Ether_Drake's page

Will Ultimate Combat feature a mass combat rules system?

Ether_Drake wrote:

How, may I ask, are you handling defiling?

I still like the ideas in Dragon Magazine #315.

I've tentatively adopted the Dragon #315 rules as well, though I noted that the raw mechanic as it stands allows defilers to assuming the taint of their defiling points instantly (since it doesn't specify how long it takes to assume the taint, the only times provided are for cleansing the points). I've ruled that one has to be inactive for 10 minutes per defiling point to assume the taint or else it just gets to be too overpowered.

One issue I had with the Dragon #315 system was that a defiling radius, and defiling itself, only manifested with metamagic feats. I felt that some of the original fluff/mechanic of defiling ash occurring with any defiling spell needed to be incorporated, so the terrain radius multipliers are the sum of the spell level plus defiling points spent.

I've also banned sorcerors in my campaign and use the Athas.org bards.

Well, I'm curious to hear how people's Dark Sun campaigns fare. It takes a bit of work to Pathfinderise Dark Sun, but so far its working well.

I've found that its fairly easy for players to avoid the inferior weapons penalties by picking native Athasian weapons. Athas.org is a little vague on where and when it doesn't apply. For example, chatkcha's are implied to have regular damage even when made from stone or bone, but then what about dasl chatkcha's which should be treated like steel which implies regular damage? I've considered dasl simply conferring a +1 to damage since magic items are rare in my campaign. A +1 to attack can still be gleaned from having a masterwork dasl chatkcha.

How, may I ask, are you handling defiling?

I've got a thri-kreen player in my group. Here are my observations so far.

I followed the Pathfinder ethos of eliminating effective level and monster level penalties and instead imposed roleplaying demands or equipment penalties (increased armour cost to account for atypical body shape as mentioned above).

I gave a +3 natural armour bonus, but not stackable with worn armour. I'm still debating whether to lift the stacking restriction given standard natural armour rules and the lack of availability of heavy armours in the campaign. But I will wait to assess combat survivability.

The Multi-weapon feat is not so much of problem once you factor in all the penalties, and recall that 2e didn't allow multiple attacks for non-fighters whereas even wizards get multiple attacks in 3.x.

Poison delayed to 7th level.

And ultimately, the DM has the power to adjust the Challenge Rating of encounters. Even if a race-type would effectively be +1 or +2 in 3.5 you can increase the CR in Pathfinder to take greater PC power into account.

Personally, I felt that the those various abilities were an important part of the feel of kreen. I didn't like the feel of the 4e version for that reason, though I understood it from a strict balance point of view. A DM also needs to weigh what the kreen gets versus what all other PC races get in their particular campaign.

I think its also important to note that my group are primarily roleplayers and not power-gamers, almost all are DMs but care less about optimisation than I do when I'm a player. They have avoided some power combos in favour of their own vision of what's fluff consistent for their PCs. Adjust the bonuses available to your player's dispositions.

I wouldn't mind seeing that. It's hard to fit in some traditional 2nd Edition things over to 3.X. The hardest to balance out, at least for me, is thri-kreen with a half-giant a second. Purests do not like the idea of a medium sized half-gaint.

I agree with you there.

The way I've squared it so far in my campaign is to spread the thri-kreen abilities out over several levels. They are less unbalancing when you have to wait until level 7 or so for them to kick in.

Totally agree with you on the half-giant. I went with the 3.x standard and made them medium for balance reasons, but I just can't reconcile a medium-sized half-GIANT! What I'm inclined to do right now is to keep all that, but make them occupy a 10' x 10' space on the tactical map, but with a reach of 5'. This way, they are big, but they are more balanced.

With the advantages both these races get however, I've also applied some penalties in the form of cost of armor. Bipedal, medium humanoid armor requires some conversion cost for thri-kreen, and half-giants just can't wear it. They have to pay for large-size armor.

The urumi is already in Pathfinder rules :)

Thanks for pointing it out. Haven't read the Inner Sea guide yet.

Still want butterfly swords, though! :)

Are butterfly swords going to be featured in these rules?

In general, how many more Asian weapons are to be featured to expand the selection beyond Japanese peasant/monk weapons?

It would be great if the urumi used in Kalarippayattu would feature. It would be a nice addition to Vudra characters.

...and if you do find it useful and use it, do let me know how it pans out for you. I still consider it a work in progress, and will be testing the defiler rules soon.

I'm several sessions into running a Pathfinderised Dark Sun campaign. You can look at my house rules doc here

It's a mix of Athas.org, the Paizo Dragon Magazine attempt at Dark Sun 3.5, some of the original 2e AD&D setting, and my own tweaks. Also borrowed some house rules from Kirthfinder.

With Dreamscarred Press' Psionics Unleashed, Pathfinder GMs can really make a go of Dark Sun.

I've struggled with the same issue, but I think you've had lots of awesome advice.

