a +1 brawling chain shirt (4,250 gp), a +2 heavy steel shield (4,170 gp), a +2 ring of protection (8,000 gp), a belt of giant strength +4 (16,000 gp), an amulet of natural armor +1 (2,000 gp), gloves of dueling (15,000 gp), cloak of resistance +2 (4,000 gp), and a set of the new handwraps +1 (3,000 gp). That gives him stats of Str 24, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8, with an average of 79.5 hit points and an AC of 24 (not counting any feats). Saves are Fort +11, Ref +7, Will +6 (before feats).

Total of 56,420 gp spent. He has a BAB of +10. His unarmed strikes (which he has selected for his weapon training 1 class feature and is now at +2) have improved unarmed strike, weapon focus, weapon specialization, improved critical, and greater weapon focus are now at +26/+21, dealing 1d3 + 16 damage per hit (critical of 19-20/x2). If he has Power Attack (and what fighter doesn't?) then his attack bonus is +23/+18, dealing 1d3 + 22 damage per hit (critical of 19-20/x2).

You know what? I'll let you do the monk.

This is a plain jane fighter. Not an archetype. Beating the monk into the ground at his own game of unarmed combat. He is Captain America with just a heavy shield and his fist. And I am quite sure optimizers could do better.

MA

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

You know, this is rapidly resembling WoW forums with this rampant class tribalism.

Marathon Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Comparing the fighter to the monk shows nothing. At all.

The fighter fights. They are the best at it, or are meant to be. The only time comparing to the fighter is helpful is to show that something is overpowered.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you want WoW in tabletop format, play 4E.

Marathon Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You should learn a few things from talky-baggy on how to derail threads that despite being answered are going to turn into another multipage monk thread. Edition wars are so 2 years ago. Now how to make batman...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

Comparing the fighter to the monk shows nothing. At all.

The fighter fights. They are the best at it, or are meant to be. The only time comparing to the fighter is helpful is to show that something is overpowered.

The monk is a martial character. He fights. He isn't a skill character; he doesn't sling spells. HE FIGHTS. That is what he does. Should he be as good as the fighter with the fighters chosen weapons? No. Should he be as good as the ranger against the rangers favored enemies. No. Should he be just as good at unarmed fighting (which has ALWAYS been a monk thing) as either the fighter without his special weapons or the ranger? Hell, yes.

Master Arminas


Ok. no one has said it so i will.

bracers of armor are not armor.

they are wonderous items. thats why they are in the wonderous item section and not the armor section. thats why you cant enchant them. they technically arent armor, but a wonderous item that grants an armor bonus. those are two seperate things.

im not saying that monks are bad, since i dont think that at all, nor am i saying that they shouldnt be enchanted. all im bringing to light is that they cant be enchanted due to that they are wonderous items. not just cause they devs said you couldnt.

Star Voter 2013

Fnipernackle wrote:

Ok. no one has said it so i will.

bracers of armor are not armor.

they are wonderous items. thats why they are in the wonderous item section and not the armor section. thats why you cant enchant them. they technically arent armor, but a wonderous item that grants an armor bonus. those are two seperate things.

im not saying that monks are bad, since i dont think that at all, nor am i saying that they shouldnt be enchanted. all im bringing to light is that they cant be enchanted due to that they are wonderous items. not just cause they devs said you couldnt.

These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with An invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.

Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities. See Table: Armor Special Qualities for a list of abilities. Special abilities usually count as Additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability. Bracers of armor cannot have any armor special abilities that add a flat gp amount to their cost.


Fnipernackle wrote:

Ok. no one has said it so i will.

bracers of armor are not armor.

they are wonderous items. thats why they are in the wonderous item section and not the armor section. thats why you cant enchant them. they technically arent armor, but a wonderous item that grants an armor bonus. those are two seperate things.

im not saying that monks are bad, since i dont think that at all, nor am i saying that they shouldnt be enchanted. all im bringing to light is that they cant be enchanted due to that they are wonderous items. not just cause they devs said you couldnt.

Ah, wrong.

Quote:

(from CRD page 502, Bracers of Armor):

Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities. See Table: Armor Special Qualities for a list of abilities. Special abilities usually count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability. Bracers of armor cannot have any armor special abilities add a flag gp amount to their cost.

With the exception of armor special properties that have a flat cost (such as glamered, slick, shadow, and energy resistance), bracers of armor are eligable to receive any special armor ability available, just like regular armor can.

But since bracers are not light armor, they cannot gain the brawling property.

Master Arminas


Nicos, you beat me by 58 seconds! Good job.

MA


Fnipernackle wrote:

Ok. no one has said it so i will.

bracers of armor are not armor.

they are wonderous items. thats why they are in the wonderous item section and not the armor section. thats why you cant enchant them. they technically arent armor, but a wonderous item that grants an armor bonus. those are two seperate things.

im not saying that monks are bad, since i dont think that at all, nor am i saying that they shouldnt be enchanted. all im bringing to light is that they cant be enchanted due to that they are wonderous items. not just cause they devs said you couldnt.

Actually it was said in the second post.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
master arminas wrote:


This is a plain jane fighter. Not an archetype. Beating the monk into the ground at his own game of unarmed combat. He is Captain America with just a heavy shield and his fist. And I am quite sure optimizers could do better.

MA

If Monks were as good as Fighters at melee, what would be the point of playing a melee Fighter? I mean, Monks have superior saves, superior mobility, matching AC and some funky magical abilities too.


