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

How exactly is the Brawling property worth only a +1 for pricing? How?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I have had some time to think on this issue since UE was released, and to be honest, I don't see how in the world the brawling special armor property was priced at only +1. For those who are not aware of this property, I will quote:

Quote:

Brawling

Price: +1 bonus

The wearer of brawling armor gains a +2 bonus on unarmed attack and damage rolls, including combat maneuver checks made to grapple. Her unarmed strikes count as magic weapons for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. These bonuses do not apply to natural weapons. This special ability does not prevent the wearer's unarmed strikes from provoking attacks of opportunity or make the wearer's unarmed strikes count as armed attack. The brawling ability can be applied only to light armor.

Construction Requirements: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength

First thing that stands out to me is that it is restricted to light armor only (and Jason B. says in the Oh for a Muse of Fire thread that bracers of armor are not considered light armor). What? Is there any other armor property restricted to light armor?

That's weird, in and of itself, but it gets stranger. This item gives you a +2 (untyped) bonus on attack and damage rolls with unarmed strikes, makes those unarmed strikes bypass DR/magic, and gives another +2 (untyped, again) bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks made to grapple. What the . . .?

Wow. You get all of this, for the cost of a +1 armor bonus. Since armor must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus before adding special properties, that means the minimum cost of this property is 4,155 gp (for +1 brawling padded armor). And for that expense of 4,155 gp (which you can afford as early as 5th level, by the way), you get . . . (a) a +1 armor bonus to AC, (b) a +2 untyped bonus on attack rolls with unarmed strikes, (c) a +2 untyped bonus on damage rolls with unarmed strikes, and (d) a +2 untyped bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks with grapple maneuvers.

Let's look at a magic weapon. A +2 magic weapon that provides a bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls. That weapon costs 8,300 gp at a minimum, or nearly TWICE what this armor gives you. Never mind the +1 AC and the bonus on grapple checks.

That is merely the start, sports fans! It is even more of a price break than you think! Because you can Two-Weapon Fight with just your unarmed strikes! That makes it equal to TWO +2 magic weapons, or 16,600 gp (at a minimum).

Man, oh, man, is thing underpriced. We aren't even considering its costs compared to a +2 amulet of mighty fists (20,000 gp), an item which once again does not give that +1 to AC or +2 grapple checks.

Since this item gives untyped bonuses, that means it stacks with enhancement bonuses given by items such as amulet of mighty fists or the bodywraps of mighty striking or weapon focus or greater weapon specialization or weapon training . . . the list goes on. It stacks with everything.

How the devil is this item worth just 4,155 gp? How?

And, as usual, it cannot be used by monks. Why? Because it has to go on light armor and bracers of armor don't get to add it. This thing is just so outrageous that I am beyond words. After months of telling us that they would not obsolete the amulet of mighty fists and that the monk would be not receiving an item fix, and that there was no way to provide a bonus on unarmed strikes that doesn't also apply to natural attacks, they did just that.

Brawling is better--flat out better--than a +1 or +2 AoMF. At up to one-quarter the cost. And it stacks with the bonus from the AoMF as well. Notice too, that the bonuses listed above in the special property state "These bonuses do not apply to natural weapons". I guess that is okay if you are not playing a monk; we can divide up unarmed strikes and natural attacks then, but it breaks verisimilitude to do it for a monk. Right. Are you planning on trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, next?

Look, Paizo guys. We know your jobs are hard and that you spend a great deal of time trying to make the game better for everyone. But nonsense like this item, for such an amazingly low price, for literally every single character class in the game except for the monk, just makes it seem like you are trying to torpedo the class.

Why is it when monk fans ask for an item that only applies an enhancement bonus to their unarmed strikes (not natural attacks), we get told it has to be priced as two weapons, plus an extra amount because you cannot be disarmed, sundered, or have your weapons stolen or lost?

But for this, which every last other class in the game can use (even arcane magic users, if they are willing to spend a swift action and a feat on Arcane Armor Training) and the monk CANNOT without losing his AC bonus, fast movement, and flurry of blows; for this item, well, the two weapons cost suddenly doesn't matter. Why?

