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


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Ssalarn wrote:

I don't know why people think Brass Knuckles use your unarmed strike damage. They clearly removed that line from the most recently released core book, Ultimate Equipment. All they say is:

"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."

Brass Knuckles deal 1d3 damage. While I'm wielding them my unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but that's just an ability of the weapon. It's pretty cool that I can put them on and my knees get more deadly, but nothing about them says that they share any other benefits like enhancements or anything else with my unarmed strike, and they removed the bit that said they deal damage equal to my UAS, sooo.....

The idea is that brass knuckles reference unarmed strikes and the monk uses his unarmed strike damage so they overrule the chart on the table. <----I don't agree, but that is the logic that is being used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This all just goes to show that Paizo should have opened up the Monk's Body (Unarmed Strike) to Enhancement as a Weapon from the start. (No, WotC should have done so in 2000, but Paizo had the chance to rectify their error and chose not to.)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
This all just goes to show that Paizo should have opened up the Monk's Body (Unarmed Strike) to Enhancement as a Weapon from the start. (No, WotC should have done so in 2000, but Paizo had the chance to rectify their error and chose not to.)

Another idea to consider. I would just have to decide on a price. I guess the old AoMF price might be fair for a slotless weapon that can never be disarmed or sundered.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

kyrt-ryder wrote:
This all just goes to show that Paizo should have opened up the Monk's Body (Unarmed Strike) to Enhancement as a Weapon from the start. (No, WotC should have done so in 2000, but Paizo had the chance to rectify their error and chose not to.)

I had honestly always assumed that that was the point of the monk's unarmed strike being treated as both a manufactured and a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that modify or improve it. I'd been playing PF for like a year and a half before I realized that you couldn't just enchant your fists with flaming and frost. All of my monks with +5 Flaming Holy runes carved into their fists were very sad...

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed an unhelpful post. Please be civil, everybody!


wraithstrike wrote:


I am still waiting for the RAW that says the character damage overrules the table damage.

Is there RAW that Fighters are proficient with Long swords?

You won't RAW (a specific rule that states) they are. But RAW does say Long swords ARE martial weapons, and Fighters gain proficiency with all martial weapons. So, Fighters are proficient. Right?

So, is there RAW that Monks get their Unarmed damage with Brass Knuckles?

You won't find any rule that states they do. There was once, but it isn't there anymore.

But, RAW does say Brass Knuckles ARE unarmed strikes, and Monks gain improved damage with unarmed strikes. So, Monks get unarmed strike damage with Brass Knuckles. Right?


Samasboy1 wrote:

You won't find any rule that states they do. There was once, but it isn't there anymore.

For most people, that would mean something.


Only if, in order to understand a rule, it is required to know every previous version of a rule and apply differential reasoning....

As opposed to just reading the current rule.

Also, Tee Shirt


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I don't like this on the basis that I can kick with unarmed strike, and so what do I do if I was role-playing a kick boxer D: (which I am doing in a campaign)

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Samasboy1 wrote:

But, RAW does say Brass Knuckles ARE unarmed strikes?

I may have missed where you established this. They appear to be on the light weapons list, and while wielding one you gain the special ability to deal lethal damage with your unarmed strikes. I missed the portion where we actually established that they were UAS.


Sure.

"These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike"

For this sentence to make sense you must

A) be attacking with this weapon, since how is it having an affect if you aren't using it

and

B) making an unarmed strike, since that is what is being effected

I mean, I can't think of any time when equipment grants a bonus when it isn't in use, though "use" varies by item.

Bandw2, I actually agree with wraithstrike that since BK are specifically worn on the hands, it only makes sense that they would only effect unarmed strikes made with the hands. You could still make unarmed strikes with other body parts, you just wouldn't get any magic bonuses from the brass knuckles.


Samasboy1 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I am still waiting for the RAW that says the character damage overrules the table damage.

