If a druid wildshaped into a form and his hide armor is abosrbed into his body is he then considered not to be wearing armor in his wildshape form for his Monk abilities?
If a druid wildshaped into a form and his hide armor is abosrbed into his body is he then considered not to be wearing armor in his wildshape form for his Monk abilities?
Correct. If the armor does not have the Wild enchantment you loose all benefits and penalties for the armor.
Yep - nice combo there. Don't forget to take the Plant Domain for extra unarmed damage :)
Yep - nice combo there. Don't forget to take the Plant Domain for extra unarmed damage :)
Wild: The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen.
I dont even think wild would interfere...it just says you keep your armor bonus....
|
Yep - nice combo there. Don't forget to take the Plant Domain for extra unarmed damage :)Wild: The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen.
I dont even think wild would interfere...it just says you keep your armor bonus....
Since you aren't wearing the armor, it makes for a pretty decent multiclass combo.
Yep - nice combo there. Don't forget to take the Plant Domain for extra unarmed damage :)
I am a big fan of my animal companion ape---> soon to be Dire Bat :)
So I am thinking Dwarf Druid, drop INT and CHA to 7, pump up the STR and WIS, at 9th level(8Druid/1Monk) go into Giant Squid/octupus form (whichever is huge) for 11 attacks using the Monks Robe and an amulet of mighty fists with either Electric or a bane on it..
You either lose your armor AC and gain AC from your WIS or gain both if you put wild on it.
Yep - nice combo there. Don't forget to take the Plant Domain for extra unarmed damage :)I am a big fan of my animal companion ape---> soon to be Dire Bat :)
So I am thinking Dwarf Druid, drop INT and CHA to 7, pump up the STR and WIS, at 9th level(8Druid/1Monk) go into Giant Squid/octupus form (whichever is huge) for 11 attacks using the Monks Robe and an amulet of mighty fists with either Electric or a bane on it..
You either lose your armor AC and gain AC from your WIS or gain both if you put wild on it.
My next question is there any limit to what natural attacks I can substitute my Unarmed Strike attack for? IE Bite, tail slap, tentacle, Slam?
My next question is there any limit to what natural attacks I can substitute my Unarmed Strike attack for? IE Bite, tail slap, tentacle, Slam?
I'm not sure that you can, frankly. I know that in 3.5 you couldn't use Natural Attacks with your BAB iterative attack progression. Pathfinder has changed that with wording in the Beast Shape spell to allow you to use your BAB and presumably all your iterative attacks. Here's the kicker though:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
I would say that unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons, but not all natural weapons can be considered unarmed strikes.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My next question is there any limit to what natural attacks I can substitute my Unarmed Strike attack for? IE Bite, tail slap, tentacle, Slam?
None? Unarmed Strike/Attack != Natural Attack
Pathfinder has changed that with wording in the Beast Shape spell to allow you to use your BAB and presumably all your iterative attacks.
I would say that unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons, but not all natural weapons can be considered unarmed strikes.
I see no such wording in Beast Shape or Druid to say Natural Attacks get Iterative attacks. I also don't see anything that hints or suggests a change from 3.5 where Natural != Unarmed.
Pathfinder has changed that with wording in the Beast Shape spell to allow you to use your BAB and presumably all your iterative attacks.I see no such wording in Beast Shape or Druid to say Natural Attacks get Iterative attacks. I also don't see anything that hints or suggests a change from 3.5 where Natural != Unarmed.
Apologies, it's in the details of the Polymorph subschool:
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses.
It doesn't say specifically that you gain iterative attacks, but it doesn't say that you don't either. The fact that it's based on your BAB makes me lean towards gaining them.
|
Pathfinder has changed that with wording in the Beast Shape spell to allow you to use your BAB and presumably all your iterative attacks.I see no such wording in Beast Shape or Druid to say Natural Attacks get Iterative attacks. I also don't see anything that hints or suggests a change from 3.5 where Natural != Unarmed.Apologies, it's in the details of the Polymorph subschool:
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses.It doesn't say specifically that you gain iterative attacks, but it doesn't say that you don't either. The fact that it's based on your BAB makes me lean towards gaining them.