You should also take a look at this series of Gnome Stew articles on 'prep-lite wireframing', i.e. stat only stats you need, not the entire NPC:
Link
Link
Link

Plus, Athas.org has a compendium of 3.5 NPCs for Dark Sun as a free download: Face of the Forgotten North

In line with the last product and James Jacobs' mention of a 'Rival's Guide', I really do think that there needs to be more such NPC 'Monster Manuals' for time-starved GMs.

Thanks for the responses all, very helpful.

As a suggestion: it might be good to add these points to the FAQ as they are, in my opinion, positive customer benefits.

Cheers!

Hi,

I've some questions about how PDF downloads work that I couldn't find on the forums or FAQ:

1. If I purchase a PDF download I will always be able to download it an infinite number of times. However, if I say, purchase the 3rd Printing of the Core Rulebook and a 4th Printing + PDF is later issued, will I be able to download the 4th Printing PDF at no additional charge? I.e. Does my PDF purchase of any given book entitle me to PDFs of all future revised editions so I can always have the most up-to-date version?

2. Does the above, if true, only apply to Paizo products?

3. Is the APG PDF also a hyperlinked document? And will all core Paizo PDFs be hyperlinked documents?

Thanks.

If you wait a year or so, v. 3.0 (with the current crop of bugs worked out) will hopefully be ready. I'll work with TOZ when he gets back to get those rules posted online.

I guess I can wait. In the meantime I've picked up some of your combat rules for my gladiator campaign. All the best!

... but I rewrote most of the game because I disagreed with the fundamental assumptions about how it should work.

Fair 'nuff. There's no time to incorporate your rules in my current campaign, but I'm looking forward to playtesting them in the future, if I can figure out all the errata posted since the 2.0 docs went up. :)

To play the type of character you're imagining, in these houserules it's actually better to be a multiclass rogue/wizard or rogue/sorcerer with the Arcane Trickster talent.

Not unlike the Grey Mouser, eh? Now, THAT's classic D&D, no?

A monk with Critical Focus and Hamatulatsu would be terrifying.

I don't know whether you've modified it in your house rules, but Hamatulatsu does not stack with Improved Critical. Also, developer comments (by James Jacobs IIRC) suggests that Hamatulatsu is slated for nerfing and paring down in the revised Inner Sea supplement since it does too many things in one feat.

As a general point, you might want to keep your watch on the Ultimate Combat rules and, frankly, since I think your houserules have tremendous merit, you should weigh in on the playtest if you haven't already. Sean Reynolds was soliciting input on martial arts styles recently.

If he hits, the halfling immediately attempts to grab (hopefully rage will give him a nice boost, even being small and all) at a +4 bonus, as is normal with grab.

Why would a halfling have grab? Isn't it an extraordinary monster ability?

You might also find the spell enemy hammer useful, as it tells you how much damage a creature does -- and takes -- when used as a weapon; a halfling would cause 1d10 damage when used in this fashion.

lol

i LOVE it. Fun spell. And 1d10 damage from a halfling is pretty good. Thanks for the link.

Thanks for the thoughts, folks.

First, your adventure sounds awesome.

Cheers. I hope the players think so!

Second, at the point when the halfling is thrown, it is as weapon rather than as character. The halfling actions are wholly reactive based upon things not in his or her control. He might as well be a flask of oil. An angry, wild, anthropophagic flask of oil, but one nevertheless.

My sense is that given the existing rules the half-giant can opt either to:

1) Throw the "halfling" as an improvised weapon (-4 attack), in which case it merely deals 1d6 bludgeoning damage (possibly non-lethal and may also damage the projectile); OR
2) Use the halfling as an improvised combat maneuvre weapon (-4 attack) in a bull rush or trip (this deals no damage as with most combat maneuvres).

Halfling does her grapple in the next initiative slot and a bite the next round, or since the former is a little slow in gameplay time, just goes for a bite attack (cinematically on top of the target and gnashing furiously with her sharpened teeth).

@kelvingreen - the monster group initiative idea sounds interesting, I'll take a look at the respective rulesets you mentioned, but might save that for larger battles.

In any case, if it all works out well, the players might well be clamouring for a halfling in the party and the existence of Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Weaponised Halfling)! (One of my players scoffed at the idea of halflings being fun in Dark Sun... What's not to like about 2' tall bundles of cannibalistic fury?)

I'm planning the following set piece in an upcoming game, but am still mulling over the most elegant rules solution for DMing it. So, I'm open to opinions:

Half-giant gladiator picks up his halfling barbarian ally and throws her at a PC. The halfling tries to grab on to a PC and then bites him/her.

I'm doing this largely to throw an element of surprise/humour into my PCs gladiatorial training. Also its thematically appropriate since Dark Sun halflings like eating sentients. Welcome to Athas.

1. Rules for throwing combatants
- these don't appear outlined in the core rules, ki throw in APG is centred around a trip, which doesn't sit well with a 'grab n throw' dynamic, plus its feat-based.

