Power Equals Power: A Mini-Guide to the Unchained Monk


Advice

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

When Pathfinder Unchained was released, one thing was evident to me: the name of the game was streamlining, not empowering. The Summoner was heavily reduced in power, the Barbarian took a solid step down, and the rogue, while better than what one could make with just the CRB, was simply inferior to anything a player who knew what they were doing could make. The Monk, however, got a substantial increase in power. One that I’m not sure many on these boards recognize. They look at the Unchained Monk and say: Oh, it’s the worst class in the game, slightly improved.

Let me be entirely clear here. Almost no one ever really understood what the Chained Monk was. The common perception was that it was a jack of all trades, spreading its power among too many roles to be effective in any of them. Assuming infinite gold and access to magic equipment, they might have been powerful, but with those same resources you could specialize even harder in another class’ given roles. Monks were simply not cost-efficient. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Monks have always had a firm role as the best TWF in the game.

They may have used their fists, but at any given level they got more attacks out while flurrying at effectively full BAB, and getting their strength modifier on all of them. It was all the benefits of ranger feat efficiency with a scaling weapon die and extremely high mobility on top of saves only rivaled by paladins. They were fragile in terms of AC and HP, but a melee striker is meant to be supplemented by a beefier character. And the Unchained Monk is arguably the best-suited character to specialize as a striker in the entire game.

So lets go over the build. There is one question we want answered when determining feats as an Unchained Monk is: Unarmed or Wielding? Unarmed will be boasting the highest damage at level 5 and beyond, Weapon wielding will trade a bit of raw damage for whatever one desires, often survivability. Either way, at early levels you’ll likely be using a Sansetsukon a lot, and you’ll want to acquire a Seven-Branched sword for backup. It will give you access to slashing damage, and an alternative crit modifier if you prefer x3 weapons to 19-20 ones like me.

Lesson 1 about what makes the Unchained Monk great? Unlike the chained version, he’s not considered to by TWF while flurrying. This means that a high strength monk can flurry with a Sansetsukon for 1 ½ x strength, plus -1/+3 power attack for two strong hits. At level 1.And it only gets better from there.

Statwise, we’ll be pretty consistent in what we are, though how comfortable you are in min-maxing will determine your tertiary stats. Whether you’re the wandering martial artist too dumb to comprehend the more spiritual side of what his monastery tried to teach him, or simply anti-social due to being cloistered from society in your formative years, there are a lot of excuses available to monks to justify that 7. Luckily, this build is fully functional with just two 16’s and tens across the board. Note we’ll be taking Dual Talent and human.

Str: 18
Dex: 8
Con: 18
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 10

Now, you’ll likely notice that without min-maxing, this leaves us with a base AC of 10. This is likely going to be heresy, but let me tell you why this is fine: AC is literally the worst means of protecting yourself. I’m not saying you should nuke it for no reason. What I am saying is that the math simply isn’t in your favor. At low levels, an unlucky crit will ruin you without significant investment in HP. At high levels, you are likely to take at least the first power attack of an even semi-competent martial. AC is simply not consistent enough to be relied on, and should be considered a secondary layer of defense at best. Instead, make yourself able to take a hit. Better yet, make yourself able to take several. Your base HP at level 1 with Dual Talent raising Con and your favored bonus to HP is 15. This is Barbarian levels of HP. Every level after, assuming 6 average on a die roll, you’ll be getting 11 more HP. Your defense will be your health outscaling the amount of damage you’ll be taking. And for the record? Toughness is an underated feat.

Now lets get to the meat of it all: the Unarmed Build.

1: Power Attack
HB: Dual Talent (+2 Con)
1B: Deflect Arrows
2B: Improved Grapple
3: Dragon Style
4 Ki Power: High Jump
5: Dragon Ferocity
5Style: Flying Kick
6: Improved Disarm
6 Ki Power: Feather Balance
7: Elemental Fist/Toughness/Weapon Focus
8 Ki Power: Abundant Step
9: Dragon Roar/Improved Critical
So, to clear up a ton of questions about the current state of the relationship between Dragon Style feats and power attack, short and sweet: The Dragon Ferocity feat allows any unarmed strikes to gain both 1 1/2 x Strength on attacks, as well as gain -1/+3 ratio on power attacks. The Dragon Style feat alone does none of these, even on the first attack. This means you receive an absolutely massive power spike at level 5. Not only do you gain what is essentially two handed flurrying, but your style strike gives you what is effectively pounce. And if you have a swift action to spend, you can spend 1 ki to give you 3 attacks at your HIGHEST BAB. Allow me to reiterate. The Unchained Monk is the strongest striker in the entire game. Bar None. Elemental fist/dragon style is almost a flavor choice over crunch. The truth is, hitting one attack in a flurry for 3-6 more elemental damage on average is rarely worth it. Roar gives you an aoe cone, but your relatively poor wisdom makes it more of a way to kill masses of peasants. I’d give it to an NPC Dragon Style User, personally. Weapon Focus is a fairly solid investment on anyone who attacks as much as we do, and I think I represent a minority opinion in thinking toughness is actually really good. So good I would take it multiple times on some characters, if able.

[Note: Wrote this on a short plane ride. Like what you see, want to see more? Let me know. I’ll update it as I can with more builds, gear options and the like.]


You're incorrect about Dragon ferocity and Power attack, Dragon Ferocity does not increase power attacks damage.


Also I feel your stats are really bad and you'll be more likely to die than anything. Why would you drop Dex instead of Charisma? And you don't need a con that high, having a higher wis allows for more ki points which means more extra attacks.


Chess Pwn wrote:
You're incorrect about Dragon ferocity and Power attack, Dragon Ferocity does not increase power attacks damage.

I'm really not. Power attack receives the bonus damage in the case of "a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls."

That last one is the kicker. A monk's unarmed attack counts as both a manufactured weapon and a natural attack. It is also his only natural attack, making it by definition primary. Dragon ferocity gives my primary natural attack a 1-1/2 times strength modifier. So long as I have dragon ferocity, dragon style gives be all the requirements for power attack's bonus damage.


A monks Unarmed strike isn't a PRIMARY natural attack. It's a generic natural attack that is neither primary or secondary. There was a HUGE thread when the FAQ went out that changed it and this was all discussed in there.


