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

If Monks have trouble hitting...


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

851 to 900 of 1,235 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing about APL+3 fights is that they do happen and they're where you need everyone to contribute. This is where you pull out the big spells, use your x/day abilities and your consumables.

This is where a monk is not contributing. Being able to beat up mooks doesn't actually help the party much. They can beat up mooks without you. Bosses and out of band wandering monsters are where you risk losing people and monks can't really contribute.

The monk doesn't need to be able to solo a Glabrezu, but he does need to contribute. He's not a caster and he doesn't deal competitive damage so he'd better either be landing that stunning fist at least once per fight against a typical APL+3 boss or have a combat maneuver that works on everything even at high levels.


Gignere wrote:


Guided enchant alone will not make a monk into a killing machine. I created a strength monk for a model, the bonus to damage and attack will be the...

It is an exaggeration but unlike the STR monk the guided enchant + WIS monk in addition to doing significant damage, has a credible defense, can actually stun with a stunning fist, and has a ki pool big enough for Cthulhu to swim in.

That said, I'm also not sure that the guided enchant is enough to put the monk on a par with other classes. Guided enchant makes it so there is only one ability score which can affect all of the monk's ability score based abilities. It makes the idea of a tradeoff between ability scores seem trite, so it doesn't fit with the way the game is set up. Monks need help, but one enchant making them the SADdest class in the game isn't the help they need.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
cnetarian wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
The buffing isn't an issue, anyone can buff the monk,

But will they? What if they don't want to play a buffing caster? And if you have to rely on resources from your team-mates just to make you as effective as they are without buffs, isn't that really proving the point that the class is underpowered?

At higher level, they have to beat your SR to buff you, if you do not have the time to lower it.

With the cleric/monk you don't rely on the buffs to make you effective, they are just some nice floss which can make you even more effective. And if your team-mates are expecting you to shut down a monster 3CRs above your level solo then you should darn well expect them to buff you, regardless of your class and whether they want to be buffing casters or not.

But the guided hand cleric/monk with overpowered stunning fist isn't as effective as other characters, even with the buffs. It is a one-trick pony with weak DPR that uses a dip into to cleric class to get a feat not available to pure monks just so it can make a primary ability of the monk class useful. A pure monk cannot make stunning fist work while one level of cleric can make it work, to me that spells broken class.

I can see the pros and cons, I can see where this works better than the core monk, and once again (sigh) it seems the solution to making an effective monk is "not be a monk" again.

Atarlost wrote:

The thing about APL+3 fights is that they do happen and they're where you need everyone to contribute. This is where you pull out the big spells, use your x/day abilities and your consumables.

This is where a monk is not contributing. Being able to beat up mooks doesn't actually help the party much. They can beat up mooks without you. Bosses and out of band wandering monsters are where you risk losing people and monks can't really contribute.

Yep, this was where my monk got shut down in the last campaign. Every boss-fight above 10th level left her out in the cold, end of. These foes generally have a wide variety of abilities, high AC, high saves, and usually DR.

The only time my monk would have shone in that campaign was in mook-fights, but the DM preferred to skip most of those. This is pretty sad in a class that is supposed to be mobile and able to tie down a boss long enough for the rest of the party to churn through the minions.

Atarlost wrote:
The monk doesn't need to be able to solo a Glabrezu, but he does need to contribute. He's not a caster and he doesn't deal competitive damage so he'd better either be landing that stunning fist at least once per fight against a typical APL+3 boss or have a combat maneuver that works on everything even at high levels.

...which he doesn't have, beyond a 1/1000 chance. That does happen occasionally, but it occurred for me once in a 14-level campaign, and I had to pull out all the stops for that to happen.


Neo2151 wrote:

Here's the thing about Cold Iron and Alchemical Silver: They're cheap.


  • +1 Holy Greatsword - Here is your main weapon.

  • MW Cold Iron Greatsword - Here is your cold-iron back up weapon.

  • MW Alchemical Silver Greatsword - Ditto everything I said about the Cold Iron version above.

I'm just envisioning that character with his three greatswords strapped to his back...

Carrying a greatsword on the back and maybe a mace and a dagger on the belt is fine, but three greatswords...no.


Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

Here's the thing about Cold Iron and Alchemical Silver: They're cheap.


  • +1 Holy Greatsword - Here is your main weapon.

  • MW Cold Iron Greatsword - Here is your cold-iron back up weapon.

  • MW Alchemical Silver Greatsword - Ditto everything I said about the Cold Iron version above.

I'm just envisioning that character with his three greatswords strapped to his back...

Carrying a greatsword on the back and maybe a mace and a dagger on the belt is fine, but three greatswords...no.

BoH and portable holes say it is easily doable.


Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

Here's the thing about Cold Iron and Alchemical Silver: They're cheap.


  • +1 Holy Greatsword - Here is your main weapon.

  • MW Cold Iron Greatsword - Here is your cold-iron back up weapon.

  • MW Alchemical Silver Greatsword - Ditto everything I said about the Cold Iron version above.

I'm just envisioning that character with his three greatswords strapped to his back...

Carrying a greatsword on the back and maybe a mace and a dagger on the belt is fine, but three greatswords...no.

Past a certain point it becomes a non issue due to magic enhancements to a weapon bypassing material based DR, but even before that, for the other combat classes it isn't a huge issue. A fighter who carries a greatsword as his main weapon could carry a pair of longswords with no problems, and even use them effectively with a minimal loss in effectiveness. Rangers, barbarians and paladins likewise all have the same luxury. A monk on the other hand, due to the need to spread stats all around, and focus so many of his feats and magic items on supporting one style of offense, does lose out greatly by being forced to switch weapons.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liam ap Thalwig wrote:

I'm just envisioning that character with his three greatswords strapped to his back...

Carrying a greatsword on the back and maybe a mace and a dagger on the belt is fine, but three greatswords...no.

Handy Haversack, 2Kgp, a must for all adventurers!


Dabbler wrote:
Liam ap Thalwig wrote:

I'm just envisioning that character with his three greatswords strapped to his back...

