Monk's unarmed strike damage and Brass knuckles / Cestus?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:
Attacking with Brass Knuckles, is therefore, an unarmed strike attack. Otherwise, this line is meaningless.

That line means only that you don't provoke to attack unarmed with this weapon. You don't get Monk unarmed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If it is a weapon in its own right, it wouldn't provoke anyway because you are not unarmed. There would be no need for the sentence.

For that sentence to have meaning, the attack with the weapon is considered to be an unarmed strike (which is a type of, but not the same thing as, an unarmed attack).

And if it is an unarmed strike, anything that benefits unarmed strikes (Weapon Focus-Unarmed Strike, Weapon Spec-Unarmed Strike, style feats that require an unarmed strike, and yes, monk increased damage with unarmed strikes).

Many people have made issue of the removal of the line that monks can use their unarmed damage. But the removal of that line doesn't change anything.

For example, if there was an armor that said

"Tee Shirt: A tee shirt is light armor. A duelist can use their Precise Strike ability while wearing a tee shirt."

and in later printings it was changed to

"Tee Shirt: A tee shirt is light armor."

Despite the change in text, there is no change in the rules. A Duelist can still use Precise Strike in a tee shirt, because Duelists can use Precise Strike when wearing any light (or no) armor.

Similarly, Brass Knuckles used to say it is an unarmed strike, and monks can use their damage with them. It was changed to say it is an unarmed strike, and the line about monk damage was removed. But since monk damage applies on an unarmed strike, full stop, then the fact the weapon is considered an unarmed strike is sufficient to allow them to use their unarmed strike damage.

I also don't like the idea of using differential rules interpretation (comparing one printing to another to guess why something was changed). The most recent printing of the rule is what the rule is.

The most recent printing still says it is an unarmed strike, so that is what it is.

Differential rules interpretation causes problems, as instead of simply reading the current rule you have to read every iteration of the rule (thus must have access to everywhere the rule was printed) so you can compare and contrast them all.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Samasboy1 wrote:
If it is a weapon in its own right, it wouldn't provoke anyway because you are not unarmed. There would be no need for the sentence.

That line is there to prevent a GM from forcing an AoO on each attack because you are attacking "unarmed".

But it is abundantly clear that you are going to fracture into table variance. You are welcome to try that at your tables. I'll reject it at any table I run and I'll reject it as not RAW.

There isn't any more you can say to sway me, because the RAW is clear to me, the RAI is known via developer comments and the change to the UE book. So more posts in here don't do anyone any good because you can't prove your point to any significant number of the readers.


James Risner wrote:


That line is there to prevent a GM from forcing an AoO on each attack because you are attacking "unarmed".

Why? Without that line, there is nothing to distinguish this weapon from any other. So why would you be "unarmed" when attacking with it? Even then, why mention unarmed strikes at all instead of just saying it is an armed attack? Your interpretation means "unarmed strike" somehow means something different than unarmed strike.

The Dev comments are explicitly not official statements on how the rules work per SRF, and the change in UE doesn't remove that they are unarmed strikes.

I don't need your approval to post, so as long as other people continue the conversation so can I.

Shadow Lodge

James Risner wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:
If it is a weapon in its own right, it wouldn't provoke anyway because you are not unarmed. There would be no need for the sentence.

That line is there to prevent a GM from forcing an AoO on each attack because you are attacking "unarmed".

But it is abundantly clear that you are going to fracture into table variance. You are welcome to try that at your tables. I'll reject it at any table I run and I'll reject it as not RAW.

There isn't any more you can say to sway me, because the RAW is clear to me, the RAI is known via developer comments and the change to the UE book. So more posts in here don't do anyone any good because you can't prove your point to any significant number of the readers.

Im not trying to be a jerk, but Im not sure if you understand what RAW (as written), means. The RAW is that Monks increased unarmed strike damage does apply, with or without that specific line. The RAI is that it shouldn't.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

DM Beckett wrote:
if you understand what RAW (as written), means. The RAW is that Monks increased unarmed strike damage does apply, with or without that specific line. The RAI is that it shouldn't.

You pretty much couldn't be more wrong.

RAW means Rules as Written

It doesn't mean "rules as I see them and you can't tell me I'm interpreting them wrong"

So there are multiple RAWs some that disagree and some that agree with RAI.

In this case, there is a RAW that agrees with RAI.

Contributor

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry for the delay, had a deadline.

Kudaku wrote:

Perhaps an odd suggestion, but I'm going to run with your "WOW monks apply weapon stats to their unarmed strikes despite not wielding the staff" example - how would you feel about a item or weapon enhancement (let's call it a +1 equivalent) that allowed you to apply the weapon's enhancement bonus to a monk's unarmed strikes?

IE a monk could have a +2 flaming "transcendent" (or whatever) quarterstaff and as long as he carries it, he could treat his unarmed attacks as +2 and flaming.

Honestly, that would still be a gold "tax" that a monk would have to pay for; the monk might as well just use a +2 flaming quarterstaff and save 14,000gp (the difference between +3-equiv and +4-equiv). I don't think anyone wants to pay an additional +1-equiv on their weapon or armor just for "style." Compare to the glamered property for magic armor... plus-based in 3.5, flat cost in PF... because plus-based costs should only be used if the property makes the item better at its primary function, which for weapons is hitting and damaging things, and for armor is protecting you from things trying to hit you or damage you.

If you want monks to be as effective with unarmed strikes as they are with weapons, there needs to be a zero-cost difference between using a magic weapon and using an unarmed strike. So that would probably entail a monk choosing a magic weapon as his "equipped" weapon (just as a fighter decides to equip a weapon in hand and wield it), and thereafter the monk gains the benefit of that weapon's properties. That would keep the monk from getting abilities for "free" (he'd still have to buy/acquire a flaming weapon to "equip" if he wanted flaming unarmed strikes), but wouldn't force the monk to pay extra gp just for the privilege of using a class feature that's supposed to be on par with weapons.