Chess Pwn wrote:
A monks Unarmed strike isn't a PRIMARY natural attack. It's a generic natural attack that is neither primary or secondary. There was a HUGE thread when the FAQ went out that changed it and this was all discussed in there.

You are simply wrong. "Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of TWO categories, primary and secondary attacks... ...If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."

There is no such thing as a 'generic' natural attack. They are EITHER primary or secondary. Period. This is core rule book stuff. Please read up before you spam my thread. Pertaining to your comments on the stats, I'd again ask you to read before you post. I explicitly pointed out taking INT or CHA to 7 is the way to go, but thats if you condone minmaxing. The stats I posted were unoptimized, but still highly effective. If you think trading 2 hp a level for a bit more AC is worth it, particularly at mid-to-high levels, then do that. I would rather have scaling, consistent power.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole idea that AC is a bad form of defence originated from TreantMonk's wizard guide, which whilst being an impressive guide, had advice that was specifically good for that class. Wizards have better ways to protect themselves, such as good positioning, abilities that allow them to improve positioning, and diversionary illusions (displacement, mirror image etc).

There are 4 reasons this does not apply to the monk:
1. You are building a front-liner. Unlike the wizard, you are aiming to be the guy at the front brawling it up with dragons, giants and power-attacking barbarians. The wizard's first line of defence is not being exactly where the monk needs to be in order to affect the fight.
2. Unlike the wizard, you do not have magic that give you a consistent miss chance.
3. Per point 1, you will be frequently ending your turn in positions where you will be eating full-attacks. Whilst it is often impractical to raise your AC to the point where the first attack is unlikely to hit, it is very feasible to raise your AC to the point where the iteratives do not hit. If you tank your AC, you're turning likely-to-miss iteratives into sure hits. That's like giving the enemy free attacks.
4. In a larger battle, relying on hit points alone for survivability only works if it is accompanied by a steady stream of healing. But if your cleric or oracle is healing you each round, they are also not contributing to the fight. And you are burning their resources very rapidly. There are much better things they could be doing with their actions and resources.

Basically, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THE GOLARION DEITIES (and their clerics whom you will be relying on to heal you) DO NOT TANK YOUR AC IF YOU ARE MAKING A FRONT-LINE WARRIOR!


CryntheCrow wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
A monks Unarmed strike isn't a PRIMARY natural attack. It's a generic natural attack that is neither primary or secondary. There was a HUGE thread when the FAQ went out that changed it and this was all discussed in there.

You are simply wrong. "Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of TWO categories, primary and secondary attacks... ...If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."

There is no such thing as a 'generic' natural attack. They are EITHER primary or secondary. Period. This is core rule book stuff. Please read up before you spam my thread. Pertaining to your comments on the stats, I'd again ask you to read before you post. I explicitly pointed out taking INT or CHA to 7 is the way to go, but thats if you condone minmaxing. The stats I posted were unoptimized, but still highly effective. If you think trading 2 hp a level for a bit more AC is worth it, particularly at mid-to-high levels, then do that. I would rather have scaling, consistent power.

Crynthe, the lines you quoted came from the 'natural attacks' section of the bestiary, correct? Could I ask a couple of questions?

1. Could I ask what you reckon the effect of this feat is?
2. If unarmed strikes are natural attacks, and natural attacks deal lethal damage and do not provoke attacks of opportunity, why does anyone need the improved unarmed strike feat?
3. What is your interpretation of this later line in the same 'natural attacks' section of the bestiary? "Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do."


FiddlersGreen wrote:

The whole idea that AC is a bad form of defence originated from TreantMonk's wizard guide, which whilst being an impressive guide, had advice that was specifically good for that class. Wizards have better ways to protect themselves, such as good positioning, abilities that allow them to improve positioning, and diversionary illusions (displacement, mirror image etc).

There are 4 reasons this does not apply to the monk:
1. You are building a front-liner. Unlike the wizard, you are aiming to be the guy at the front brawling it up with dragons, giants and power-attacking barbarians. The wizard's first line of defence is not being exactly where the monk needs to be in order to affect the fight.
2. Unlike the wizard, you do not have magic that gives you a miss chance.
3. Per point 1, you will be frequently ending your turn in positions where you will be eating full-attacks. Whilst it is often impractical to raise your AC to the point where the first attack is unlikely to hit, it is very feasible to raise your AC to the point where the iteratives do not hit. If you tank your AC, you're turning likely-to-miss iteratives into sure hits. That's like giving the enemy free attacks.
4. In a larger battle, relying on hit points alone for survivability only works if it is accompanied by a steady stream of healing. But if your cleric or oracle is healing you each round, they are also not contributing to the fight. And you are burning their resources very rapidly. There are much better things they could be doing with their actions and resources.

Basically, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THE GOLARION DEITIES (and their clerics whom you will be relying on to heal you) DO NOT TANK YOUR AC IF YOU ARE MAKING A FRONT-LINE WARRIOR!

Ooook. So a lot to go over. But first, let me lead with the fact that Treantmonk's wizard guide is possibly the only one of his I haven't read. I'm sure its great (and I think the first he made?) but I'm also pretty sure if Hitler designed a magic system, it would be Vancian. So I've little interest in playing a wizard. I arrived at the conclusion AC was a subpar defense at best all on my lonesome!

Now, addressing your points as best I can: I'm not building a front-liner. Well, I suppose I am, in the sense that a rogue is a front liner. I'm not building a tank. As I noted, this is a striker. Someone meant to supplement a more durable character. A lot of these character are melee, like most rogues. The advantage of the Unchained Monk is that, like the rogue or paladin, so much of his damage is bound to his class features innately, that with just high strength and constitution, I can create a character with a ton of innate damage, pounce AND the ability to take a few hits. Likely at least one, maybe two full attacks from the BBEG until later levels.

Combined with evasion and the ability to outright negate archery attacks, and I think I have more than enough bulk for my role. Now, you could make an argument that for just 1 hp per level, I could get two armor class and ki while buffering my weakest save. And it would be a strong argument. My retort would be that my investment would scale to mid-levels and provide those precious few hp necessary early on to survive a lucky crit or two. As for ki, I simply don't think many non-boss mobs would survive a series of blows from the unchained monk to necessitate a third strike at early levels. Later, I think we'd have enough ki to cover it. Will saves are a strong argument, but this is simply my preference.