I'm thinking I could run this strictly as Combat Maneuvres, or a mixed of a ranged attack with the halfling as an improvised weapon.

My sense is that the grab (grapple) of the halfling shouldn't need a check as its voluntary (it would be a grapple check if on a hostile foe).

Throwing the halfling would be a bull rush check vs. the CMD of the target (no AoO unless threatened).

2. Halfling projectile grabbing onto target

Now this is the tricky bit. The throw happens on the half-giant's combat turn. How would I best resolve the halfling grabbing onto the PC and starting to snack?

The most rules consistent action would seem to be to wait for the halfling's combat turn then resolve a bite attack, or a grapple plus bite (over two turns).

However, this seems to slow down the 'cinematic' drama of the set piece.

So, I'm wondering if there's a quicker way to resolve this that produces a 'wow' factor from players without it having to take too long and making sure its fair within the rules.

Would there be a fair way to resolve the throw and halfling's grab onto the target within the same turn?

How about the halfling delaying initiative until just after the half-giant's turn? Then all this can be resolved in quick succession.

Open to ideas.

Jeremy,

I listened to your Know Direction interview, very interesting. I heard there that you are making some errata corrections to subsequent print runs. Has the PDF been similarly updated?

The sentence is overly complex in structure.

Agreed.

The part about 'like two weapon fighting' is modifying the 'extra attack' portion, not the 'with a weapon portion' that's bolded. Please note the word any in the bolded portion. Any combination.

Any combination means just that, any combination. It doesn't say 'any combination that doesn't repeat the same attack vector' which is how you are interpreting it. It doesn't say 'any combination provided the same attack is not used more than once in a row', which is how you are...

I can totally see the basis for your argument. I just took my interpretation since TWF involves the use of more than one weapon to generate extra attacks, which implies the same weapon can't be used for those extra attacks. The designers were never clear about what they chose to incorporate from TWF into Flurry (just the extra attacks and penalties, or the whole mechanic). In the absence of any explicit statement I decided to try incorporating the TWF mechanic wholesale.

Because I could equally well argue that the overly complex sentence suggests that, yes, a monk can use "any combination" of attacks provided it conforms to the TWF rules.

That said, there is no clue within the sentence as written as to which phrase should take rules precedence. The more permissive interpretation seems more popular (no doubt because its more powerful), but I find it a little unrealistic.

If my DM ruled your way, I could live with it. It would certainly make it more cost efficient when trying to optimise magic item spending plus damage output for flurry since I could just use an Amulet of Mighty Blows and an enchanted Brass Knuckle for all my attacks. But I know others who have slammed this as a balance issue.

3)Flurry of blows does not specify what body parts you must use when flurrying, and the monk class description goes out of its way to say a monk can attack with any part of their body, they are specifically not restricted.

Yes, but we were talking about brass knuckles which can't be worn on your "foot, elbow, or left butt cheek". :)

Funny, I would say it is weasly to try and pin a flurry to requiring two weapons. It's not that hard to imagine a monk make a flurry of attacks with a (single) temple sword. Why should it be any different with a brass knuckles?

In fact, the Zen Archer can flurry with a (single) longbow. That is a pretty compelling argument right there.

Sure. The real world practical physics would work a little different, you wouldn't get as much torque with a punch as would with a longer hand weapon, making effective multiple punches with one hand difficult (barring some lethal string of jabs, but that lacks force) but we RPG in phantasy physics. If you're happy that a monk with no legs and one arm could still flurry with their remaining limb, then more power to you. Its each to their own game.

But based on my reading of the implementation of TWF in flurry then I wouldn't allow a monk to flurry all his attacks with a temple sword, something else (punch, kick, elbow, etc.) would have to occur for the 'off-hand' attack. You could argue that its in the interest of game balance or consistent combat mechanics, whereby Flurry of Blows effectively provides monks with a virtual tier of TWF feats, but restricted only to monk weapons. If you wanted more attacks with a single weapon then choose a full BAB class.

Zen Archer would be an exception to the two-weapon mechanics of flurry. I'm fine with this for flavour reasons and in the interest of building a viable archery build. But this ability is balanced by the fact that the Zen Archer doesn't get an equivalent of the monks improved unarmed damage.

Well, for me it's more a matter of visualization. The monk in the group I run for is about to get magical brass knuckles (his only magic melee weapon) and he will use them for all of his flurry of blows when in melee. So visually he is only attacking with one hand rather than a multitude of unarmed strikes. It's just kind of meh from a storytelling standpoint, but it does make sense from a rules standpoint.

I play a monk and interpret the Pathfinderised flurry rules as following two-weapon fighting, i.e. the extra attacks come from the "off-hand" (or foot/elbow/etc.), so I don't allow my own PC to use all flurry attacks with brass knuckles. It depends how weasly you want to get with wording of the flurry rules, namely that they function "as if two-weapon fighting".