Kudaku wrote:
While we're on the topic - you mentioned the Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes as a "sneak fix" for the monk earlier. I outlined some of the drawbacks of the Bodywrap and I personally find it a little disappointing for monks here. Do you feel the Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes is misunderstood?

IIRC, we created the bodywraps (and by that I mean, "I, Sean, wrote the entry for the bodywraps on behalf of the design team") after the flurry issue exploded on the boards and before flurry was errata'd to work like how everyone thought it was supposed to work. Now that you can flurry with the same weapon for every attack and the AOMF had its price reduced, I think the bodywraps are a subpar, complicated option.

BigDTBone wrote:
That's a fair statement. But the next printing came and there was no change. I understand (now) that you don't have absolute control over print runs,

I think the main point you need to understand is that you don't have a clear idea of what goes on behind the scenes at Paizo. That includes a lot of subcategories, like "the stuff an individual designer has control over is very specifically about the rules and not other aspects of the company," and "sometimes we only find out about a new printing at the last minute and have to scramble to put the errata together." It's not rocket science, but it's also not like I'm allowed to just open up the APG layout files, make changes, and the next time the book is printed, the changes are there.

BigDTBone wrote:

"Here look at this post by Developer XYZ, he says that this is how it works and they are going to change it in the next printing."

"Yeah, but that post was dated a few months before the next version went to press, and it still says the same thing."
"Well... the developer may not have had control of the print schedule... and ... uh, yeah."

So the proper response is,

"Why didn't this correction from the designer make it into the next print run?"
and not
"The designer is wrong because they didn't change it in the next print run like he said they would."

BigDTBone wrote:
Point being we have no way to know if you just changed your mind or if you weren't able to fix it in time, and we can't assume that the print is wrong by default if given those two choices.

Well, you could ask, and not jump to conclusions. I was the most communicative person on the design team, after all. If someone asked, "why did this not end up in the errata after you said it would," I'd be able to get an answer (even if that answer initially was, "What, it didnt'? Lemme get back to you on that"). And the odds of getting an answer at the time this occurred are much better than asking two years later, when I've had other things on my mind.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Where was the irony?
Was it the "rain on your wedding day" kind of irony?

Irony: a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

As in, "guy who puts monk-unarmed-strike-friendly brass knuckles into the game, gets talked into changing them by the lead designer, and is thereafter vilified by the public as the guy who hates and nerfs monks."

Samasboy1 wrote:
So if the dev posts "we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing" the appropriate response is "looking forward to it being fixed, but the rule hasn't changed until then"

Also known as the "they're going to make alcohol illegal, I'm going to be completely drunk until that law is on the books" strategy.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also I would like you to know that Inner Sea Gods is my favorite book from the Campaign setting book. I've always wanted a book with proper articles on all the major deities and it delivers on that. The PrC were actually good enough that taking them wouldn't diminish power for "flavor" like most PrCs. Only complaint were the multitude of bad feats, but I bought the book specifically for the lore articles, so it's nota big deal.

Full disclosure, the only design work I did for that book was the original god articles, the magic items picked up from Gods and Magic, the spells picked up from the original god articles, converting the two-page AP herald writeups to one-page writeups, and creating the one-page servitors. So I'm not the jerk who wrote those feats you don't like, I'm a totally different jerk. ;)

Samasboy1 wrote:

In which book did it no longer describe it as an unarmed strike? Because it is described that way in every source I can find, even the most recent.

So without Sean's post saying monks don't get their UAS damage with them, I don't see the argument against it.

In the APG, BK are listed on the weapons table in the "unarmed attacks" category, and the descriptive text says monks "can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

In UE, BK are listed on the the weapons table in the "light melee weapons" category, and do not have any text about monk unarmed damage.
The problem stems from a conflux of the following issues:
* dealing non-monk unarmed strike damage while wearing BK (this could be resolved by removing the description reference to unarmed strikes)
* dealing monk unarmed strike damage while wearing BK (this could be resolved by removing the description reference to unarmed strikes)
* using bonuses to unarmed strike attacks like Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) when wearing BK
* are you armed or unarmed
* deploying touch attacks with "unarmed strikes"
* AOOs when "unarmed"

What it all comes down to is the differentiation between monk unarmed strikes, non-monk unarmed strikes, feats and effect that enhance unarmed strikes, and natural attacks is very finicky and creates a lot of squiggly situations where you have to be really precise in your rules text otherwise it causes a lot of confusion. And this is the reason why posting FAQs can take a long time: every table might have its own corner case question about how the original rule and the FAQ affect each other, which requires updates to the FAQ, discussion and outrage from people who think their character concept is being destroyed, and so on.

As I often say (but not generally on the boards): the game is too complex. :/


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I was the most communicative person on the design team, after all.

Far and away. Others do post a lot, and are very open and helpful, sure, but I think the vast majority of FAQ and rules clarifications posts came from you. We miss you, Sean. *I* miss you. The game misses you.


Well those God articles you wrote are why I purchased the book in the first place. After having read them I do not regret my purchase as the book provides exactly what it was I wanted/needed for my campaigns and characters.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Also known as the "they're going to make alcohol illegal, I'm going to be completely drunk until that law is on the books" strategy.

While getting completely drunk might not be a good idea, it would be legal.

Its great to say the rule will be changed, it matters when it actually is.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

In the APG, BK are listed on the weapons table in the "unarmed attacks" category, and the descriptive text says monks "can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

In UE, BK are listed on the the weapons table in the "light melee weapons" category, and do not have any text about monk unarmed damage.

Except Unarmed Attacks /= attacks used with an unarmed strike. Unarmed attacks are defined as attacks that don't threaten and draw AoOs.

So moving it to Light melee weapons has no bearing on if it is an unarmed strike, only that you can threaten and not draw AoO. The removal of the text about monk unarmed damage doesn't negate the still present text that it is an unarmed strike.

This FAQ says Monk damage is an effect that augments an unarmed strike.

Brass Knuckles wrote:
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.

says attacks with Brass Knuckles are unarmed strikes.

So monk damage should augment Brass Knuckle attacks, as the rules are currently written.

