Boxing is a perfectly valid martial art, and it is just as reasonable for a highly trained, disciplined boxer to be able to kill monsters with his bare hands as it is for someone who has spent the same number of years training in Kung Fu.
The only reason that professional boxers don't kill each other on a regular basis is that they wear giant padded mittens and they are restricted from hitting most sensitive areas of the body and they have referees to stop fights when someone's injured and both the winner and the loser get checked over by a doctor immediately after the fight.
I've known guys who I don't doubt could punch dents into plate armor, or punch helmets hard enough to give seasoned knights concussions. Took six of them to convince me that I was drastically underqualified for a career in the field myself.
In the real world, yes. In a fantasy world where you are supposed to box with heavy armored guys wielding swords that can cleave you in half?
Against magical barriers that can push out a 200 pound man?
Against HUGE dragons whose scales resist even the biggest non-magical swords?
Boxing? Really?Using Boxing or Pankration against these things is no more or less ludicrous than Wing Chun-ing them. If the Bruce Lee inspired fellow can slap the dragon silly with his hands, the Mohammed Ali inspired one should be similarly accomodated.
I think they are more Shaolin inspired then Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee had nothing mystical about him, he was just strong and fast.
I just want to add that a "Martial Art" could be Boxing, Fencing, Knifefighting, or Wrestling to name a few. Any "Martial" skill that is perfected to a "art" is what Martial Arts are all about.
I find it odd that there is this mindset that Martial Arts are only a asian thing.
I think they are more Shaolin inspired then Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee had nothing mystical about him, he was just strong and fast.In the real world, yes. In a fantasy world where you are supposed to box with heavy armored guys wielding swords that can cleave you in half?
Against magical barriers that can push out a 200 pound man?
Against HUGE dragons whose scales resist even the biggest non-magical swords?
Boxing? Really?Using Boxing or Pankration against these things is no more or less ludicrous than Wing Chun-ing them. If the Bruce Lee inspired fellow can slap the dragon silly with his hands, the Mohammed Ali inspired one should be similarly accomodated.
From your comments it would appear as if a Monk has no place in a fantasy setting at all. I'd say there was plenty mystical about Bruce Lee, we haven't seen anyone like him since, and there are more than enough strong and fast fighters out there.
Monks don't need to be shaolin inspired exclusively. Nearly every culture in our own real world has multiple disciplines of unarmed combat and meditation; such a closed-minded interpretation is a waste of an infinite number of character inspirations. I choose to look at the monk class as a "catch-all super-human unarmed fighter" mechanic. I've seen incredible variations and inspirations, one of my favorites being a tribal native-American style unarmed fighting shaman, who instead of a kama, used a stone axe. To each their own I guess.
But, enough of my railroading. Gauntlets rule!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going off on a tangent, it is true that, for the most part, boxing and savate and krav maga and whatnot don't really have mystical associations, like the various strains of 'kung fu' or Malaysian knife-fighting. (Granted, the majority of Asian martial arts aren't as 'mystical' as the martial arts we see in Crouching Tiger, either...)
It might be fun to come up with a fantasy style rationale for how a more boxing-oriented martial art would be 'mysticked up.'
Perhaps the ancient Azlanti combined a fascination with numerology and astronomy with exercise and 'unarmed combat' techniques that involved emulating the movements of celestial bodies, or precisely timed strikes and movements. By swinging one's arms in arc mimicing the arc of the celestial bodies, the Falling Star Fists believed that they connected with the spinning bodies in the heavens, tapping into their strength and grace to lend force to their own blows. By counting precise intervals, or even performing formula!, in their heads, between strikes, they believed that they could only strike during especially fortuitous moments in time, with some moments being optimal for defense, and others ideal for an unrelenting assault. Strike quickly, in seconds, cosmic principles will have re-aligned, and the moment of opportunity, when the cosmos aligns to lend power to your blow, will have passed, and the advantage shifted to your opponent. Fortune favors the fast body, but also the decisive mind!