I would rule that if he wants to have BKs for all his flurries then he needs to get two BKs.

On a like note, are cestus much the same? The description doesn't state you can use your unarmed damage. I assume you can't because it adds piercing to the type of damage you can do and has a higher chance to crit.

The listing of cestii under 'light weapons' rather than 'unarmed attacks' suggests that they don't allow monks to use their superior unarmed damage. Also, brass knuckles description takes the trouble to explicitly spell out such an exception, and cestus doesn't.

That said, the reference to unarmed attacks in the cestus text is potentially misleading. Personally, I feel it would be better to treat a cestus as a standard weapon rather than a variant of the gauntlet.

Thus, you could have a cold iron cestus, you could flurry with it, but you would only deal 1d4 (M) based damage with it.

I've been enjoying the discussion, and thanks, Kirth, for your statement of design philosophy.

Just wondering, with all the talk of errata, etc. have revised documents been uploaded? If not, then when? :)

As a former martial artist I would support the viewpoints of those who have advised against explicitly including real-world styles by name as the translation will tend to disappoint.

mdt's suggestion above on the hard/soft non-weapon/weapon/mixed is sound and comes close to enveloping what most martial art styles break down to.

I would also suggest mechanical options for adding in various weapons as 'monk weapons'. The present monk weapons (brass knuckles excepted) are largely Okinawan in flavour. There should be a way for small, limited packages of weapons to be adopted by a given martial stylist, whereby martial arts powers can be used with it (i.e. have it considered a monk weapon), without opening such ability to all weapons.

Either a one-for-one swap, e.g. swap in 'halberd' for kama to emulate naginata/kwan dao stylists [Flexible option]

OR

Present packages based on real-world weapons styles plus some fantasy flavoured ones [Least flexible, but allows designers to exclude some weapons if this is a balance issue]

e.g. twin short swords + long pole ('Wing Chun' package)
long sword + scimitar + spear + pole ('tai chi' package)

I think this will please those of us who aren't excited by the flavour of the existing monk weapons.

Of course, adding in more martial arts weapons, ala Oriental Adventures would be great.

PLUS,

One martial art that seems to have gone completely unmentioned in this thread:

Kalaripayattu, from Kerala

it's Wiki page has a nice list of its weapons, including the awesome multi-bladed flexible sword, the Urumi.

Ether_Drake wrote:

PS - One point though, isn't the Dodge feat redundant except as a pre-req purchase since it doesn't stack with the existing Agile Dodge power?

I thought dodge bonuses were a specific exception to the "non-stacking of like-named bonuses" rule? They were in 3.5 (IIRC), and I'd intended to carry that through.

You are right. My bad.

I think these are 2 different thing. I asked mainly because I think that the "bolded part" is some kind of typo, a part not removed as intended.

I'm doubtful its a typo. I saw a similar thing emerge on the Dreamscarred Press forums during the development of the Psionic Fist prestige class (basically a psionic monk). The capstone ability was like the Eldritch Knight's, score a critical and cast a psionic effect through it. Sounds balanced until you consider that the EK is probably using a weapon with a 17-20 threat range and the monk is left with the 19-20 of unarmed attacks.

I actually saw people arguing for the critical condition. For unarmed fighters a critical condition makes for a lousy capstone ability whether in feats or in class abilities.

Btw, the mechanical requirements of having a negative condition on the target as a pre-req is thematically consistent with the other feats in this chain: Gorgon Fist, Medusa's Wrath.

But the way Medusa Wrath is written, that feat is waaay better than Cockatrice Strike since it takes place within a full-round action rather than requiring you spend one. Which is why folks like Treantmonk recommend you skip Gorgon Fist entirely and take Medusa's Wrath as a bonus feat. Those who follow his sage advice won't be qualifying for Cockatrice Strike.

Also, anything that is going to fail two saves at 19th/20th level isn't really that tough.

One non-core method of making this feat viable is to use the Hamatulatsu Feat from PCCS, which increases your critical range. However, this is going to be nerfed soon:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/campaignSet ting/products/pCCSHamatulatsuFeat35rvx

As far as I know, the Psionic Fist PrC from Dreamscarred Press' Psionics Unleashed allows stacking of levels for flurry. It is also called 'Monk Abilities'.

Given RAW, I would say that the Tatooed Monk as you describe it does not improve FoB since, as you note, FoB increases attacks via virtual TWF, and it is advancement as a monk that grants those virtual feats.

Excuse the double-post, but I'd like to ask Kirth (or TOZ if he has it) if he would be willing to post his 'design philosophy' behind his house rules. Kirth seems to be reference 1e mechanics more than once and I'm curious to hear his thoughts.

The Dodge feat is for classes that don't have access to the Agile Dodge class feature. Not having combed over the new version, I don't know if there IS such a class still.

And you're quite welcome. :)

Cheers. Btw, Dodge is listed under the monk's bonus feats, which might just be a legacy carry-over, thus my P.S.