Contributor

Samasboy1 wrote:
While getting completely drunk might not be a good idea, it would be legal.

Bully on you for "sticking it to the man." :p

Samasboy1 wrote:
The removal of the text about monk unarmed damage doesn't negate the still present text that it is an unarmed strike.

Yes, maybe you should read the rest of my post where I say "this [confusion] could be resolved by removing the description reference to unarmed strikes."


The point is that by removing ""can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them." which I told "someone" was removed it means the listed weapon damage is used. There is np rule saying that the monk damage overrides any of those weapons. The only reason it did before was because a SPECIFIC rule existed that is now removed. Now you can argue RAW all day in which case you would still be wrong but you know that if an FAQ was made you.wouldhave it on your side. The rules are dev intent which is why the FAQ trumps RAW and also the reason why dead people can't take actions .

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is how I see the whole unarmed strike on BK issue.:

Unarmed strike means 2 different things in the game:

(1) Unarmed strikes as per the combat rules section, Ordinary unarmed strikes that anyone can perform.
Written as "unarmed strikes(1)" for the rest of this post.

and

(2) Unarmed strikes as per the monk's class feature. A monk can use any part of their body to strike with this and they do more damage as a monk level up.
Written as "unarmed strikes(2)" for the rest of this post.

The most recent source of brass knuckles, UE, removed the line of it dealing a monk's unarmed strike(2).
The line in BK's description saying "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike" means unarmed strikes(1)

However some people still mistake the "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike(1)" line as meaning a monk's unarmed strike(2).

The problem seems to stem from a 2 things with the same name.
This is how I view it.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As I often say (but not generally on the boards): the game is too complex.

Yay. Any chance you've got any irons in the fire on the game developing/freelancing front for simpler games?


Secane wrote:

This is how I see the whole unarmed strike on BK issue.:

Unarmed strike means 2 different things in the game:

(1) Unarmed strikes as per the combat rules section, Ordinary unarmed strikes that anyone can perform.
Written as "unarmed strikes(1)" for the rest of this post.

and

(2) Unarmed strikes as per the monk's class feature. A monk can use any part of their body to strike with this and they do more damage as a monk level up.
Written as "unarmed strikes(2)" for the rest of this post.

The most recent source of brass knuckles, UE, removed the line of it dealing a monk's unarmed strike(2).
The line in BK's description saying "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike" means unarmed strikes(1)

However some people still mistake the "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike(1)" line as meaning a monk's unarmed strike(2).

The problem seems to stem from a 2 things with the same name.
This is how I view it.

Except the most straightforward reasing is that monks' unarmed strikes(2) are simply unarmed strikes(1) with a bunch of class enhancements added on and not a separate thing with the same name.

Do you see any written reason in the rules to believe monk unarmed strikes(2) are not actually unarmed strikes(1) with class feature modifications to certain aspects of unarmed strikes(1) and do not interact with things that apply to "unarmed strikes"(1)?

It would suggest things like the various strike feats or spells do not also work with both monk unarmed strikes(2) and normal option unarmed strikes(1).

Shadow Lodge

Im not sure there are two different Unarmed Strikes. Anyone can use Full Plate or a Spiked Chain. Not everyone is proficient with either of them, nor do either of those things change when a Fighter applies weapon or Armor Training. The Fighter just gets more bang for their buck when using them.

Likewise a Monk gets extra utility with Unarmed Strikes. First getting Improved Unarmed Strike Feat for free which makes it lethal, not Provoke, and in a sense acts as proficiency. Monks also deal more damage when using Unarmed Strikes, and can Flurry with them. Its still just an Unarmed Strike, the same attack that any random Barbarian punching someone would use.

So its not mistaking that Brass Knuckles count as Unarmed Strike version 2.0, just that they are treated as Unarmed Strikes, as written.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

You are still ignoring the fact that the weapon table entries for BK & cestus explicitly state that they do 1d3 or 1d4 damage. If you choose to have them instead do the wielder's unarmed damage (or even that plus the damage of the weapon) you are ignoring RAW.

My monk can do considerably more damage with just his fists than he can with a sap, club, quarterstaff, . . ., or even a gauntlet. But he doesn't get to replace the listed weapon damage with his "unarmed strike" damage; he uses the damage given in the weapon table.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

DM Beckett wrote:
So its not mistaking that Brass Knuckles count as Unarmed Strike version 2.0, just that they are treated as Unarmed Strikes, as written.

Not going to let that go, even in the wake of a change deliberately crafted to close off that mindset and the developer comments saying they closed it. You just put up your hand and say "talk to the hand cause the face isn't listening?"

Am I reading that right?


JohnF wrote:


You are still ignoring the fact that the weapon table entries for BK & cestus explicitly state that they do 1d3 or 1d4 damage. If you choose to have them instead do the wielder's unarmed damage (or even that plus the damage of the weapon) you are ignoring RAW.

My monk can do considerably more damage with just his fists than he can with a sap, club, quarterstaff, . . ., or even a gauntlet. But he doesn't get to replace the listed weapon damage with his "unarmed strike" damage; he uses the damage given in the weapon table.

Unarmed strike is listed in UE as doing 1d2/1d3.

Brass knuckles in UE say they allow you to do lethal damage with unarmed strikes and lists their damage as 1d2/1d3.

It seems a reasonable interpretation to say it is reposting the unarmed strike base damge in the brass knuckles damage entry for convenience.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

In the APG, BK are listed on the weapons table in the "unarmed attacks" category, and the descriptive text says monks "can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

In UE, BK are listed on the the weapons table in the "light melee weapons" category, and do not have any text about monk unarmed damage.
The problem stems from a conflux of the following issues:
* dealing non-monk unarmed strike damage while wearing BK (this could be resolved by removing the description reference to unarmed strikes)
* dealing monk unarmed strike damage while wearing BK (this could be resolved by removing the description reference to unarmed strikes)
* using bonuses to unarmed strike attacks like Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) when wearing BK
* are you armed or unarmed
* deploying touch attacks with "unarmed strikes"
* AOOs when "unarmed"

What it all comes down to is the differentiation between monk unarmed strikes, non-monk unarmed strikes, feats and effect that enhance unarmed strikes, and natural attacks is very finicky and creates a lot of squiggly situations where you have to be really precise in your rules text otherwise it causes a lot of confusion. And this is the reason why posting FAQs can take a long time: every table might have its own corner case question about how the original rule and the FAQ affect each other, which requires updates to the FAQ, discussion and outrage from people who think their character concept is being destroyed, and so on.

