[Unchained] The Monk Unchained


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,679 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>

@lorekeeper: your tiger vs dragon thing got me thinking--going without dragon style REALLY hurts your damage on the unarmed side, and you cant take both without MoMS (iirc, one of the few archetypes that actually still work with unchained monk)

that trades out flurry, which used to be a pretty hard sell outside of dipping monk 2 and never touching it again (flurry was your ONLY class accuracy booster in the old monk), but you can pick up TWF fairly painlessly as a monk--you're required to have a high dex already anyway

you could start with 16 dex--after racials, since everything and their dog has dex bonuses--and put your 4th-level stat point towards it, then pick up ITWF at 7th (was never a fan of GTWF, since an extra -12 attack usually wasn't a spectacular idea)...

.

anyway, this is all just musing. anyone else got ideas for shoring up the defensive side? before 19th level, preferably (#shotsfired #paizodevsdown)


B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Not that it adds too much, but doesn't the 1.5x attack from Dragon style allow it to get the 1.5 bonus from Power Attack (For that attack as it's a natural weapon that grants 1.5x strength)?

That's... not how Power Attack works.

Power Attack is a static -1 Attack, +2 damage if wielding a weapon one-handed or +3 if wielding a weapon two-handed, and you get an additional -1 / +2/+3 for every +4 BAB you have (so -2, +4/+6 for BAB +4, -3, +6/+9 for BAB +8, etc.)

Because it's a static amount, it stacks with Dragon Style because Dragon Style adds a bonus based on your Strength; they don't multiply one another at all.

Basically, it looks like this:

Damage + [1.5xStr] + [2x(BAB/4, rounded down)+2]

Unless, of course, Stamina does something funky with Power Attack and DOES make it based on your STR, in which case, no, they wouldn't stack because it'd be 2 instances of +[Str] to damage.


B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Not that it adds too much, but doesn't the 1.5x attack from Dragon style allow it to get the 1.5 bonus from Power Attack (For that attack as it's a natural weapon that grants 1.5x strength)?

No. Dragon style only gives you 1.5 on your first attack. That power attack rule is for natural weapons that just do 1.5 str damage. There is also the question of whether or not this feat counts as an "effect", since unarmed strikes are not really natural attacks. They just count as natural attacks for monks.

Of course the devs could it counts for that first attack, and not for the rest of the attacks. It is not a bad question to FAQ.

Scarab Sages

wraithstrike wrote:
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Not that it adds too much, but doesn't the 1.5x attack from Dragon style allow it to get the 1.5 bonus from Power Attack (For that attack as it's a natural weapon that grants 1.5x strength)?

No. Dragon style only gives you 1.5 on your first attack. That power attack rule is for natural weapons that just do 1.5 str damage. There is also the question of whether or not this feat counts as an "effect", since unarmed strikes are not really natural attacks. They just count as natural attacks for monks.

Of course the devs could it counts for that first attack, and not for the rest of the attacks. It is not a bad question to FAQ.

Thanks I'll create a rules thread for it.


AndIMustMask wrote:
@lorekeeper: your tiger vs dragon thing got me thinking--going without dragon style REALLY hurts your damage on the unarmed side, and you cant take both without MoMS (iirc, one of the few archetypes that actually still work with unchained monk)

I disagree, see for example: a 22 Str monk with Dragon Style gets a nice +3 to his damage. That's fairly decent. But in the equivalent situation a Tiger Style monk would have +3 to attack. The rough guideline that I follow is that a +1 to attack is worth +2 to damage - that is a rather reliable rule of thumb statistically (and also reflected in feat chains, see for example Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc). By that rule, Tiger Style is a net +6 to damage compared to the +3 from Dragon Style.

As an added bonus Tiger Style grants a form of pounce. This means that together with the flying kick style strike you can get a lot of mobility going in combat: potentially two movements combined with a flurry in a single round.

Furthermore, Tiger Style gets its benefits from having the Power Attack feat - this means you only need 13 Str to get it to work. This in turn means you can use Tiger Style very well with a Dex-based monk and thereby retain the same or better AC than a Str-based monk even when using Tiger Style. A Wisdom-based monk (see Wise Punch Man) can also do very well with a Tiger Style approach.

There are of course advantages and disadvantages to either approach, and some situations will favor the one over the other - and vice versa. But the prevalence of Dragon Style is, in my opinion, unfounded; Tiger Style is an effective option that deserves a bit more attention than it receives.

...

PS - Wise Punch Man is an example of great defenses on the Unchained Monk. He deals significantly less damage than a pure damage build, but he offers a lot of battlefield control and a rather large ki pool. If refocused to use Tiger Style he gives up some control power, but adds formidable damage to good control and good defenses.


LoreKeeper wrote:


As an added bonus Tiger Style grants a form of pounce. This means that together with the flying kick style strike you can get a lot of mobility going in combat: potentially two movements combined with a flurry in a single round.

But Dragon Style means you can Charge/pounce over difficult terrain. Very useful if you aren't in static open areas.

Scarab Sages

Starbuck_II wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:


As an added bonus Tiger Style grants a form of pounce. This means that together with the flying kick style strike you can get a lot of mobility going in combat: potentially two movements combined with a flurry in a single round.

But Dragon Style means you can Charge/pounce over difficult terrain. Very useful if you aren't in static open areas.

So does 2000GP for a pair of Feather Step Slippers. The gold is a lot cheaper than being locked in to a style feat for mobility.


wraithstrike wrote:
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Not that it adds too much, but doesn't the 1.5x attack from Dragon style allow it to get the 1.5 bonus from Power Attack (For that attack as it's a natural weapon that grants 1.5x strength)?

No. Dragon style only gives you 1.5 on your first attack. That power attack rule is for natural weapons that just do 1.5 str damage. There is also the question of whether or not this feat counts as an "effect", since unarmed strikes are not really natural attacks. They just count as natural attacks for monks.

Of course the devs could it counts for that first attack, and not for the rest of the attacks. It is not a bad question to FAQ.