Is there RAW that Fighters are proficient with Long swords?

You won't RAW (a specific rule that states) they are. But RAW does say Long swords ARE martial weapons, and Fighters gain proficiency with all martial weapons. So, Fighters are proficient. Right?

So, is there RAW that Monks get their Unarmed damage with Brass Knuckles?

You won't find any rule that states they do. There was once, but it isn't there anymore.

But, RAW does say Brass Knuckles ARE unarmed strikes, and Monks gain improved damage with unarmed strikes. So, Monks get unarmed strike damage with Brass Knuckles. Right?

That is a poor analogy because RAW says longswords are martial weapons and nobody can argue otherwise legitimately. The comparison is not even close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, RAW says long swords are martial weapons. And RAW says attacking with brass knuckles is an unarmed strike.

Logic follows pretty simply.

Unless you somehow conceive that wearing the brass knuckles on your fist, while punching someone with your fist, doesn't involve actually using the brass knuckles in any way.

And people say have a torturous reading....


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:

You won't find any rule that states they do. There was once, but it isn't there anymore.

For most people, that would mean something.

he doesn't care.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I also find this slightly off because i don't ever imagine a monks unarmed strike to be a punch, it's something about how they strike that causes the unusually high damage(thus brass knuckles limit the way you can strike with the enhancement and ruin that higher damage roll). basically fluff wise, it shouldn't work, RAW I'd say yes but it's rather gimpy way of dealing with it.

I have a slightly relevant question, can I cast masterwork transformation on monk unarmed strike, and then enhance them?


Samasboy1 wrote:

Yes, RAW says long swords are martial weapons. And RAW says attacking with brass knuckles is an unarmed strike.

Logic follows pretty simply.

I think you'd have to concede that technically RAW implies attacking with brass knuckles is an unarmed strike, wouldn't you?

I mean it seems like a clear distinction in phrasing between the explicit statement in the longsword example and the sentence you quoted above wrt brass knuckles (I don't read it your way, for example. To me it sounds like "if you make an unarmed strike while wearing these, you deal lethal damage". to my ear, it sounds much more passive than the way you are interpreting it).


No. The monk body can not be directly enhanced .The bestmake magic fang permanent. you can do is


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
No. The monk body can not be directly enhanced .The bestmake magic fang permanent. you can do is

why not? it counts as a manufactured weapon, and manufactures weapons all have masterwork versions.


Bandw2 wrote:

I also find this slightly off because i don't ever imagine a monks unarmed strike to be a punch, it's something about how they strike that causes the unusually high damage(thus brass knuckles limit the way you can strike with the enhancement and ruin that higher damage roll). basically fluff wise, it shouldn't work, RAW I'd say yes but it's rather gimpy way of dealing with it.

I have a slightly relevant question, can I cast masterwork transformation on monk unarmed strike, and then enhance them?

You're applying a lot more description to the attack than Pathfinder gives.

What does the unarmed strike wordage in the Brass Knuckles description mean to you? How is attacking with a BK "doing lethal damage with an unarmed strike" if you're not getting any of the modifiers that normally apply to an unarmed strike? That's not attacking with an unarmed strike; that's attacking with the brass knuckles, just a manufactured weapon like any other. The wording really doesn't reflect this notion at all, RAI or not.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

I also find this slightly off because i don't ever imagine a monks unarmed strike to be a punch, it's something about how they strike that causes the unusually high damage(thus brass knuckles limit the way you can strike with the enhancement and ruin that higher damage roll). basically fluff wise, it shouldn't work, RAW I'd say yes but it's rather gimpy way of dealing with it.

I have a slightly relevant question, can I cast masterwork transformation on monk unarmed strike, and then enhance them?

You're applying a lot more description to the attack than Pathfinder gives.