Explain to us what you folks were thinking when you made this? When you published this. When you posted it here on the boards in a preview of UE. Tell us how you came to the realization that a +1 armor bonus equivalent is 'enough' for what brawling does, but that +2 amulet of mighty fists that does less, you are okay with it cost four times as much.

We are waiting, Paizo. And we are wondering.

Master Arminas

PS: There are some who will no doubt consider this post 'fighty'. I do not. I am speaking here from the heart and expressing my own viewpoint. And I would like to hear an answer to the questions I have posed and the points I have raised. I am not trying to provoke a fight, just to understand where the game is going.


the easy way to fix this.

allow this property to work on bracers of armor as if they were light armor

or allow monks to wear light armor and retain their class abilities.

Star Voter 2015

Non-monks get a +2 bonus to hit and damage on unarmed strikes at level 5. Ok, so they get +1 to AC, and their unarmed strikes count as magic and deal 1d3+2 (average 4) now. Hooray.

Monks, meanwhile, by level 5, get +1 AC just for being a Monk, their unarmed strikes count as magic, and they deal 1d8 (average 4.5) and still have a pile of money.

Where is the problem?

You may be a disenfranchised monk fan, and I'm sorry about that, but this really doesn't seem like a big deal on its own.


Meh I think the thing is op also half my group wants to be whatever fighter archetype that gets unarmed strike is now. Just to play with this of course they are a twf light weapon users too....


i am also baffled, for all the reasons you mention.
i mean, i like that is applies to grapple (hardly anything does),
and i would have happily accepted it if it applied to light armor INCLUDING bracers...
albeit i'm not sure why it needs to use untyped rather than enhancement, or why it needs to be an armor property rather than work like a wondrous item.
it had even seemed that Paizo was open to creating a single-'weapon' UAS enhancing item usable for Monks (e.g. who wished to Flurry with a Reach Weapon and so wanted enhanced UAS for only one weapon of pseudo-2WF Flurry).

Liberty's Edge

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

MA,
No it's not particularly underpriced because, if you're not a monk, unarmed strikes are not the most efficient way of doing things.

Further, it is attached to light armour only so the martial classes, who can do significant damage on unarmed strieks if they spcialise in it, are less likely to take it as all of them have better AC options.

The restrictions (Unarmed only [suboptimal for non-monks without careful builds]) and light armour (suboptimal for the martial tpyes who can get appreciable unarmed damage) limit the utility. You're sacrificing up to 8 points AC for a +2 to hit and damage with a weapon that does d3 damage, that's quite a significant cost. I suppose a Rogue could use it for sneak attacks, but the rogue needs all the help it can get to be powered in combat never mind overpowered.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Funny how there are six more whole paragraphs after the announcement that he is "beyond words" (which itself is in paragraph #9, for a total of 15 paragraphs).

Master arminas is never beyond words when it comes to the monk. Never have I seen a cow more sacred.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:

I just don't see the big deal.

It's just +2 bonus on attack(this also counts for Grapple) and damage and counts as magic for DR. For only Unarmed Strike.

This means you need Improved Unarmed Strike or you provoke. It's limited to only Light Armor meaning you will potentially miss out on higher AC.

Also keep in mind this is not an Enhancement bonus.

It's not that big of a deal.

Your problem with it is that Monk's don't get to use it.

Unless you're a Sohei.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Varin Artusk Darkthane

Do you mean the Unarmed Fighter (Archetype) that has more proficiencies with monk weapons than monks do ?


mplindustries wrote:

Non-monks get a +2 bonus to hit and damage on unarmed strikes at level 5. Ok, so they get +1 to AC, and their unarmed strikes count as magic and deal 1d3+2 (average 4) now. Hooray.

Monks, meanwhile, by level 5, get +1 AC just for being a Monk, their unarmed strikes count as magic, and they deal 1d8 (average 4.5) and still have a pile of money.

Where is the problem?

