|
I think you are missing the spirit of the rule... It didn't allow you an attack with your other hand probably due to the amount of concentration needed to hit the exact spot you are aiming for... Trying to do it while adding a foot doesn't seem like it follows the way the rules are meant to be played. However, RAW it is probably legal. As always, if you can get your dm to go with it, *shrug*
Using Precise Strike with a siangham doesn't strike me as cheesy at all.
That isn't the cheesy part...
I must be slow, then. What is the advantage to:
* making N-1 unarmed attacks, plus one siangham strike that benefits from Precise Strike
vs.
* making N unarmed attacks
or
* making N siangham strikes that benefit from Precise Strike
?
i think it´s the whole getting precise strike with the saigan during a flurry because he can flurry using a kick (so his off hand is not being used)
I don't get it. Why wouldn't he just use the siangham for all of his attacks in the flurry (if he wanted to)?
|
|
attack using any combination of unarmed
strikes or attacks with a special monk
weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff,
sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if
using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat
I believe this section would imply that he had to make the extra attack with an "off-hand". So he couldn't get the extra attack with his main hand weapon.
Hm. I guess it depends on your interpretation of "[..] as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat [..]" vs. " [..] any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon [..]". Personally, I think "any combination" means that you can use any weapon you have for any attack (but using the TWF penalties for your attacks). But I can see how it could be interpreted as requiring at least two weapons.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Siagham, flurry and precise strike as it's a piercing weapon light weapon
But I can see how it could be interpreted as requiring at least two weapons.
Precise strike requires no off-hand strikes.
Monk's have offhand strikes (because they use TWF for flurry) but it doesn't count for offhand for damage (you get full STR bonus.)But my reading of the RAW is a Monk's Flurry is him using TWF (so using his offhand) and can not Precise Strike. He could opt to not Flurry and gain Precise Strike damage with the Siagham but would deal Siagham damage.
Your best exploit for this is a Scorpion Kama (monk unarmed) and not Flurry.
... I see no problem using it)
How big a truck does someone need to drive through a loophole exploit for it to become a problem? :D
Obviously whoever wrote that rule overlooked the monk. The intent is clearly for the class to be balanced by denying TWF, of which flurry is a form. It's just poorly written. This needs to be corrected in an errata.
... I see no problem using it)How big a truck does someone need to drive through a loophole exploit for it to become a problem? :D
Obviously whoever wrote that rule overlooked the monk. The intent is clearly for the class to be balanced by denying TWF, of which flurry is a form. It's just poorly written. This needs to be corrected in an errata.
I don't think using monk flurry of blows as a duelist is anything new. It used to be the adamantine freezing shocking holy siangham combined with lvl 16 monk H2H damage and improved natural attack.
Honestly a duelist char isn't going to put out more damage than anyone else optimized while using weapon finesse. The new power attack is a bit better in that regard, but I don't see this character outshining other things. Also the duelist levels are going to slow the monk progress towards their extra flurry attacks. 4 duelist levels means 3rd flurry attack at level 19, most chars will never make it.
... I see no problem using it)How big a truck does someone need to drive through a loophole exploit for it to become a problem? :D
Obviously whoever wrote that rule overlooked the monk. The intent is clearly for the class to be balanced by denying TWF, of which flurry is a form. It's just poorly written. This needs to be corrected in an errata.
No it isn't a form of two weapon fighting... it is like said style in penalties and benefits, but it doesn't even state you need two weapons, and most importantly you can do it with a two handed weapon . Which means all the attacks can be done with one weapon, which means it is not two weapon fighting.
It's a hard choice for a monk for several other reasons but this is not one of them.
Parrying could be fun though...
Kyrt-Rider there is that feat in the campaign settings (Hatamatula strike iirc (sp?)) that you could take instead, it allows you to choose what type of damage you are doing each round.
Just to keep it Galorian all the way so to speak.
Sweet. I don't have that book yet, so I didn't know. Heck that feat's better, because your able to swap it freely. If, for example, the target's got massive DR of a damage type other than piercing, you can switch over and punch through it.Kyrt-Rider there is that feat in the campaign settings (Hatamatula strike iirc (sp?)) that you could take instead, it allows you to choose what type of damage you are doing each round.
Just to keep it Galorian all the way so to speak.
It does more but I'll save that nerdgasm for when you get to read it for yourself!
Nope that's from a completely different book.