Kirth,

I've only read the monk class so far, but I have to say that I REALLY like what you've done with it. If the playtest for Pathfinder 2.0 comes up, you should pitch your monk at them.

The customisability that you've incorporated into the monk has largely obviated the need for archetypes.

I also appreciate the changes you've made to flurry and monk weapons allows real-world weapons-based martial arts to be simulated rather than the 'neo-Okinawan' selection of weapons in 3.x.

Very nice!

Thanks for uploading TOZ.

PS - One point though, isn't the Dodge feat redundant except as a pre-req purchase since it doesn't stack with the existing Agile Dodge power?

I have my (serious) problems with PU but some things have been "pathfinderized" like CMB/CMD references, names/powers changed etc.

I'm also in the process of converting Athas.org and some 2e materials into a Pathfinderised Dark Sun campaign.

I'm including psionics and was planning on using Psionics Unleashed. I didn't use psionics in 3.5, so I am curious to hear what your major issues are and whether PU or XPH is best suited for Dark Sun/Pathfider.

It is correct, and if I remember correctly, monk speed has been unaffected by haste for several editions, at least since AD&D. The intention would be balance.

- If a Large creature uses a Medium-sized heavy shield, do they get a regular +2 Shield Bonus to AC?
- What about if the same Large creature uses a Large-sized heavy shield, do they still get a +2 Shield Bonus to AC?

While there are different damage rules for weapons optimised for different size categories, there only seem to be cost and weight rules for armor optimised for different sized wearers (Core Rules, p. 153).

My sense is that for balance purposes the same AC bonus should apply to all size categories, but I can see someone arguing that a Medium-optimised heavy shielf might be equivalent to a buckler in the hand of an ogre. But then, there's the relative size of the attacker to consider...

Is there some rule that I'm overlooking? Or do the rules imply the simple method that a Storm Giant's heavy shield offers as much AC bonus as a halfling's heavy shield?

Ether_Drake wrote:

(Slightly off topic) Actually, I've noticed with Paizo PDF's that the title case letter 'a' fails to display in Mac Preview. Main body text is fine. Don't know what the solution would be and couldn't find anything in Mac forums.

Why this happens is covered in the FAQ

Thanks for the answer! I've been wondering about this. Time to lobby Apple: Paizo fans demand change for OS X!

Ether_Drake wrote:

Jeremy,

Is there a 3.5 conversion guide (ala the PDF released with the Pathfinder Core rules)? If not, will you be making one available as a PDF?

Not yet, but it's being worked on. That 2-page handout of the powers that have been renamed or removed is part of it.

Awesome. That's going to make conversion work A LOT easier.

We ran into this—or at least something like it—on one occasion. Unfortunately, nobody remembers the exact situation, but our best recollection is that it was the result of doing some effect—probably something transparency related—in InDesign that we really should have done in Photoshop. (It *may* have been using "multiply" on the image in InDesign instead of using a proper alpha channel in Photoshop.)

(Slightly off topic) Actually, I've noticed with Paizo PDF's that the title case letter 'a' fails to display in Mac Preview. Main body text is fine. Don't know what the solution would be and couldn't find anything in Mac forums.

Jeremy,

Is there a 3.5 conversion guide (ala the PDF released with the Pathfinder Core rules)? If not, will you be making one available as a PDF?

Btw, was lurking on your forums recently and reviewing the Beta in preparation for a Pathfinder-ized Dark Sun campaign. Like what you've done generally. Sorry that I found it too late to contribute input.

Now, is there a pathfinder way to make brass knuckles flurry-able?

Yes, its the "monk" weapon quality that brass knuckles currently possess.

I really liked Mongoose Publishing's "The Quintessential Monk" because it really brought in lots of source material-inspired rules, classes, options & weapons that helped monk players build PCs that better fitted their martial arts dreams.

As it stands on the core rules 3.x & PFRPG, its actually hard to make a monk that strongly echoes martial artists from movies or legend. This is particularly so because the core-rules class abilities are more or less "Shao Lin" flavoured, whilst the core monk weapons are essentially "Okinawan".

Fans of the various weapons featured prominently in many Shao Lin styles got options for those in the Quintessential Monk, and mechanics that reflected how these weapons are used in martial forms.

As a monk player I've found a lack of monk-flavoured feats amidst the core rules, but the feats in QM let you, amongst other things, specialise in certain forms (such as using a quarterstaff as a reach weapon, which is what is done in a number of real-world forms).

Debate about the monk being poor BAB, or MAD, etc. mattered less because I got to build the monk of my dreams.

What I like very much in the APG is the Ki Throw and Improved Ki Throw feats and how they can rock in conjunction with Greater Trip and Greater Bull Rush.

Now, add Lunge in the mix and get Enlarge cast on you by the party wizard... And you have a 15' reach and are able to toss opponents on each others on AoO, knocking them prone.
It works even better if you and the party hitters have Combat reflexes.