Indeed, Power Attack mandates you must be two-handing a weapon for the 1.5 return on it. Even if you picked up Dragon Ferocity which allows you to add half your strength bonus as an additional bonus on damage, it doesn't count. Sure, you're getting 1.5x Strength, but you're not two-handing your unarmed strikes.

Legalistic, sure, and I would totally allow 1.5x Power Attack to a user with Dragon Ferocity in my games, but that's house ruling it to work... something that seems to be the basis of the Monk class :(

Liberty's Edge

Dabbler wrote:

Certainly, here’s the back of my envelope:

Let’s assume a 10th level monk with 20 Strength (16 +2 levels +2 Belt) and Power Attacking. Assume 1/3 WBL for weapon, which is 20,000gp.

Unarmed monk is attacking for 1d10 base damage, and can afford a +2 AoMF. That gives him +7 static bonus, then Power Attack for +6, and assuming Improved Critical a 10% threat chance. That gives us 18.5 x 1.1 = 20.35 before we factor odds to hit.
Armed monk with a temple sword has only 1d8 base damage, and can afford a +3 weapon. He’s using it two-handed so he gets +7 from Strength and +3 from the weapon for +10. Then he’s using Power Attack for +9, and the Improved Critical gives him a 20% threat chance. That gives us 23.5 x 1.2 = 28.2 before we factor in odds to hit – which are better for this monk as he has an extra +1 from his weapon and can take Furious Focus to make his first attack with no penalty from Power Attack.

So quite a difference. Even if the unarmed monk uses a monk’s robe (damage to 2d6), and a feat chain like Dragon Style to add 1.5x strength bonus damage, he caps at 22 x 1.1 = 24.2. The armed monk is both more accurate and does more damage.

Assuming Pummeling Style and a Monk's Robe this becomes much closer, due to the vastly higher crit chances. The math on crit chances for pummeling style is a bit complicated for me, but it gets better the higher a level you achieve, and is pretty definitionally better than a 17-20 generally speaking (and I think goes above a 40% chance as early as 11th level). I suspect that will make up for a lot, and while not a necessary part of all builds, is perhaps a better comparison.

Scarab Sages

Tels wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Not that it adds too much, but doesn't the 1.5x attack from Dragon style allow it to get the 1.5 bonus from Power Attack (For that attack as it's a natural weapon that grants 1.5x strength)?

No. Dragon style only gives you 1.5 on your first attack. That power attack rule is for natural weapons that just do 1.5 str damage. There is also the question of whether or not this feat counts as an "effect", since unarmed strikes are not really natural attacks. They just count as natural attacks for monks.

Of course the devs could it counts for that first attack, and not for the rest of the attacks. It is not a bad question to FAQ.

Indeed, Power Attack mandates you must be two-handing a weapon for the 1.5 return on it. Even if you picked up Dragon Ferocity which allows you to add half your strength bonus as an additional bonus on damage, it doesn't count. Sure, you're getting 1.5x Strength, but you're not two-handing your unarmed strikes.

Legalistic, sure, and I would totally allow 1.5x Power Attack to a user with Dragon Ferocity in my games, but that's house ruling it to work... something that seems to be the basis of the Monk class :(

It actually depends on if you treat the monk's unarmed strike as a primary natural weapon or just a natural weapon. Which seems to be up in the air at the moment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Tels wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Not that it adds too much, but doesn't the 1.5x attack from Dragon style allow it to get the 1.5 bonus from Power Attack (For that attack as it's a natural weapon that grants 1.5x strength)?

No. Dragon style only gives you 1.5 on your first attack. That power attack rule is for natural weapons that just do 1.5 str damage. There is also the question of whether or not this feat counts as an "effect", since unarmed strikes are not really natural attacks. They just count as natural attacks for monks.

Of course the devs could it counts for that first attack, and not for the rest of the attacks. It is not a bad question to FAQ.

Indeed, Power Attack mandates you must be two-handing a weapon for the 1.5 return on it. Even if you picked up Dragon Ferocity which allows you to add half your strength bonus as an additional bonus on damage, it doesn't count. Sure, you're getting 1.5x Strength, but you're not two-handing your unarmed strikes.

Legalistic, sure, and I would totally allow 1.5x Power Attack to a user with Dragon Ferocity in my games, but that's house ruling it to work... something that seems to be the basis of the Monk class :(

It actually depends on if you treat the monk's unarmed strike as a primary natural weapon or just a natural weapon. Which seems to be up in the air at the moment.

No, it's really not. An unarmed strike is it's own special little weapon. In every instance in the game, except for one, unarmed strike is always, specifically, excluded from either of the other two weapon categories. It is always written as 'manufactured or natural weapons or unarmed strikes'.

It is neither a primary weapon, nor a secondary weapon. It is not a manufactured weapon. It's an unarmed strike.

Power Attack's clause about primary weapons is not an effect of Power Attack, it is stating a necessary requirement to gain an effect. Power Attack does not make a T-Rex's bite a primary weapon; however, because the bite is considered primary weapon, the bite gains an additional effect if used in conjunction with Power Attack.

Dragon Style/Ferocity does not make the Monk's unarmed strike a primary natural weapon, therefore, it does not gain the 3:1 return on Power Attack.


I made a thread on the Unarmed Strike weapon category nearly 3 years ago but nothing ever came about from it.

I point out that, technically speaking, there is not a single character in the game that can make an additional attack with an unarmed strike when using the spell haste or effects that work "like haste" because haste specifically calls out granting an additional attack with a manufactured or natural weapon. Since haste doesn't "enhance or improve a manufactured or natural weapon", even Monk's don't benefit from the additional attack.

All because the designers wanted to specifically separate unarmed strikes from natural weapons so that Monk's couldn't get up to any funny business. You'll note that in 3rd Edition an unarmed strike was a natural attack and could be improved via the Improved Natural Attack feat. That option was very specifically removed from Pathfinder and the further implementation of language to keep up that separation of weapon categories only makes headaches like this one pop up more and more often as time goes by.