What does the unarmed strike wordage in the Brass Knuckles description mean to you? How is attacking with a BK "doing lethal damage with an unarmed strike" if you're not getting any of the modifiers that normally apply to an unarmed strike? That's not attacking with an unarmed strike; that's attacking with the brass knuckles, just a manufactured weapon like any other. The wording really doesn't reflect this notion at all, RAI or not.

that was just the fluff of why I get a bad feeling when people try to use brass knuckles in this way(I've already stated before that by RAW it works but I sill wouldn't allow it). trying to turn a whole body thing into a item to punch. the 2nd part is the part where I actually made an argument.


Bandw2 wrote:
I also find this slightly off because i don't ever imagine a monks unarmed strike to be a punch, it's something about how they strike that causes the unusually high damage

This right here is HIGHLY subjective.

RAW (and in my home games) a Monk's unarmed strike damage is nothing more than their power at striking with their body. They could flavor themselves as Boxers, or Capoerists, or anything else they so desired.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
I also find this slightly off because i don't ever imagine a monks unarmed strike to be a punch, it's something about how they strike that causes the unusually high damage

This right here is HIGHLY subjective.

RAW (and in my home games) a Monk's unarmed strike damage is nothing more than their power at striking with their body. They could flavor themselves as Boxers, or Capoerists, or anything else they so desired.

I only allow capoerists if they name their character Dustin Hoffman.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Samasboy1 wrote:

Sure.

"These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike"

For this sentence to make sense you must

A) be attacking with this weapon, since how is it having an affect if you aren't using it

and

B) making an unarmed strike, since that is what is being effected

You've got to make a lot of assumptions and add in a lot of words that aren't there any more to reach that conclusion. Maybe if I choose to hit someone with my unarmed strike instead of my weapon, the added weight of the knuckles still helps add some heft and momentum to my strike. When a buckler gives me a -1 to hit with a weapon wielded in that hand I don't assume it's because I have to hit them with the buckler. If I had a shield that said "while wielding this shield you may deal bludgeoning damage with the weapon in your other hand" I wouldn't assume that meant I was actually hitting them with shield whenever I said I was hitting them with my longsword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:

Sure.

"These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike"

For this sentence to make sense you must

A) be attacking with this weapon, since how is it having an affect if you aren't using it

and

B) making an unarmed strike, since that is what is being effected

You've got to make a lot of assumptions and add in a lot of words that aren't there any more to reach that conclusion. Maybe if I choose to hit someone with my unarmed strike instead of my weapon, the added weight of the knuckles still helps add some heft and momentum to my strike. When a buckler gives me a -1 to hit with a weapon wielded in that hand I don't assume it's because I have to hit them with the buckler. If I had a shield that said "while wielding this shield you may deal bludgeoning damage with the weapon in your other hand" I wouldn't assume that meant I was actually hitting them with shield whenever I said I was hitting them with my longsword.

Actually, you just had to make a lot of assumptions and add a lot of words to justify your stance. Samasboy just read the text entry that says "unarmed strike" and thought the rules actually meant "unarmed strike." Pretty novel, I know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing you did achieve in this thread was to alienate and chase off a former Dev who was willing to engage with you, who had given you proper interpretation of an ambiguous place in RAW, dissected and reiterated it.

It's good to cling so tightly to your opinion, since it's likely all you'll have next time you need a rule clarified. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't get that solace when we would like to pick someone like Sean's brain, and they've left the forum in disgust.


Kwauss wrote:

One thing you did achieve in this thread was to alienate and chase off a former Dev who was willing to engage with you, who had given you proper interpretation of an ambiguous place in RAW, dissected and reiterated it.

It's good to cling so tightly to your opinion, since it's likely all you'll have next time you need a rule clarified. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't get that solace when we would like to pick someone like Sean's brain, and they've left the forum in disgust.

Sean came in here with a chip on his shoulder and an ax to grind. He wasn't here to be helpful.


If you think that about a poster (whoever they are), why engage with them?


Steve Geddes wrote:
If you think that about a poster (whoever they are), why engage with them?