Meanwhile, more tribal cultures would have 'monks' that believe in tapping the forms and stances of the various beasts of their native lands. Swift like the cindersnake, with a blow that causes lingering pain, strong like the aurox, whose endurance allows him to outlast foes, pulling a foe down like a panther, and squeezing the life from them like a python, or dancing around like a one-man wolfpack, striking from all sides, and keeping the foe off-balance and feeling outnumbered with your constant shifting of positions. These martial artists would hone their skills by studying various beasts (and replace Knowledge (religion) with Knowledge (nature)) and testing themselves against wolves, great cats and even bears, in single combat. Bull-dancing might be popular with one sect, while another might pit an aspirant against multiple dogs, trained for war. One culture might simply study and emulate animals, while another might believe that the warrior gains power by defeating these animals and eating their hearts, or wearing items that he has taken from those animals he has beaten (claws, hides, fangs, etc.), each he considers a totem / fetish of sorts, reminding him of the time he suffered the fangs of the viper, to learn it's secrets, or of the scars on his arms he took wrestling the boar to the ground, so that he could strangle the life from it before it could tear his guts out with it's tusks...
I wonder why monks would bother with the much more expensive Amulet of Mighty Fists though if they could just enhance a pair of gauntlets.Good question. This is something that PFRPG broke, though... the new amulet would have been a bargain for the old monk.
Under the 3.5 rules, the supplied quarterstaff example made it clear that every attack had to be with a different weapon; in a flurry routine, you could have used each gauntlet once and only once (and note that a "pair of gauntlets" is not a single weapon for any purpose; each one has to be separately enchanted). Meanwhile, there were no limitations on which body part was used for an "unarmed strike," giving the monk virtually infinite "weapons" in that regard. With five available strikes you could use two sianghams and three random body parts.
With 3.P, we see two changes. First, the monk is inexplicably limited to hands, feet, knees and elbows, which makes the idea of "unlimited virtual weapons" a little less tenable. But more importantly, Flurry of Blows is now a virtual feat chain which explicitly provides the benefits of two-weapon fighting... meaning that yes, you can just go back and forth with two gauntlets. The amulet still has the option of skipping a +1 and going straight for special properties, which is attractive; and if you've got a reliable source of Greater Magic Fang it's still more cost-effective than two gauntlets with the same properties... so even with this rules interpretation, gauntlets don't make the amulet pointless.
Personally I'd just ignore the text about emulating two-weapon fighting and use the old flurry/unarmed rules with the new attack progression.
Edit: Also I should point out that they can stack. Two +1 gauntlets and a Flaming amulet is 11k, as opposed to 16k for two +1 flaming gauntlets. Honestly I think that's an even bigger argument for reinstating the old "one strike per weapon" rule.
Or clarifying that gauntlets are not unarmed strikes for the purposes of...
Does this mean you could have +5 guantlets of flaming/flameburst/whatever up to 5 points worth + the amulet with say holy/bane/whatever not duplicating the gaunlets powers up to again +5. Effectly you have +15 weapons with a cap on the enchantment bonus of 5 but with lots of extra powers.
Nice post there Set. Nice way to explain "other" kinds of Monks.
Just saying "My monk does boxing is laughable".
And Bruce Lee was not that special. If he lived to old age I am sure he would not be as known or popular. We (humans) like to turn dead people into myths and tell glorious stories about them, just look at Jesus :D
Today you got at least a couple of actors that can do at least as good as him.
It might be fun to come up with a fantasy style rationale for how a more boxing-oriented martial art would be 'mysticked up.'
I don't think a non-mystical martial art is best simulated by the monk class; it's perfectly acceptable to create a boxer/wrestler/pankratiast/whatever using the fighter class (Improved Unarmed Strike + TWF + Scorpion/Gorgon/Medusa Punch, &c.).
Nice post there Set. Nice way to explain "other" kinds of Monks.