Yeah, I was interested in the Ki Throw feats, but they really work best if you've already invested in Combat Maneuvre feats (not an issue if you've followed Treantmonk's advice), but if you invest in them, you really have to make sure your trip maneuvre is really effective, because they all hang mechanically on that.

Enlarge is necessary if you want to trip anything larger than L since, sadly, you can't use ki points to boost your trip.

All that said, if you pull off that combo you described, its FUN.

While we wait for Treatmonk to update his guide with the APG options, I thought it might be interesting to discuss how people see the alternatives to Stunning Fist as the monk special attack power.

Specifically, what do you think about Punishing Kick and Touch of Serenity?

My own 2 cents, comparing them to Stunning Fist:

Punishing Kick:
Pro - offers some of the benefits of combat maneuvre outcomes (prone condition and relocating foes 5') without the risk of AOO or incurring prone with a fail-by-10 on your roll. Allows you to attack, damage AND inflict a combat maneuvre-like status effect at the cost of a Fortitude save. Works against undead, etc. that are immune to Stunning Fist. Don't have to buy Improved Combat Maneuvre feats in order to produce 'prone' condition.

Con - Still dependent on save DC. If you want to take it in addition to Stunning Fist you have to wait until level 11+ due to BAB+8 requirement. Prone still allows foe to take actions (unlike stun).

Touch of Serenity:
Pro - lets you shut down a foe's attacks or spell actions for 1 round. Tactical variety of allowing you to target Will saves rather than Fortitude, therefore potentially good against Fighter types who have worse Will than Fortitude. Since foe can't AOO for 1 round, you could attempt other combat maneuvres relatively risk-free if you are flurrying.

Con - you don't do damage. It also works as a regular attack not a touch attack.

My sense is that these feats do open up some interesting tactical options for monks and they do give you good nerfs without being as expensive as investing in the Improved to Greater Combat Maneuvres. Plus, you can use them in your Flurry of Blows. Of course, if you take these feats as part of the Monk of the Lotus or Hungry Ghost monk archetypes you do get some additional interesting boosts at higher levels.

If I had to choose between them for a vanilla monk with Stunning Fist, I would currently lean towards Touch of Serenity since it allows me to take advantage of lower-Will save enemies.

What do you think, should the APG feat 'Touch of Serenity' be considered to operate as a touch attack or a regular attack (counting armor bonuses)?

On the pure mechanics side, it seems to imply a normal attack. On the fluff/descriptive it implies a touch, and you don't deal any damage in any case so armor might not matter.

So, straight RAW - normal attack, or RAI - touch attack?

Would you please point me to the print in the Equipment section that says Brass Knuckles or Gauntlets- or any weapon for that matter- gets Ki Focus for free? Or acts like it has Ki Focus? Or says you can use stunning fist with it?

I mean no sarcasm by that. If you can find it, I truly want to see it. You are trying to give out for free something that costs +1 enhancement bonus to the item. The fact is- the text isn't there. It *is. not. there.*. It isn't there because the weapons do not grant that ability.

I'll bite. Taking your question in the spirit of honest inquiry, here is my response, using text as you suggest. I will not point you to "the print in the Equipment section that says Brass Knuckles or Gauntlets- or any weapon for that matter- gets Ki Focus for free" because such text does not exist and this is not the best way to answer either you or the OP.

You are concerned as to whether BKs grant Ki Focus. They do not. They do not need to.

There is more than one road to Mordor...

Ki Focus is not the only way for Stunning Fist, Ki Strike and Quivering Palm to operate through a weapon; specifically and only the class of weapons listed as unarmed attacks in the Weapons Table. Use of these three abilities with a non-unarmed attack weapon, in general a monk weapon, is not possible unless one purchases the Ki Focus ability.

Ki Focus has a role, it is to empower monk weapons which aren't unarmed attacks to act as if they were unarmed attacks for the special abilities concerned. Note: I am referring to "unarmed attacks", not "unarmed strikes".

(Quivering Palm's wording is ambiguous since it only refers to making an attack, not even an unarmed attack or unarmed strike. However, Ki Focus suggests that Quivering Palm takes place through an "unarmed attack", so we will consider that to be sufficient proof that an "unarmed attack" is needed. I don't agree that a "Palm" should be done with a punch or BK, but we are talking about what the rules say, not about how things should work in the Real World).

Summary
I will explain how unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks are different, but related things. One is a subset of the other.
I will also show that the Stunning Fist feat (for any character, monk or not, who takes it), refers to "unarmed attacks", not "unarmed strikes".
The Ki Strike power refers to "unarmed attacks", not "unarmed strikes".
The Ki Focus weapon ability refers to "unarmed attacks", not "unarmed strikes".
BKs, Gauntlets and unarmed strikes are all classified as "unarmed attacks".
The "unarmed attack" concept, rules and sub-types are the chain that connects all these abilities and weapons together, not "unarmed strike".