Carrying a greatsword on the back and maybe a mace and a dagger on the belt is fine, but three greatswords...no.

Handy Haversack, 2Kgp, a must for all adventurers!

To the point of haversacks shouldn't count against WBL lol.

Andoran

Neo2151 wrote:
ciretose wrote:

And all 10th level fighter's carry 8000k backup Holy weapons with the 62k WBL they have.

I agree Schrodinger's (Name your class) can beat X monster.

You're not really suggesting that the +1 Holy weapon is a backup weapon are you? Considering DR/Good is probably the most commonly encountered DR type in the game...

ciretose wrote:
A monk can't get to a 22 wisdom by 10th level? Potion of Owl's wisdom on the monk I posted gets there, and that monk isn't even particularly wisdom based.
A Monk with a base score of 18 in their Wisdom at level 10 isn't "particularly wisdom based?" Really?

You aren't suggesting a 10th level fighter is using a +1 weapon, are you? I actually forgot Holy is a +2 modifier, so now you are carrying a 16k weapon which is equivilent to a +3 weapon.

A +3 weapon would overcome cold iron and silver, hit roughly 10% more often and when not fighting evil creatures does more damage.

So I'm calling Schrodinger on your post for the scenario.

And no, that monk isn't wisdom "based". That is a 16 in wisdom with 4th and 8th or a 16 in wisdom with a racial bonus.

I already posted a build that isn't a munchkin that gets there easily and also has a 20 strength. 20 is pretty much industry standard for 10th level monk wisdom.

Andoran

Neo2151 wrote:

Here's the thing about Cold Iron and Alchemical Silver: They're cheap.

[list]
  • +1 Holy Greatsword - Here is your main weapon. It really hurts the evil creatures (the most common creatures you'll find), it bypasses the most common DR type, and it's expensive: costs you 18,350g, which is why you only have the one.
  • Is it? I don't have time to dig through the bestiary before work, but show me the classes that have DR/Good that don't also have DR silver or Cold Iron prior to, say, CR 13 or so.

    Because that is where your fighter is fighting.

    Now tell me if that is worth nerfing 10% to hit and +2 damage per hit.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    It's worth it if you are often fighting evil creatures, I think, but generally I'd take the +3 weapon every time. The only enhancements that are worth it are those that trade each +1 for roughly twice the damage in all circumstances. Keen is worth it on a weapon with an 18-20 threat, it's also worth it if you have a bonus to otherwise boost the weapon - like a paladin's divine bond.

    Andoran

    Dabbler wrote:
    It's worth it if you are often fighting evil creatures, I think, but generally I'd take the +3 weapon every time. The only enhancements that are worth it are those that trade each +1 for roughly twice the damage in all circumstances. Keen is worth it on a weapon with an 18-20 threat, it's also worth it if you have a bonus to otherwise boost the weapon - like a paladin's divine bond.

    It's worth it when you are capped at +5 (Which would make it never worth it for a monk w/ AoMF) and if you find it, but giving up +2 to hit and +2 to damage against some enemies is a lot to give up. My point is that it was a cherry picked build.

    I agree with you on Keen, and that would be something where if I saw "Keen Scimatars" I wouldn't blink.


    ciretose wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    It's worth it if you are often fighting evil creatures, I think, but generally I'd take the +3 weapon every time. The only enhancements that are worth it are those that trade each +1 for roughly twice the damage in all circumstances. Keen is worth it on a weapon with an 18-20 threat, it's also worth it if you have a bonus to otherwise boost the weapon - like a paladin's divine bond.

    It's worth it when you are capped at +5 (Which would make it never worth it for a monk w/ AoMF) and if you find it, but giving up +2 to hit and +2 to damage against some enemies is a lot to give up. My point is that it was a cherry picked build.

    I agree with you on Keen, and that would be something where if I saw "Keen Scimatars" I wouldn't blink.

    It's not cherry picked when both the hypothetical fighter and monk got holy. Unless you think that having a +3 weapon while the monk has a +2 and both not punching DR is going to make the monk's relative DPR that much better? My point of giving both holy weapons was to actually advantage the monk, the THF's per hit damage in my model is 34 damage per hit whereas the monk is at 23 for the first hit and 20 for subsequent (Dragon Style and Ferocity).

    DR 10/Good will favor the fighter over the monk if both have no way of going through that DR. Just plugged in my a flat -10 damage in my model. The THF will drop DPR from 117 to about 89. The monk will drop from 72 to 37 (assumes both haste and ki is up).

    Andoran

    The monk can't afford the Holy weapon, considering then they really, really can't hit.

    AoMF caps at +5, you can't use +2 of that +5 for one type of DR. At a cost of 20k to the Fighters 16k.

    If they got the full +5 and it worked like a normal weapon, at that point they overcome basically all DR.

    The +3 fighter is more effective against 9 of the 11 of the CR 10 creatures in the bestiary. Arguably 8, if you could the evil, although -2 to hit vs +4 to damage seems break even to me.

    At CR 11 it is 2 of 14. (or 4 of 14)

    At CR 12 it is 0 of 6. (or 2 of 6 for evil)

    And assuming both Haste and Ki are up is more cherry picking.

    The monk with the +0 holy will be about -8 to attack from the +3 weapon fighter.

    +7 base vs +10 base =3
    +0 Weapon vs +3 base =6
    Strength difference of 4 = +2

    Or 40% higher likelihood to hit, depending on the AC of the enemy.

    Even your +1 holy fighter is at a +6, or 30%.

    The rogue is likely +5, given they can focus on Dex.

    That is the difference. That is the issue.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Gignere wrote:
    It's not cherry picked when both the hypothetical fighter and monk got holy.

    It's a hypothetical that won't happen, the monk needs the flat bonus too much. Unless you are in a campaign where every foe you meet is a devil or demon, it's definitely not worth it for the monk. Both the monk and the fighter can carry some oil of bless weapon if it comes down to it.

    Gignere wrote:
    Unless you think that having a +3 weapon while the monk has a +2 and both not punching DR is going to make the monk's relative DPR that much better?

    No, it won't, but losing that +2 to hit will reduce their DPR vs everything. It's a no-win trade-off at best.