Just saying "My monk does boxing is laughable".And Bruce Lee was not that special. If he lived to old age I am sure he would not be as known or popular. We (humans) like to turn dead people into myths and tell glorious stories about them, just look at Jesus :D
Today you got at least a couple of actors that can do at least as good as him.
Not sure about that. Chuck Norris is a bit of a living legend. And he got his start in a Bruce Lee movie as a heavy.
Not sure about that. Chuck Norris is a bit of a living legend. And he got his start in a Bruce Lee movie as a heavy.Nice post there Set. Nice way to explain "other" kinds of Monks.
Just saying "My monk does boxing is laughable".And Bruce Lee was not that special. If he lived to old age I am sure he would not be as known or popular. We (humans) like to turn dead people into myths and tell glorious stories about them, just look at Jesus :D
Today you got at least a couple of actors that can do at least as good as him.
Agreed. Chuck Norris was considered a bit of a legend even before the internet made into a new one (or else no one would care about his unearthly exploits in the first place).
There's a lot more to Bruce Lee than his movies. He's actually led a very interesting life. There's other reasons he's legendary; it sure wasn't his acting ability. Sure, in modern society, especially the film industry, there's not a lot of room for Shaolin spiritualism, but don't think for a second the guy wasn't spiritual. Making him into a Fighter with X feats would not do him justice.
I think Robert Howard would disagree that boxing doesn't fit in a fantasy setting. I'd agree with him.
:D
http://www.rpgshop.com/default/butch-killer-davis.html
There's no mention of martial arts anywhere in the Monk description or rules ;) In fact, the monk description specifically mentions "self-taught brawlers".Boxing can be perfectly accepted as a form of "unarmed combat".
In the real world, yes. In a fantasy world where you are supposed to box with heavy armored guys wielding swords that can cleave you in half?
Against magical barriers that can push out a 200 pound man?
Against HUGE dragons whose scales resist even the biggest non-magical swords?
Boxing? Really?You're completely taking what I said out of context. Yes, in a fantasy world. Think, FANTASTICAL boxing. Imagine a guy leaping onto a dragon's back a punching through the back of it's head. Think of a guy side-stepping that huge greatsword and bashing the wielder in the face. Even sundering that weapon by crushing the hilt uner his knuckles. Imagine a guy punching through stone columns and bringing a temple down around his foes. Yes, boxing.
If you don't think it works in your game, that's fine. But, I can see it plain as day in my games. Our games tend to resemble Marvel Comics after a while, which may not jive with some people's interpretations of the game.
Fists of the Northstar
|
|
I'm not sure if this will help, but in my games I've used a ruling I found in spycraft. Certain unarmed weapons such as gauntlets, brass knuckles, or even a cestus simply do +1 or +2 unarmed damage. They also count as lethal damage so as a fighter or commoner can use them an do lethal damage. This also helps fit a thug image of a low-level thug using brass knuckles to do 1d3+1+str mod.
I made a sheet with all my house rules on them and in the weapons chart those items are listed as such:
Simple Melee
Brass Knuckles - 1gp - +1 - x2 - B
Spike Knuckles - 2gp - +1 - x2 - B & P
Cestus* ------- 12gp - +2 - x2 - B
Gauntlet ------- 2gp - +1 - x2 - B
Spike Gauntlet - 5gp - +2 - x2 - P
*Can deal lethal or non-lethal damage without penalty.
Hope this helps you.
Fists of the Northstar
Rurouni Kenshin also contained a nice example.
Does this mean you could have +5 guantlets of flaming/flameburst/whatever up to 5 points worth + the amulet with say holy/bane/whatever not duplicating the gaunlets powers up to again +5. Effectly you have +15 weapons with a cap on the enchantment bonus of 5 but with lots of extra powers.
Yes, it does imply that unarmed strikes can be cross enchanted going all the way to +15. Its the phrase "unarmed strike" that gets repeated.
Now combine that potential with enlargement for base damage / and the standard fighter BaB when flurrying and you have a very deadly monk class at higher levels.