Scarab Sages

Tels wrote:

I made a thread on the Unarmed Strike weapon category nearly 3 years ago but nothing ever came about from it.

I point out that, technically speaking, there is not a single character in the game that can make an additional attack with an unarmed strike when using the spell haste or effects that work "like haste" because haste specifically calls out granting an additional attack with a manufactured or natural weapon. Since haste doesn't "enhance or improve a manufactured or natural weapon", even Monk's don't benefit from the additional attack.

All because the designers wanted to specifically separate unarmed strikes from natural weapons so that Monk's couldn't get up to any funny business. You'll note that in 3rd Edition an unarmed strike was a natural attack and could be improved via the Improved Natural Attack feat. That option was very specifically removed from Pathfinder and the further implementation of language to keep up that separation of weapon categories only makes headaches like this one pop up more and more often as time goes by.

So... Your post is marked as "Answered in the errata."

I really do wish, that they would provide a link or something to tell you where it is, if it's unpublished, or what have you. The same with FAQs, Setting the search box to Everything doesn't return answers from the FAQs. It should be more like search Everything*.

*Everything but the place that has the most definitive answers to questions.

Not to be too snarky about it, but since this little bit of technological sorcery escapes Paizo, I'm not surprised that the Unarmed Strikes problem you mention hasn't been resolved since 2008.


Unfortunately, "Answered in the FAQ" used to mean "We don't feel like answering this". It doesn't necessarily mean there was actually a FAQ.

They now have a "No FAQ Necessary" tag instead, which is slightly more helpful.


B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Tels wrote:

I made a thread on the Unarmed Strike weapon category nearly 3 years ago but nothing ever came about from it.

I point out that, technically speaking, there is not a single character in the game that can make an additional attack with an unarmed strike when using the spell haste or effects that work "like haste" because haste specifically calls out granting an additional attack with a manufactured or natural weapon. Since haste doesn't "enhance or improve a manufactured or natural weapon", even Monk's don't benefit from the additional attack.

All because the designers wanted to specifically separate unarmed strikes from natural weapons so that Monk's couldn't get up to any funny business. You'll note that in 3rd Edition an unarmed strike was a natural attack and could be improved via the Improved Natural Attack feat. That option was very specifically removed from Pathfinder and the further implementation of language to keep up that separation of weapon categories only makes headaches like this one pop up more and more often as time goes by.

So... Your post is marked as "Answered in the errata."

I really do wish, that they would provide a link or something to tell you where it is, if it's unpublished, or what have you. The same with FAQs, Setting the search box to Everything doesn't return answers from the FAQs. It should be more like search Everything*.

*Everything but the place that has the most definitive answers to questions.

Not to be too snarky about it, but since this little bit of technological sorcery escapes Paizo, I'm not surprised that the Unarmed Strikes problem you mention hasn't been resolved since 2008.

Yeah, I actually PM'd a couple of the PDT about the thread being marked as answered in the FAQ but none of them could really give me an answer as to how it was answered. The closest I ever got was that the intent behind the interaction between haste and unarmed strikes is clear enough, and that since it's not actually causing a problem for anyone (despite having issues of unarmed strike interactions in various aspects of the game), no FAQrrata was necessary.

I just think it's odd that, RAW, a summoned demon can avoid using his claws to attack someone warded by protection from chaos/evil/good/law and punch or kick them instead because unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons and avoids stipulations of the spell.


Tels wrote:
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Tels wrote:

I made a thread on the Unarmed Strike weapon category nearly 3 years ago but nothing ever came about from it.

I point out that, technically speaking, there is not a single character in the game that can make an additional attack with an unarmed strike when using the spell haste or effects that work "like haste" because haste specifically calls out granting an additional attack with a manufactured or natural weapon. Since haste doesn't "enhance or improve a manufactured or natural weapon", even Monk's don't benefit from the additional attack.

All because the designers wanted to specifically separate unarmed strikes from natural weapons so that Monk's couldn't get up to any funny business. You'll note that in 3rd Edition an unarmed strike was a natural attack and could be improved via the Improved Natural Attack feat. That option was very specifically removed from Pathfinder and the further implementation of language to keep up that separation of weapon categories only makes headaches like this one pop up more and more often as time goes by.

So... Your post is marked as "Answered in the errata."

I really do wish, that they would provide a link or something to tell you where it is, if it's unpublished, or what have you. The same with FAQs, Setting the search box to Everything doesn't return answers from the FAQs. It should be more like search Everything*.

*Everything but the place that has the most definitive answers to questions.

Not to be too snarky about it, but since this little bit of technological sorcery escapes Paizo, I'm not surprised that the Unarmed Strikes problem you mention hasn't been resolved since 2008.

Yeah, I actually PM'd a couple of the PDT about the thread being marked as answered in the FAQ but none of them could really give me an answer as to how it was answered....

Answer...

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qk0

Quote:


Monk: Does the extra attack from spending ki as part of a flurry of blows stack with the extra attack from haste?

Yes. The extra attack described in the ki pool ability doesn't say it works like haste, nor does it say that it doesn't stack with haste, so the monk would get two additional attacks (one from spending a ki point as part of a flurry, one from haste).

This was answered in the long dark era between them deciding that FoB would require two weapon fighting (meaning half your attacks were with one fist or weapon, and the other half were with a 2nd weapon).

After the several month revolt by the players they changed their minds on how it all worked.


I'm still boggled at how anyone could think an unarmed strike isnt at LEAST a type of natural attack--it's not like you can equip your fists or equip your claws--they're there all the time if you have them.

I mean unarmed strike is specifically listed in the weapons table and everything as well, and spells and enhancements that affect either manufactured or natural weapons will affect unarmed strikes (or at least that's how enchants work with the clockwork arm at least).

Liberty's Edge

LoreKeeper wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
I'm the only one who has posted anything even close to an actual side-by-side comparison, and the back-of-the-envelope calculations didn't really seem to support the "armed is better" hypothesis.

I posted Wise Punch Man :)

I realize that, but I didn't see that it was a weapon/non-weapon comparison, which is what I was referring to. If I missed something, though, I apologize.