I suppose an optimizer might prefer something like 'Str 18 Con 16 Dex 13 Int 7 Wis 14 Cha 7,' but that sounds horribly minmaxed and unfun. Plus, something any optimizer worth their salt could figure out on their own.


FiddlersGreen wrote:
CryntheCrow wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
A monks Unarmed strike isn't a PRIMARY natural attack. It's a generic natural attack that is neither primary or secondary. There was a HUGE thread when the FAQ went out that changed it and this was all discussed in there.

You are simply wrong. "Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of TWO categories, primary and secondary attacks... ...If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."

There is no such thing as a 'generic' natural attack. They are EITHER primary or secondary. Period. This is core rule book stuff. Please read up before you spam my thread. Pertaining to your comments on the stats, I'd again ask you to read before you post. I explicitly pointed out taking INT or CHA to 7 is the way to go, but thats if you condone minmaxing. The stats I posted were unoptimized, but still highly effective. If you think trading 2 hp a level for a bit more AC is worth it, particularly at mid-to-high levels, then do that. I would rather have scaling, consistent power.

Crynthe, the lines you quoted came from the 'natural attacks' section of the bestiary, correct? Could I ask a couple of questions?

1. Could I ask what you reckon the effect of this feat is?
2. If unarmed strikes are natural attacks, and natural attacks deal lethal damage and do not provoke attacks of opportunity, why does anyone need the improved unarmed strike feat?
3. What is your interpretation of this later line in the same 'natural attacks' section of the bestiary? "Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do."

1. ? Explicitly what it says. If you manage to possess a tentacle attack, or bites, or claws, such as from druid, ranger or summoner, you can use feats like Stunning Fist with them. The special section also notes you could use them to flurry. I'm really not sure what you're trying to imply.

2. Unarmed strikes are not natural attacks. The 'Unarmed Strike' CLASS FEATURE monks receive allows them to count their unarmed strike as both manufactured and natural for the purpose of feats, effects, etc. Taking improved unarmed strike literally just lets your character count as armed, therefore not provoking attacks when you try to punch someone. It is the monk class ability that gives you all these special benefits.

3. It literally exists as a line to say that some creatures, who theorhetically might lack any sort of weapon, natural or otherwise, can still attempt to throw their body at an opponent for meager damage. They'd still provoke, and they wouldn't be using a manufactured or natural weapon. They wouldn't even be armed.


Chess Pwn wrote:
HAHAHA. Mark, One of the developers, posted the comment that I said. Now he did it in a non-official manner of course, but still if he's proposing that idea it can't be that crazy of a view. Also realize that a Monks Improved Unarmed strikes aren't actually Natural attacks. They count as natural weapons for spells and effects that enhance or improve either natural weapons. So since they aren't actually natural attacks they don't have to fall under the primary/secondary restrictions. So since this monk doesn't have ANY class based natural attacks it has 0 types of attacks so nothing to have be primary.

No, see, thats where your logic breaks. A monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural attack or manufactured weapon for spells and EFFECTS that ENHANCE or IMPROVE natural attacks or manufactured weapons. Power attack is explicitly an effect that enhances a natural attack. It enhances all natural attacks with 1 1/2x strength for their modifier with bonus damage. And with Dragon's Ferocity, a monk's unarmed strike COUNTS AS but IS NOT a natural attack with a 1 1/2 str modifier. Therefore it qualifies for the enhanced damage. Period. Its that simple. They don't have to ACTUALLY BE natural attacks. They just have to count as them for the purpose of any effect that may alter them. This is really very simple.


CryntheCrow wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
CryntheCrow wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
A monks Unarmed strike isn't a PRIMARY natural attack. It's a generic natural attack that is neither primary or secondary. There was a HUGE thread when the FAQ went out that changed it and this was all discussed in there.

You are simply wrong. "Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of TWO categories, primary and secondary attacks... ...If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."

There is no such thing as a 'generic' natural attack. They are EITHER primary or secondary. Period. This is core rule book stuff. Please read up before you spam my thread. Pertaining to your comments on the stats, I'd again ask you to read before you post. I explicitly pointed out taking INT or CHA to 7 is the way to go, but thats if you condone minmaxing. The stats I posted were unoptimized, but still highly effective. If you think trading 2 hp a level for a bit more AC is worth it, particularly at mid-to-high levels, then do that. I would rather have scaling, consistent power.

Crynthe, the lines you quoted came from the 'natural attacks' section of the bestiary, correct? Could I ask a couple of questions?

1. Could I ask what you reckon the effect of this feat is?
2. If unarmed strikes are natural attacks, and natural attacks deal lethal damage and do not provoke attacks of opportunity, why does anyone need the improved unarmed strike feat?
3. What is your interpretation of this later line in the same 'natural attacks' section of the bestiary? "Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do."

1. ? Explicitly what it says. If you manage to possess a tentacle attack, or bites, or claws, such as from druid, ranger...

I was trying to work out the point of disagreement between yourself and Chess. I think the point of disagreement is whether or not the line "If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type." applies to unarmed strikes. Which of course your latest post illustrates.

I would be inclined to think that it only applies to natural weapons, since it appears in the natural weapons entry in the bestiary rather than anywhere in the CRB, and operates as a rule governing natural weapons rather than an effect that affects natural weapons. But I will not press the point here.


Unfortunately, even assuming that a Monk's Unarmed Strike is a "primary natural weapon" for purposes of Power Attack, it's still not a "a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls". Using Dragon Style/Ferocity adds a bonus to the strength modifier of the attack, but it doesn't modify the actual "natural weapon" that's being used, which is still a 1xSTR "natural weapon".

If one were to say that it did, then by the same logic the first 2xSTR attack of the round would in fact fail to activate the 1.5xPA, since it's no longer a 1.5xSTR "weapon".


I disagree with your assertion that AC is the worst defense. AC is the best defense in the game when optimized. It's just difficult for some classes to get to the levels needed to get there.