After much consideration of the wording regarding gauntlets and the possible impact of various changes I'm looking at making the following changes to clear up any ambiguity:
Thats what i figured would come out of this, a change of the rules to split gauntlets off. It sounds there pretty official, can this be deemed come from some voice of authority?
and if so, did this gauntlet question really not come up in all the play testing??? from a balance point of view, i see the point. but as mentioned by most of the comments above, monks using brass knuckles or something is not really TOO crazy is it?? saying monks dont belong or this and that kind of monk doesnt belong in the game system calls into question why they are there at all.
now within the pathfinder game world, sure. as an optional class or something whatever, but they are presented as a core class to go in ALL settings that use pathfinder rules. Monks choose from; at this point a very VERY limited set of weapons as is. With their less than four pages of description (including the picture) monks are already nearly omitted as a class.
i dunno.
imho the real imbalance threat is getting LARGE monks with gauntlets that are considered unarmed. not whether they take a proficiency to use, or anything else. its that a 4d8 can be then turned into a brilliant or whatever weapon.. (check monk's robe for base damage tastiness).
so saying they are weapons and not suitable for that damage increase or crosssover with the amulet of the fist is one thing. but your take on it as stated above i think is a bit too restrictive as it rules out the flurry, with just a simple +1 or whatever. (which has to be paid for each hand).
so you have -
monk base attack bonus - no gauntletted hands.
flurry - only monk weapons - gauntlet is a monk weapon under proposal.
just add the "monk" and/or "double" specifier to the weapon and at least you have come to a compromise ... ? regardless as written the rules are ambiguous, so yes maybe an errata. or this all becomes a house rule.
imho, it just seems that monks were handled coarsely and as an afterthought. something like - "give em BaB of fighters in the flurry and the base powers of 3.5, a pretty picture of a campaign specific weapon and thats that."
and to compensate for this error in approach to completely reign in all "enabling" interpretations seems to be a good example of a the word nerf.
Rather than rethinking their role within or quite possibly rightfully OMITTING them from the rule system all together if their place cant be mapped along with the other character classes.
Gauntlets not being a "monk weapon" is fishy. I don't understand why covering your hand with a protective surface would fundamentally alter the style you fight in or the prowess you have with your fists. If you're throwing a punch, you're not going to roll your wrist around or do any movements that would be impossible wearing a gauntlet.
There's just a disconnect there between mechanics and the roleplaying. Imagine a villain grafting light-weight mithril gauntlets onto the monk's hands and mithril boots onto his feet-- suddenly, the monk is neutered and can't flurry, even though his movement isn't restricted at all. (Well, he can flurry of headbutts.. or if he's a dwarf, he could swing his beard at people.. but this is besides the point)
the monk is neutered and can't flurry, even though his movement isn't restricted at all.
Elbows. Knees.
Chicken dance to the head.
(Well, he can flurry of headbutts..
Funny thing about that...
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.
This was a longer, more descriptive sentence in 3.5:
A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet.
No headbutts. Hell, no open-palm or blade-palm style either. Not even Muay Thai shin-strikes. In tightening up the word count, that sentence lost the "or even..." which made it clear that these were examples and you could be creative. :(
Anyway: I've settled on allowing gauntlet attacks to count as unarmed strikes for all purposes except Amulet of Mighty Fists (because you are not striking with your own flesh).
(Well, he can flurry of headbutts..Funny thing about that...
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.This was a longer, more descriptive sentence in 3.5:
A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet.No headbutts. Hell, no open-palm or blade-palm style either. Not even Muay Thai shin-strikes. In tightening up the word count, that sentence lost the "or even..." which made it clear that these were examples and you could be creative. :(
Anyway: I've settled on allowing gauntlet attacks to count as unarmed strikes for all purposes except Amulet of Mighty Fists (because you are not striking with your own flesh).