Why? No animal gets iterative attacks no matter what the BAB is. I can see nothing that suggests a shapechanged person would either.
My next question is there any limit to what natural attacks I can substitute my Unarmed Strike attack for? IE Bite, tail slap, tentacle, Slam?None? Unarmed Strike/Attack != Natural Attack
Quote from Monk :
**********************************At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
************************
The Combat section states:
************************
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
************************
Therefor in my opinion almost any natural attack which you are hitting your opponent (ie punch, claw, tentacle) is also considered an unarmed strike. I think bite and things like that would be a stretch... Thoughts?
Pathfinder has changed that with wording in the Beast Shape spell to allow you to use your BAB and presumably all your iterative attacks.I see no such wording in Beast Shape or Druid to say Natural Attacks get Iterative attacks. I also don't see anything that hints or suggests a change from 3.5 where Natural != Unarmed.Apologies, it's in the details of the Polymorph subschool:
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses.It doesn't say specifically that you gain iterative attacks, but it doesn't say that you don't either. The fact that it's based on your BAB makes me lean towards gaining them.
What that means is you use your BAB to determine the attack bonus. Anytime you use natural attacks you limited to the number of attacks the creature gives you while in that form. Since PF is based on 3.5 and intended to depower the polymorph school I dont see how it could be read as making it stronger without explicit writing saying so.
Your BAB modified by your strength or dex mod = attack bonus.
Why? No animal gets iterative attacks no matter what the BAB is. I can see nothing that suggests a shapechanged person would either.Pathfinder has changed that with wording in the Beast Shape spell to allow you to use your BAB and presumably all your iterative attacks.I see no such wording in Beast Shape or Druid to say Natural Attacks get Iterative attacks. I also don't see anything that hints or suggests a change from 3.5 where Natural != Unarmed.Apologies, it's in the details of the Polymorph subschool:
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses.It doesn't say specifically that you gain iterative attacks, but it doesn't say that you don't either. The fact that it's based on your BAB makes me lean towards gaining them.
I agree. You just get your attacks that that creature would normally.
Why? No animal gets iterative attacks no matter what the BAB is. I can see nothing that suggests a shapechanged person would either.I agree. You just get your attacks that that creature would normally.
Fair enough, I can certainly see it being interpreted that way. I don't have a Bestiary preview handy to confirm that an animal with a high BAB doesn't get iterative attacks now in Pathfinder (if such an animal is previewed). I don't think allowing additional attacks would be overpowered though.
I still don't think you get any Monk bonuses to natural attacks made while polymorphed though. All the things listed as examples of unarmed attacks are not naturally weapons. Claws and fangs are. You're considered armed when you've got natural weapons that you're proficient with (which you are when you use Beast Shape). Therefore you can't make unarmed strikes with those natural weapons, so no flurry either.
|
|
I am a big fan of my animal companion ape---> soon to be Dire Bat :)
Halfling druid+dire bat animal companion+fire/lightning spells=Death from above!
Then you jump off the bat, wildshape into an elephant, and cruch the poor fool who just happens to be under you when you land, be it an enemey or an annoying ally...
Why? No animal gets iterative attacks no matter what the BAB is. I can see nothing that suggests a shapechanged person would either.I agree. You just get your attacks that that creature would normally.
Fair enough, I can certainly see it being interpreted that way. I don't have a Bestiary preview handy to confirm that an animal with a high BAB doesn't get iterative attacks now in Pathfinder (if such an animal is previewed). I don't think allowing additional attacks would be overpowered though.
I still don't think you get any Monk bonuses to natural attacks made while polymorphed though. All the things listed as examples of unarmed attacks are not naturally weapons. Claws and fangs are. You're considered armed when you've got natural weapons that you're proficient with (which you are when you use Beast Shape). Therefore you can't make unarmed strikes with those natural weapons, so no flurry either.
http://www.pathfindersrd.com/gamemastering---final/combat---final#TOC-Comba t-Statistics
Read the section under natural attacks. States about the interative attacks.