I stopped engaging with him very early on in this thread. I tried to explain why I felt this is an issue and he didn't care, I tried to appeal to his reason and he didn't care, so I gave up. He came back with a wall of text post that replied to a few of my points with his typical half-reading response filled with condescension so I never replied back.


BigDTBone wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:

Sure.

"These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike"

For this sentence to make sense you must

A) be attacking with this weapon, since how is it having an affect if you aren't using it

and

B) making an unarmed strike, since that is what is being effected

You've got to make a lot of assumptions and add in a lot of words that aren't there any more to reach that conclusion. Maybe if I choose to hit someone with my unarmed strike instead of my weapon, the added weight of the knuckles still helps add some heft and momentum to my strike. When a buckler gives me a -1 to hit with a weapon wielded in that hand I don't assume it's because I have to hit them with the buckler. If I had a shield that said "while wielding this shield you may deal bludgeoning damage with the weapon in your other hand" I wouldn't assume that meant I was actually hitting them with shield whenever I said I was hitting them with my longsword.
Actually, you just had to make a lot of assumptions and add a lot of words to justify your stance. Samasboy just read the text entry that says "unarmed strike" and thought the rules actually meant "unarmed strike." Pretty novel, I know.

I do think that if someone looked at the UE entry without knowing about the removed line that was in the APG then it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that monk damage might apply. I don't think the rules should require an in-depth knowledge of all previous versions and dev commentary on the forums to know how they work.

It's clear that the RAI is for brass knuckles to use weapon damage instead of unarmed strike damage. If you don't follow the developer posts on the forums, you're left with RAW that has room for interpretation. A bit more clarity in the rules text is never a bad thing.


BigDTBone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
If you think that about a poster (whoever they are), why engage with them?
I stopped engaging with him very early on in this thread. I tried to explain why I felt this is an issue and he didn't care, I tried to appeal to his reason and he didn't care, so I gave up. He came back with a wall of text post that replied to a few of my points with his typical half-reading response filled with condescension so I never replied back.

Fair enough. I guess I count presenting your opinion as to his motives as engaging with him, but okay.

I don't really see the point, to be frank. Any time people start ascribing motives to others they've lost the argument, in my book. (Whether it be accusing optimising players of trying to WIN or anything else). Denigrating others is an easy, but not a compelling argument.


Bandw2 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
No. The monk body can not be directly enhanced .The bestmake magic fang permanent. you can do is
why not? it counts as a manufactured weapon, and manufactures weapons all have masterwork versions.

RAW= "You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent"

Your body part is not an item.

RAI=The devs have no intention of allowing you to bypass the AoMF. That is why the brass knuckles were errata'd.

Basically if we find a loophole, they will likely(99%) close that loophole.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I guess I count commenting on your opinion as to his motives as engaging with him, but okay.

I don't really see the point, to be frank. Any time people start ascribing motives to others they've lost the argument, in my book. (Whether it be accusing optimising players of trying to WIN or anything else). Denigrating others is an easy, but not a compelling argument strategy.

Mostly because the poster I quoted directly accused me of chasing him away. If that poster is paying so little attention that they are confusing me and samasboy then there isn't any hope of demonstrating otherwise. Easier to just acknowledge it and state that not much was lost.


wraithstrike wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
No. The monk body can not be directly enhanced .The bestmake magic fang permanent. you can do is
why not? it counts as a manufactured weapon, and manufactures weapons all have masterwork versions.

RAW= "You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent"

Your body part is not an item.

RAI=The devs have no intention of allowing you to bypass the AoMF. That is why the brass knuckles were errata'd.

Basically if we find a loophole, they will likely(99%) close that loophole.

Pretty much this. I just wish it this loophole would get some specific text that makes it clear how it works and for that text to be (1) accessible to the community easily and (2) happens sooner rather than later.