Pick up the Versatile Unarmed Strike feat from 3.5 PHB2. Not only would I say you are increasing your striking options but the feat lets you deal bludgeoning/ slashing/ or piercing damage with your unarmed strikes by taking a swift action once per round to declare what type you are doing.
Can I ask the question why would a monk want to wear and fight with gauntlets when he can do the job well enough without them?
Is it purely because the monk wants to have a magical whatnot fist attack and trying to get around the fact that monks don't get *any* magical fisty weapons bar the Amulet?
Can I ask the question why would a monk want to wear and fight with gauntlets when he can do the job well enough without them?
Is it purely because the monk wants to have a magical whatnot fist attack and trying to get around the fact that monks don't get *any* magical fisty weapons bar the Amulet?
Damage reduction is one good reason. It's very, very difficult for a low-level monk to handle any DR except magic if they want to stay a pure unarmed character (and let's face it, most players who play monks stick to pure unarmed). 1d8+strength vs DR 10/silver isn't going to get you a lot of damage. Now, if you could have silver (or mithril) gauntlets, suddenly the monk, who is supposed to be an offense-oriented character, can finally contribute to the damage dealing.
We actually had an issue with that in our most recent session of Curse of the Crimson Throne. The party was fighting wererats and the monk literally could not hurt them, even with a +3 bard song, unless he crit.
Damage reduction is one good reason. It's very, very difficult for a low-level monk to handle any DR except magic if they want to stay a pure unarmed character (and let's face it, most players who play monks stick to pure unarmed). 1d8+strength vs DR 10/silver isn't going to get you a lot of damage. Now, if you could have silver (or mithril) gauntlets, suddenly the monk, who is supposed to be an offense-oriented character, can finally contribute to the damage dealing.We actually had an issue with that in our most recent session of Curse of the Crimson Throne. The party was fighting wererats and the monk literally could not hurt them, even with a +3 bard song, unless he crit.
I have played a monk and when the PC ever met a DR10/Silver just whipped out his silver Kama and went for it, so his damage wasn't d8 but d6 so what. The same can be said for DR5/Slashing.
DR doesn't come into play ever encounter and when it does, tough! Stand back and let the fighters do their job.
That's the point. Monks are supposed to be able to handle being a front-line damage dealing class. They shouldn't have to "step back and let the REAL men handle this!" as you so rudely suggest.
That's the point. Monks are supposed to be able to handle being a front-line damage dealing class. They shouldn't have to "step back and let the REAL men handle this!" as you so rudely suggest.
No they are not. That is not their role. That is the fighters and barbarians role.
Last session my group were fighting wererats as well without silver weapons. Monk did pathetic damage but he was far from useless. Actually he was much more useful then I anticipated.He tripped everyone, gave the fighter in the group +4 to all attacks and additional attacks as those enemies tried to get up. Fighter killed two of the 3 of those opponents with this AoO. And if they could have got up or stayed up things would have been though for some other members of the party. In the end while the fighter did his standard job the monk did really great and made the encounter easier.
The elf ranger with a bow ended up as the least usefull.
That's the point. Monks are supposed to be able to handle being a front-line damage dealing class. They shouldn't have to "step back and let the REAL men handle this!" as you so rudely suggest.
Fighters and Barbarians are front line damage dealing classes.
Monks are not.As for implying that I was being rude I hope you are joking as I could take offence by that statment.
What exactly ARE monks, then?
They aren't spellcasters.
They aren't healers.
They aren't archers.
They aren't really skill characters ala bards or rogues, although they have decent skills. That doesn't seem to be the "point" of the class.
They definitely aren't tanks.
They aren't party support.
...
That pretty much leaves melee damage. Their class abilities also support this, especially flurry of blows and their bonus feats.
EDIT: I do apologize if you were offended. That wasn't my intent. I probably shouldn't post when I'm as tired as I am, I tend to get a little off my rocker.
So, what, you want monks to walk around with Michael Jackson's glove?
What exactly ARE monks, then?
They aren't spellcasters.
They aren't healers.
They aren't archers.