You may be a disenfranchised monk fan, and I'm sorry about that, but this really doesn't seem like a big deal on its own.

the guy with the armor probably has enough strength to outdamage the monk, even with a D3 against the monk's D8. before brawling, the base die is irrelevent, it's all about the static bonuses.

lets look at the unarmed damage of a 5th level core nonbrawler fighter built around unarmed combat

+2 (1d3) +1 (+1 gauntlet) +4 (18 Str) +2 (weapon Specialization) +1 (weapon training) +4 (power attack) 14 damage per swing

attack bonus +5 (bab) -2 (pa) +1 (gauntlet) +1 (weapon focus) +1 (weapon training) +4 (Str) +10


yeah, very very nice for 2WF rogues/ninjas using UAS... really this is a reason for them to use UAS,
stacking with AoMF enhancement bonus would quickly become very worthwhile... no more problems hitting.

question: can you apply this to mithril medium armor?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

This is actually great for Maneuver Master Monks, come to think of it...


SlimGauge wrote:
Do you mean the Unarmed Fighter (Archetype) that has more proficiencies with monk weapons than monks do ?

Is that really a problem? Guess what roll a Fighter fills in a group. Guess what a Fighter's expertise is in.

Obviously it's Skills.


definitely, maneuver master, and the other archetypes where it can make sense to wear armor anyways, can all make great use of it.


Quandary wrote:

yeah, very very nice for 2WF rogues/ninjas using UAS... really this is a reason for them to use UAS,

stacking with AoMF enhancement bonus would quickly become very worthwhile... no more problems hitting.

question: can you apply this to mithril medium armor?

Don't see why not since mithral medium armors counts as light for every purpose other than proficiencies.

Marathon Voter 2013

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

Jesus christ, you guys wrote 18 posts in the time I was writing that.

edit: 19


Cheapy wrote:

Some nice points, if a tad...stand-offish.

Here are some possible explanations.


  • This ability requires a feat to really get any good use out of it. Feats are "worth" about 5k each, if I recall correctly. So bam, we're up to 9k already. Still a ways off from 20k, but still, this cannot be ignored.
  • Medium or Heavy armor only. Well OK, that restricts it by a lot, even just thematically speaking. Someone focusing on unarmed fighting wearing plate mail or medium armor, right. The unarmed fighter archetype can't easily use it. Even if they take proficiency with medium armor to avoid the ACP to hit, they're stuck at moving 20 feet per round in most cases. There are ways around this, namely mithral and being an unarchetype'd fighter to get Armor Training, but once again, can't ignore this. I'm not sure if the -1 ACP for Masterwork is included in the ACP reduction from Mithral, but if it is included (and Adamantine hints that it is) then unarmed fighter will need another feat (medium armor proficiency) to avoid that -1 to hit, since we can't use hide with mithral. So this is another 5k in this case. The only way this is somewhat useful for someone using unarmed weapons is through some kind of mithral armor, unless they want to swallow that 20' move speed (which works really well with the archetypical unarmed fighter, btw). Oh, and there's another 4k down the drain to get mithral on the item. So that's either 13k or 18k, depending on if they had medium armor proficiency already.
  • Did I mention the thematic clashing with someone using this as a main focus?

+1 comfort mithril breastplate or the trait armor expert then no ACP.


It is okay, Cheapy, we all have those days.

MA


Actually a ranger with two weapon fighting combat style and specializing in unarmed combat, along with +1 brawling mithral breastplate will be in almost all ways better than a monk.

Higher DPR, higher out of combat utility, and higher in combat utility (spell casting). To add insult to injury they also get a pet.

Edit: I think if I ever want to play a monk, I am just going to roll up a ranger and describe my character as having a shaved head and believes in pursuing physical perfection.

Marathon Voter 2013

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

Hahaha, wow I messed up. Deleting the post; no need to mess people up. Maybe I was reading the Bolstering property right above it for that line.

They were good points too. If only it were non-light armor.

Still, you need a feat to make it work.


Paul Watson wrote:

MA,

No it's not particularly underpriced because, if you're not a monk, unarmed strikes are not the most efficient way of doing things.

Further, it is attached to light armour only so the martial classes, who can do significant damage on unarmed strieks if they spcialise in it, are less likely to take it as all of them have better AC options.