    Gignere wrote:
    My point of giving both holy weapons was to actually advantage the monk, the THF's per hit damage in my model is 34 damage per hit whereas the monk is at 23 for the first hit and 20 for subsequent (Dragon Style and Ferocity).

    Yes, but it's a corner case. On top of that you don't get the hits. That's the problem - if the monk has the ki-strike enhancement to hit, then it's worth having the holy amulet, yes, because doing so does not cripple your chances to hit and you only suffer a small drop in damage...but that's about it.

    Gignere wrote:
    DR 10/Good will favor the fighter over the monk if both have no way of going through that DR. Just plugged in my a flat -10 damage in my model. The THF will drop DPR from 117 to about 89. The monk will drop from 72 to 37 (assumes both haste and ki is up).

    Hitting anything, DR or no DR, favours the fighter. The problem lies in the monk and the mechanics used for his primary weapon, no amount of fudging around with the AoMF and weapons is going to change this.

    Lantern Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

    Ah well i even take keen on bows or in this case the halfling slingstaff for a Zen Archer. Totally worth it.

    Last time i took holy though was in our Cheliax resistance campaign, where we met devils around every corner and it was totally worth it there.
    Else the DR would have made my ninja useless many, many times.


    Can you even have a +1 Holy Greatsword? Holy is a +2 enhancement; I was always under the impression that in order to put an effect on an item, it had to have atleast the same enhancement as the effect (so a +2 weapon for a +2 effect). Have I been misunderstanding this for... well forever?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    chaoseffect wrote:
    Can you even have a +1 Holy Greatsword? Holy is a +2 enhancement; I was always under the impression that in order to put an effect on an item, it had to have atleast the same enhancement as the effect (so a +2 weapon for a +2 effect). Have I been misunderstanding this for... well forever?

    Yes you have been having that misunderstanding for, well, forever :P

    You can have a +1 holy greatsword. It will cost as much as a +3 greatsword.

    To calculate the price, add the enhancement modifiers.


    Thanks for letting me I've been doing it wrong :D


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    No, you can have a sword that is +1 enhancement with +9 worth of properties on it. Been that way since 3.0 at least.


    Hey, slightly off topic, but Dabbler, what do you think about barbarians who go from a +1 weapon to a +1 Furious weapon? =) With UE, I think for barbarians my weapon rference would go +1, +1 furious, +2 furious, +2 furious courageous.

    Which actually illustrates a good point. Monks don't really have those kinds of options. Monk weapons themselves are sub-par, and due to a lack of hit bonuses/innate enhancement bonuses( real ones, not just to hit) instead of being able to use an AoMF to add weapon properties (IMO their intended use for a monk) they are forced to use them in an ineffective way.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game Subscriber

    So, while I haven't read the entire thread, it seems like something akin to the Fighter's Weapon Training (for a single monk weapon, assumed unarmed, and possibly with a scaled back progression) would do the trick, as would arm and leg wraps that could be enchanted as though a double weapon (as opposed to the AoMF)... those sound eminently doable with minor re-tooling, or even just some type of Feat chain, similar to the Amateur Gunfighter sequence? The Wraps would not be hard to price out.

    Alternatively, what about a feat (or item?) that enables a Monk to spend Ki to enhance their unarmed attacks in the same way that a Magus enhances their weapon, but reduce its duration to rounds rather than minutes (to keep from too much thunder-stealing).

    A thought I had was to create "stances" for Monks, such that while in one stance, they might get the advantage of Weapon Training, but lose their enhanced speed, to spitball it a bit. The style feats seem to set this up as a reasonable precedent, and it seems to me to be pretty thematically relevant.

    Whatever the case, if the crux of the problem is that because of MAD, Monks don't hit often enough to be a factor when it really counts (without specializing), or when they do, their other abilities become so feeble as to be useless. All these options seem like easy enough house-rule fixes...


    ciretose wrote:

    You aren't suggesting a 10th level fighter is using a +1 weapon, are you? I actually forgot Holy is a +2 modifier, so now you are carrying a 16k weapon which is equivilent to a +3 weapon.

    A +3 weapon would overcome cold iron and silver, hit roughly 10% more often and when not fighting evil creatures does more damage.

    So I'm calling Schrodinger on your post for the scenario.

    A +3 gets past all those DR/Cold Iron and/or Silver enemies, and it means you don't need to carry backup weapons, but you also don't have a (reliable) way to bypass DR/Evil, which does come up, as I'll show in a moment.

    Not to mention, +2 Hit/Damage is nice, but it's not going to make or break a fight (most classes don't need to rely on the +hit). The extra 2d6 against most enemies you face? That might actually make or break a fight.

    Simply put, using a +1 Holy Weapon and carrying MW Silver/Cold Iron Weapons as backup is far cheaper and more reliable than carrying around a +3 Weapon and dumping 100g on an Oil of Bless Weapon every time you need it. Not to mention you'll be doing more damage to evil aligned creatures than if you went with just the enhancement bonus.

    ciretose wrote:

    And no, that monk isn't wisdom "based". That is a 16 in wisdom with 4th and 8th or a 16 in wisdom with a racial bonus.

    I already posted a build that isn't a munchkin that gets there easily and also has a 20 strength. 20 is pretty much industry standard for 10th level monk wisdom.

    Most Fighters I've seen won't have a 20 Con by level 10 (probably more in the 16-18 range). I'd argue Con is to Fighter as Wis is to Monk.

    Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree here (getting a 20 in a score, before magic, by level 10 requires some pushed investment, as even you've shown in your example).

    ciretose wrote:
    Neo2151 wrote:

    Here's the thing about Cold Iron and Alchemical Silver: They're cheap.


    • +1 Holy Greatsword - Here is your main weapon. It really hurts the evil creatures (the most common creatures you'll find), it bypasses the most common DR type, and it's expensive: costs you 18,350g, which is why you only have the one.

    Is it? I don't have time to dig through the bestiary before work, but show me the classes that have DR/Good that don't also have DR silver or Cold Iron prior to, say, CR 13 or so.