They aren't really skill characters ala bards or rogues, although they have decent skills. That doesn't seem to be the "point" of the class.
They definitely aren't tanks.
They aren't party support.
...
That pretty much leaves melee damage. Their class abilities also support this, especially flurry of blows and their bonus feats.
EDIT: I do apologize if you were offended. That wasn't my intent. I probably shouldn't post when I'm as tired as I am, I tend to get a little off my rocker.
Scouts, support fighters, tumble through and attack the spellcaster fighter, protection for spellcasters, diplomat just a few roles that my monk has taken. They are a support class.
They support the Rogue when it goes off scouting ahead just incase there is trouble.They spiderclimb (with slippers) or tumbles past the front ranks and takes on the bad guy at the back.
They take a lead role in negotiation being unarmed and unarmored and looking less threatening than Bob the Barbarian using Sense Motive and Diplomacy.
They tumble/move quickly towards the fighter on the ground to pour that potion down his throat.
They trip, stun critters or flank them using their speed and skills to make the fighters job easier and help the rogue with sneak attacks.
They throw things at wizards to perhaps prevent spell casting.
They are not frontline fighters. As you put it "They definitely aren't tanks"
Thats for Fighters and Barbarians.
This thread is about why should monks get (or shouldn't get) gauntlet as a weapon and I asked why should they, was it to get around the no fisty magic whatnot.
This thread isn't about if a monk is a front line fighter. Sorry for the threadjack.
After reading some of the newer posts, and yes, I agree, allowing gauntlets to permit a Monk's unarmed damage would make gauntlets THE weapon of choice for a monk. But, to be honest, DnD/PF are the only RPGs I've ever played where a Monk didn't have some readily available item that upped their damage, just like fighters and barbarians can get enchanted weapon/different alchemical properties.
I have no problem with the concept of a monk wanting some sort of reinforcement on their striking appendages, mostly because this is a fantasy setting. Just as someone pointed out earlier, they are tackling guys in heavy, enchanted full plate, dragons, horrid aberrations, etc, not just other monks in tournaments or street thugs. EVERYBODY else got magic items and weapons that protect them from the excessive danger of a fantasy setting, so why not monks?
Gauntlets don't have to be bulky, restrictive, iron gloves. Just as we've all seen numerous illustrations of form-fitting full plate, why cant a monk get a gauntlet that's little more than mithril covering the knuckles and some reinforcing leather straps? Or hell, even just straps that can be enchanted? I realize there's the old "Amulet of Mighty Fists", but isn't that route just as much of a singularity as the "gauntlets would be THE weapon..." if that is "THE" item?
I started playing in a new game of "The World's Largest Dungeon", and we have a couple new players. One of the new player's chose a monk. After a few sessions, the rest of us are picking up magical weapons, armor, etc. She made the comment "Do I get any cool magic stuff too?" "Nope, but your stats get bigger on their own." To which she replied "Oh...", in a very bummed-out way.
|
|
Or hell, even just straps that can be enchanted? I realize there's the old "Amulet of Mighty Fists", but isn't that route just as much of a singularity as the "gauntlets would be THE weapon..." if that is "THE" item?
[tangent inspired by Jandrem's ideas]
It might be interesting to create a cheaper version of the Amulet of Mighty Fists that is indeed an amulet, kept on a long leather strap, which is wound around the wrist of the user, while he holds the talisman in his fist, when he wants to use it's power. It would only affect a single hand (the one in which it's gripped) and wouldn't work with open-hand or grapple attempts, being strictly an enhancer to punches with that one hand.[/tangent]
Rurouni Kenshin also contained a nice example.
Fists of the Northstar
I love that series. :)
I started playing in a new game of "The World's Largest Dungeon", and we have a couple new players. One of the new player's chose a monk. After a few sessions, the rest of us are picking up magical weapons, armor, etc. She made the comment "Do I get any cool magic stuff too?" "Nope, but your stats get bigger on their own." To which she replied "Oh...", in a very bummed-out way.