As I often say (but not generally on the boards): the game is too complex. :/

So since the revised UE description of BK says they "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike." what does that mean?

It reads to me as if it says brass knuckles can be used as part of an unarmed strike.

As a simple weapon not listed as an unarmed attack and without any reference to unarmed strikes I would not assume as written that they could be used as part of an unarmed strike, but they do have a reference to using them for unarmed strikes as written.

Contributor

Voadam wrote:
As a simple weapon not listed as an unarmed attack and without any reference to unarmed strikes I would not assume as written that they could be used as part of an unarmed strike, but they do have a reference to using them for unarmed strikes as written.

Like I said in a general way above, brass knuckles operate so much like unarmed strikes that someone with Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) would be within reason to ask, "when using brass knuckles, do I get my bonus from Weapon Focus?" It's issues like this that make the BK a finicky item and require clarifying language... which creates more questions... which creates more clarifications... which create more questions...


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Bully on you for "sticking it to the man." :p

An off topic post, just to say, I hope none of my posts personally have contributed to you feeling vilified or personally attacked.

I fully understand that you spoke with other members of the dev team before posting things as a developer. I only say "Sean posted this" because it was posted from your account.

I think people can disagree without hostility.

So thanks for all the hard work you did, and continue to do freelance.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Yes, maybe you should read the rest of my post where I say "this [confusion] could be resolved by removing the description reference to unarmed strikes."

I didn't miss it. In fact, in an earlier post I agreed that if the reference to unarmed strikes was removed, there wouldn't be any disagreement.

But it is still there, which is why I keep on keeping on.

Wraithstrike wrote:
There is no rule saying that the monk damage overrides any of those weapons. The only reason it did before was because a SPECIFIC rule existed that is now removed.

Yes there is, and no it wasn't. The rules allowing it are "monks increased unarmed strike damage" and "Brass Knuckles say they are unarmed strikes."

I also disagree that rules are dev intent, at least until such intent is manifested in an official FAQ or errata. Cause otherwise, you have to be psychic since dev's couldn't possibly post their every intent. Going with what is actually in the rule book makes more sense.

Secane wrote:
1...2...stuff
No. Just no.
Monk Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would

Monk unarmed strikes are the same weapon as other peoples' unarmed strikes, just augmented by a class feature.

JohnF wrote:
You are still ignoring the fact that the weapon table entries for BK & cestus explicitly state that they do 1d3 or 1d4 damage. If you choose to have them instead do the wielder's unarmed damage (or even that plus the damage of the weapon) you are ignoring RAW.

The weapon table has an entry for unarmed strikes that states they do 1d3 or 1d4 damage too. The Monk class specifically increases it. Since Brass Knuckles say they ARE unarmed strikes, it would the same class feature applies.

Here's an analogous situation.

The ACG playtest class Warpriest has the feature Sacred Weapon. He gets to increase the damage of some weapons. Say, for example, he took WF-longsword.

Then our example Warpriest comes upon a Sawtooth Sabre. Luckily for him, Sawtooth Sabre's description says "it functions as a longsword." Since he can even use WF-longsword with the sawtooth sabre, he should get his Sacred Weapon damage increase with it, even though it is actually a sawtooth sabre and not a longsword.

Brass Knuckles make an even stronger statement. It isn't just "treated" as an unarmed strike, it says attacks with the weapon are unarmed strikes.

So, Monks have a feature the increases unarmed strike damage. He happily punches his way through a level or two before finding a magic BK. He puts them on, and since attacking with BK is an unarmed strike, he keeps his increased damage while attacking with the BK.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:

But it is still there, which is why I keep on keeping on.

I also disagree that rules are dev intent ... you have to be psychic since dev's couldn't possibly post their every intent.

I often don't understand this stance. You don't need to be psychic when the intent is post for you to read. Plus the rules are written for an audience doing less legalese interpretations.

Is it a game of "look here I'm poking fun at Pathfinder with it's dumb rules?"

Or simply "I want power and I'm not going to back away from it so I'll beat any GM into submission by just arguing to the end of time until he gives way?"

What is it?

What makes people say "I don't care that I'm reading it wrong, I'm going to continue until they do something they are very* unlikely to do because the number of people confused like me is miniscule." (*Unlikely to every get a FAQ post)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Samasboy1 wrote:


So if the dev posts "we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing" the appropriate response is "looking forward to it being fixed, but the rule hasn't changed until then"
Sean wrote:
Also known as the "they're going to make alcohol illegal, I'm going to be completely drunk until that law is on the books" strategy.

Sean, I agree with virtually everything else you've written on this thread. You've come across to me as a breath of clarity and reason.

But all of my table-time with Pathfinder RPG has been through Pathfinder Society Organized Play. (As you say, the game is too complex, and my home games use either the Beginner's Box, or else a modified Green Ronin's "Warriors and Warlocks" system.) And in that environment, I agree with Samasboy1. As a GM, I'm simply not allowed to use a developer's board post as a rules change; it's not part of the Additional Resources document, nor a FAQ.

So a better analogy would be "They're going to make drinking alcohol illegal for minors; I'm going to have to let the grocery store sell beer to kids until that law is on the books."


My stance is that either the devs mean the rules to say what they do, or they should issue a FAQ/errata. Since FAQ/errata are official ways to address rules issues. Requiring me to keep up with hundreds of comments in posts, many of which I probably am not even aware were made, is ridiculous.

None of you are my GM, so I doubt disagreeing with you has anything to do will getting "POWAH" in a game.