    Because that is where your fighter is fighting.

    Now tell me if that is worth nerfing 10% to hit and +2 damage per hit.

    First, I'll start by saying that +2 to hit can easily be overkill for many classes. Would a Rogue kill for it? Yup! Would a Fighter? Eh, probably not, he'll manage fine either way. And as for +2 to damage? +2d6 is always better than +2.

    That said, here's a list of Monsters from CR7 - CR14 that you need a Good weapon to bypass:

  • CR7:
    Asura, Adhukait
    Devil, Salikotal
    Hellcat
    Daemon, Hydrodaemon (3pp)
    Devil, Gladiatrix (3pp)

  • CR8:
    Devil, Erinyes
    Hellwasp Swarm
    Rakshasa, Marai
    Demon, Balban (3pp)
    Devil, Garugin (3pp)
    Ooze, Magma (3pp)

  • CR9:
    Asura, Upasunda
    Devil, Bone
    Demon, Vrock
    Daemon, Charonodaemon (3pp)
    Demon, Nerizo (3pp)
    Tombstone Fairy (3pp)

  • CR10:
    Bebilith
    Daemon, Piscodaemon
    Demon, Kalavakus
    Demon, Xenarth
    Devil, Phistophilus
    Div, Ghawwas
    Gholdako
    Rakshasa, Common
    Daemon, Piscodaemon (3pp)
    Demodand, Tarry (3pp)
    Demon, Greruor (3pp)
    Demon, Stirge (3pp)

  • CR11:
    Asura, Aghasura
    Daemon, Meladaemon
    Demon, Hezrou
    Devil, Hamatula
    Demon, Aeshma (3pp)
    Demon, Chaaor (3pp)
    Demon, Greater Ooze (3pp)
    Devil, Marzach (3pp)
    Gnarlwood (3pp)
    Jelly, Marsh, Jubilex-Touched (3pp)

  • CR12:
    Baregara
    Daemon, Derghodaemon
    Demon, Coloxus
    Demon, Omox
    Div, Shira
    Nightshade, Nightskitter
    Daemon, Cacodaemon (3pp)
    Demon, Daraka (3pp)
    Demon, Paigoel (3pp)
    Demon, Shrroth (3pp)

  • CR13:
    Daemon, Thanadaemon
    Demodand, Tarry
    Demon, Glabrezu
    Devil, Ashmede
    Devil, Gelugon
    Demodand, Slime (3pp)
    Demon, Nysrock (3pp)
    Devil, Ashmede (3pp)
    Grimm (3pp)
    Guardian, Reliquary (3pp)

  • CR14:
    Akaruzug
    Daemon, Temerdaemon
    Demon, Nalfeshnee
    Devil, Gylou
    Div, Sepid
    Nightshade, Nightwing
    Demon, Gharros (3pp)

    For what it's worth, it looks like CR10 is the spot where it starts becoming pretty common.


  • You know what's funny? I'll take the +2 as either an enhancement bonus or or something less specific than holy unless I am in a campaign where it comes up a lot. +2 damage constantly versus +2d6 on some fights, overall the +2 constant wins, especially since, overall, the oil of bless weapon isn't all that expensive. DR/Cold Iron or DR/Silver tends to be encountered just as much, and at the levels your talking about, the 100g is the cost of adventuring(about like cure potions, room and board, etc.)

    Some folks want the extra 2d6 in specific situations...but honestly, I could get a +2 Evil Outsider Bane Greatsword, and against almost everything on that list get a +2 to hit and 2d6+2 extra damage. Yeah. Holy isn't bad, but it is situational, and I prefer weapon enhancements, especially before 14-15 to be usable 75%+ of the time, if not all the time.


    To be fair, there are a TON of things that are evil but don't have DR/Good. Holy works against those as well. (It's no secret that Pathfinder likes to make creatures Evil based on Human stereotype rather than logic, so you'll be getting that Holy bonus damage more often than not, making the "against everything else" argument much weaker.)

    The other thing to consider: Basic enhancement is boring.
    Yes, you can "math" your way to victory, but that's far less exciting.

    Granted, that's subjective.


    ciretose wrote:
    Eben TheQuiet wrote:
    Idon't know about you, but my party doesn't always fight level-appropriate encounters. And the fighters and wizards can still contribute above their CR-equivalent.

    Does your group also hold to a 20 point buy and WBL that we are holding this discussion to?

    The Glabrezu also has spell resistance of 24, Reverse Gravity, can summon another Glabrezu and can greater teleport at will.

    Any level 10 character not specifically designed for an encounter with a Glabrezu will have trouble contributing.

    Firstly, the standard is 15 Point Buy (perhaps not for your examples, but I prefer working with the standard foremost when trying to prove something isn't made of fail). Secondly, CR 13 is an epic encounter for a party of 10th level characters, and is in no way outside of their range of capability to defeat (it's just quite hard). It's not even going outside of suggested encounter design from the Core Rulebook.

    Being able to look at how well something contributes vs encounters between APL-3 and APL+3 is not only viable but it's a good idea, since those are encounters you can expect just from the Core Rulebook alone.

    A party consisting of Ranger, Bard, Wizard, Cleric can handle a Glabrezu at 10th level. With their combined might the Ranger can hit it (+10 BAB, easily +6 Strength, +3 greater magic weapon and align weapon and haste mean he's got a least 2 attacks per round at +20 to hit, then apply Inspire Courage (+3 to hit and damage) which means the Bard can hit about as frequently as the un-inspired Ranger.

    Meanwhile, the Wizard and Cleric focus on buffing and slowing the Glabrezu down (dispelling debuffs, re-applying buffs when the glabrezu dispels them. Spell immunity cast by the cleric can prevent the party from getting taken apart by chaos hammer and unholy blight. The wizard can hurl a whole quiver of aligned arrows at the fiend with telekinesis with thrilling accuracy (getting bonuses to hit and damage from Inspire Courage as well).

    The party can do it. They may even have the fiend on the run before they kill him. They may have to use some consumables such as potions, oils, or scrolls (one of those times where you may need to burn an item with a caster level higher than your own as an emergency button).