Let's give an example of 2 10th level monks vs a CR 10 fire giant:

Monk #1 - yours with DEX8 WIS12, mage armor, +2 ring of protection, barkskin+4, dodge, dusty rose ioun stone: AC 10-1+1+2+4+2+4+1+1=24

Monk #2 DEX14 WIS16, mage armor, +2 ring of protection, barkskin+4, dodge, dusty rose ioun stone, crane style (w/sansetsukon): AC 10+2+3+2+4+2+4+1+1+5 = 34

Fire giant DPR against monk#1 with power attack 56.93 without power attack 54.7

Fire giant DPR against monk#2 with power attack 13.11 without power attack 16.77

Your monk takes around 40 points of damage more per round from the fire giant than my monk does. Your extra 20 hit points won't matter at all.


BadBird wrote:

Unfortunately, even assuming that a Monk's Unarmed Strike is a "primary natural weapon" for purposes of Power Attack, it's still not a "a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls". Using Dragon Style/Ferocity adds a bonus to the strength modifier of the attack, but it doesn't modify the actual "natural weapon" that's being used, which is still a 1xSTR "natural weapon".

If one were to say that it did, then by the same logic the first 2xSTR attack of the round would in fact fail to activate the 1.5xPA, since it's no longer a 1.5xSTR "weapon".

This was errata'd to this

increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks.

So you actually are doing 1.5 str on second+ attacks.


BadBird wrote:

Unfortunately, even assuming that a Monk's Unarmed Strike is a "primary natural weapon" for purposes of Power Attack, it's still not a "a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls". Using Dragon Style/Ferocity adds a bonus to the strength modifier of the attack, but it doesn't modify the actual "natural weapon" that's being used, which is still a 1xSTR "natural weapon".

If one were to say that it did, then by the same logic the first 2xSTR attack of the round would in fact fail to activate the 1.5xPA, since it's no longer a 1.5xSTR "weapon".

Actually, these are technically two diffent bonuses! Dragon Style allows us to add an untyped bonus to our damage roll that just happens to be 1/2 our strength modifier. Dragon ferocity on the other hand: "While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks." As you can see, it actually directly changes the modifier itself to become 1-1/2 times your strength. Put simply, this means that we don't get extra power attack damage on ANY attack with just dragon style, not even the first. But ferocity allows us to add this bonus to EVERY hit. This is what makes level 5 such a massive power spike, and why the change from Chained to Unchained is so massive. For the first time, we can flurry, two-handed, adding enhanced power attack to each strike. Before level five, you're actually better off using weapons whenever you don't have to use your fists.

Edit: Ninja'd by Chess.


CryntheCrow wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:

The whole idea that AC is a bad form of defence originated from TreantMonk's wizard guide, which whilst being an impressive guide, had advice that was specifically good for that class. Wizards have better ways to protect themselves, such as good positioning, abilities that allow them to improve positioning, and diversionary illusions (displacement, mirror image etc).

There are 4 reasons this does not apply to the monk:
1. You are building a front-liner. Unlike the wizard, you are aiming to be the guy at the front brawling it up with dragons, giants and power-attacking barbarians. The wizard's first line of defence is not being exactly where the monk needs to be in order to affect the fight.
2. Unlike the wizard, you do not have magic that gives you a miss chance.
3. Per point 1, you will be frequently ending your turn in positions where you will be eating full-attacks. Whilst it is often impractical to raise your AC to the point where the first attack is unlikely to hit, it is very feasible to raise your AC to the point where the iteratives do not hit. If you tank your AC, you're turning likely-to-miss iteratives into sure hits. That's like giving the enemy free attacks.
4. In a larger battle, relying on hit points alone for survivability only works if it is accompanied by a steady stream of healing. But if your cleric or oracle is healing you each round, they are also not contributing to the fight. And you are burning their resources very rapidly. There are much better things they could be doing with their actions and resources.

Basically, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THE GOLARION DEITIES (and their clerics whom you will be relying on to heal you) DO NOT TANK YOUR AC IF YOU ARE MAKING A FRONT-LINE WARRIOR!

Ooook. So a lot to go over. But first, let me lead with the fact that Treantmonk's wizard guide is possibly the only one of his I haven't read. I'm sure its great (and I think the first he made?) but I'm also pretty sure if Hitler designed a magic system, it...

I am not critiquing the offensive aspects of your build, but rather pointing out the pitfalls of abandoning armor class as a defence in favour of hitpoints alone. My experience has been that you get best returns by seeking a balance between the two without abandoning either. I note that you are building a 'striker' rather than a 'tank', but it is up to the GM to decide who to attack, and you are likely to find yourself being the target of the melee attacks of the targets you strike anyway since you are placing yourself in melee-full-attack range and presenting yourself as a threat. The scaling of armor class is in some ways innate. The damage that monsters do per hit tends to scale with level as well, and so when your AC makes the difference between a hit or a miss, the actual damage mitigated by the AC is determined by (and thus scales with) how much damage the enemy would have dealt.

My recommended point allocation without racial modifiers would probably be: Str16 Dex12 Con 13 Wis 14 Int10 Cha10. With your build, I'd allocate the bonuses to get Str18 Dex12 Con 13 Wis 16 Int10 Cha10 or Str18 Dex12 Con 15 Wis 14 Int10 Cha10. You can mark it down to personal preference if you wish.


I'm aware of the change. What I mean is that the fact that a particular Style Feat chain happens to be altering your strength modifier doesn't change the fact that the "natural weapon" you're using hasn't changed. Dragon Style/Ferocity doesn't mean you're suddenly using "a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls". It just means that you're using some feats that modify your modifier.


nicholas storm wrote:

I disagree with your assertion that AC is the worst defense. AC is the best defense in the game when optimized. It's just difficult for some classes to get to the levels needed to get there.