I am not poking fun at anything either. You can't assume my position is insincere just because it is different from yours.

As for "legalese interpretation," MY interpretation is very simple. Brass Knuckles say using them is an unarmed strike, so things that make unarmed strikes better works with Brass Knuckles.

YOUR interpretation says the word "unarmed strike" in this situation means something OTHER than "unarmed strike" in every other instance it is used in the book. I don't see how I am the one using a tortured reading of the words printed on the page.

Again, your assumption that I know I am reading it wrong and just don't care is wrong, in many ways. But thanks for being patronizing.


Chris Mortika wrote:


So a better analogy would be "They're going to make drinking alcohol illegal for minors; I'm going to have to let the grocery store sell beer to kids until that law is on the books."

I think of it more as

They passed a law allowing (say) you to marry two women at the same time. Of course, since the law doesn't go into effect for a year, I can't plan my weddings for next week.

Rules don't change until, well, they are changed. So until they are changed, you operate under the current rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:

My stance is that either the devs mean the rules to say what they do, or they should issue a FAQ/errata. Since FAQ/errata are official ways to address rules issues. Requiring me to keep up with hundreds of comments in posts, many of which I probably am not even aware were made, is ridiculous.

...

As for "legalese interpretation," MY interpretation is very simple. Brass Knuckles say using them is an unarmed strike, so things that make unarmed strikes better works with Brass Knuckles.

YOUR interpretation says the word "unarmed strike" in this situation means something OTHER than "unarmed strike" in every other instance it is used in the book. I don't see how I am the one using a tortured reading of the words printed on the page.

Again, your assumption that I know I am reading it wrong and just don't care is wrong, in many ways. But thanks for being patronizing.

I think the trouble is that RPG rules are written in everyday language (which is complicated and often open to interpretation). Therefore, sometimes it's possible to get the wrong (as in unintended) idea about what the developers meant when they wrote the rules.

I see nothing wrong with your interpretation, but if the developer then says "actually that's not what we meant" or "yeah, we meant that, but then we changed it" or something similar, it seems odd to me to continue to insist that the rules are what you interpreted them to be.

Clearly the language or process of introducing and refining that rule was poor in some way, but the standard you're adopting seems too harsh. If that's how it is, we'll be stick with bad rules for much longer.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:

My stance is that either the devs mean the rules to say what they do, or they should issue a FAQ/errata. Since FAQ/errata are official ways to address rules issues. Requiring me to keep up with hundreds of comments in posts, many of which I probably am not even aware were made, is ridiculous.

...

As for "legalese interpretation," MY interpretation is very simple. Brass Knuckles say using them is an unarmed strike, so things that make unarmed strikes better works with Brass Knuckles.

YOUR interpretation says the word "unarmed strike" in this situation means something OTHER than "unarmed strike" in every other instance it is used in the book. I don't see how I am the one using a tortured reading of the words printed on the page.

Again, your assumption that I know I am reading it wrong and just don't care is wrong, in many ways. But thanks for being patronizing.

I think the trouble is that RPG rules are written in everyday language (which is complicated and often open to interpretation). Therefore, sometimes it's possible to get the wrong (as in unintended) idea about what the developers meant when they wrote the rules.

I see nothing wrong with your interpretation, but if the developer then says "actually that's not what we meant" or "yeah, we meant that, but then we changed it" or something similar, it seems odd to me to continue to insist that the rules are what you interpreted them to be.

Clearly the language or process of introducing and refining that rule was poor in some way, but the standard you're adopting seems too harsh. If that's how it is, we'll be stick with bad rules for much longer.

This is a good point. It's doubly true for when there's a much more Occam's Razor answer to the issue - you have a weapon damage table, and for no other weapon (except for true unarmed strike) do you replace a weapon's damage with a monk's. Not cestus, not dan bong, none of them. Some even have the same or similar language in their descriptors.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

Sean, I agree with virtually everything else you've written on this thread. You've come across to me as a breath of clarity and reason.

But all of my table-time with Pathfinder RPG has been through Pathfinder Society Organized Play. (As you say, the game is too complex, and my home games use either the Beginner's Box, or else a modified Green Ronin's "Warriors and Warlocks" system.) And in that environment, I agree with Samasboy1. As a GM, I'm simply not allowed to use a developer's board post as a rules change; it's not part of the Additional Resources document, nor a FAQ.
So a better analogy would be "They're going to make drinking alcohol illegal for minors; I'm going to have to let the grocery store sell beer to kids until that law is on the books."

Fair enough... from a GM's perspective. The GM has to play with the current, official version of the rules.

But you have to acknowledge that the rule is being changed because the people in charge of the rules think the current interpretation is a problem, and are trying to fix that problem.

And the player's perspective is, "they're going to take X away from me, so I'm going to X it up as much as I can before then." I just don't understand that mentality. It's being true to the letter of the law without being true to the spirit of it. It's like deciding you're going to commit to a monogamous relationship with someone you're dating, but before you actually have that conversation to tell that person that, you have sex with a bunch of other people (it's actually the "bachelor party" mentality with strippers and such, which I also don't understand).

And thus my "bully for you for sticking it to the man" comment.

And, of course, my opinion on this rule is now irrelevant because I'm no longer on the design team, and I'm back to thinking it should work like I originally wanted it to in the AA errata, because the monk needs help.

Sczarni

*scratches head*

So, your answer to us PFS GMs out there, for now, is to let players use their Monk UA damage with Brass Knuckles, until an official errata gets released?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, it might not be a "sticking it to the man" situation.

It could just as well be "my build based around X functioning, is going to no longer function soon, so I will try to have fun whilst X still functions".

Not every word, or action, one disagrees with, is the result of a nefarious mindset of the individual you disagree with.


Steve Geddes wrote:


I see nothing wrong with your interpretation, but if the developer then says "actually that's not what we meant" or "yeah, we meant that, but then we changed it" or something similar, it seems odd to me to continue to insist that the rules are what you interpreted them to be.