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Krigare wrote:
    Hey, slightly off topic, but Dabbler, what do you think about barbarians who go from a +1 weapon to a +1 Furious weapon? =) With UE, I think for barbarians my weapon rference would go +1, +1 furious, +2 furious, +2 furious courageous.

    My rule of thumb is that +1 to hit is worth +2 to damage, so if you drop +1 enhancement for a property, it needs to be worth at least +3 damage to be worth it. Holy is close, because you lose +2 to get +2d6. However, it's also conditional. If your odds to hit are alreadly low, don't risk it. If they are good, and you will fight a lot of evil bods, it's probably worth it.

    I know that doesn't answer the question directly, but it's how I work it out.

    Krigare wrote:
    Which actually illustrates a good point. Monks don't really have those kinds of options. Monk weapons themselves are sub-par, and due to a lack of hit bonuses/innate enhancement bonuses( real ones, not just to hit) instead of being able to use an AoMF to add weapon properties (IMO their intended use for a monk) they are forced to use them in an ineffective way.

    Monk weapons are sub-par because the damage is low, and the threat ranges are the worst. The AoMF is bad not just because of price but the cap on ability. That said, monks do key Ki-focus and Greater ki-focus weapons available to them. I don't know of any other class that needs a special property on a weapon just to be able to use special attacks with that weapon, but there you are. It's another reason single-weapon flurry can't be said to be broken.

    Nephelim wrote:
    So, while I haven't read the entire thread, it seems like something akin to the Fighter's Weapon Training (for a single monk weapon, assumed unarmed, and possibly with a scaled back progression) would do the trick, as would arm and leg wraps that could be enchanted as though a double weapon (as opposed to the AoMF)... those sound eminently doable with minor re-tooling, or even just some type of Feat chain, similar to the Amateur Gunfighter sequence? The Wraps would not be hard to price out.

    Items fixes have been discounted by Paizo, or they would be in the Ultimate Equipment book. Something like weapon training has been talked about.

    Nephelim wrote:
    Alternatively, what about a feat (or item?) that enables a Monk to spend Ki to enhance their unarmed attacks in the same way that a Magus enhances their weapon, but reduce its duration to rounds rather than minutes (to keep from too much thunder-stealing).

    OK, why should the magus get minutes and the monk rounds? Magus is already way better than the monk, has less to worry about in action economy, and has as much arcana as the monk has ki.

    I would say give the monk's ki-strike an enhancement bonus to hit (not damage) based on level, say +1 at 4th level, +1/3 levels to cap at +5. This is equal to the bonus other classes can expect at the levels they can expect it. It doesn't obsolete the AoMF because it doesn't add to damage or provide properties.

    Also, I don't like feat-taxes - must have feats a class has to take just to function properly.

    I would add a ki-ability to get through DR, replacing the current system monks have, something like this: A monk can spend one point of ki to ignore one point of DR per level, for one round per level, on one target.

    Nephelim wrote:
    A thought I had was to create "stances" for Monks, such that while in one stance, they might get the advantage of Weapon Training, but lose their enhanced speed, to spitball it a bit. The style feats seem to set this up as a reasonable precedent, and it seems to me to be pretty thematically relevant.

    We already have options like that for styles.

    Nephelim wrote:
    Whatever the case, if the crux of the problem is that because of MAD, Monks don't hit often enough to be a factor when it really counts (without specializing), or when they do, their other abilities become so feeble as to be useless. All these options seem like easy enough house-rule fixes...

    To deal with MAD I suggest letting the monk use Wisdom for their to hit modifier with monk weapons and unarmed strike. Strength and Dexterity remain important, but you don't need to max out one or the other any more, just wisdom.


    Oh, I know holy is good against more than that. But to me, holy is as boring as, oh say basic enhancement. It is an extra 2d6 damage, just as much a math way to victory as anything else.

    Honestly, know when I played a monk back in 1e, one of the fun things about him was how little gear he needed compared to everyone else. The game paradigm has shifted some from that, making characters who are allowed limited gear (old paladins, eh?) a non-viable limiting factor. But I also think a class like the monk, for whom all the source inspirations are not the guys walking around with 100 pounds of gear, and who rely on physical and mental training along with innate mastered powers(ki), they should be viable adventurers in a 4 man party(able to fill one of the basic roles) from just the core book.

    The lack of a good offensive/defensive mix, low skill points, no spell casting, a mixed bag of class abilities just leaves them lacking in the ability to fill any role. Boosting their to hit passively, by some form on innate class ability, would allow them to fill the tank/dpr roles viably, and pinch hit in the scouting role if needed.


    Dabbler wrote:
    Krigare wrote:
    Hey, slightly off topic, but Dabbler, what do you think about barbarians who go from a +1 weapon to a +1 Furious weapon? =) With UE, I think for barbarians my weapon rference would go +1, +1 furious, +2 furious, +2 furious courageous.

    My rule of thumb is that +1 to hit is worth +2 to damage, so if you drop +1 enhancement for a property, it needs to be worth at least +3 damage to be worth it. Holy is close, because you lose +2 to get +2d6. However, it's also conditional. If your odds to hit are alreadly low, don't risk it. If they are good, and you will fight a lot of evil bods, it's probably worth it.

    I know that doesn't answer the question directly, but it's how I work it out.

    Yeah, Furious increases the enhancement bonus while raging by +2 =) Courageous increases morale bonuses by half the weapons enhancement bonus. Like I said, off topic =)

    Quote:
    Krigare wrote:
    Which actually illustrates a good point. Monks don't really have those kinds of options. Monk weapons themselves are sub-par, and due to a lack of hit bonuses/innate enhancement bonuses( real ones, not just to hit) instead of being able to use an AoMF to add weapon properties (IMO their intended use for a monk) they are forced to use them in an ineffective way.
    Monk weapons are sub-par because the damage is low, and the threat ranges are the worst. The AoMF is bad not just because of price but the cap on ability. That said, monks do key Ki-focus and Greater ki-focus weapons available to them. I don't know of any other class that needs a special property on a weapon just to be able to use special attacks with that weapon, but there you are. It's another reason single-weapon flurry can't be said to be broken.