It was agreed that an unarmed strike and a monks unarmed strike is different. The discussion can be found here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/improvedUnarmedAttacKsAndNaturalWeapons
The main difference being that a Monks unarmed strike is a natural attack while normally otherwise it isnt...
Why? No animal gets iterative attacks no matter what the BAB is. I can see nothing that suggests a shapechanged person would either.I agree. You just get your attacks that that creature would normally.Fair enough, I can certainly see it being interpreted that way. I don't have a Bestiary preview handy to confirm that an animal with a high BAB doesn't get iterative attacks now in Pathfinder (if such an animal is previewed). I don't think allowing additional attacks would be overpowered though.
I still don't think you get any Monk bonuses to natural attacks made while polymorphed though. All the things listed as examples of unarmed attacks are not naturally weapons. Claws and fangs are. You're considered armed when you've got natural weapons that you're proficient with (which you are when you use Beast Shape). Therefore you can't make unarmed strikes with those natural weapons, so no flurry either.
http://www.pathfindersrd.com/gamemastering---final/combat---final#TOC-Comba t-Statistics
Read the section under natural attacks. States about the interative attacks.
It was agreed that an unarmed strike and a monks unarmed strike are different. The discussion can be found here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/improvedUnarmedAttacKsAndNaturalWeapons
The main difference being that a Monks unarmed strike is a natural attack while normally otherwise it isnt...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It doesn't say specifically that you gain iterative attacks, but it doesn't say that you don't either. The fact that it's based on your BAB makes me lean towards gaining them.
That pretty clearly means it uses your BAB for the attacks and not the BAB of the monster. In other words, if the monster had a +4 to hit Bite (+2 from STR) and a BAB of +2, without that line you would have an interpretation that you may have to use the monster's +2 BAB instead of your +15 BAB (20th level Druid.)
Therefor in my opinion almost any natural attack which you are hitting your opponent (ie punch, claw, tentacle) is also considered an unarmed strike. I think bite and things like that would be a stretch... Thoughts?
If you have a Bite attack, and you use the Bite to attack as an Unarmed Strike then it is an Unarmed Strike, deals Unarmed Strike damage, and uses iterative attacks. If you use the Bite to attack as a Natural Weapon then it is a Natural Weapon, deals Natural Weapon damage, and does not use iterative attacks.
Nothing in the rules you quote suggests otherwise.
The main difference being that a Monks unarmed strike is a natural attack while normally otherwise it isnt...
Again, what rule in the Monk that makes you believe this?
well that all just made my hurt....
I hope known of my players ever asked me that question
"Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points
of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small
character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk
or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat
can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes,
at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is
considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that
give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply
your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier
to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes
do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8)."
IF, AND ONLY IF YOU ARE A MONK, you may, however, make unarmed strikes while wildshaped or polymorphed, because because you can use any part of your body to make the attacks (i.e. not limited to natural attacks). IF AND ONLY IF YOU ARE A MONK, your unarmed strike can also benefit from spells that enhance natural attacks (i.e. usually unarmed strikes are treated as a light weapon and can only benefit from magic weapon and not magic fang; but a monk's unarmed strike can benefit from magic fang...)
"Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage,
but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with
no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to
deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a
manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the
purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve
either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
The last sentence of both is the key sentences you need to read. Arguments for this all can be found at:
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Archives / Improved Unarmed attacks and Natural weapons
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
IF, AND ONLY IF YOU ARE A MONK, you may, however, make unarmed strikes while wildshaped or polymorphed, because because you can use any part of your body to make the attacks (i.e. not limited to natural attacks). IF AND ONLY IF YOU ARE A MONK, your unarmed strike can also benefit from spells that enhance natural attacks (i.e. usually unarmed strikes are treated as a light weapon and can only benefit from magic weapon and not magic fang; but a monk's unarmed strike can benefit from magic fang...)