Nicos wrote:
Gluttony wrote:


Honestly, I think people are overreacting. So it's a (primarily) non-monk armor that boosts unarmed strikes. So what? The monk still tends to be a better unarmed striker than most of those who don't get the scaling damage to their strikes. All this armor really does is put an non-monks average unarmed strike damage (before Str or other modifications) on par with a 1st to 3rd level monk, and gives them a slight advantage to landing hits.

Fighters and barbarian can hit (with unarmed strike) more and harder than a monk.

For example an unarmed fighter have weapon training (+1 to attack and damage), with glove of dueling and bralwer property (they cost the same of AoMF +2) he will have +4 to attack and damage. SO the fighter have at lest a +3 advantage over the monk.

And that is just the start, bodywrap of migthy strikes are enachement bonus they do not stack with AoMF but they d stack with glove of dueling and Brawling property, so the gap between the monk and the fighter broader(not to mention that weapong raning increase with levels and greater weapon focus).

So, no the monk are not better unarmed striker than other classes.

Except that the fighter and barbarian, barring monk dips, are rolling 1d3 for their unarmed damage while the monk is steadily scaling up to 2d10.

The fighter's advantage is that each individual hit is more likely to land, yes, but that doesn't mean that a half-decent monk can't land hits in comparison, and the monk gets more attacks overall and more chances to do so.


If fighters are good as monks at unarmed combat, then what is the point of playing a monk? I mean, fighters have better hit points, get more feats, get access to fighter only feats, can wear armor without losing their class abilities, get neat things with weapon and armor training, and eventually auto-crit with their chosen weapon too.

MA


Gluttony wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Gluttony wrote:


Honestly, I think people are overreacting. So it's a (primarily) non-monk armor that boosts unarmed strikes. So what? The monk still tends to be a better unarmed striker than most of those who don't get the scaling damage to their strikes. All this armor really does is put an non-monks average unarmed strike damage (before Str or other modifications) on par with a 1st to 3rd level monk, and gives them a slight advantage to landing hits.

Fighters and barbarian can hit (with unarmed strike) more and harder than a monk.

For example an unarmed fighter have weapon training (+1 to attack and damage), with glove of dueling and bralwer property (they cost the same of AoMF +2) he will have +4 to attack and damage. SO the fighter have at lest a +3 advantage over the monk.

And that is just the start, bodywrap of migthy strikes are enachement bonus they do not stack with AoMF but they d stack with glove of dueling and Brawling property, so the gap between the monk and the fighter broader(not to mention that weapong raning increase with levels and greater weapon focus).

So, no the monk are not better unarmed striker than other classes.

Except that the fighter and barbarian, barring monk dips, are rolling 1d3 for their unarmed damage while the monk is steadily scaling up to 2d10.

The fighter's advantage is that each individual hit is more likely to land, yes, but that doesn't mean that a half-decent monk can't land hits in comparison, and the monk gets more attacks overall and more chances to do so.

So, did you just bypass my post completely where I broke down the numbers for a 10th level fighter using unarmed strike? He attacks at +26/+21, dealing 1d3 + 16 damage per hit (critical of 19-20/x2). If he has Power Attack (and what fighter doesn't?) then his attack bonus is +23/+18, dealing 1d3 + 22 damage per hit (critical of 19-20/x2).

At the same level, the monk is doing 1d10 + Str + maybe another 2 from handwraps or an amulet of mighty fists. With an attack bonus of +9 + Strength + any wraps/amulet. If he has weapon focus. No, hitting is a problem for monks and despite the huge damage die, he has a large problem actually causing damage. Because he cannot stack on the static bonuses that other classes can.

MA


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get that monks aren't powerhouses and were never meant to be, but they're also meant to fight. Their abilities revolve around fighting, and staying alive in combat. With the exception of the zen archer, they're melee combatants, martial characters. So, yea, I think they should be good at it, because they don't have much else they are even capable of doing. It's really rather sad that they are so utterly outclassed in everything they try to do by everyone else, unless that thing is "have a good touch AC." The fact is, monks need all the help they can get.

For monks, ultimate equipment was like waking up Christmas morning, excitedly running downstairs, and finding that your parents had given your brothers and sisters all the presents you wanted and forgot to get you anything. Poor, sad monks...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gluttony wrote:
Except that the fighter and barbarian, barring monk dips, are rolling 1d3 for their unarmed damage while the monk is steadily scaling up to 2d10.

Large damage dice aren't as important as they would appear. 1d3 damage is an average of 2, while 2d10 is an average of 11 (a difference of 9). When the Monk has 2d10 damage (assuming monk's robes, so level 15), the Fighter has Greater Weapon Specialization (+4), brawling armor (+2), Weapon Training (+3, +4 in two levels), and gloves of dueling (+2), for a total of +11 damage, as well as +9 to attack over the Monk. So not only does each hit deal (on average) 3 more damage, but is hitting far, far more likely to hit thanks to things the Monk can't get. They can also choose to take Two-Weapon Fighting feats to get the same number of attacks as the monk, but with the advantage of taking them sooner (though obviously with dexterity requirements).

This is not to say whether or not Fighter and Monk are an appropriate comparison, mind you. It is just to point out that the 2d10 unarmed damage of the Monk is not, mathematically, as huge a bonus as it would initially appear to be.


Can i have the LInk to the thread where the Devs Said you cant put it on Bracers of armor?


Lobolusk wrote:
Can i have the LInk to the thread where the Devs Said you cant put it on Bracers of armor?

Linky


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, this is no longer a discussion of the rules?

1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Brawling armor property: can you put it on bracers of armor, or are monks being trolled? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.