If it isn't what they meant it to be, it is in their control to change it.

But a post on a forum (well, hundreds of posts, in hundreds of threads, amount thousands of posts) is a bad way to do that.

Which is acknowledged in Stephen's comment that posts are not official, only FAQs and errata are.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Fair enough... from a GM's perspective. The GM has to play with the current, official version of the rules.

But you have to acknowledge that the rule is being changed because the people in charge of the rules think the current interpretation is a problem, and are trying to fix that problem.

Those comments seem contradictory. I am advocating using the current, official rules. Until those are changed, even if someone says they will change in the future, those are still the current, official rules.

And I am not approaching this particularly as a player or a GM. I am not playing any character it would affect, nor running any game currently at all.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


And the player's perspective is, "they're going to take X away from me, so I'm going to X it up as much as I can before then." I just don't understand that mentality. It's being true to the letter of the law without being true to the spirit of it. It's like deciding you're going to commit to a monogamous relationship with someone you're dating, but before you actually have that conversation to tell that person that, you have sex with a bunch of other people (it's actually the "bachelor party" mentality with strippers and such, which I also don't understand).

Sean, for the most part in RPGs, "character advancement" in power is an illusion, because the fights never get any easier. If my character drinks from a magic river and gets new abilities -- or finds a powerful weapon -- he's more powerful, but he's also now fighting two minotaurs instead of two bugbears. However, in organized play, if I "play up" get more gold and therefore more equipment, or if I finagle a powerful build out of a few spells from one book, an archetype from another, and some feats from a third, I really can get easier fights.

There are a substantial number of players who "game the system" as much as they can, in legal ways, to gain an advantage, but would never think to break a rule; that would be cheating, and runs counter to what they see as the spirit of the game. If I know that, July 1st, new rules will take effect, banning the Synthecist, I'll want to play my synthecist PC as often as I can before I lose the privilege.

So, again to compare similes, it's not so much like a bacchanalian bachelor party, so much as making sure you redeem your coupons before they expire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:


Wraithstrike wrote:
There is no rule saying that the monk damage overrides any of those weapons. The only reason it did before was because a SPECIFIC rule existed that is now removed.

Yes there is, and no it wasn't. The rules allowing it are "monks increased unarmed strike damage" and "Brass Knuckles say they are unarmed strikes."

I also disagree that rules are dev intent, at least until such intent is manifested in an official FAQ or errata. Cause otherwise, you have to be psychic since dev's couldn't possibly post their every intent. Going with what is actually in the rule book makes more sense.

Two questions

1. If the PDT team made a ruling today what do you think it would be?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is some ambiguity if every rule if you(general statement) want to be pandemic enough about it. If you are 99% sure a rule is supposed to be X but is written in a way so as to cast some doubt do you play it by the intent or by RAW?

I am going to present an example that is more reasonable than the "dead" condition this time, but still something I don't expect for a GM to allow.

"Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows."

2A Do you think the rules allow you to choose a spell from the cleric class spell-list?

The rules also say " A sorcerer casts arcane spells drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Spell Lists. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one."

There is nothing saying they have to come from the sorcerer's spell list.

2B Do you think the rule intend for you to be able to do this without GM permission?

PS: Before someone says "everything is up to the GM" everything in the CRB is assumed to be on the table unless the GM says otherwise. If not you have to play "mother may I" for everything you write on your character sheet. <---Trying to avoid semantics.

edit: edited for grammar and ease of reading. The words have not changed other than to correct spelling.


wraithstrike wrote:


Two questions

1. If the PDT team made a ruling today what do you think it would be?

Well, part of why I continue the discussion is that previously devs have said that they follow discussions such as these when making decisions. So, if the PDT team made a FAQ today, my hope is that they would realize my arguments make sense and nothing broken happens if BK use monk unarmed damage.

In fact, it would fill the gap many people have admitted in this very thread of something to let the monk have an option equal to other combat classes.

Fighters can have a +10 total weapon that doesn't take a slot. Most characters only need one.
Monks can:
Fill the amulet slot for 2x the cost with a +5 cap
Fill the body slot at a slight discount with a +7 cap but won't even affect all the attacks in a full attack
Forgo using a class feature and use a monk weapon (most of which are inferior to martial weapons)

I agree that many rules contain a certain amount of ambiguity. I just don't see the level of ambiguity in this case.


1. What is broken is not the only factor they go by. I don't think it is broken to allow it either, and I am sure they know that. They said before that it was a thematic reason because the monk should be unarmed primarily, and brass knuckles mean you are no longer unarmed. FWIW I have a friend that likes monks, and he refused to use the brass knuckles even when they called out "monk" damage as being possible.

2. There is no rule saying a character gets to override a weapon's damage with a listed amount. If the weapon does unarmed strike damage of 1d3, and the character does 3d6 or ___, then only one is valid.

Since they went out of their way to say the monk damage took precedent before it seems to me that the weapon takes precedent otherwise.

And since this is not a bonus the rules of "the greater bonus" applies can not be used.

So far nobody has listed a rule saying the character's damage had priority. The rules do say you do the damage listed on the table however so without something specific that rule takes precedence.

edit: You also did not answer my question.. :)


And for the rest of you I ask you the same question-->If the PDT made an FAQ today what do you think they would say the answer was?

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
So, your answer to us PFS GMs out there, for now, is to let players use their Monk UA damage with Brass Knuckles, until an official errata gets released?

I don't know if you're addressing this to me or to Sam. If me, then my answer is: I never have, and still do not, make ruling for PFS, that is the purview of the PFS team.

And here's just a general point about "if you thought this should be an official rule, you should have put it in the FAQ":

There are many people in the chain between "designer makes a ruling on the boards" and "that ruling makes it into the next print run, PDF, and SRD." Insisting on the last step being the deciding factor in whether or not you accept a rule in your game is disregarding complications in every possible link of that chain (including complications like "new print run was delayed, so the print update will take longer to reach the public").