I'm still not convinced you can't make unarmed attacks while wild shaped as a non Monk. What is it in Wild Shape that makes you suddenly lose the ability to make Unarmed Attack?
As for your second part, only a Monk can use effects that target manufactured or natural attacks. But that doesn't make his attacks Natural Attacks.
IF, AND ONLY IF YOU ARE A MONK, you may, however, make unarmed strikes while wildshaped or polymorphed, because because you can use any part of your body to make the attacks (i.e. not limited to natural attacks). IF AND ONLY IF YOU ARE A MONK, your unarmed strike can also benefit from spells that enhance natural attacks (i.e. usually unarmed strikes are treated as a light weapon and can only benefit from magic weapon and not magic fang; but a monk's unarmed strike can benefit from magic fang...)I'm still not convinced you can't make unarmed attacks while wild shaped as a non Monk. What is it in Wild Shape that makes you suddenly lose the ability to make Unarmed Attack?
As for your second part, only a Monk can use effects that target manufactured or natural attacks. But that doesn't make his attacks Natural Attacks.
Lostspike states that you can use any part of your body as an unarmed strike. Where is that stated in the Pathfinder rules?
Why would a non-monk ever want to use an unarmed strike in place of a natural attack that you're already proficient in, likely does more (lethal) damage, and doesn't provoke an AoO?
IF, AND ONLY IF YOU ARE A MONK, you may, however, make unarmed strikes while wildshaped or polymorphed, because because you can use any part of your body to make the attacks (i.e. not limited to natural attacks). IF AND ONLY IF YOU ARE A MONK, your unarmed strike can also benefit from spells that enhance natural attacks (i.e. usually unarmed strikes are treated as a light weapon and can only benefit from magic weapon and not magic fang; but a monk's unarmed strike can benefit from magic fang...)I'm still not convinced you can't make unarmed attacks while wild shaped as a non Monk. What is it in Wild Shape that makes you suddenly lose the ability to make Unarmed Attack?
As for your second part, only a Monk can use effects that target manufactured or natural attacks. But that doesn't make his attacks Natural Attacks.
Lostspike states that you can use any part of your body as an unarmed strike. Where is that stated in the Pathfinder rules?
Why would a non-monk ever want to use an unarmed strike in place of a natural attack that you're already proficient in, likely does more (lethal) damage, and doesn't provoke an AoO?
I am getting this from what it states under a Monks Unarmed strike ability in the Monk class.
I just thought that since all creatures with natural attacks now have the # of attacks they have no matter what their BAB is.
I guess lets take a creature and see if we can come to an agreement by using an example. Lets go with an Ettercap. Lets give it one level monk. So now we have 3 possibilities which only two of them should be correct for its attacks.
The Ettercap has a BAB of +3 and normally attacks of(noting that these will change in the bestiary):
A. 2 Claws (1d3+1) and bite (1d8+2 plus poison)
If it substitutes its unarmed strike for these attacks the arguement then is should it get:
B. 2/3 Unarmed strikes at (1d6+2) based off its Natural attacks (mattering what we do with the bite).
OR
C. 1 Unarmed strikes at (1d6+2) based off its BAB.
*************
So which is right and why?
I am getting this from what it states under a Monks Unarmed strike ability in the Monk class.
Which says that unarmed strikes can be done with fists, elbows, knees and feet. Nothing in there about any part of the body, not in Pathfinder.
I just thought that since all creatures with natural attacks now have the # of attacks they have no matter what their BAB is.
Ah, I think I see where the disconnect here is. All creatures can make natural attacks yes, because unarmed strikes are natural attacks. Not all creatures have Natural Weapons (Claws, fangs, etc).
I guess lets take a creature and see if we can come to an agreement by using an example. Lets go with an Ettercap. Lets give it one level monk. So now we have 3 possibilities which only two of them should be correct for its attacks.