The restrictions (Unarmed only [suboptimal for non-monks without careful builds]) and light armour (suboptimal for the martial tpyes who can get appreciable unarmed damage) limit the utility. You're sacrificing up to 8 points AC for a +2 to hit and damage with a weapon that does d3 damage, that's quite a significant cost. I suppose a Rogue could use it for sneak attacks, but the rogue needs all the help it can get to be powered in combat never mind overpowered.

Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.

By 20th level, he is doing 1d3+7 damage before Strength, magic, or feats. He will probably have weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization (+4), amulet of mighty fists +5 (+5), and mithral +5 brawling breastplate (+2) for 1d3+18 before Strength. He only needs a 13 Dex (and a belt of physical might Str/Dex +6) to qualify for ALL of the two-weapon fighting feats, including Double Slice and Two Weapon Rend, so his strength is probably up somewhere around 30 (+10), so he is looking at 1d3+28 per hit, of which he can get seven. And if two of those hit, his Double Weapon Rend triggers, adding even more damage. And his critical hits are probably going to be 19-20/x3, auto-confirm. That doesn't include Power Attack, by the way, which adds another +12 to his primary hand and +6 to his off-hand.

But, you are right . . . if you aren't a monk, unarmed strikes are just so sadly underpowered.

MA

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Every Monk thread makes me hate monks a little bit more.

Marathon Voter 2013

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Every Monk thread makes me hate monks a little bit more.

At last, Skeld has figured out the point of all these monk threads.

Pack it up folks. Skeld is on to us. Time to find some other target and another topic.

Star Voter 2015

master arminas wrote:
Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.

I'm not really sure I get the issue. Do you think Monks should be better fighters than the Fighter? That doesn't make sense to me.


mplindustries wrote:

Non-monks get a +2 bonus to hit and damage on unarmed strikes at level 5. Ok, so they get +1 to AC, and their unarmed strikes count as magic and deal 1d3+2 (average 4) now. Hooray.

Monks, meanwhile, by level 5, get +1 AC just for being a Monk, their unarmed strikes count as magic, and they deal 1d8 (average 4.5) and still have a pile of money.

Where is the problem?

You may be a disenfranchised monk fan, and I'm sorry about that, but this really doesn't seem like a big deal on its own.

You seem to be under the impression that brawling is going to be bought and used by people who don't specialize in unarmed strikes. I wouldn't be quite so sure of that. The main problem I have with brawling armor is that it gives TOO MANY BONUSES for its price. The +2 on attacks and damage (untyped, I might mention again) would cost 8,000 gp for one weapon or 16,000 gp for two weapons, or 20,000 gp for an amulet of mighty fists.

That doesn't even begin to consider what is the value of the +2 bonus (untyped bonus) on grapple checks, or the armor bonus enhancement (at least +1) added onto the base AC bonus of the armor itself.

This item is very underpriced for what it does. And when worn by a character (such as the brawler archetype, see above) or a barbarian who specializes in unarmed combat, his damage racks up very, very fast. Heck, even a TWF-ing Ranger can use both his unarmed strikes in this light armor and have far higher damage than most monks, even when not fighting his favored enemy.

MA


Cheapy wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Every Monk thread makes me hate monks a little bit more.

At last, Skeld has figured out the point of all these monk threads.

Pack it up folks. Skeld is on to us. Time to find some other target and another topic.

Bards?

MA


mplindustries wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.
I'm not really sure I get the issue. Do you think Monks should be better fighters than the Fighter? That doesn't make sense to me.

Do you think fighters should be better at unarmed combat than a monk? That doesn't make sense to me.