    Yeah, I mis-stated myself a little there. The monk weapons are sub-par for the low damage/crit potential. Monk unarmed is sub-par due to the lack of available total enhancement value available. That's what I meant to type.

    Meh, its been that kind of day at work.


    Gignere wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    It's worth it if you are often fighting evil creatures, I think, but generally I'd take the +3 weapon every time. The only enhancements that are worth it are those that trade each +1 for roughly twice the damage in all circumstances. Keen is worth it on a weapon with an 18-20 threat, it's also worth it if you have a bonus to otherwise boost the weapon - like a paladin's divine bond.

    It's worth it when you are capped at +5 (Which would make it never worth it for a monk w/ AoMF) and if you find it, but giving up +2 to hit and +2 to damage against some enemies is a lot to give up. My point is that it was a cherry picked build.

    I agree with you on Keen, and that would be something where if I saw "Keen Scimatars" I wouldn't blink.

    It's not cherry picked when both the hypothetical fighter and monk got holy. Unless you think that having a +3 weapon while the monk has a +2 and both not punching DR is going to make the monk's relative DPR that much better? My point of giving both holy weapons was to actually advantage the monk, the THF's per hit damage in my model is 34 damage per hit whereas the monk is at 23 for the first hit and 20 for subsequent (Dragon Style and Ferocity).

    DR 10/Good will favor the fighter over the monk if both have no way of going through that DR. Just plugged in my a flat -10 damage in my model. The THF will drop DPR from 117 to about 89. The monk will drop from 72 to 37 (assumes both haste and ki is up).

    Also keep in mind haste doesn't work on unarmed strikes. It only grants an extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, to which unarmed strikes are neither. A monk only gets +1 to hit, AC, and reflex saves from haste (their movement speed bonus doesn't stack with it either). EDIT: Also before anyone tries to start this as an argument, monks treat their unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons for effects targeting their unarmed strikes. Haste is not such an effect. You do not haste your sword, you haste the wielder. Casting greater magic weapon is a Yes, casting haste is a No.


    Ashiel wrote:
    Gignere wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    It's worth it if you are often fighting evil creatures, I think, but generally I'd take the +3 weapon every time. The only enhancements that are worth it are those that trade each +1 for roughly twice the damage in all circumstances. Keen is worth it on a weapon with an 18-20 threat, it's also worth it if you have a bonus to otherwise boost the weapon - like a paladin's divine bond.

    It's worth it when you are capped at +5 (Which would make it never worth it for a monk w/ AoMF) and if you find it, but giving up +2 to hit and +2 to damage against some enemies is a lot to give up. My point is that it was a cherry picked build.

    I agree with you on Keen, and that would be something where if I saw "Keen Scimatars" I wouldn't blink.

    It's not cherry picked when both the hypothetical fighter and monk got holy. Unless you think that having a +3 weapon while the monk has a +2 and both not punching DR is going to make the monk's relative DPR that much better? My point of giving both holy weapons was to actually advantage the monk, the THF's per hit damage in my model is 34 damage per hit whereas the monk is at 23 for the first hit and 20 for subsequent (Dragon Style and Ferocity).

    DR 10/Good will favor the fighter over the monk if both have no way of going through that DR. Just plugged in my a flat -10 damage in my model. The THF will drop DPR from 117 to about 89. The monk will drop from 72 to 37 (assumes both haste and ki is up).

    Also keep in mind haste doesn't work on unarmed strikes. It only grants an extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, to which unarmed strikes are neither. A monk only gets +1 to hit, AC, and reflex saves from haste (their movement speed bonus doesn't stack with it either). EDIT: Also before anyone tries to start this as an argument, monks treat their unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons for effects targeting their unarmed strikes. Haste is not...

    and what happens with

    "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon" ?


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Haste is like the AoMF not bypassing DR...the rules don't specifically say one way or another, and there is wriggle room to say they don't, but a DM would have to be a real Richard Cranium to rule against the monk in these instances, and I think the RAI can safely be assumed that haste works with unarmed strikes and the AoMF bypasses DR so far as I can see.


    Nicos wrote:
    Ashiel wrote:
    Gignere wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    It's worth it if you are often fighting evil creatures, I think, but generally I'd take the +3 weapon every time. The only enhancements that are worth it are those that trade each +1 for roughly twice the damage in all circumstances. Keen is worth it on a weapon with an 18-20 threat, it's also worth it if you have a bonus to otherwise boost the weapon - like a paladin's divine bond.

    It's worth it when you are capped at +5 (Which would make it never worth it for a monk w/ AoMF) and if you find it, but giving up +2 to hit and +2 to damage against some enemies is a lot to give up. My point is that it was a cherry picked build.

    I agree with you on Keen, and that would be something where if I saw "Keen Scimatars" I wouldn't blink.

    It's not cherry picked when both the hypothetical fighter and monk got holy. Unless you think that having a +3 weapon while the monk has a +2 and both not punching DR is going to make the monk's relative DPR that much better? My point of giving both holy weapons was to actually advantage the monk, the THF's per hit damage in my model is 34 damage per hit whereas the monk is at 23 for the first hit and 20 for subsequent (Dragon Style and Ferocity).

    DR 10/Good will favor the fighter over the monk if both have no way of going through that DR. Just plugged in my a flat -10 damage in my model. The THF will drop DPR from 117 to about 89. The monk will drop from 72 to 37 (assumes both haste and ki is up).

    Also keep in mind haste doesn't work on unarmed strikes. It only grants an extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, to which unarmed strikes are neither. A monk only gets +1 to hit, AC, and reflex saves from haste (their movement speed bonus doesn't stack with it either). EDIT: Also before anyone tries to start this as an argument, monks treat their unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons for effects targeting their unarmed strikes.
    ...