Should we on the design team have put the BK into a FAQ when that ruling was made? Probably (and almost certainly so after it didn't end up in the next print run of the book, which I didn't realize until long after). But there are literally a hundred other pending FAQ items, and "add this answered item to the FAQ even though we're already adding it to the errata" is a much lower-priority FAQ item than unanswered FAQs for "does a monk's extra attack from ki stack with the extra attack from haste?," "can you see yourself when you're invisible," "can I hold the charge on a touch spell while wearing a gauntlet?," and so on. Answering questions that haven't been answered is a higher priority than answering questions that have been answered.

Samasboy1 wrote:
Those comments seem contradictory. I am advocating using the current, official rules. Until those are changed, even if someone says they will change in the future, those are still the current, official rules.

Let's say you have a girlfriend.

And she gives you a naked picture of herself.
And then you break up.
And you still have the picture.
And you know that on Saturday a law goes into effect that will make it illegal to post nude photos of your ex-girlfriend to an adult website.
If on Friday you decide to post that photo anyway, you know you're not supposed to be allowed to do that, but in a legal technicality, you're still allowed to do so.

You've been told, "you shouldn't be able to do this, that's not what was intended, we're going to fix the wording on that so it's clear that's not allowed," and your reply is "it's still allowed until you actually make that fix," you're exploiting a legal technicality that you know isn't the intent of the rules.

If a GM has a list of house rules, and they're documented in a handout the GM gives you at the start of the campaign, and you encounter or create a situation that requires an additional house rule, and the GM says, "ok, new house rule is X," your response shouldn't be, "well, I don't have to abide by that until you update your house rules pamphlet."

Again, I don't care whether you incorporate this ruling as a rule. I'm not in your campaign. I don't even play PFS. And I think the monk could use the use-unarmed-damage-with-BK boost. But PF is a social game, and that means there is a social contract between players, and that social contract includes the idea of "I'm not going to try to cheat the system." In other words, "the rules don't say I can't" is a weak argument for your actions if you know the rules aren't supposed to let you do that, even if the rules don't explicitly say you can't do that. Doing so puts the player into an adversarial relationship with the GM, trying to twist the intent of the rule while observing the letter of it, which is the same sort of thing that leads to GMs twisting interpretations of wish spells (and you know that was so lame, the 3E team precisely defined what a wish spell can do in order to have an agreed-upon set of things players could use it for and GM should allow).

Chris Mortika wrote:
However, in organized play, if I "play up" get more gold and therefore more equipment, or if I finagle a powerful build out of a few spells from one book, an archetype from another, and some feats from a third, I really can get easier fights.

I know some people play that way, even though the game is already massively rigged in favor of the PCs. *shrug* Not my style.

Shadow Lodge

James Risner wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
So its not mistaking that Brass Knuckles count as Unarmed Strike version 2.0, just that they are treated as Unarmed Strikes, as written.

Not going to let that go, even in the wake of a change deliberately crafted to close off that mindset and the developer comments saying they closed it. You just put up your hand and say "talk to the hand cause the face isn't listening?"

Am I reading that right?

Sure? Honestly I dont even know how to respond because I dont really understand what you are trying to go on about here. :)

If your'e thinking Im saying the RAI/dev comments are wrong/dumb/now worthy or whatever, then no, Im not. What Im saying is that the RAW and the RAI dont match, and there is a reason this keeps coming up. If people are not online, and most are not, theres a good chance that they wouldnt know. For PFS specifically, its even more of an issue, because as far as I know, only MBs official posts are legal in PFS, not anyone from Paizo.


wraithstrike wrote:


2. There is no rule saying a character gets to override a weapon's damage with a listed amount. If the weapon does unarmed strike damage of 1d3, and the character does 3d6 or ___, then only one is valid.

See, but that's the key. I think there IS such a rule (well, Sacred Weapon specifically does this, but that's not the point).

Unarmed strike is a weapon. Monks get to override that weapon's damage.

Brass Knuckles say using them is an unarmed strike. Thus the monk ability overrides that weapon's damage too. That seems like a clear rule to me.

Quote:
Since they went out of their way to say the monk damage took precedent before it seems to me that the weapon takes precedent otherwise.

And I understand why you think that. I will just refer you to my Tee Shirt example.

Quote:

edit: You also did not answer my question.. :)

True. I don't know what they would rule. They have surprised me before.

Sean, counter example.

The owner of an airline gives me a free voucher for a flight.
The board of directors votes that these vouchers will not be honored after a certain date.
So I shouldn't use the voucher to get a free flight while I can because that would be a loophole, right?

To extend your law analogy, a lot of things can happen between a politician saying a new law is needed and the law coming into effect. It can be pigeon-holed in committee, voted down on the floor, fail in reconciliation, vetoed by the President, and even after passed usually has a period of a few months before it comes into effect.

At no time until it actually comes into effect is it enforceable. So failure to comply is not a "loophole."

I am not saying "the rules don't say I can't." I am saying "the current rules say I can."


Like I said before I really like the idea of giving monks equal-opportunity access to enhancements. That said, I think brass knuckles runs counter to the visuals many players have of the iconic monk... I can't really imagine Bruce Lee throw on some brass knuckles, for instance.

I typed this up on my phone so I apologize that the format is less than stellar. The wording could probably benefit from some polish, but you get the idea:

Pearl of Transcendence

Aura moderate transmutation; CL 8th

Slot —; Price 1000 gp; Weight —

Description
Frequently used by martial artists, this lustrous pearl grants its possessor the ability to enhance her unarmed strikes.

By meditating on a magical melee weapon for one hour, the possessor can absorb the weapon into the pearl of Transcendence. For as long as the weapon remains absorbed, the possessor can apply the weapon's enhancement bonus to her unarmed strikes. For example, the possessor of a Pearl of Transcendence that has absorbed a +3 Longsword could treat her unarmed strike as a +3 weapon.
The possessor can also apply the weapon's special abilities to his unarmed strikes so long as they can be applied to unarmed strikes.

The absorbed weapon can be removed by meditating on the Pearl of Transcendence for one hour. The weapon is unharmed by this process.