Let's give an example of 2 10th level monks vs a CR 10 fire giant:

Monk #1 - yours with DEX8 WIS12, mage armor, +2 ring of protection, barkskin+4, dodge, dusty rose ioun stone: AC 10-1+1+2+4+2+4+1+1=24

Monk #2 DEX14 WIS16, mage armor, +2 ring of protection, barkskin+4, dodge, dusty rose ioun stone, crane style (w/sansetsukon): AC 10+2+3+2+4+2+4+1+1+5 = 34

Fire giant DPR against monk#1 with power attack 56.93 without power attack 54.7

Fire giant DPR against monk#2 with power attack 13.11 without power attack 16.77

Your monk takes around 40 points of damage more per round from the fire giant than my monk does. Your extra 20 hit points won't matter at all.

I'm absolutely certain your monk takes less damage than mine. But the point of the unarmed build ISN'T to tank. Its to deal as much damage as possible while managing to stay alive through damage soak. Yes, I'll take that 54. But then I can take another, can't I? I have 114 health. And since I'll be pounce initiating, thereby getting possibly three flurries in without dying. It might be a bit close, but I have fair enough odds of taking out the fire giant, a creature with a CR equal to my level, by myself. As a martial. Your monk can survive the encounter with minimal wounds, assuming a team backing him up. My monk can solo the giant and give him a run for his money (though admittedly not with favorable odds). And thats assuming I don't crit with a 19-20 crit range on 12 attacks.

Edit: I WILL grant you though that the party healer will likely be FAR more happy with your monk.


What happens if you are in an encounter with 3 fire giants? Your guy dies, mine lives with minimal damage.


You seem to have a disregard for AC, I put into your build AC items to get to 24. If you go down to AC19, the giant DPR goes up to 83.49


BadBird wrote:
I'm aware of the change. What I mean is that the fact that a particular Style Feat chain happens to be altering your strength modifier doesn't change the fact that the "natural weapon" you're using hasn't changed. Dragon Style/Ferocity doesn't mean you're suddenly using "a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls". It just means that you're using some feats that modify your modifier.

Sure? But the modifier is all we need. As I've mentioned, the Monk's Unarmed Strike class ability specifically lets us have our unarmed strike count as a natural weapon for the purpose of any effect that would modify our attacks. Since we would have only one 'natural weapon' while attacking, it is automatically primary by the rules. So the class ability qualifies us for the 'primary natural attack,' and the style feat gives us the correct modifier.


CryntheCrow wrote:
Sure? But the modifier is all we need. As I've mentioned, the Monk's Unarmed Strike class ability specifically lets us have our unarmed strike count as a natural weapon for the purpose of any effect that would modify our attacks. Since we would have only one 'natural weapon' while attacking, it is automatically primary by the rules. So the class ability qualifies us for the 'primary natural attack,' and the style feat gives us the correct modifier.

Unfortunately, the fact that the modifier is changed by outside circumstances doesn't change the nature of the weapon itself. You can't claim that a longsword has become a two-handed weapon just because you're wielding it in two hands. Likewise, you can't say that a Monk Unarmed Strike has changed into a 1.5xSTR natural weapon just because a feat is currently giving you 1.5xSTR with it.

Put simply, to gain 1.5x Power Attack, you need a primary natural weapon that adds 1.5xSTR to damage rolls, not a primary natural weapon that adds 1xSTR to damage rolls... that's being used with a feat that gives it an improved modifier. The fact that some feat changes your modifier doesn't change the actual weapon; Power Attack is based on the actual weapon, not what the modifier is.


To invoke the legendary Treantmonk again, I checked his guide for the ordinary squishy monk. The lowest Dex he suggested was 12. On a 10-point build. Wis was 14 (or 16 when things got really generous). And his main goal was to build an offensive monk. 'At level 8 you should be looking at an AC in the 24 range. Not fantastic, but not bad.' And this was written ... when? Likely before a lot of other neat toys came out. (I wish he wrote a copyright notice on it.) But having AC 24 at level 10 when a suggestion is to have it at 8 ... sounds painful.

And let's not forget the times when someone wants to not be in melee range for some weird reason. That -1 to hit at range is suboptimal. And sooner or later you WILL be tasked with shooting something. Hell, the class has a flurry-capable ranged weapon! One that's free to draw! Monica the Monk just used her first attack to punch a wolf's jaw in, and the other wolves are 20' away, and she has two attacks left? Whizz whizz. NEVER dump ranged options. EVER. Seriously, even the Barbarian guides almost all have a 'GET A BOW' section.

Liberty's Edge

CryntheCrow wrote:
Power attack is explicitly an effect that enhances a natural attack.

It's really not. (You might want to double-check the definition of "explicitly.") It has no effect on natural attacks, or any other kind of weapon, whatsoever.

Here's the feat text, with the relevant bits in bold.

Quote:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

It doesn't enhance your weaponry at all. It modifies die rolls. That's it. For a comparison, take a look at Arcane Strike, which is a feat that does actually enhance weaponry. Also, consider that the modifiers change based not just on what weapon you are wielding but also on how you wield it - if it were enhancing the weapon, then it would not matter whether you are swinging your longsword one-handed or two-handed.

Whether monk unarmed strikes are considered primary or secondary is irrelevant to how Power Attack works. Power Attack is not an effect that enhances natural attacks. It's an effect that modifies die rolls, not actual weapons.

Scarab Sages

Monk unarmed strikes are never treated as Primary or Secondary natural weapons. They are not natural attacks. They follow the rule for manufactured weapons, not natural attacks. They can be enhanced by magic or feats in the same manner that natural weapons can, but that is all.

A monk's unarmed strike is not a primary natural weapon, it is a light weapon. It does not qualify for the increased power attack modifier.


The Barbarian did not take step down. When I first read the unchained Barbarian I was think it took a bit of nerf. Then I played. I play a lot Barbarians of different builds and archetypes before unchained Barbarian so I know how the Barbarian works. My first though was no bonus to Str, my damage decrease but not so. With the unchained Barb I was hitting lot better and could power attack more.

Have player trying out the Umonk, seems only little better. Not taking the -2 for TWF is good and can take TWF since flurry is no long TWF. The flurry gets way more attacks, not that I'd do that because the -2 hurts to much and the addition attacks are as off hand weapons.

Also AC is not be neglected but you don't want over invest in it unless you are a fighter that is tanking. If you neglect AC hit points won't save you. You will now get hit by full attacks using power attack. Those iterative attacks that would have missed will you hit and kill you.


So some points of feedback on your build.