    Being treated as a light weapon for effects based on light weapons (detailed in the equipment rules where it is explaining light weapons) makes it neither a natural nor manufactured weapon, so what is your point?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dabbler wrote:
    Haste is like the AoMF not bypassing DR...the rules don't specifically say one way or another, and there is wriggle room to say they don't, but a DM would have to be a real Richard Cranium to rule against the monk in these instances, and I think the RAI can safely be assumed that haste works with unarmed strikes and the AoMF bypasses DR so far as I can see.

    I can say RAI monks are supposed to be awesome. RAI and RAW are different things here. If we are talking about what the game actually gives monks and not our house rules, then we have to accept that monks get the shaft when it comes to haste as well. Haste is very clear. Natural or manufactured. It does not simply grant an additional attack (which would allow natural, manufactured, or unarmed strike). It specifies. That specification withholds its benefits from monks by the rules.


    Ashiel wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    Haste is like the AoMF not bypassing DR...the rules don't specifically say one way or another, and there is wriggle room to say they don't, but a DM would have to be a real Richard Cranium to rule against the monk in these instances, and I think the RAI can safely be assumed that haste works with unarmed strikes and the AoMF bypasses DR so far as I can see.
    I can say RAI monks are supposed to be awesome. RAI and RAW are different things here. If we are talking about what the game actually gives monks and not our house rules, then we have to accept that monks get the shaft when it comes to haste as well. Haste is very clear. Natural or manufactured. It does not simply grant an additional attack (which would allow natural, manufactured, or unarmed strike). It specifies. That specification withholds its benefits from monks by the rules.

    Oh Ashiel. Why did you have to say this? Now somewhere, at someone's table a poor monk is going to get killed because a GM just realized he doesn't benefit from the haste spell...


    Ashiel wrote:
    Also keep in mind haste doesn't work on unarmed strikes. It only grants an extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, to which unarmed strikes are neither. A monk only gets +1 to hit, AC, and reflex saves from haste (their movement speed bonus doesn't stack with it either).

    Well wait, if we're going to be all anal with the language, I don't read anywhere that creature's get a bonus attack with natural weapons either. Only full attacks with "held" weapons.


    Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
    Ashiel wrote:
    Also keep in mind haste doesn't work on unarmed strikes. It only grants an extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, to which unarmed strikes are neither. A monk only gets +1 to hit, AC, and reflex saves from haste (their movement speed bonus doesn't stack with it either).
    Well wait, if we're going to be all anal with the language, I don't read anywhere that creature's get a bonus attack with natural weapons either. Only full attacks with "held" weapons.
    PRD - Natural Attacks wrote:

    Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.

    Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description.

    Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

    Bolded for emphasis. EDIT: Natural attacks are also detailed as granting additional attacks in the natural attack clause of the Combat chapter. Furthermore, it notes below that in the same section that any extra attacks (regardless of source) may be taken as part of a full-attack action.

    The full-attack action notes that you use this action to use your additional attacks regardless of source. Specifically it says: "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones."

    Unarmed strikes are not restricted from being used due to high BAB in the way that natural weapons are, and natural weapons can provide additional attacks (in this case falling under the miscellaneous "some special reason", the reason in this case being multiple natural attacks). Full attacks themselves do not specify that you have to be holding anything.


    Horbagh wrote:
    Ashiel wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    Haste is like the AoMF not bypassing DR...the rules don't specifically say one way or another, and there is wriggle room to say they don't, but a DM would have to be a real Richard Cranium to rule against the monk in these instances, and I think the RAI can safely be assumed that haste works with unarmed strikes and the AoMF bypasses DR so far as I can see.
    I can say RAI monks are supposed to be awesome. RAI and RAW are different things here. If we are talking about what the game actually gives monks and not our house rules, then we have to accept that monks get the shaft when it comes to haste as well. Haste is very clear. Natural or manufactured. It does not simply grant an additional attack (which would allow natural, manufactured, or unarmed strike). It specifies. That specification withholds its benefits from monks by the rules.
    Oh Ashiel. Why did you have to say this? Now somewhere, at someone's table a poor monk is going to get killed because a GM just realized he doesn't benefit from the haste spell...

    The truth hurts sometimes. It also is humorous in the case that sometimes monks are actually worse in the rules than people even realize. There are many things in the rules people think work but don't. How many people do you think treat spell resistance as an entirely beneficial thing? Spell resistance has to be lowered to receive beneficial spells as much as harmful ones unless you are the caster of the spell. Lowering it takes a standard action. How many people do you suppose only apply SR vs enemy spells, or allow you to end/resume as a free action?


    Ashiel wrote:
    Being treated as a light weapon for effects based on light weapons (detailed in the equipment rules where it is explaining light weapons) makes it neither a natural nor manufactured weapon, so what is your point?

    in what part it says taht a unarme strikes is treated a light weapon only for theeffect based on light weapons? why not the effect that depends only on weapons like haste?


    Ashiel wrote:
    Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
    Ashiel wrote:
    Also keep in mind haste doesn't work on unarmed strikes. It only grants an extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon, to which unarmed strikes are neither. A monk only gets +1 to hit, AC, and reflex saves from haste (their movement speed bonus doesn't stack with it either).
    Well wait, if we're going to be all anal with the language, I don't read anywhere that creature's get a bonus attack with natural weapons either. Only full attacks with "held" weapons.
    PRD - Natural Attacks wrote:

    Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.

    Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description.

    Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons

    ...

    And... Haste says

    Quote:
    a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding.

    If a monk can't gain an extra attack from haste, why would a creature with natural weapons be able to?


    Nicos wrote:
    Ashiel wrote:
    Being treated as a light weapon for effects based on light weapons (detailed in the equipment rules where it is explaining light weapons) makes it neither a natural nor manufactured weapon, so what is your point?
    in what part it says taht a unarme strikes is treated a light weapon only for theeffect based on light weapons? why not the effect that depends only on weapons like haste?

    Because unarmed strikes being treated as light weapons do not make them natural or manufactured weapons. In fact, it denotes that they are not natural or manufactured weapons all the more because instead of being them they are treated as them in certain circumstances (in the case of the unarmed strike it is treated as a light weapon for effects based on light weapons).