MA

Marathon Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nah, bards are fine. How about...Paladins not getting the summon monster version of the anti-paladin's fiendish boon.


yeah... my question is why was this item created? to improve UAS/Grapple for non-Monks?
as mentioned above, only UAS/Grapple specialists will take this armor,
for everybody else the fact that it doesn't remove the non-Threatening/AoO-provoking aspect makes it a no-go.
that said, are Monks considered that much better at UAS and Grapple vs. non-Monk specialists in those areas, that only the latter need 'help'?
i haven't played UAS Archetype Fighters, but they seemingly can compete very well in the DPR department.
they miss stuff like Stunning Fist, but have other features that Monks don't have.
it really would be nice if somebody involved in writing/editing this could speak to the rationale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure I really understand the problem here... Fighters fight - that's what they do. If you specialize a Fighter to fight in a particular style, he can push out the DPR because that's what they're built for... Unarmed attacks are just a feature of the overall Monk class which is not necessarily built to be a pure melee combatant like a Fighter. You don't even have to fight unarmed - it's just an option.

I'm not saying that Monks are at the power-level they need to be, but they certainly shouldn't be on par melee combat-wise with a Fighter that specializes in melee combat regardless of his chosen style.

Just my opinion.


Sweet! I am gonna create an unarmed fighter for my next character.

Marathon Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

yeah... my question is why was this item created? to improve UAS for non-Monks?

The reason was to throw a bone to non-monks who wanted to use unarmed strikes, especially those who would struggle with it normally. That it also helps out those who would do well already is an unfortunate side effect.

Now, what if it were an enhancement bonus?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unarmed combat is an underpowered fighting style, so the brawling property is priced fairly in order to help out a style that badly needs help.

The only problem with it is the light armor only excluding bracers of armor. Fix that (which is an issue w/ the BoA, not this property), and there's nothing wrong with it at all.


Quandary wrote:
yeah... my question is why was this item created?

For your surly dwarvern companion that likes to go out using the armor as evening-wear, get tanked, and bust some heads for good fun.

Or you want mimic any number of Final Fantasy-esque fist-fighters that don't match the Monk archetype (Snow, for ex)

Seems like a perfectly reasonable piece of quirky armor to me...

Star Voter 2015

master arminas wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.
I'm not really sure I get the issue. Do you think Monks should be better fighters than the Fighter? That doesn't make sense to me.
Do you think fighters should be better at unarmed combat than a monk?

Yes. I think the Fighter should be better at their chosen form of fighting than any other character.

I'm not saying monks are great and don't need help--I'm just saying that Fighters fight and that's it, so they should be the best. And this item doesn't actually do anything to hurt monks, all it does is (slightly) help Unarmed Fighters--and they kind of need help. Even though they're better than the Monk at fighting unarmed, they're weaker than many other Fighter options.


mplindustries wrote:
master arminas wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.
I'm not really sure I get the issue. Do you think Monks should be better fighters than the Fighter? That doesn't make sense to me.
Do you think fighters should be better at unarmed combat than a monk?

Yes. I think the Fighter should be better at their chosen form of fighting than any other character.

I'm not saying monks are great and don't need help--I'm just saying that Fighters fight and that's it, so they should be the best. And this item doesn't actually do anything to hurt monks, all it does is (slightly) help Unarmed Fighters--and they kind of need help. Even though they're better than the Monk at fighting unarmed, they're weaker than many other Fighter options.

It's not just the fighter, a ranger with two weapon combat style and improved unarmed strike feat is probably better in every measurable way than a monk.

Marathon Voter 2013

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

That's only if you don't track number of threads about the fundamentals of the class. Monks beat ranger and fighter there handedly.


Gignere wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
master arminas wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.
I'm not really sure I get the issue. Do you think Monks should be better fighters than the Fighter? That doesn't make sense to me.
Do you think fighters should be better at unarmed combat than a monk?

Yes. I think the Fighter should be better at their chosen form of fighting than any other character.

I'm not saying monks are great and don't need help--I'm just saying that Fighters fight and that's it, so they should be the best. And this item doesn't actually do anything to hurt monks, all it does is (slightly) help Unarmed Fighters--and they kind of need help. Even though they're better than the Monk at fighting unarmed, they're weaker than many other Fighter options.

It's not just the fighter, a ranger with two weapon combat style and improved unarmed strike feat is probably better in every measurable way than a monk.

so is a high strength arcane striking performing bard, or a raging pouncing barbarian


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liegence wrote:
Quandary wrote:
yeah... my question is why was this item created?
For your surly dwarvern companion that likes to go out using the armor as evening-wear, get tanked, and bust some heads for good fun.

of course, that's all well and good, but doesn't explain why the item WORKS THE WAY IT DOES.