#1. You lose initiative and will probably not be initiating the combat, if you want to initiate effectively you need to go first. Your negative modifier means you even lose ties on the roll. On the off chance that you started combat far enough away that their going first means they can't shoot you down or engage you in melee in one round of movement you'll likely end up well out of range of your "tank" and support party members meaning the next point will become very important.

#2. Your monk is gaining 1d10+6 HP per level for an average of 11.5, that means any attacker with at least 2d6+4 damage is going to be knocking a full level off of you per hit, the more common 1d8+4 is knocking off a level worth of HP 25% of the time. Your AC is low enough to be in auto hit range for level so you're going to be taking at least 2 hit per opponent, more than like 3 hits if it's a monster of some sort, every round.

#3. Your attack bonus at 10 is only +12 (+16 if you go full offense from the sounds of your goals with the build) with your power attack going. Swinging at AC 24 you only have 40% (60% w/ possible offensive items) chance to hit. Your attacks do hit hard but they're probably only taking off 1 to 2 HD worth of HP per hit meaning your best case scenario is you need to hit 5 40% chances to drop an equal opponent which is roughly 2 rounds of perfect hits. Compounded by the fact that enemies without class levels frequently have 1.5-2 times the number of hit dice of an equal class leveled character you're looking at 8-10 hits to drop one bringing you up to 3 rounds of counter attacks. Your damage output only matters if you actually hit something with it. You could have 5d10+100 as your damage and it wouldn't matter if you could only hit on a 20.

#4. What everyone else is saying about Power Attack and the dragon style chain is correct, not going to reiterate.


voska66 wrote:


Have player trying out the Umonk, seems only little better. Not taking the -2 for TWF is good and can take TWF since flurry is no long TWF. The flurry gets way more attacks, not that I'd do that because the -2 hurts to much and the addition attacks are as off hand weapons.

Unfortunately can't TWF and Flurry which actually puts Flurry behind in total number of attacks, granting only 2 additional as opposed to TWF's 3 additional without spending any Ki points, but those 2 additional attacks are more likely to hit since they're coming in at highest attack bonus.

SRD wrote:


He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what's already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the PA/DF debate: going from what paizo employees and faqs and stuff have said, a good way to arrive at the correct interpretation is this:

Consider all possible interpretations of monk rule interactions you can think of.

Pick the one that's the least beneficial for the monk in the current scenario.

This will 9/10 be the one that is backed up by faq and rules explanations on the boards.


Qaianna wrote:

To invoke the legendary Treantmonk again, I checked his guide for the ordinary squishy monk. The lowest Dex he suggested was 12. On a 10-point build. Wis was 14 (or 16 when things got really generous). And his main goal was to build an offensive monk. 'At level 8 you should be looking at an AC in the 24 range. Not fantastic, but not bad.' And this was written ... when? Likely before a lot of other neat toys came out. (I wish he wrote a copyright notice on it.) But having AC 24 at level 10 when a suggestion is to have it at 8 ... sounds painful.

And let's not forget the times when someone wants to not be in melee range for some weird reason. That -1 to hit at range is suboptimal. And sooner or later you WILL be tasked with shooting something. Hell, the class has a flurry-capable ranged weapon! One that's free to draw! Monica the Monk just used her first attack to punch a wolf's jaw in, and the other wolves are 20' away, and she has two attacks left? Whizz whizz. NEVER dump ranged options. EVER. Seriously, even the Barbarian guides almost all have a 'GET A BOW' section.

He was wrong at level 10 then.

Level 10, even a skirmisher should get 15 +1.5 level = 30. Now, 24 is decent for a mid-skirmisher/mage. But not a good AC.


15+1.5 is an unrealistic amount of AC, in my experience. At least when you use Automatic Bonus Progression, which you'd think was at least somewhere close to what the designers intended. You'd be looking at something closer to ~25(10+2dex+8platemail+2Attunement+2deflection+1NA) And that's for a melee fighter.


Starbuck_II wrote:

He was wrong at level 10 then.

Level 10, even a skirmisher should get 15 +1.5 level = 30. Now, 24 is decent for a mid-skirmisher/mage. But not a good AC.

Treantmonk said at lv8 have AC 24, so that's why having 24 at lv10 when 24 was recommended for lv8 is a bad thing.


Shisumo wrote:
CryntheCrow wrote:
Power attack is explicitly an effect that enhances a natural attack.

It's really not. (You might want to double-check the definition of "explicitly.") It has no effect on natural attacks, or any other kind of weapon, whatsoever.

Here's the feat text, with the relevant bits in bold.

Quote:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

It doesn't enhance your weaponry at all. It modifies die rolls. That's it. For a comparison, take a look at Arcane Strike, which is a feat that does actually enhance weaponry. Also, consider that the modifiers change based not just on what weapon you are wielding but also on how you wield it - if it were enhancing the weapon, then it would not matter whether you are swinging your longsword one-handed or two-handed.

Whether monk unarmed strikes are considered primary or secondary is irrelevant to how Power Attack works. Power Attack is not an effect that enhances natural attacks. It's an effect that modifies die rolls, not actual weapons.

Sure. If your definition of explicitly in this case is 'only pertaining to the first line of text.' Instead of 'clearly modifies natural or manufactured attacks, triggering the effects of the Monk's unarmed strike class ability.' Which it does. One line later. In your own quote. Enhancing my weaponry doesn't mean 'increasing my attack roll.' It just means I count my unarmed strike as both a natural and manufactured weapon for absolutely any effect where I could benefit that. Spell, feat, doesn't matter. And in this scenarios, I COUNT AS a natural weapon with a 1 1/2 Str modifier. What it actually is is irrelevant to the feat.

The fact that I can pick up a shield and wield a longsword one-handed does not change the fact that when I wield it with two, I'm qualifying for PA's bonus damage at that moment. The feat doesn't give a shit whether I always qualify. If I have a feat that lets me deal horrific damage with 'any Large or higher-sized bite attack,' and I have one that is medium-sized, I QUALIFY THE MOMENT I DRINK AN ENLARGE PERSON POTION. The only moment a feat's prerequisites come into play is the moment you use that feat.