My answer in detail:

Glossary of terms

Since the following do not use the exact same sequence and type of letters they are considered to be different terms, referring to different things, though these are related through the rules:

- Unarmed attack
- Unarmed strike

Debate has arisen as to whether these two refer to one and the same thing, just like Mithrandir and Stormcrow refer to Gandalf, or whether they are like Saruman the White and Gandalf the White, where the latter is momentarily confused for the former, but they are in fact two different entities.

The individuality of unarmed attack is further supported by the organisation of the Weapons Table which contains a sub-section entitled "Unarmed Attacks". Under this heading are found three (3) weapons which are: Brass Knuckles, Gauntlet, and Unarmed Strike.

Based on this, an unarmed strike weapon is a distinct entity governed by categorisation as an unarmed attack. It is not unique in this since BKs and Gauntlet are also governed by unarmed attack rules, though in various ways they modify them on the basis of lethal damage.

If I understand James Risner correctly, and with all due respect to his position, then he believes that unarmed strike and unarmed attacks are not disctinct entities. I think he also holds that an unarmed strike is NOT a weapon.

Yet...

Description: An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. ...

...the rules describe them as a weapon.

If you also believe the same as JR and do not wish to consider an alternative view then there is no point in reading any further.

----
One wording that does fuzzy things is that the Gauntlet description says:

Benefit: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

Since it references both unarmed attack (as the parent category) and unarmed strike (as a thing it modifies), the Gauntlet presents an ambiguous or counter case. It is still a separate entity from an unarmed strike though, and it clearly distinguishes unarmed strike (the weapon) from an unarmed attack (the category and rules). It is the only 'inconsistency' I can find. Let the reader be the judge of what it means. The BK description only refers to "unarmed attack" though.

Conclusion: Given the distinction employed, the Gauntlet description does support unarmed strike and unarmed attack as different things.

Further support: Flurry of Blows description refers to "unarmed strikes" not "unarmed attacks". If it referred to unarmed attacks then Gauntlets could be presumed to be included, however the more restrictive term is used, and this makes sense since Gauntlets aren't monk weapons.
---

Unarmed attack - The rules governing unarmed attacks are found in the Combat section. They include "punches", whether these are with bare skin or a hand sheathed in a gauntlet or BK, this section does not say.

As far as the rules go, "unarmed" does not mean without a weapon (as a weapon is defined in the rules). An unarmed PC is always in possession of the unarmed strike weapon which suffers penalties as outlined in the Unarmed Attacks section. The rules treat punches, kicks, headbutts, knees, elbows, etc. as weapons.

As the rules say, unless you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, an unarmed strike is not lethal unless you take a -4 penalty.

The two non-feat options to make a penalty-free lethal unarmed attack are: 1) to replace your unarmed strike weapon with the brass knuckles weapon, or 2) the gauntlet weapon.

Stunning Fist feat

The basic requirement for a Stunning Fist to work is that your unarmed attack needs to damage your foe. You then force a Fortitude save.

I conclude that the Stunning Fist feat is applicable provided I damage an opponent using ANY of those three unarmed attack weapons. (I know Gauntlets aren't a monk weapon, but Stunning Fist is not a monk-exclusive feat).

Ki Strike Power

Refers to "unarmed ATTACKS".

Refers to "unarmed ATTACKS". Allows a weapon to count as an unarmed attack for purposes of channelling special ki attacks. (This is also the only time that Quivering Palm and Stunning Fist(for monks) are described as "special ki attacks").

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Or simply insert an optional rule (perhaps in the future Combat focused book?) where a GM can enable a monk to enhance his body as a weapon. (Seriously, am I the only one who finds it odd that a first level monk's body isn't classified as a Masterworked weapon already?)

Definitely not alone there. That's exactly what monks should be IMO.

Sympathetic to this, but think it best resolved by giving monks full BAB advancement for regular attacks. Sure, you still get -2 on Flurry, but this trades off against the extra attacks. Standard attack still needed under current mechanic where you need to move AND hit before you can full-round flurry. With this you would hit like a martial WARRIOR instead of a warrior priest. I mean, a fighter is a weaponmaster, sure, but a monk turns her body into a weapon with just as much dedication. Full BAB.

-edit-
Plus, let Wisdom bonus count for attacks, not just defence. The Guided weapon property already concedes that the power of intuition can lead to both better attack rolls and better damage. Make it a power accessible at a given level.
------

Ki strike already lays some ground for body enhancement, and the v3 Magus playtest employs a similar mechanic to ki points to buff the Magus' weapon. Why not the same for monk in order to cover all/most DR barriers? If your fists can be adamantine equivalent why can't they also beat silver and cold iron resistance? You only beat DR good/evil if you are those alignments, though.

And to point to a real world inspiration, martial artists do condition and embalm their limbs with herbal mixes in order to make them both harder and resistant to pain. Under Phastasy Physics this could work as an Extraordinary ability.