Dabbler wrote:

That gives us 23.5 x 1.2 = 28.2 before we factor in odds to hit – which are better for this monk as he has an extra +1 from his weapon and can take Furious Focus to make his first attack with no penalty from Power Attack.

So quite a difference. Even if the unarmed monk uses a monk’s robe (damage to 2d6), and a feat chain like Dragon Style to add 1.5x strength bonus damage, he caps at 22 x 1.1 = 24.2. The armed monk is both more accurate and does more damage.

Out of curiosity, how often do you expect to need to move to your next opponent using flying kick? Because that's how often Furious Focus is just wasted space on the character sheet, even beyond how switching to an unarmed strike will impact on DPR.

And as for the damage comparison, you left out that the first Dragon Style attack actually clocks in at 25 x 1.1 = 27.5 (vs the armed monk's 28.2) and the first attack can carry a +3d6 energy damage rider. In this scenario, according to my numbers, Power Attack for the unarmed monk is an average of only about +1 DPR against AC 24, but dropping it and adding the +10.5 damage from Elemental Fist actually puts the unarmed monk only behind the armed monk by about 5 DPR total. And for that roughly 10% damage advantage the armed monk is giving up style strikes and most of the best Style feat chains.

I stand by my statement. The math doesn't support a clear advantage to armed users. There are tradeoffs, and they are not decisively outweighed by the damage advantage, such as it is.


they ARE however outweighed by WBL and feat expenditure until higher levels i'd think.

Liberty's Edge

AndIMustMask wrote:
they ARE however outweighed by WBL and feat expenditure until higher levels i'd think.

The numbers cited are already counting the WBL disparity (ie: they compare a +2 AoMF with a +3 weapon...the weapon actually costs more).

Feats you have a little more of a point, but I don't think it's enough of one to matter a whole lot.

Liberty's Edge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
they ARE however outweighed by WBL and feat expenditure until higher levels i'd think.

The numbers cited are already counting the WBL disparity (ie: they compare a +2 AoMF with a +3 weapon...the weapon actually costs more).

Feats you have a little more of a point, but I don't think it's enough of one to matter a whole lot.

Dragon Style, Dragon Roar and Elemental Fist vs Furious Focus. Two feat difference.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
they ARE however outweighed by WBL and feat expenditure until higher levels i'd think.

The numbers cited are already counting the WBL disparity (ie: they compare a +2 AoMF with a +3 weapon...the weapon actually costs more).

Feats you have a little more of a point, but I don't think it's enough of one to matter a whole lot.

sorry, i more meant WBL expenditure for/to the same effect

a +3 AoMF and +3 weapon are very different costs. as is a +3 bracers of armor vs +3 armor.

monk's robe can be counted as a wash, since most classes also have a '~15000g Class Ability Boost' item, and most martials have to put more money towards defensive items (jingasa, cloak or resistance, clear spindle ioun stone+wayfinder, etc), but items towards ki reduction or ki recovery are more WBL that most other classes don't have to account for.

the monk saves money on not having to buy an amulet of natural armor--if they traded a class ability for barkskin, a tax which is unheard of in most other classes--and used to be able to leverage their superior saves against having to purchase save-boosting stuff for a bit to buffer their larger purchases, but that's not the case anymore.


From the paizo blog in case anyone hasnt seen it. The topic was PFS play for unchained so this may only be for PFS.

"The unchained monk does not qualify for any archetypes, save those in future publications that specifically cite their compatibility with the unchained monk class."

Designer

Lance Manstrong wrote:

From the paizo blog in case anyone hasnt seen it. The topic was PFS play for unchained so this may only be for PFS.

"The unchained monk does not qualify for any archetypes, save those in future publications that specifically cite their compatibility with the unchained monk class."

The book says that by default it doesn't qualify for anything prior. That said, in a home game, it shouldn't be hard to assess which ones you want to include and make small tweaks (or in some cases almost no tweaks) to include them.


Thanks for the clarification. I didn't remember seeing anyone post that rule. Just seemed like a lot of assumptions about the archetypes.

Liberty's Edge

It has the class features to swap out for master of many styles and weapon adept. Whether those are good trades I leave for others to decide.

Sovereign Court

AndIMustMask wrote:


a +3 AoMF and +3 weapon are very different costs. as is a +3 bracers of armor vs +3 armor.

While the +3 AoMF is double a +3 weapon, (hence the example using a +2 AoMF vs +3 weapon) +3 bracers cost the same as the enchantment on +3 armor. The armor costs slightly more as it has a base cost of whatever the armor cost is; potentially considerably more if made out of a special material.

The advantage of the armor is that it has a base AC to build off of, and it doesn't use up a slot. Of course - monks get bonus AC from levels/wis (and no max dex bonus) which eventually more than trumps that advantage. That's why monks have by far the highest AC in the game at high levels. (With the possible exception of wildshaped druids.)


Ckorik wrote:
Tels wrote:
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Tels wrote:

I made a thread on the Unarmed Strike weapon category nearly 3 years ago but nothing ever came about from it.

I point out that, technically speaking, there is not a single character in the game that can make an additional attack with an unarmed strike when using the spell haste or effects that work "like haste" because haste specifically calls out granting an additional attack with a manufactured or natural weapon. Since haste doesn't "enhance or improve a manufactured or natural weapon", even Monk's don't benefit from the additional attack.

All because the designers wanted to specifically separate unarmed strikes from natural weapons so that Monk's couldn't get up to any funny business. You'll note that in 3rd Edition an unarmed strike was a natural attack and could be improved via the Improved Natural Attack feat. That option was very specifically removed from Pathfinder and the further implementation of language to keep up that separation of weapon categories only makes headaches like this one pop up more and more often as time goes by.

So... Your post is marked as "Answered in the errata."

I really do wish, that they would provide a link or something to tell you where it is, if it's unpublished, or what have you. The same with FAQs, Setting the search box to Everything doesn't return answers from the FAQs. It should be more like search Everything*.