Construction Requirements
Craft Wondrous Item, Weapon of Awe
Cost 500 gp

I realize there is still an extra tax in the form of the 1k price, but the ability to pick up and benefit from just about any melee weapon found or looted should help offset that. It also means the monk is less dependent on getting specific gear once he finds or buys his pearl.

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:

Sean, counter example.

The owner of an airline gives me a free voucher for a flight.
The board of directors votes that these vouchers will not be honored after a certain date.
So I shouldn't use the voucher to get a free flight while I can because that would be a loophole, right?

Let's say for some reason the board's proclamation of "these vouchers handed out by the owner expire on Monday" doesn't get passed down to the employees at the airport.

And you show up at the ticket counter on Tuesday with your voucher.

And the voucher doesn't actually say "expires Monday," so therefor RAW it's still valid.

And you use your voucher to get a free ticket from the employee who hasn't been told about the voucher's expiration date.

Even though you know your voucher isn't supposed to be honored after Monday, you're taking advantage of a communication error in your favor.

Samasboy1 wrote:
I am not saying "the rules don't say I can't." I am saying "the current rules say I can."

Sounds like rules-lawyering to me.

Oh, and in the case of BK in UE, it's not "the rules say I can," it's "the rules aren't 100% clear, so I'm going to interpret in a way that's favorable to me, even though the designers have stated it's not supposed to work that way, and until they FAQ or errata it, my interpretation is just as valid as theirs."

From Ultimate Equipment:
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a successful concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles. Brass knuckles can't be disarmed.

Nothing in the UE description says a monk can use his increased monk unarmed strike damage with brass knuckles; it just says they "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike." Which a monk already can do. The idea of "... and use their increased unarmed strike damage with them" is wishful thinking.

It's like a new weapon description that says "anyone proficient with a longsword is considered proficient with this weapon" and interpreting that as "so I get the bonuses from Weapon Focus (longsword) when I use this weapon, too, right?" I could see someone interpreting it that way, but that doesn't mean it's how the new weapon is supposed to work.

After all, the gauntlet text in UE (and the Core Rulebook) says "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes." Do you think a monk deals his increased unarmed strike damage when wearing a gauntlet? It's the same language, so why are you interpreting BK to work that way and not gauntlets?

The intent is clear as stated by someone on the design team, you're just disregarding that because it's advantageous for your character to do so. If the designers said "monks are supposed to get double unarmed strike damage with brass knuckles," you'd be screaming about the delay in adding this to the FAQ or errata because you'd want that to be "official" as soon as possible. If a clarification is an advantage to your character, you'd want the rules updated ASAP; if it's a disadvantage to your character, you're fine with disregarding the designer's intent until the clarification is officially added to the rules.

Again, I personally think monks could use a bump by allowing them to get their increased unarmed damage with brass knuckles. But the most recent source (UE) for brass knuckles doesn't indicate you get to do that, and arguing otherwise is just rules lawyering a loophole based on a non-timely errata update to an older book.

But I think I'm done trying to navigate the nitpicking on this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I see nothing wrong with your interpretation, but if the developer then says "actually that's not what we meant" or "yeah, we meant that, but then we changed it" or something similar, it seems odd to me to continue to insist that the rules are what you interpreted them to be.

If it isn't what they meant it to be, it is in their control to change it.

Not really (or not totally, anyhow). They're using natural, imprecise English. The design team doesn't have a huge amount of control over print runs, etcetera. They have a to do list that's too long and there are other priorities. Even if they fix this one, there's likely a dozen more that will come up in the next year...No matter what they do the rules are going to be expressed in sloppy English and people are going to have disagreements about what the rules "actually are". It's not ideal, but its inevitable.

It seems perverse to me to adopt a framework where, because I think the written words mean "X", that even though other people think it means "Y", the developers say they meant it to mean "Y", the publisher intended to change the words to mean "Y" and the rules gurus on the forums think "Y" is 'correct' I'm nonetheless going to take the view that the rule is really X until I see it otherwise in print.

Basically, I don't really see who wins by taking a "RAW trumps RAI" position , since there is always uncertainty and ambiguity anyhow.


I was going to make a snarky comment about how we don't have to value anything that Sean says now that he is not with Paizo. So imagine my surprise when as soon as he can stop toeing the party line he becomes much more helpful. Instead of getting the standard this is the way things are and you better like it, we get the curtain pulled back. I hope this new more personable SKR sticks around


Wouldn't it be a better solution to fix the monk in a more universal way than allowing them to use one item with their unarmed damage?

I think the weapon in the other hand type of solution would work, but it's not very cinematic or visually pleasing. Perhaps only if you attack with the weapon and OH in the same round (i.e. a combo)?

How about a new Qinggong Monk ability that lets you swap out monk weapon damage for unarmed? Still doesn't let monks compete without a weapon...

Contributor

Kwauss wrote:
Wouldn't it be a better solution to fix the monk in a more universal way than allowing them to use one item with their unarmed damage?

Yes, but there are people at Paizo who don't want what is called "incremental design" in the game, which is where you make changes to the game rules that are more significant than changing a sentence or two in errata. I understand their reasons for not wanting to do so, but I also understand the need to fix a core class that is poor compared to the others.

Kwauss wrote:
How about a new Qinggong Monk ability that lets you swap out monk weapon damage for unarmed? Still doesn't let monks compete without a weapon...

Unfortunately, a fix like this only affects that archetype, or characters who can take that archetype, it's still not a fix to the actual monk class.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why a monk would ever be bothering with brass knuckles in the first place. He already gets to do lethal damage, so the brass knuckles don't offer any mechanical benefit.


JohnF wrote:


Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why a monk would ever be bothering with brass knuckles in the first place. He already gets to do lethal damage, so the brass knuckles don't offer any mechanical benefit.

If the monk could use brass knuckles to do his unarmed strike damage it would lead to a magically enhanced attack and free up the neck slot instead of relying on the AMoF.

151 to 200 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Monk's unarmed strike damage and Brass knuckles / Cestus? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.