I see no reason why the monk cannot get Bracers of Armor +x, rings of protection and Silver Kama +1 for instance. Even a set of 50+1 shurikens would bring a smile to his face, especially since he can fire them as part of the flurry.
After reading some of the newer posts, and yes, I agree, allowing gauntlets to permit a Monk's unarmed damage would make gauntlets THE weapon of choice for a monk. But, to be honest, DnD/PF are the only RPGs I've ever played where a Monk didn't have some readily available item that upped their damage, just like fighters and barbarians can get enchanted weapon/different alchemical properties.
I have no problem with the concept of a monk wanting some sort of reinforcement on their striking appendages, mostly because this is a fantasy setting. Just as someone pointed out earlier, they are tackling guys in heavy, enchanted full plate, dragons, horrid aberrations, etc, not just other monks in tournaments or street thugs. EVERYBODY else got magic items and weapons that protect them from the excessive danger of a fantasy setting, so why not monks?
Gauntlets don't have to be bulky, restrictive, iron gloves. Just as we've all seen numerous illustrations of form-fitting full plate, why cant a monk get a gauntlet that's little more than mithril covering the knuckles and some reinforcing leather straps? Or hell, even just straps that can be enchanted? I realize there's the old "Amulet of Mighty Fists", but isn't that route just as much of a singularity as the "gauntlets would be THE weapon..." if that is "THE" item?
I played a monk PC for three years. He advanced to 14th level before the campaign ended. He had no fancy hand wraps, no silver +5 gauntlets, etc. I didn't use any wierd feats.
I had no issues at all. Infact he was as tough as the party fighter at mid level and was on equal footing at higher level. Just because there ain't no fancypants gauntlets for him to use didn't make him useless.The only "powergamer" thing I did was the greater magic fang/permancy/ring of counter spells (dispel magic) thing. I looked at taking the Improved Natural Attack Feat so he did damage as a large beastie but that was a step to far. Five attacks doing 2d8+6 damage is nothing to be upset about. Combine that damage with Spring Attack and the monks movement you have a really sweet PC.
Don't get hung up about magic items
What exactly ARE monks, then?
They aren't spellcasters.
They aren't healers.
They aren't archers.
They aren't really skill characters ala bards or rogues, although they have decent skills. That doesn't seem to be the "point" of the class.
They definitely aren't tanks.
They aren't party support.
...
That pretty much leaves melee damage. Their class abilities also support this, especially flurry of blows and their bonus feats.
EDIT: I do apologize if you were offended. That wasn't my intent. I probably shouldn't post when I'm as tired as I am, I tend to get a little off my rocker.
I give them 6 skill points per level.....back in 1e there were three choices for your "skill monkey" Thief, Assassin, or Monk. I like to keep that flavor even now so I give them enough skill points to make that work, 6 does the job just fine. That also means I can accept them not being front line fighters, because frankly the class doesn't seem built to be that as is in either 3.5 or pathfinder.
OK, I think I see where I miscommunicated. My apologies.
When I said "front line melee damage dealer", I didn't mean "front line" to mean "standing toe to toe with the dragon, trading attacks". That is, indeed, the fighter/barbarian/paladin's job. By "front line" I meant "not behind the front line". In other words, he's up there mixing it up in melee combat with the enemy, although he's probably avoiding having to tank anything. Basically the same thing as a rogue does -- gets into a flank with the fighter and hammers away against the fighter's anvil.
OK, I think I see where I miscommunicated. My apologies.
When I said "front line melee damage dealer", I didn't mean "front line" to mean "standing toe to toe with the dragon, trading attacks". That is, indeed, the fighter/barbarian/paladin's job. By "front line" I meant "not behind the front line". In other words, he's up there mixing it up in melee combat with the enemy, although he's probably avoiding having to tank anything. Basically the same thing as a rogue does -- gets into a flank with the fighter and hammers away against the fighter's anvil.