*Everything but the place that has the most definitive answers to questions.

Not to be too snarky about it, but since this little bit of technological sorcery escapes Paizo, I'm not surprised that the Unarmed Strikes problem you mention hasn't been resolved since 2008.

Yeah, I actually PM'd a couple of the PDT about the thread being marked as answered in the FAQ but none of them could really give me an answer as
...

Ok, the whole point of the thread was that the lengths the designers went to exclude unarmed strikes from being in any weapon category other than itself has introduced all kinds of headaches and problems because of it. Instead of commenting on that, you focus on one little aspect of the post, and then don't even comprehend that aspect correctly.

The bit about haste had nothing to do with whether or not the extra attack from haste stacked with the extra attack from spending Ki. It has everything to do with whether or not the extra attack from haste could be made with an unarmed strike.

Haste wrote:
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon.

In the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder, the designers went to great pains to specifically exclude unarmed strikes from counting as either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon. Unarmed strikes are in it's own special snowflake category all by itself. This means that if spells don't refer to 'manufactured or natural weapons or unarmed strikes' then unarmed strikes don't benefit.

Unarmed strikes don't benefit from spells like magic fang or magic weapon because they enhance natural weapons or manufactured weapons respectively. So the clause about haste prevents any user of unarmed strikes from making that extra attack. Even Monks and Brawlers. Why? Because haste doesn't "enhance or improve" any specific weapon, the effect enhances the wielder of the weapon, but not the weapon itself.

For example, if you have zero weapons on you when you receive haste you can still make the extra attack if you pick up a weapon and then attack the following round. However, if you were to pick up a weapon after picking up a spell like lead blades that didn't target the weapon, you don't get the extra damage dice because lead blades enhances all weapons carried at the time of casting.

So, again, technically, per RAW, no one who uses unarmed strikes can take the extra attack granted by haste by using an unarmed strike. They are required to use a different weapon other than an unarmed strike because an unarmed strike is not considered a natural or manufactured weapon, which haste specifically outlines as the only weapons that can be used in conjunction with the extra attack.

This is all because the designers went through great pains to specifically exclude unarmed strike counting as anything other than unarmed strikes. In 3.5 an unarmed strike was a natural weapon and this issue never existed. In fact, you could take Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) as a feat. But this was an option specifically removed from the game in the conversion to Pathfinder.


Tels wrote:
A lot of stuff.

Ah, Tels, my man, I respect you and your opinion on these boards, and I do agree IN GENERAL that unarmed strikes fall into a 'no-man's land' of neither fish nor fowl.

However, when talking about Monks in specific, there is a little clause under the 1st level Monk special ability Unarmed Strike:

Quote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

So, by RAW, both magic fang and magic weapon (and their greater versions) definitely apply to a Monk's unarmed strike. Haste (at least in my opinion and, to the best of my knowledge, that of the design team) as well.

As would keen edge.

Now, I used the text from the existing Pathfinder Monk, since I do not yet have Unchained.

You are right that haste affects the wielder and not the weapon. However, I believe that is an oversight and almost NO ONE (in my experience) actually plays so stridently glued to the RAW as to enforce this interpretation.

MA


master arminas wrote:
Tels wrote:
A lot of stuff.

Ah, Tels, my man, I respect you and your opinion on these boards, and I do agree IN GENERAL that unarmed strikes fall into a 'no-man's land' of neither fish nor fowl.

However, when talking about Monks in specific, there is a little clause under the 1st level Monk special ability Unarmed Strike:

Quote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

So, by RAW, both magic fang and magic weapon (and their greater versions) definitely apply to a Monk's unarmed strike. Haste (at least in my opinion and, to the best of my knowledge, that of the design team) as well.

As would keen edge.

Now, I used the text from the existing Pathfinder Monk, since I do not yet have Unchained.

You are right that haste affects the wielder and not the weapon. However, I believe that is an oversight and almost NO ONE (in my experience) actually plays so stridently glued to the RAW as to enforce this interpretation.

MA

I was talking about unarmed strikes in general, the Monk and Brawler are, of course, the exception. Notice I never said Monks and Brawler's don't benefit, I only referred to unarmed strikes. The general rule is unarmed strikes don't benefit from such spells. The specific rule for Monks and Brawlers overrides the general rule, as per normal Pathfinder procedure.

However, because haste doesn't enhance a weapon, then even Monks and Brawler's shouldn't be able to use the extra attack. Per RAW anyway.

Though I absolutely agree that no one actually runs the game that way. It was merely one point in a list of problems that surrounding the separation of unarmed strikes from the other two weapon categories.


There is a FAQ saying taht is incorrect.

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
Lance Manstrong wrote:

From the paizo blog in case anyone hasnt seen it. The topic was PFS play for unchained so this may only be for PFS.

"The unchained monk does not qualify for any archetypes, save those in future publications that specifically cite their compatibility with the unchained monk class."

The book says that by default it doesn't qualify for anything prior. That said, in a home game, it shouldn't be hard to assess which ones you want to include and make small tweaks (or in some cases almost no tweaks) to include them.

I'm personally hoping for a new take on the Martial Artist. It still fills a nice void because the mystic martial and the brutish Brawler. A disciplined but down to earth monk-type.

As is, with the new focus on Ki Powers, it would be a considerably large task to properly swap out the Ki abilities for something comparable.


Nicos wrote:
There is a FAQ saying taht is incorrect.

Please link to the FAQ that clarifies that unarmed strikes count as either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for the purpose of haste or similar spells and effects that fail to possesses language otherwise including unarmed strikes in their effects.

As far as I know, the only FAQs that skirt around this issue is the one on Feral Combat Training and the one on a Monk's extra attack from Ki stacking with the extra attack from haste.


Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is a FAQ saying taht is incorrect.

Please link to the FAQ that clarifies that unarmed strikes count as either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for the purpose of haste or similar spells and effects that fail to possesses language otherwise including unarmed strikes in their effects.

As far as I know, the only FAQs that skirt around this issue is the one on Feral Combat Training and the one on a Monk's extra attack from Ki stacking with the extra attack from haste.