The Ettercap has a BAB of +3 and normally attacks of(noting that these will change in the bestiary):
A. 2 Claws (1d3+1) and bite (1d8+2 plus poison)
If it substitutes its unarmed strike for these attacks the arguement then is should it get:
B. 2/3 Unarmed strikes at (1d6+2) based off its Natural attacks (mattering what we do with the bite).
OR
C. 1 Unarmed strikes at (1d6+2) based off its BAB.
*************
So which is right and why?
Well, (A) obviously works whether the Ettercap is a monk or not. That's just normal for an Ettercap.
(B) doesn't work. The ettercap gets two attacks with it's Claws, which are Natural Weapons, not Unarmed Strikes. Natural Weapons are also not Monk weapons, so no flurry either.
(C) works. This would be an attack with a closed fist, elbow, knee or foot, and you could flurry this as well.
Note however that you might be able to throw in a bite attack with (C), at a -5, as a secondary natural attack (much like the Animal Fury barbarian rage power). I'm pretty sure you could do this in 3.5 if the Ettercap was wielding a longsword for instance. Pretty sure that an unarmed strike would work the same. You could NOT include the bite as a part of Flurry of Blows however, as it specifically forbids the use of natural weapons.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ettercap. Lets give it one level monk.
A. 2 Claws (1d3+1) and bite (1d8+2 plus poison)
B. 2/3 Unarmed strikes at (1d6+2) based off its Natural attacks (mattering what we do with the bite).
C. 1 Unarmed strikes at (1d6+2) based off its BAB.
He can do A or C.
He can also do D:
Unarmed Strikes (iterative) plus any of his natural weapons as secondary attacks (-5 to hit) if they don't use a limb used by the Unarmed Strike.
So 1 Unarmed Strike at +3+STR for 1d6+STR, 2 Claws (-5+3+STR) for 1d3+HalfSTR, 1 Bite (-5+3+STR) for 1d8+HalfSTR+Poison
because unarmed strikes are natural attacks.
Again, there is no rule saying Unarmed Strikes are Natural Attacks.
He can also do D:
Unarmed Strikes (iterative) plus any of his natural weapons as secondary attacks (-5 to hit) if they don't use a limb used by the Unarmed Strike.
So 1 Unarmed Strike at +3+STR for 1d6+STR, 2 Claws (-5+3+STR) for 1d3+HalfSTR, 1 Bite (-5+3+STR) for 1d8+HalfSTR+Poison
Really? I thought you could only get in one extra attack from the natural weapons if you were using non-natural attacks as well. So if we went up to a +6 BAB he could do:
Unarmed +6+STR, Unarmed +1+STR, 2 Claws +1+STR, Bite +1+STR
Assuming the two Unarmed attacks are with his knees or feet.
because unarmed strikes are natural attacks.Again, there is no rule saying Unarmed Strikes are Natural Attacks.
Yeah, I'm not sure where I was going with that. Made sense at the time.
Back to the main idea here though, we were originally talking about a Druid / Monk using Beast Shape. I can see these kinds of combinations being pulled off with, say, a monkey or ape form. But what kind of unarmed attacks is a wolf going to be able to do? Or a snake for that matter.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Really? I thought you could only get in one extra attack from the natural weapons if you were using non-natural attacks as well.
But what kind of unarmed attacks is a wolf going to be able to do? Or a snake for that matter.
PRPG p182: "all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks"
All is all.
As for Wolf, unless your DM has an interpretation of RAW that isn't exactly RAI you would be able to head butt, paw, etc for Unarmed Strikes.
So long as he doesn't use his head, he can gain his Bite as a secondary (unless your DM interprets "limb" to be foot/arm only. I consider the head a "limb" despite violating english definitions.)
So with all said and done, do you think it is still worth it for Strength druid to take one level of monk...if just for the AC bonus from his wisdom?
So with all said and done, do you think it is still worth it for Strength druid to take one level of monk...if just for the AC bonus from his wisdom?
Not really; I'd rather just use Wild armor (at least at high levels). It's not a terrible idea, though; Improved Grapple could be handy to have.