BadBird wrote:


Unfortunately, the fact that the modifier is changed by outside circumstances doesn't change the nature of the weapon itself. You can't claim that a longsword has become a two-handed weapon just because you're wielding it in two hands. Likewise, you can't say that a Monk Unarmed Strike has changed into a 1.5xSTR natural weapon just because a feat is currently giving you 1.5xSTR with it.

Put simply, to gain 1.5x Power Attack, you need a primary natural weapon that adds 1.5xSTR to damage rolls, not a primary natural weapon that adds 1xSTR to damage rolls... that's being used with a feat that gives it an improved modifier. The fact that some feat changes your modifier doesn't change the actual weapon; Power Attack is based on the actual weapon, not what the modifier is.

Yeah, actually, I can. Assuming I have a class feature that says my longsword counts as a two-handed weapon for whatever effects may modify it.

And yes, I can. In the moment I swing my fist while using dragon style, I am attacking my opponent with a STR x1 1/2 primary natural attack, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY EFFECTS THAT MAY MODIFY IT. By your logic, if I got ahold of the Awesome Blow monster feat, I couldn't use it by just drinking a potion of Enlarge Person to become large. Feat prerequisites are only checked the moment I use them. If my strength is withered below 13, I can't power attack. But nothing stops me from drinking a potion of cat's grace to let a lower-dex character fight with two-weapon fighting feats that I have, but don't normally qualify for.

The Exchange

I actually do agree with Crynthecrow on the rules debate, but I am disappointed in the low value he puts on Wisdom and ranged attacks. Both of these are invaluable; In fact my (low level) monk's usual tactic (if the party doesn't charge) is to throw shuriken and wait for the enemy to charge at her, then wreck them with an absolutely dreadful unarmed flurry.

See, a monk attacks with his unarmed strikes using exclusively the manufactured weapon rules.

I won't requote Power Attack, but you need to satisfy two things from the relevant phrase.

  • be a primary natural attack
  • add 1.5*STR on damage rolls

Even though his unarmed strike gains those two properties from separate sources (monk unarmed strike class feature and dragon ferocity feat), he is still satisfying both those requirements.


Covert Operator wrote:

I actually do agree with Crynthecrow on the rules debate, but I am disappointed in the low value he puts on Wisdom and ranged attacks. Both of these are invaluable; In fact my (low level) monk's usual tactic (if the party doesn't charge) is to throw shuriken and wait for the enemy to charge at her, then wreck them with an absolutely dreadful unarmed flurry.

See, a monk attacks with his unarmed strikes using exclusively the manufactured weapon rules.

I won't requote Power Attack, but you need to satisfy two things from the relevant phrase.

  • be a primary natural attack
  • add 1.5*STR on damage rolls

Even though his unarmed strike gains those two properties from separate sources (monk unarmed strike class feature and dragon ferocity feat), he is still satisfying both those requirements.

Again, nothing stops you from going the more optimal nuking of charisma or intelligence. If I'm playing a walking Juggernaut who is fast, stronger and more durable than the rest of the world around him, I like being able to say cool things. Thats just my preference though. Some people want to play pure combat monsters. I just want to be very strong.

On a side note, people add a ton of money into their examples to raise their AC with lots of pretty baubles. Then they add those same baubles onto my AC and go: Oh, see? Suboptimal. They don't seem to recognize I'd be adding that money into completely different things to enhance my stats for both durability and offence. If you want to build your monk into an all-around brawler who is inferior in every way to a properly played barbarian, fighter or paladin, go ahead. The unchained monk has one factor that makes him supreme at one thing: Getting the most attacks at the highest BAB for the best damage. I am building for THAT. Durability is a secondary concern meant to let him survive full attacks from the BBEG a couple times. And he can do that flawlessly.


Given the blazing row that's going on here, I wouldn't rely on Dragon Ferocity to grant the better Power Attack bonus. I wouldn't even think of trying to push it myself. With this much table variance you're outside of what you can really put in a 'guide'. Given that, Power Attack's still a good feat to have in and of itself, and I can see the joys Dragon Ferocity can give once that Strength gets up there.

I'm actually now wondering if going Dual Talent is worth it in the really long run. The Con benefit is great, but ... again, that -1 Dex mod is just PAINFUL to see on any character. Especially an unarmoured frontliner. And you haven't answered what I was asking earlier about those times enemies are unsporting enough to not stay in melee range. That 10 Int and 10 Cha are enough to think of average insults to hurl, but +0 to hurting their feelings isn't going to end the combat any faster.

Durability is always a concern. Remember, dead characters do on average 0 points of damage a round. And remember, you're at armour class TEN at first level. You've got oodles of hit points, yes, you're as meaty as Barbie the Barbarian ... but she's wearing hide armour, likely has a positive Dex bonus, so she's got about AC 15 if I'm remembering right. You have TEN. Good luck surviving to second level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem I have with this post as a guide is that it's generally terrible advice to tank AC. If he wants to play his character that way - that's totally fine. To say that this is good advice to other people is not ok.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cryn, no one is telling you you need to tank INT or CHA. My recommended alternate stat arrays did not dump those stats. But you have been advised multiple times on this thread that it is a bad idea to dump AC and your response has effectively been 'this is the way I want to do things'. Which is perfectly fine, if that is how you want to build your character. But I really don't think this can qualify as a 'guide'. It is a 'build'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, for a typical Monk I would go for something like Dual Talent Human: 16/18 STR, 12DEX, 14CON, 10INT, 14/16WIS, 8CHA. With free Dodge, a Headband of Wisdom, Barkskin, the +1/4levels AC bonus and as much spent on Bracers as a character would spend on enhancing armor, you can be rolling along with a very comfortable and competitive "armor".

Gaining a ~20%ish HP advantage in exchange for eating not only plenty more hits, but more critical confirms - not to say anything about things like Will saves or Ki pool - doesn't seem like a great plan.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, this is not a guide, this is your personal build.


TwelvePointFivePercent wrote:
15+1.5 is an unrealistic amount of AC, in my experience. At least when you use Automatic Bonus Progression, which you'd think was at least somewhere close to what the designers intended. You'd be looking at something closer to ~25(10+2dex+8platemail+2Attunement+2deflection+1NA) And that's for a melee fighter.