Good enough?


Rynjin wrote:
Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is a FAQ saying taht is incorrect.

Please link to the FAQ that clarifies that unarmed strikes count as either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for the purpose of haste or similar spells and effects that fail to possesses language otherwise including unarmed strikes in their effects.

As far as I know, the only FAQs that skirt around this issue is the one on Feral Combat Training and the one on a Monk's extra attack from Ki stacking with the extra attack from haste.

Good enough?

That's the same FAQ he said wasn't good enough just five posts before yours...


Said FAQ only applies to Monks and Brawlers y'know.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is a FAQ saying taht is incorrect.

Please link to the FAQ that clarifies that unarmed strikes count as either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for the purpose of haste or similar spells and effects that fail to possesses language otherwise including unarmed strikes in their effects.

As far as I know, the only FAQs that skirt around this issue is the one on Feral Combat Training and the one on a Monk's extra attack from Ki stacking with the extra attack from haste.

Good enough?
That's the same FAQ he said wasn't good enough just five posts before yours...

Perhaps your page is different than mine, because 5 posts above mine isn't even a post by him, and the one above that (#6) doesn't mention it at all that I see.


Rynjin wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is a FAQ saying taht is incorrect.

Please link to the FAQ that clarifies that unarmed strikes count as either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for the purpose of haste or similar spells and effects that fail to possesses language otherwise including unarmed strikes in their effects.

As far as I know, the only FAQs that skirt around this issue is the one on Feral Combat Training and the one on a Monk's extra attack from Ki stacking with the extra attack from haste.

Good enough?
That's the same FAQ he said wasn't good enough just five posts before yours...

Perhaps your page is different than mine, because 5 posts above mine isn't even a post by him, and the one above that (#6) doesn't mention it at all that I see.

I believe he rejects it because the FAQ does not specify it includes unarmed flurries. (Beweaponed flurries are of course fine.)

That said, I also think it is nonsense to argue about it and that haste works on a monk's unarmed flurry.


Rynjin wrote:
Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is a FAQ saying taht is incorrect.

Please link to the FAQ that clarifies that unarmed strikes count as either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for the purpose of haste or similar spells and effects that fail to possesses language otherwise including unarmed strikes in their effects.

As far as I know, the only FAQs that skirt around this issue is the one on Feral Combat Training and the one on a Monk's extra attack from Ki stacking with the extra attack from haste.

Good enough?

Ok, this is very, very frustrating. It's like people aren't even reading my post.

FAQ wrote:

Monk: Does the extra attack from spending ki as part of a flurry of blows stack with the extra attack from haste?

Yes. The extra attack described in the ki pool ability doesn't say it works like haste, nor does it say that it doesn't stack with haste, so the monk would get two additional attacks (one from spending a ki point as part of a flurry, one from haste).

Please bold the part where this FAQ talks about unarmed strike.

Please bold the part where it says that Monks may make that extra attack with their unarmed strike.

Please, re-read my posts on this subject and you'll note that I specifically mention that this FAQ doesn't clear up the subject. The Monk is not restricted to making unarmed strikes when he makes an extra attack via his Ki. He can make that extra attack granted from Ki with any appropriate Monk weapon. However, the spell haste restricts that extra attack to only manufactured or natural weapons.

I will repeat again. The FAQ that says Monks can combine their Ki Attack with haste in no way addresses the issue of unarmed strikes not being able to be used during to make the extra haste attack.

This is not directed at you, Rynjin, but, please, for the love of god, if anyone else is going to talk about this subject read the bloody posts firsts!


LoreKeeper wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Tels wrote:
Nicos wrote:
There is a FAQ saying taht is incorrect.

Please link to the FAQ that clarifies that unarmed strikes count as either a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for the purpose of haste or similar spells and effects that fail to possesses language otherwise including unarmed strikes in their effects.

As far as I know, the only FAQs that skirt around this issue is the one on Feral Combat Training and the one on a Monk's extra attack from Ki stacking with the extra attack from haste.

Good enough?
That's the same FAQ he said wasn't good enough just five posts before yours...

Perhaps your page is different than mine, because 5 posts above mine isn't even a post by him, and the one above that (#6) doesn't mention it at all that I see.

I believe he rejects it because the FAQ does not specify it includes unarmed flurries. (Beweaponed flurries are of course fine.)

That said, I also think it is nonsense to argue about it and that haste works on a monk's unarmed flurry.

I agree, it's total nonesense, but it's only nonesense because the designers bent over backwards to exclude unarmed strikes from any weapon categories and now it exists in this weird place of being a weapon, but not being any type of weapon other than an unarmed strike.

They would have been better off making unarmed strike a special kind of natural weapon, than a special kind of weapon unique to itself.


That FAQ should have called out unarmed strikes instead of Flurry of Blows. The FAQ's specifically only normally answer what is asked, and whoever asked it may have it assumed that if FoB benefitted then so would unarmed strikes.

With that said unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks and their wording in the rules has always caused problems.


Tels wrote:

I agree, it's total nonesense, but it's only nonesense because the designers bent over backwards to exclude unarmed strikes from any weapon categories and now it exists in this weird place of being a weapon, but not being any type of weapon other than an unarmed strike.

They would have been better off making unarmed strike a special kind of natural weapon, than a special kind of weapon unique to itself.

Unarmed Strikes are categorized as Unarmed Weapons, and are Light. Gauntlets are also included in the Unarmed Weapons category.

Unarmed Weapons are even lower on the "complexity" scale than Simple Weapons.

The Weapons section of the CRB demonstrates as much.

It'd be safe to assume that Natural Weapons are parallel to Unarmed, as well, and thus the progression is: Unarmed/Natural > Simple > Martial > Exotic.

The vast majority of people already understand that Haste works with Unarmed Strikes, and treat it as such. If nothing else, Divine Power and the Speed enhancement both work with Unarmed Strikes, so you have alternate means of getting that unarmed attack off if your DM is such a hardass that he uses the argument you do.