Then again you could just simply take the feat.So with all said and done, do you think it is still worth it for Strength druid to take one level of monk...if just for the AC bonus from his wisdom?Not really; I'd rather just use Wild armor (at least at high levels). It's not a terrible idea, though; Improved Grapple could be handy to have.
OR the armor and the Monk A/C bonus as they stack.
OR the armor and the Monk A/C bonus as they stack.
I don't think they do, but if your DM allows it, go for it!
Doesn't this preclude the unarmed natural attack idea?;
"A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks."
Hap
For Flurry that is correct. But we were not discussing flurry, just doing unarmed strikes.
As for the armor issue the armor is absorbed and you are no longer wearing it. Wild just lets you keep the bonus of the armor.
|
|
As for the armor issue the armor is absorbed and you are no longer wearing it. Wild just lets you keep the bonus of the armor.
Dangerous thought that one. It leads to 'But I'm not holding the +2 animated shield!'
EDIT: I knew I was forgetting something! the description of Animated states that you still take all the penalties of shield use, which means no monk AC bonus.
Well if a druid tried to turn into a octopus I would rule that it is all find and dandy under water but outside of water unless he has a Freedom of movement cast on him I would apply the underwater fighting negatives to his attacks and movement. After all a octopus outside of water is a more hostile environment to them, then us going into water.
|
|
My general rule is that monk combat bonuses are derived mainly from mastery of a martial arts form and are not replicated by natural animal attacks. So in wildshape the druid has nothing but the animal attacks and his sum BAB.
I agree that the natural attacks of a polymorphed monk normally do not get to be used as monk attacks, and that even the other possibilities of a non-humanoid body should not get the monk attacks without at least a feat slot for training and even then only one form or group of similar forms should be allowed. The problem I run into is that when a monk polymorphs into a humanoid shape they are in a viable body to use monk unarmed strikes, and remember size matters. So if I enlarge a monk into a huge giant and look at his attacks, an extra 2 size classes and the extra strength makes the damage ridiculous anyways. I would disagree however that a monk would get secondary attacks while flurrying now, the flurry is now based on 2 weapon fighting and as such without extra feats to compensate I usually treat it not as one weapon but as a monk using all of the mentioned parts in a whirlwind of death kind of maneuver, thus the creature would not be able to use its secondary attacks during flurry. But still a monk with imp. natural attack, superior unarmed strike and an extra 2-3 size classes throws out an awful lot of d6's per hit.
Well if a druid tried to turn into a octopus I would rule that it is all find and dandy under water but outside of water unless he has a Freedom of movement cast on him I would apply the underwater fighting negatives to his attacks and movement. After all a octopus outside of water is a more hostile environment to them, then us going into water.
No go there, octopus has a land speed. Now if your player turned into a dire-shark on land, there could be an issue. However if the octopus is out of the water for a certain amount of time based on con, it is subject to drowning rules.
My general rule is that monk combat bonuses are derived mainly from mastery of a martial arts form and are not replicated by natural animal attacks. So in wildshape the druid has nothing but the animal attacks and his sum BAB.I agree that the natural attacks of a polymorphed monk normally do not get to be used as monk attacks, and that even the other possibilities of a non-humanoid body should not get the monk attacks without at least a feat slot for training and even then only one form or group of similar forms should be allowed. The problem I run into is that when a monk polymorphs into a humanoid shape they are in a viable body to use monk unarmed strikes, and remember size matters. So if I enlarge a monk into a huge giant and look at his attacks, an extra 2 size classes and the extra strength makes the damage ridiculous anyways. I would disagree however that a monk would get secondary attacks while flurrying now, the flurry is now based on 2 weapon fighting and as such without extra feats to compensate I usually treat it not as one weapon but as a monk using all of the mentioned parts in a whirlwind of death kind of maneuver, thus the creature would not be able to use its secondary attacks during flurry. But still a monk with imp. natural attack, superior unarmed strike and an extra 2-3 size classes throws out an awful lot of d6's per hit.