Here is what all of this boils down to. The PDT has no intention of this working and they thought removing the "monk" like would clear it up, so the left the unarmed strike line in.

However some don't care what the intent was. They only care what the words say, and if the words have not changed enough, then in their minds the rule has not changed despite intent.<------I do think that is a fair assessment, however to tell someone the meaning of their own words is a little presumptuous.
------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am well aware the PDT is nobody's boss.

Rule(version 1): Allows you to be 15 minutes late.

Rule(verson 2): Removes the ability to be 15 minutes late, but the word "late" is not removed so it could be possibly be read that you are late.

Employee shows up 4 minutes late.

Boss: You are late. You can't be late. Did you not see the update?

Employee: The management said I could not be 15 minutes late.

Boss: So I see that could have been written better. Well don't be late again.

Employee: You do know that I can still be late.

Boss: Myself along with other managers wrote the book, and I am saying don't be late. You will get the update as soon as HR schedules another print run, but the absence of the "15 minutes" let you know our intent.

Employee: If it is not in writing then the rule does not really count, and right now it is not.

Boss: These words mean "........"

Employee: That is not how I read them.

<keeps going back and forth>


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Here is what all of this boils down to. The PDT has no intention of this working and they thought removing the "monk" like would clear it up, so the left the unarmed strike line in.

However some don't care what the intent was. They only care what the words say, and if the words have not changed enough, then in their minds the rule has not changed despite intent.<------I do think that is a fair assessment, however to tell someone the meaning of their own words is a little presumptuous.
------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am well aware the PDT is nobody's boss.

Rule(version 1): Allows you to be 15 minutes late.

Rule(verson 2): Removes the ability to be 15 minutes late, but the word "late" is not removed so it could be possibly be read that you are late.

Employee shows up 4 minutes late.

Boss: You are late. You can't be late. Did you not see the update?

Employee: The management said I could not be 15 minutes late.

Boss: So I see that could have been written better. Well don't be late again.

Employee: You do know that I can still be late.

Boss: Myself along with other managers wrote the book, and I am saying don't be late. You will get the update as soon as HR schedules another print run, but the absence of the "15 minutes" let you know our intent.

Employee: If it is not in writing then the rule does not really count, and right now it is not.

Boss: These words mean "........"

Employee: That is not how I read them.

<keeps going back and forth>

Yes, that's what it can look like on the forums. What it looks like in the rest of the world is:

New player: ooooh, shiny new book, must trade hard earned dollars for pretty book.

---later that day---

New player: check out this awesome stuff in this book! It has a weapon which monks can use and it says it's an unarmed strike! That's awesome!

GM: no, it doesn't work that way. I know thus because I spend every waking moment of free time on the Paizo forums and memorized every developer post for the last 6 years.

New player: but it says right here, unarmed strike...

GM: well unfortunately for you the book doesn't count for anything, you have to be able to understand the intent and to do that you have to spend 6 years memorizing posts.

New player: so they wrote unarmed strike but they didn't intend to?

GM: no, they intended to write the words "unarmed strike" they just didn't intend for you to believe it actually meant "unarmed strike."


GM: No, while it references unarmed strike, it is still a weapon. Monks do not get their improved unarmed damage when using a weapon.


This funny, but also sad at the same time because it can be true in many cases.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
GM: No, while it references unarmed strike, it is still a weapon. Monks do not get their improved unarmed damage when using a weapon.

To which the player reasonably asks, (1) how do you know this to be true? (2) can you show me that in the rules? (3) why does it mention unarmed strike at all?

All of which are perfectly valid questions that have dubious answers at best.


wraithstrike wrote:
This funny, but also sad at the same time because it can be true in many cases.

That is precisely my point.


BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
GM: No, while it references unarmed strike, it is still a weapon. Monks do not get their improved unarmed damage when using a weapon.

To which the player reasonably asks, (1) how do you know this to be true? (2) can you show me that in the rules? (3) why does it mention unarmed strike at all?