    If haste declared you got a bonus attack with a light weapon then you'd get your extra unarmed strike because unarmed strike is called out as being treated as a light weapon. However, haste specifies that you must make the attack with a manufactured or natural weapon, of which unarmed strikes are very specifically neither (even going so far as to spell this out multiple times in the equipment chapter).

    Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
    And haste says

    No, haste says:

    Haste wrote:
    When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)

    That is actually what haste says. Verbatim. No paraphrasing.

    Quote:
    If a monk can't gain an extra attack from haste, why would a creature with natural weapons be able to?

    Because that's what the spell says it does.

    EDIT: To gain the extra attack you must use a natural or manufactured weapon. Hence, a monk could make the extra attack with a kama or quarterstaff but not unarmed strike. Is that weird? Perhaps, but there are a lot of weird things in D&D. Would it be a fair house rule to allow unarmed strikes? Yes. If I were to re-write haste, how would I do it? Well I'd allow any sort of attack (simply saying you get one extra attack at your highest BAB would suffice, as this is a case of perhaps being overly specific).

    However, since we're talking about what the rules actually are and not talking about peoples' house rules and how the rules affect different classes, then we need to be consistent and fair. Sometimes in being fair and not making special exceptions for classes we learn with the true unfairness lies within the system.


    While Ashiel is probably correct in that that is what the rules say, I do not believe that is RAI.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    PRD wrote:
    An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

    There's no qualification on when unarmed strikes count as light weapons. They're always light weapons.

    As for haste, I'm not sure why it still reads that way a year after THIS post.


    Ganryu wrote:
    While Ashiel is probably correct in that that is what the rules say, I do not believe that is RAI.

    I can't say if it is RAI. Only that it is RAW, which means more at the gaming table in every group I've ever seen personally (not many, but I do a fair amount of online gaming as well, and I find the rules tend to hold up more than "well I think the designers wanted this instead"). Some arguments could be made that it IS RAI because monks in pre-3E weren't affected by haste at a certain level (at least the monks in BG II gain immunity to both slow and haste, and it would explain why their favorite form of attacks and movement speed don't stack with it, if that was a carrying of their old school feel).

    At the end of the day however, we can look at how it DOES work and decide how we WANT IT TO WORK, and then patch it. That's the beautiful thing about P&P RPGs. It's not hard to patch the system piece by piece. What Pathfinder is just a different build of D&D 3.0. By tweaking things here and there we get growth and new ideas. Perhaps in PF 2E haste will allow for unarmed strikes.


    Killsmith wrote:
    PRD wrote:
    An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

    There's no qualification on when unarmed strikes count as light weapons. They're always light weapons.

    As for haste, I'm not sure why it still reads that way a year after THIS post.

    But it does not make it a manufactured weapon. It's nice to see that they have acknowledged it as a problem and note it shouldn't work that way. Perhaps we will see an errata in the future.


    Atarlost wrote:


    I guess one question that needs asking is do monks use Power Attack? I'm not quite sure what ratio they're going to get out of it. If flurry is TWF they're going to get 1.5:1. If unarmed strikes never being off-hand means they always get a 2:1 they probably should. If monks are assumed to be power attacking to have decent damage that's where a lot of their accuracy deficit is coming from.

    Unless you have a bard tied to your monk ass, power attack is a DPR loss for unarmed monks and is generally a trap feat.

    Better to skip PA, Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity if you are a strength base monk are the way to go for a DPR monk. They are strictly DPR increasing feats.


    Ashiel wrote:
    Killsmith wrote:
    PRD wrote:
    An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

    There's no qualification on when unarmed strikes count as light weapons. They're always light weapons.

    As for haste, I'm not sure why it still reads that way a year after THIS post.

    But it does not make it a manufactured weapon. It's nice to see that they have acknowledged it as a problem and note it shouldn't work that way. Perhaps we will see an errata in the future.

    It should be in any core rulebook printed within the past 12 months, if the post is accurate. I don't have any way of checking that, so I can't say one way or another.


    Killsmith wrote:
    Ashiel wrote:
    Killsmith wrote:
    PRD wrote:
    An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

    There's no qualification on when unarmed strikes count as light weapons. They're always light weapons.

    As for haste, I'm not sure why it still reads that way a year after THIS post.

    But it does not make it a manufactured weapon. It's nice to see that they have acknowledged it as a problem and note it shouldn't work that way. Perhaps we will see an errata in the future.
    It should be in any core rulebook printed within the past 12 months, if the post is accurate. I don't have any way of checking that, so I can't say one way or another.

    Well the PRD says otherwise, and has been updated within the last 12 months.


    Ashiel wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Ashiel wrote:
    Being treated as a light weapon for effects based on light weapons (detailed in the equipment rules where it is explaining light weapons) makes it neither a natural nor manufactured weapon, so what is your point?
    in what part it says taht a unarme strikes is treated a light weapon only for theeffect based on light weapons? why not the effect that depends only on weapons like haste?

    Because unarmed strikes being treated as light weapons do not make them natural or manufactured weapons. In fact, it denotes that they are not natural or manufactured weapons all the more because instead of being them they are treated as them in certain circumstances (in the case of the unarmed strike it is treated as a light weapon for effects based on light weapons).

    If haste declared you got a bonus attack with a light weapon then you'd get your extra unarmed strike because unarmed strike is called out as being treated as a light weapon. However, haste specifies that you must make the attack with a manufactured or natural weapon, of which unarmed strikes are very specifically neither (even going so far as to spell this out multiple times in the equipment chapter).

    Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
    And haste says

    No, haste says:

    Haste wrote:
    When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)

    That is actually what haste says. Verbatim. No paraphrasing.

    Quote:
    If a monk can't gain an extra attack from haste, why would a creature with natural weapons be able to?
    Because that's what the spell says it does....

    My bad, my book is outdated...


    Eh, Ashiel, that is a situation where RAW is ambiguous really. Not the thread for hashing it out really lol.

    It is a good example though of how the language used for the monk tends to interact poorly or ambiguously with the rest of the ruleset. Even RAI gets difficult to puzzle out sometimes with monks.

    851 to 900 of 1,235 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
    Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / If Monks have trouble hitting... 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.