Monk unarmed damage is a class ability, which you keep on polymorph/wildshape/whatever and it would increase with size. However, if you use flurry of blows you can't use any natural weapons with it, so they're still limited to the number of attacks flurry of blows allows. If your monk plays that way and it turns out it's a problem, just throw a couple dragons with monk levels back at him, but remember he has to delay/give up abilities to be a monk that can wildshape so unless it's super disruptive let him have fun :) unless he's gestalt in which case enemies should pull no punches.
No go there, octopus has a land speed. Now if your player turned into a dire-shark on land, there could be an issue. However if the octopus is out of the water for a certain amount of time based on con, it is subject to drowning rules.Well if a druid tried to turn into a octopus I would rule that it is all find and dandy under water but outside of water unless he has a Freedom of movement cast on him I would apply the underwater fighting negatives to his attacks and movement. After all a octopus outside of water is a more hostile environment to them, then us going into water.
How do you know this? What is your source?
My 2 cents.
I'm a monk. I Spend my life since near infancy at the Mai-dup temple learning badger style kung fu. My body becomes a living weapon. a thing of perfection and a weapon of precision and form.
In my mind, I can't imagine my precise and well studied martial art form is as efficient or deadly when I lack the form I trained in to use them. The forward badger stance? Impossible as a dire shark. Crouching Badger? Worthless as a parakeet. Infinite sadness claw strike attack? A bit hard to pull off in the shape of an otter.
I Don't see it as an area of crossover, purely from a thematic and style perspective. the Rules and mechanics perspectives are all yours.
Batts
As a DM, I would in general follow with Iczer's thoughts on the matter - the Monk has trained to be a deadly weapon in his humanoid form, not in the form of a giant rat or bear or whatever.
To me the best ruling would be that in a form where it would make sense (another humanoid, a bipedal creature, etc) it's one thing, but getting a tiger's claws to be treated the same way you treat monk fists? No dice.
But like most things, I'd be looking at how my player rationalized it to me within the confines of the game, rather than just looking at the rules - it's one thing for him to say "This is really neat to me and I want to do it, so in my mind it happens as X" than "This is going to give me a mechanical advantage and the rules don't say I can't!".
In my mind, I can't imagine my precise and well studied martial art form is as efficient or deadly when I lack the form I trained in to use them. The forward badger stance? Impossible as a dire shark. Crouching Badger? Worthless as a parakeet. Infinite sadness claw strike attack? A bit hard to pull off in the shape of an otter.You can't imagine that someone who has spent a lifetime adapting the hunting movements of the panther to a humanoid form cannot adapt to a new form? Really?
You're looking for reasons to limit this. Since multiclassing out of druid is still a mechanically weak decision even given 3.PF Wild Shape, you're not going to end up with a game-breaking character, so why come up with 2e style reasons it doesn't work? Roll with it and accept the conceptual awesome of a panther-style martial artist who turns into a panther.
I'm not looking for rerasons to limit it. I was expressing an opinion on style, and was letting the eggheads figure the Math out.
And yes. I find it hard to imagine the monk-as-panther performing a fore knuckle strike or axe kick in the shape of a panther, lacking heels and, well, fore knuckles after all.
but I take your meaning. I'm just wondering if the panther style martial artist still wants his bonuses when he a panda, a rooster and a duck as well.
Batts
No go there, octopus has a land speed. Now if your player turned into a dire-shark on land, there could be an issue. However if the octopus is out of the water for a certain amount of time based on con, it is subject to drowning rules.Well if a druid tried to turn into a octopus I would rule that it is all find and dandy under water but outside of water unless he has a Freedom of movement cast on him I would apply the underwater fighting negatives to his attacks and movement. After all a octopus outside of water is a more hostile environment to them, then us going into water.
How do you know this? What is your source?
???? monster manual 1?
OctopusSize/Type: Small Animal (Aquatic)
Hit Dice: 2d8 (9 hp)
Initiative: +3
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares), swim 30 ft.