All of which are perfectly valid questions that have dubious answers at best.

Can I show you the rule that monks don't use their unarmed strike damage with weapons? Are you seriously asking that?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

hmmm... can brass knuckles be used in a style feat that requires an unarmed strike?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
GM: No, while it references unarmed strike, it is still a weapon. Monks do not get their improved unarmed damage when using a weapon.

To which the player reasonably asks, (1) how do you know this to be true? (2) can you show me that in the rules? (3) why does it mention unarmed strike at all?

All of which are perfectly valid questions that have dubious answers at best.

Can I show you the rule that monks don't use their unarmed strike damage with weapons? Are you seriously asking that?

Not all weapons, just weapons that mechanically alter your unarmed strike and have the "monk" quality. Just show me the rule that says those weapons don't scale with monk unarmed strike damage.

Edit: and there were also two other questions in that post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
GM: No, while it references unarmed strike, it is still a weapon. Monks do not get their improved unarmed damage when using a weapon.

To which the player reasonably asks, (1) how do you know this to be true? (2) can you show me that in the rules? (3) why does it mention unarmed strike at all?

All of which are perfectly valid questions that have dubious answers at best.

Can I show you the rule that monks don't use their unarmed strike damage with weapons? Are you seriously asking that?

I think he was asking from the point of someone who does not visit the boards, and the GM is having to explain why it does not work a certain way.

I think the issue of having(requiring) to have SKR or any dev explain what they meant is the real problem he has.----> aka It should be clear enough by the books and FAQ's alone.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Voadam wrote:
There are explicit statements in the FAQ for many rules saying "this will be updated in the next printing of the book". That is not here for this change.

Not needed because the errata is already printed in AA:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Adventurer's Armory with errata says:

Brass Knuckles: These weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch; they allow you to deal lethal damage. 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 concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles.
Voadam wrote:
My understanding is PFS uses RAW as modified by the FAQ and PFS documents.

In PFS, you go more with intent of rules and the RAW (which is clear) of the Guide to PFS. Mostly those comments are to prevent GM's changing scenarios DC, loot, monsters, and other things. It will also cover the rules if you start doing things like letting Monks use BK for their Unarmed Strike damage dice.

Samasboy1 wrote:
is there RAW that Monks get their Unarmed damage with Brass Knuckles?

Yes "Note: Monks are proficient with brass knuckles."

BigDTBone wrote:
shiny new book, must trade hard earned dollars for pretty book.

Which represents $0.000333 or 1/30th of a penny of the whole book.

Would you like a refund?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Voadam wrote:
There are explicit statements in the FAQ for many rules saying "this will be updated in the next printing of the book". That is not here for this change.

Not needed because the errata is already printed in AA:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Adventurer's Armory with errata says:

Brass Knuckles: These weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch; they allow you to deal lethal damage. 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 concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles.
Voadam wrote:
My understanding is PFS uses RAW as modified by the FAQ and PFS documents.

In PFS, you go more with intent of rules and the RAW (which is clear) of the Guide to PFS. Mostly those comments are to prevent GM's changing scenarios DC, loot, monsters, and other things. It will also cover the rules if you start doing things like letting Monks use BK for their Unarmed Strike damage dice.

Samasboy1 wrote:
is there RAW that Monks get their Unarmed damage with Brass Knuckles?

Yes "Note: Monks are proficient with brass knuckles."

BigDTBone wrote:
shiny new book, must trade hard earned dollars for pretty book.

Which represents $0.000333 or 1/30th of a penny of the whole book.

Would you like a refund?

That is a garbage snark comment. First, you can't buy the rules one-off. If you could then Paizo would sell a lot less product to PFS players. Second, 70% of every single book are page-filler non-options. So, yea, if you are offering refunds go ahead and send me $28 for the 70% of the APG that is not useful to me AND I will take the fractional penny too.