At this point, you're just b!&+%ing to b#$%~, and nit-picking something no-one else has brought up.

Scarab Sages

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Tels wrote:

I agree, it's total nonesense, but it's only nonesense because the designers bent over backwards to exclude unarmed strikes from any weapon categories and now it exists in this weird place of being a weapon, but not being any type of weapon other than an unarmed strike.

They would have been better off making unarmed strike a special kind of natural weapon, than a special kind of weapon unique to itself.

Unarmed Strikes are categorized as Unarmed Weapons, and are Light. Gauntlets are also included in the Unarmed Weapons category.

Unarmed Weapons are even lower on the "complexity" scale than Simple Weapons.

The Weapons section of the CRB demonstrates as much.

It'd be safe to assume that Natural Weapons are parallel to Unarmed, as well, and thus the progression is: Unarmed/Natural > Simple > Martial > Exotic.

The vast majority of people already understand that Haste works with Unarmed Strikes, and treat it as such. If nothing else, Divine Power and the Speed enhancement both work with Unarmed Strikes, so you have alternate means of getting that unarmed attack off if your DM is such a hardass that he uses the argument you do.

At this point, you're just b!#+%ing to b+&%#, and nit-picking something no-one else has brought up.

Actually, Gauntlets are light simple weapons these days.

And the divisions (not progressions) are Natural Weapon, Manufactured Weapon (with flavors of Simple, Martial, and Exotic), or Unarmed Strike.

Though reasonably, a person would think of a humanoid's fist as a natural weapon (it being the weapon you are using and it being a part of your body) this is not the case in Pathfinder, for the following logical reasons:

    *crickets chirping*

...for the following practical reasons:

    druid shenanigans?
    needless confusion and complexity?
    wanting people to *shrugs* more?


B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Actually, Gauntlets are light simple weapons these days.

Oh yeah.

Although there it's even a bit more clear - they're Light Simple Weapons.


Tels wrote:
Ok, this is very, very frustrating. It's like people aren't even reading my post.

For what it's worth, I'm reading them. I'm even understanding the arguments you're making. I just disagree with them on a level that's so fundamental that it's not really worth discussing.

Disclaimer: Please don't take this as hostile. While I am disagreeing with you, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm explaining why, from my own personal perspective, your argument will never be right. At least, not in the world I choose to play in. :)

In your initial post on the topic, you essentially said 'this is my interpretation of the RAW, and this is how that interpretation breaks a few fundamental aspects of unarmed combat.' I read it over and came to the conclusion that because your interpretation of RAW breaks a few fundamental aspects of unarmed combat, it wasn't a valid interpretation.

You seem an educated enough authority that I'm willing to take you at your word (because I'm not committed enough to the discussion to research it on my own) about the language used and the intent behind it. But your interpretation hinges on the absence of text instead of the presence of text. And if this were computer programming, where you have to specify something at every point or the computer crashes, then you'd have a very valid point. But this game was built for an audience of human minds. As the player reading over the rules, I'm more likely to chalk up the absence of such text as the authors not wanting to bore me with constant and unnecessary repetition of terms rather than them making a mistake and having any fight involving unarmed combat break down with an imaginary blue screen of death floating over the game table.

I tend to avoid the rules forum unless I have a direct question on how something works, so I don't know how much language patterns and the absence of text get used to determine a valid interpretation of the rules. (Honestly, this sort of thing is why I avoid the rules forum.) I'm not trying to contradict you. I'm just saying that, after having read your post, I disregarded it as not important at a practical level. You yourself said much the same thing - that on a practical level this was silly, and in fact the silliness underlined the whole of your point. I just stopped a little shorter than you did. ;)


Shisumo wrote:
Out of curiosity, how often do you expect to need to move to your next opponent using flying kick? Because that's how often Furious Focus is just wasted space on the character sheet, even beyond how switching to an unarmed strike will impact on DPR.

Situational, really, you can't factor for it easily. Odds are on a weapon-using monk may not go for flying kick for just this reason. However, attacking without a -3 penalty makes up in part for the loss of those extra attacks, and you can take FF much earlier than you can gain flying kick.

Shisumo wrote:
And as for the damage comparison, you left out that the first Dragon Style attack actually clocks in at 25 x 1.1 = 27.5 (vs the armed monk's 28.2) and the first attack can carry a +3d6 energy damage rider.

Actually I DID run for Dragon Style and those are not the numbers I got, maybe I miscalculated...regardless, that again locks the monk into a style chain. The monks that do not follow that style chain are still left in the dust, as are those that try to minimise MAD by going for dex-builds.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Assuming Pummeling Style and a Monk's Robe this becomes much closer, due to the vastly higher crit chances. The math on crit chances for pummeling style is a bit complicated for me, but it gets better the higher a level you achieve, and is pretty definitionally better than a 17-20 generally speaking (and I think goes above a 40% chance as early as 11th level). I suspect that will make up for a lot, and while not a necessary part of all builds, is perhaps a better comparison.

I factored in the monk's robe but I deliberately left out Styles as it's hard to factor them in - which style works depends on circumstances. I did include numbers for Dragon Style in a later post, but it was still behind the armed monk.

I agree, Pummelling Style changed a lot for the monk, but it was a single style that precluded other thematic styles. Maybe they should have phrased flying kick to be a little more like it...

Shisumo wrote:

In this scenario, according to my numbers, Power Attack for the unarmed monk is an average of only about +1 DPR against AC 24, but dropping it and adding the +10.5 damage from Elemental Fist actually puts the unarmed monk only behind the armed monk by about 5 DPR total. And for that roughly 10% damage advantage the armed monk is giving up style strikes and most of the best Style feat chains.

I stand by my statement. The math doesn't support a clear advantage to armed users. There are tradeoffs, and they are not decisively outweighed by the damage...

If you ignore the bonus to hit, yes. But +1 to hit is worth +2 to damage in the DPR stakes, and the Furious Focus makes a difference too. Elemental damage is again situational (that's why it got excluded from the DPR Olympics), it's easy to find enemies that either are immune or that buff up.