25 at level 7, sure. If you want good AC 25 if fine at level 7, you aren't a tank (he wants 27, but he is close).

Tank means (20+1.5 level): low chance of being hit.
Good means (15+1.5 level)): decent chance of being hit.
Decent AC (10+1.5 level): Good Chance of being hit.
Bad AC (5+1.5 level)): High chance of being hit.

Check the attack bonuses of enemy's of that level: these check out. They might be unrealistic (which is why people say AC is never high enough and you should ignore it at a certain point, you should layer with miss chances like blur).

At level 10, you have AC of Decent, you are going to be hit by level appropriate enemies (very good chance).

I mean, Why isn't he wearing full plate? +1 full plate at that. Then unless 2 hander, why isn't he adding a heavy +1 shield.

That improves AC by +3 possibly. Look we reached Tank status.


The other thing about tanking Dex is that your Reflex suffers, so your much-vaunted Evasion isn't doing a whole lot of good. Also, you'll need to get into position now and again, which means Acrobatics (Dex) and maybe Stealth (Dex) or Escape Artist (Dex). If you're attacking unarmed, you'll be eating AoOs against large opponents thanks to your bad AC and poor tumbling skill.

Liberty's Edge

This is going to be long. I apologize, and either way I'm going to let the digression drop after I finish.

CryntheCrow wrote:
Sure. If your definition of explicitly in this case is 'only pertaining to the first line of text.'

No, it's the actual definition: "fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal." Let me show you an example. The Arcane Strike feat explicitly affects weapons:

Quote:
As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

By comparison, the Power Attack does not explicitly affect weapons. It affects "melee attack rolls," "combat maneuver checks" and "melee damage rolls." None of which are weapons of any kind.

CryntheCrow wrote:
Instead of 'clearly modifies natural or manufactured attacks, triggering the effects of the Monk's unarmed strike class ability.' Which it does. One line later. In your own quote.

No it doesn't. The next sentence merely gives additional information about how the modifier to damage rolls changes in various circumstances. It still doesn't actually affect a weapon, just a die roll.

CryntheCrow wrote:
Enhancing my weaponry doesn't mean 'increasing my attack roll.'

Surprisingly, we agree on this point. It is in fact the thing I think you are misunderstanding, because not only does enhancing your weaponry not mean increasing your die roll, modifying your die roll likewise does not mean enhancing your weaponry.

Let me demonstrate the distinction. Let's assume Sajan is just standing around in an empty room, not really doing anything and certainly with no enemies around or any kind of combat action occurring. Let us further assume that he has multiclassed, taken the necessary feats, and so on for all the following actions to be legal.

Sajan's player declares "I use bless weapon on my fists."

We all agree that this is legal, right? Sajan's unarmed strikes have actually changed: they are "treated as having a +1 enhancement bonus for the purpose of bypassing the DR of evil creatures or striking evil incorporeal creatures (though the spell doesn't grant an actual enhancement bonus)," and "[become] good-aligned, which means [they] can bypass the DR of certain creatures."

Similarly, let's say he goes, "I use Arcane Strike on my fists." Same deal: his unarmed strikes are enhanced, being considered magic and gaining a damage bonus based on his caster level. Note here that neither of these actions require him to make any kind of attack roll or have any enemy; they are perfectly legal to just do whenever he wants.

"I use magic fang on my fists."
"I use greater magic weapon on my fists."
"I give my fists the shocking property."
"I use Boar Style and then I use keen edge on my fists."

All legal. But...

"I use Power Attack on my fists."

The statement is literally nonsensical. Power Attack isn't something you do to a weapon. It's something you do to an attack roll. You can't do anything with it unless there's an attack roll happening, and it in no way changes the properties or nature of your unarmed strike itself - it only changes the dice you roll to resolve your attack. Power Attack simply does not qualify for "effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons" because it doesn't change the weapons at all.

That's it. That's all there is to it.


Qaianna wrote:

Given the blazing row that's going on here, I wouldn't rely on Dragon Ferocity to grant the better Power Attack bonus. I wouldn't even think of trying to push it myself. With this much table variance you're outside of what you can really put in a 'guide'. Given that, Power Attack's still a good feat to have in and of itself, and I can see the joys Dragon Ferocity can give once that Strength gets up there.

I'm actually now wondering if going Dual Talent is worth it in the really long run. The Con benefit is great, but ... again, that -1 Dex mod is just PAINFUL to see on any character. Especially an unarmoured frontliner. And you haven't answered what I was asking earlier about those times enemies are unsporting enough to not stay in melee range. That 10 Int and 10 Cha are enough to think of average insults to hurl, but +0 to hurting their feelings isn't going to end the combat any faster.

Durability is always a concern. Remember, dead characters do on average 0 points of damage a round. And remember, you're at armour class TEN at first level. You've got oodles of hit points, yes, you're as meaty as Barbie the Barbarian ... but she's wearing hide armour, likely has a positive Dex bonus, so she's got about AC 15 if I'm remembering right. You have TEN. Good luck surviving to second level.

I have been trying to respond to every new point as it comes up rather aggressively, apologies if I haven't gotten to yours. You claim that theres too much contention on whether Dragon Style can flurry to put it in a guide. I'd point out I've addressed the vast bulk of those up to this point. The only points I haven't countered to this point from what I can see are a few people being particularly anal about what enhancing means, and thats mostly because they just showed up.

If you're playing with a GM who is throwing opponents at you able to quickly melt your HP at level 1, and can survive TWO 18 strength two-handed attacks, then you might need to find a new gm. Good luck surviving literally ANY crit, btw, by that logic. Every build can be made to sound weak in a vacuum. If the power level we're judging my build by at level 1 is literally the best in the game, the Barbarian? I think I'm doing just fine. Better than the 17 AC but very little damage and 11 HP rogue is. You know who else does 0 damage? Dead enemies.

As for staying in range? I'm a monk. Past the earliest levels, I'm the fastest non-monster in ANY encounter. I negate arrows. I can pounce at level 5. I hit harder than you if we exchange blows in a chase.

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Power Equals Power: A Mini-Guide to the Unchained Monk All Messageboards