Or, you know, you could stop being a damn jerk. If you don't want to have a rules discussion why are you even here? Why don't you quit trolling and go bother someone in real life?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
People also need to get over using "well it's just Sean's opinion, not a FAQ, so it's not official" as a rebuttal.

We have been explicitly told that if it's not an FAQ, it's not official.

There have been instances where a staff member has made a forum post and then an FAQ has been posted that was different, or even a total 180 from the staff member post.

This is the case whether or not it's stated or fact that it was discussed internally.

Re: the OP, Brass Knuckles per the PRD do not scale with monk unarmed damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:


You've got to make a lot of assumptions and add in a lot of words that aren't there any more to reach that conclusion.

I don't have to add any words, though I admit there is one assumption. It seems a perfectly normal assumption that takes place in English though.

The assumption is: if Brass Knuckles allow you to deal unarmed strikes, you have to be using the Brass Knuckles to make the unarmed strike.

That is the nature of English. If I said, "A car lets you travel long distances." The assumption inherent in the sentence is that you are using the car to travel, not that simple possession of the car enhances your travel distance.

Or, from another item in the game, Cold Weather gear. "This outfit includes a wool coat, linen shirt, wool cap, heavy cloak, thick pants or skirt, and boots. This outfit grants a +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather." The assumption inherent in the second sentence is that you must be wearing the cold weather clothes described in the first sentence to benefit from the bonus.

So "These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike" would naturally require you to be wearing and using the brass knuckles to have an effect on your unarmed strike, and thus be using the brass knuckles and making the unarmed strike at the same time.

James Risner wrote:

Not needed because the errata is already printed in AA:

And we keep moving the goal posts.

The errata for Adventurer's Armory is July 2011. Ultimate Equipment is August 2012. The most recent rule takes precedence.

James Risner wrote:


Samasboy1 wrote:
is there RAW that Monks get their Unarmed damage with Brass Knuckles?
Yes "Note: Monks are proficient with brass knuckles."

So now you agree with me? Awesome! I mean, I don't see what proficiency has to do with it, but I appreciate your support.


Gee and we wonder why some people think the threads have become more hostile as of late.


I find it amusing that the PRD STILL has this line in it about the brass knuckles. "Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them" APG Gear


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
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 [...]

Can we get this paragraph or so as a sticky, please?

I seriously think this is a really important thing about the rules discussions, which people tend to keep overlooking. I love arguing about rules pedantically because that helps me understand the rules. And I will joke with my GM about these things. The other week, I said "so I found a funny thing in one of the rule books", and she said "I did not know what fear was until I started playing with you guys."

And I will cheerfully tell her about the idea of doing astral projection while carrying 125k of diamond dust, meeting a friend who plane shifted to another plane, wishing one of their stats up by five, and then returning to the non-duplicate-copy of your body which still has its gear and possessions. But I would never, ever, try to do that, or the simulacrum of an efreet, or anything like that, because that's stupid.

We make rulings on the fly. Sometimes they're "bad" rulings. We had one particularly epic battle in which our dragon disciple bard popped unwilling shield on a golem, and at the time we thought this should work, then we realized later that it shouldn't have. Whoops. But it was an epic battle and we'd already moved on, so hey, whatever. Player characters have at least occasionally died (briefly) due to rulings we later realized were in error in some way, and that's okay, because in a year and a half with this gaming group, I have never once felt like I was being treated unfairly by the GM, even when I was totally sure something ought to work and she ruled against it. Because we are all aware that we are playing the game to have fun playing a reasonably balanced/fair game. I mean. As much as a game can be reasonably balanced at epic levels, at this point.

It seems to me that, even if a GM is currently obligated to let monks get their unarmed strike bonus damage with brass knuckles, it's pretty clear that this is not the intent. It's also pretty clear that there are problems with the monk which probably ought to be fixed, which has been true of every edition of D&D that had a monk, ever.

251 to 300 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.