Ether_Drake wrote:

Sadly, in the absence of Extraordinary or Supernatural feats or abilities that allow monks to enhance their unarmed attacks, we are reduced to the rather inelegant 'patch' of brass knuckles.

I still wish we had gotten those.

It's what comes to mind when I think of a monk in a fantasy setting.

Yes. >sigh< Still, you can refer to feats such as Ki Diversity and the as-yet-unrevised Secret of Steel-Shattering Spirit feat which was in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and allowed monks to bypass cold-iron and silver, as well as adamantine, magic, lawful, & epic. For whatever reason, they didn't include it in the Core.

I agree that it probably should work the way you've outlined, however, the RAW for Flurry (essentially TWF) is that the weapons can be used in quite literally "any" combination. Unfortunately, all Temple Sword and zero unarmed strikes is one such combination.

Yeah. Depends whether you want to focus on the "any combination" part of that sentence and downplay that its anchored on either side by the statement that the "extra attack" operates "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat". Once I see that then it doesn't make sense to allow less than two weapons at play (with the unarmed strike understood to be infinitely substitutable as a weapon).

Put another way, the extra attack can be any combo, but your primary attack is distinct from it. Nor does it say that your primary attack (which normally operates with a single weapon) can be substituted (it also doesn't say can't). Its a power exploit, but monk players in general feel underpowered and the reasons for favouring the liberal interpretation are understandable. I'm going to run my monk the more restrictive way and see whether it really hampers me.

Also, if the liberal-'any combination'-interpretation rules then all references to two-weapon fighting feats within Flurry of Blows can be deleted without any consequence because the proponents of that view argue that they have no mechanical consequence whatsoever. So were the designers being unnecessarily verbose, or was there a clear intention behind referencing two-weapon fighting feats 3 times in the flurry rules?

Paizo isn't in the habit of illustrative verbosity, so I think those references to TWF are significant.

PRD - Monk - Flurry of Blows wrote:

a weapon wielded in both hands.

I further agree that you are probably correct that the designers meant "two" weapons also known as a weapon wielded in EACH hand.

Sorta. I think they wrote that "wielded in both hands" phrase to cover the specific case of the quarterstaff which, in the Core rules, was the only monk weapon that was two-handed, but since it had the 'double' property it functioned like TWF and so fit within the TWF logic of Flurry. Actually, if you take my Flurry=TWF argument (which Jason Bulmahn himself has stated), then they did a fairly elegant job of making flurry work within the broader rules mechanics. Of course, most players seem to just want more and better attacks ;)

Reductio ad absurdium: I declare a flurry of blows where I perform five headbutts, or five strikes with my right fist. If that sounds fine then go ahead and have five BK attacks with only one set of BK's, or the same with one temple sword. Its all theoretically possible in the Real World as well as in P.P.P (Pathfinder Phantasy Physics) where full-plate wearing PCs can swim in rough waters if they pass a swim check.

Its nice to figure out how the rules were intended to play, thus forums like this, but either way as we've discussed this issue, I don't think its going to break monk mechanics to have this.

But, before you all get too excited with two-hander monks, note that the temple sword is the only monk weapon which could do this. All the others (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) only get x1.0 Str bonus because they are Light Weapons or, in the quarterstaff case, the Flurry rules say you get x1.0 Str bonus. Light weapons don't qualify for the two-hand x1.5 Str bonus benefit. Only One-Handed Weapons do, a temple sword is one.

These arguments one way or another regarding brass knuckles are still rules interpretation. What do people think about it from a BALANCE point of view?

As I pointed out above, there are some price balance issues, largely in favour of the monk, but these aren't particularly huge.

Sadly, in the absence of Extraordinary or Supernatural feats or abilities that allow monks to enhance their unarmed attacks, we are reduced to the rather inelegant 'patch' of brass knuckles.

Even combined with the AoMF, I don't see it overpowering other classes or monsters if you stick to a total enhancement cap of +10 for all weapon enhancements in play (i.e. for BK and AoMF combined).

I am in perfect agreement with the argument that BKs are unarmed attacks and therefore combinable with both AoMF and stunning fist.

+1

While unarmed strikes might be viewed as a weapon, given that it is a part of the weapons, a lawyeristic reading would suggest that monks take the non-proficiency penalty with unarmed strikes, as they are not proficient with simple weapons.

No. Everyone gets proficiency with unarmed strikes.

Weapons

Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons

...All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race.

2) Is Amulet of Mighty Fists wording directly applicable to newer rules?

By the time AoMF was written, it wasn't too important to make a distinction between unarmed attacks and strikes, as brass knuckles wasn't in the picture.

Reasonable point, but...

But if we look at Magic Fang, which is the basis of AoMF

Is it? Magic Fang only grants +n enhancements to attack and damage. It doesn't include weapon special abilities, which AoMF does. I would think that the general weapon enchantment rules are the basis of AoMF since you are directed to them in the item description and have to pay on their per +1 bonus exchange rates.