Per RAW, someone could do precise strikes with armor spikes and a rapier while TWF. It's utterly silly to forbid shortsword and rapier but allow that. A monk 8/rogue 3/duelist 9 would do 7 attacks/round at 17/17/17/12/12/7/2 vs 4 for any other duelist (not using armor spikes) for likely more than twice as much damage.
Face it, the rules for precise strike are poorly written and need errata. It doesn't matter either how long people have abused them.
Well, first off, it's less of a rules exploit and more of a dirty trick to make something not worth alot actually worth something.
Ah, the ends justify the means argument. If you want to say that the duelist is worthless without that exploit then that's a case for it to be changed. In any case the rules need fixing.
Actually, if you read the information on unarmed strike, it's one weapon. Additionally, the monk could do the same with a Kama if he wanted, one weapon used for a rapid flurry of strikes,
I know very well, that's how the exploit works. How does bringing it up help? It doesn't change anything to what we've been saying.
just like the duelist fluff detils.Thanks for reminding me about the last attack, I'd forgotten (still kind of in 3.5 mode when it comes to monks.)
Also, the rules don't allow armor spikes, because those are 'off-hand attacks" they aren't used AS offhand, they ARE offhand. Understand bud?
Ah, right, thank you.
Actually, if you read the information on unarmed strike, it's one weapon. Additionally, the monk could do the same with a Kama if he wanted, one weapon used for a rapid flurry of strikes,I know very well, that's how the exploit works. How does bringing it up help? It doesn't change anything to what we've been saying.
Ah, right, thank you.
just like the duelist fluff detils.Thanks for reminding me about the last attack, I'd forgotten (still kind of in 3.5 mode when it comes to monks.)
Also, the rules don't allow armor spikes, because those are 'off-hand attacks" they aren't used AS offhand, they ARE offhand. Understand bud?
Actually, the rules say "When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield." So it doesn't matter if armor spikes are an offhand attack. All those poorly written rules care about is that there's no weapon in the other hand. Per RAW TWF with armor spikes is OK as long as you have a free hand. Exploit #2 works!
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Except that he's not Two Weapon Fighting. He could make every attack in that flurry with the same weapon in the same hand.
Except that you can't prove that in the rules (there is no RAW asserting your exact interpretation.)
We both can assert different segments of text to "prove" our sides, but neither can prove it like we can prove Longswords deal 1d8 as a Medium weapon.
Actually, if you read the information on unarmed strike, it's one weapon.
Also, the rules don't allow armor spikes, because those are 'off-hand attacks" they aren't used AS offhand, they ARE offhand. Understand bud?
I agree (Unarmed Strike = one weapon and you can't TWF with Unarmed Strikes as both primary and offhand), but WotC doesn't. The official stance (and backed up repeatedly like in Kensai PrC) is that Unarmed Strikes is an infinite number of weapons and you can TWF with Unarmed Strikes so long as you use two different parts.
As for the second, Armor Spikes are only offhand if you make offhand attacks with them. They are primary if you make attacks with them as primary.
Except that you can't prove that in the rules (there is no RAW asserting your exact interpretation.)
It depends which phrase you think takes precedence: "any combination of [..] attacks" or "as if using [..] Two-Weapon Fighting".
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It depends which phrase you think takes precedence: "any combination of [..] attacks" or "as if using [..] Two-Weapon Fighting".
Except that you can't prove that in the rules (there is no RAW asserting your exact interpretation.)
Which illustrates my point, you have multiple RAW meanings of the text and you must chose which one is the interpretation you (the DM) are going to use.
I should mention that I've been planning to build a monk-duelist for one campaign I'm running. And my DM saw this thread and now questions the build (thanks a lot guys ;P).
Unfortunately I didn't see the thread before, otherwise I'd have posted:
I've run the maths on various ratios of monk-build and monk-duelist build. And the monk-duelist gains maybe 10% of damage on a pure monk, and maybe +1 AC (given the exact level and ratio of levels that you're at). But gives up around 2 to 3 in Fort and Will saves.
For balance purposes, there is no real problem with a monk-duelist; he definitely doesn't get weird imba. (Assuming a standard or generous 15 to 20 point buy.)
Somebody mentioned the heightened attack count for a monk-duelist; well a level 6 fighter + level 10 duelist still out-DPRs a monk-duelist without breaking a sweat, in spite of the lower attack count.
Sorry that I don't have numbers handy. But the reason for the (unexpected) result that the monk-duelist isn't efficient is that stats are spread over 5 attributes and the "win" of Int-to-AC is negated by the cost of increasing Int. It's quite expensive. 16000 just to get +2. It's cheaper (even at that level) to just focus on normal AC items.