The rogue and ranger both fit that discription both are "skill monkeys", thus I think monks should be as well. The fighter/barbarian/paladin get the spot light in melee, they tank and dps the ranger/rogue/monk generally only dps so I guess I feel the monk should get a little something else to make him shine.
((It is possible for the ranger to tank if built for it but I wouldn't trust a monk to tank any more then I would a rogue, both could pull it off with some serious effort in the build and play I suppose but still. I'd trust a cleric tank before them all, though my clerics get heavy armor so go figure.))
I played a monk PC for three years. He advanced to 14th level before the campaign ended. He had no fancy hand wraps, no silver +5 gauntlets, etc. I didn't use any wierd feats.
I had no issues at all. Infact he was as tough as the party fighter at mid level and was on equal footing at higher level. Just because there ain't no fancypants gauntlets for him to use didn't make him useless.
The only "powergamer" thing I did was the greater magic fang/permancy/ring of counter spells (dispel magic) thing. I looked at taking the Improved Natural Attack Feat so he did damage as a large beastie but that was a step to far. Five attacks doing 2d8+6 damage is nothing to be upset about. Combine that damage with Spring Attack and the monks movement you have a really sweet PC.
Don't get hung up about magic items
Well good for you. Have a cookie. I'm not saying Monks are underpowered, I'm just saying that I don't see the need to deny them a viable game option. I didn't even bring up "powergaming".
The gauntlets thing could use a "safety valve", perhaps a monk couldn't flurry with them, but if they chose to deal normal attacks they could do so at full unarmed damage.
Actually when it came up for his writeup, the temple blade was removed as it was NOT a monk weapon it seems, just a ceremonial blade.
The sword the iconic monk is wielding is a temple blade from the Pathfinder Campaign setting book. Also a monk weapon.
Edit: I cannot think off the top of my head of a example of a monk using metal gauntlets though.
Look at the Temple Sword entry in the Pathfinder Campaign setting in the equipment section. Until the new equipment book comes out next year... I'm going by that entry that says it is a Monk Weapon.
All those special abilities aren't enough for that?The rogue and ranger both fit that discription both are "skill monkeys", thus I think monks should be as well. The fighter/barbarian/paladin get the spot light in melee, they tank and dps the ranger/rogue/monk generally only dps so I guess I feel the monk should get a little something else to make him shine.
Do you really think the monk is head and shoulders above the rogue with all his abilities? I don't. Then the question is do 2 more skill points per level really break them? I don't think it does and by adding it I get a little more of the old 1e flavor.
Hell for me adding 2 skill points per level to most classes only adds to everyone's enjoyment. I add it to all classes that are at 2 per level.
I played a monk PC for three years. He advanced to 14th level before the campaign ended. He had no fancy hand wraps, no silver +5 gauntlets, etc. I didn't use any wierd feats.
I had no issues at all. Infact he was as tough as the party fighter at mid level and was on equal footing at higher level. Just because there ain't no fancypants gauntlets for him to use didn't make him useless.
The only "powergamer" thing I did was the greater magic fang/permancy/ring of counter spells (dispel magic) thing. I looked at taking the Improved Natural Attack Feat so he did damage as a large beastie but that was a step to far. Five attacks doing 2d8+6 damage is nothing to be upset about. Combine that damage with Spring Attack and the monks movement you have a really sweet PC.
Don't get hung up about magic itemsWell good for you. Have a cookie. I'm not saying Monks are underpowered, I'm just saying that I don't see the need to deny them a viable game option. I didn't even bring up "powergaming".
The gauntlets thing could use a "safety valve", perhaps a monk couldn't flurry with them, but if they chose to deal normal attacks they could do so at full unarmed damage.
No you didn't bring up powergaming, I did.
I just don't see the issue about having gauntlets as a monk weapon. As you put it using gauntlets as a "safety valve" if people are that hung up on it use a kama which you can enchant and still keep your flurry attacks.And please don't come out with sarcastic comments when people are trying to help or express an opinion.