The difference in cost between the AoMF and the weapon are small - 16K for the amulet, 18K for the weapon.

I do take your point that it's possible to build a monk that minimizes the difference between armed and unarmed to being very small with the right feat combo - but I hope you take mines that the armed monk is less feat intensive and inherently easier to build. That alone makes the monk 'favour' armed builds.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Tels wrote:

I agree, it's total nonesense, but it's only nonesense because the designers bent over backwards to exclude unarmed strikes from any weapon categories and now it exists in this weird place of being a weapon, but not being any type of weapon other than an unarmed strike.

They would have been better off making unarmed strike a special kind of natural weapon, than a special kind of weapon unique to itself.

Unarmed Strikes are categorized as Unarmed Weapons, and are Light. Gauntlets are also included in the Unarmed Weapons category.

Unarmed Weapons are even lower on the "complexity" scale than Simple Weapons.

The Weapons section of the CRB demonstrates as much.

It'd be safe to assume that Natural Weapons are parallel to Unarmed, as well, and thus the progression is: Unarmed/Natural > Simple > Martial > Exotic.

The vast majority of people already understand that Haste works with Unarmed Strikes, and treat it as such. If nothing else, Divine Power and the Speed enhancement both work with Unarmed Strikes, so you have alternate means of getting that unarmed attack off if your DM is such a hardass that he uses the argument you do.

At this point, you're just b$@!*ing to b#@#*, and nit-picking something no-one else has brought up.

I'm not b@##~ing or nit-picking at all. This whole thing started because people were arguing over whether or not an unarmed strike is either a primary or secondary natural weapon and whether or not it should gain the 3:1 return on Power Attack.

The answer to the whether it's a primary or secondary is neither, because the game goes to great lengths to exclude unarmed strikes from being any weapon other than an unarmed strike. This means that unarmed strikes don't get a 3:1 return on Power Attack, because Power Attacks limitations for what qualifies prevents it from doing so.

I also linked to a thread that pointed out issues with how the unarmed strike is classified. For example, another one not using the spell haste is the spell protection from alignment. The protection spells prevent summoned creatures from attacking those warded with natural weapons. However, due to the lack of language, it's legally possible for a summoned creature to attack with an unarmed strike.

This is only an issue because the designers went to great lengths to make unarmed strikes special, and, in doing so, made it more complicated for no good reason.


Mystically Inclined wrote:
Tels wrote:
Ok, this is very, very frustrating. It's like people aren't even reading my post.

For what it's worth, I'm reading them. I'm even understanding the arguments you're making. I just disagree with them on a level that's so fundamental that it's not really worth discussing.

Disclaimer: Please don't take this as hostile. While I am disagreeing with you, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm explaining why, from my own personal perspective, your argument will never be right. At least, not in the world I choose to play in. :)

In your initial post on the topic, you essentially said 'this is my interpretation of the RAW, and this is how that interpretation breaks a few fundamental aspects of unarmed combat.' I read it over and came to the conclusion that because your interpretation of RAW breaks a few fundamental aspects of unarmed combat, it wasn't a valid interpretation.

You seem an educated enough authority that I'm willing to take you at your word (because I'm not committed enough to the discussion to research it on my own) about the language used and the intent behind it. But your interpretation hinges on the absence of text instead of the presence of text. And if this were computer programming, where you have to specify something at every point or the computer crashes, then you'd have a very valid point. But this game was built for an audience of human minds. As the player reading over the rules, I'm more likely to chalk up the absence of such text as the authors not wanting to bore me with constant and unnecessary repetition of terms rather than them making a mistake and having any fight involving unarmed combat break down with an imaginary blue screen of death floating over the game table.

I tend to avoid the rules forum unless I have a direct question on how something works, so I don't know how much language patterns and the absence of text get used to determine a valid interpretation of the rules. (Honestly, this sort of thing is why I avoid...

I often tell people I will argue for the RAW of the rules even if I disagree with them. But this isn't even an interpretation of RAW though, it's not an issue that go could 'either way'. It's pretty simple, haste has a bonus feature if you use a manufactured or natural weapon, and if the weapon you use isn't one of those, then you don't gain that benefit.

Mystically Inclined wrote:
As the player reading over the rules, I'm more likely to chalk up the absence of such text as the authors not wanting to bore me with constant and unnecessary repetition of terms rather than them making a mistake and having any fight involving unarmed combat break down with an imaginary blue screen of death floating over the game table.

It's funny you should say this, because this issue wouldn't exist in the first place if the designers hadn't included boring, constant and unnecessary repetition of terms in the first place. In 3.5 this issue never existed, the designers changed how unarmed strikes work, and because of that, now have issues with the unarmed strike being it's own special snowflake. It is now up to them to include all the additional language to make sure unarmed strikes are affected by something; and if they don't, then the unarmed strike doesn't benefit.

The designers made the game needlessly more complicated, theoretically, to stop shenanigans involving the Monk class from the previous edition.


So the unchained rogue has dex to hit and damage essentially built into the class. The swashbuckler can pull off the same thing very easily. If I'm not mistaken bards can as well. What would be so game breaking to allow monks access to some monk only feats or abilities that allowed the same with dex or even wisdom? Maybe not built in, but options in the class for monk weapons and unarmed strikes.

Scarab Sages

Lance Manstrong wrote:
So the unchained rogue has dex to hit and damage essentially built into the class. The swashbuckler can pull off the same thing very easily. If I'm not mistaken bards can as well. What would be so game breaking to allow monks access to some monk only feats or abilities that allowed the same with dex or even wisdom? Maybe not built in, but options in the class for monk weapons and unarmed strikes.

There are only two (I think) Bard archetypes that allow that sort of built in.

To my knowledge there were two Monk Archetypes that granted to hit from Wisdom, the Zen Archer and Sensei.

There is one prestige class (Evangelist of Erastil) I know of that will grant Wisdom to hit and damage (in addition to Dex and Str as normal) for bows at level 14.

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,679 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / [Unchained] The Monk Unchained All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.