Cheapy wrote:

The reason was to throw a bone to non-monks who wanted to use unarmed strikes, especially those who would struggle with it normally. At least, that's what the author told me last time I asked. That it also helps out those who would do well already is an unfortunate side effect.

Now, what if it were an enhancement bonus?

Right, enhancement bonus seems like the 'normal' option, and if the intent is to help NON-specialists, then uber-stacking on top of enhancement isn't really relevant/needed, they aren't likely to have uber-bling'ed out their UAS if they aren't specialists. fundamentally, if the target is the non-specialists, i would expect to help them where they most need it: emulating Improved UAS' threatening and non-AoO provoking. adding those features doesn't help the specialists at all, because they will already have those (even if they plan to use this armor, they need Imp UAS for pre-reqs, e.g. of Grapple). but that's the feature that is lacking from this item, while it's getting all the untyped bling. I just don't think this item is really designed well, if that is the design goal.


Cheapy wrote:
Quandary wrote:

yeah... my question is why was this item created? to improve UAS for non-Monks?

The reason was to throw a bone to non-monks who wanted to use unarmed strikes, especially those who would struggle with it normally. That it also helps out those who would do well already is an unfortunate side effect.

Now, what if it were an enhancement bonus?

Now, that is an interesting question, Cheapy. I think it would still be underpriced, but not being able to stack with AoMF or bodywraps of mighty striking would make it a little easier to swallow.

MA


Quandary wrote:
Liegence wrote:
Quandary wrote:
yeah... my question is why was this item created?
For your surly dwarvern companion that likes to go out using the armor as evening-wear, get tanked, and bust some heads for good fun.

of course, that's all well and good, but doesn't explain why the item WORKS THE WAY IT DOES.

Cheapy wrote:

The reason was to throw a bone to non-monks who wanted to use unarmed strikes, especially those who would struggle with it normally. At least, that's what the author told me last time I asked. That it also helps out those who would do well already is an unfortunate side effect.

Now, what if it were an enhancement bonus?
Right, enhancement bonus seems like the 'normal' option, and if the intent is to help NON-specialists, then uber-stacking on top of enhancement isn't really relevant/needed, they aren't likely to have uber-bling'ed out their UAS if they aren't specialists. fundamentally, if the target is the non-specialists, i would expect to help them where they most need it: emulating Improved UAS' threatening and non-AoO provoking. adding those features doesn't help the specialists at all, because they will already have those (even if they plan to use this armor, they need Imp UAS for pre-reqs, e.g. of Grapple). but that's the feature that is lacking from this item, while it's getting all the untyped bling. I just don't think this item is really designed well, if that is the design goal.

Agreed. The item itself is slightly off-kilter, if they were going for the "I want to punch someone in a barfight" crowd. Where does the grapple bonus play into that? And the stackable attack and damage bonus? It would make more sense to grant Improved Unarmed Strike and (maybe) give them 1d6 unarmed strike damage.

You restated my concerns very well. Thank you.

MA

Marathon Voter 2013

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

A non-monk who wants to use US is not the same as a US specialist. A US specialist is going to be one of any of the archetypes listed above or a monk. The non-monk who wants to use US is probably going to be the guy who just wants to use US as a weapon, rather than a manufactured one. This guy will have IUS, but won't be minmaxing. The bonus is what helps here, not the armed attacks thing.

There are different power levels that options in this game are made for. This thread seems to be coming from the perspective of a High Power Level game, where fighters are minmaxing every advantage to get damage while using US and rangers are using Combat Style to get some of the good TWF feats cheaply. This ability was written for a lower power level than that, but such abilities are available at all power levels.


MA, why do you have such a problem with the basic premise of this item, other than it screwing over monks for no good reason?

An unarmed combatant with this item is still doing less damage than a weapon-using character.

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / How exactly is the Brawling property worth only a +1 for pricing? How? All Messageboards

©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.