Because monks (including the monk1/fighterX, a wushu staple) can make unarmed attacks with any part of their body, a monk can wield a polearm to threaten at a distance while making full-attacks with his feet, at no penalty what-so-ever.
That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no incentive for a monk not to do this. The fact is that most monks fight with both hands empty for no reason- which is silly of them. Even if they aren't proficient with any reach weapons, making AoOs at a -4 penalty is better than not making them.
This issue has been around forever but I have yet to come up with a satisfactory houserule. What are your thoughts?
I honestly don't see that much of a problem with it. Polearm (or staff) wielding monks are very much a staple of the genre. Anyone who has ever watched a Jackie Chan movie has seen a monk with a reach weapon kick/headbutt/punch someone who was inside their reach.
The dis-incentive, IMO, is that there are no flurryable reach weapons (unless you play Eberron and take the feat that makes the longspear a monk weapon), and none that do as much damage as an unarmed strike. Attacking with the reach weapon is only for when you don't want to risk being adjacent to the enemy or for poking the guy as he approaches you.
The dis-incentive, IMO, is that there are no flurryable reach weapons (unless you play Eberron and take the feat that makes the longspear a monk weapon), and none that do as much damage as an unarmed strike. Attacking with the reach weapon is only for when you don't want to risk being adjacent to the enemy or for poking the guy as he approaches you.
He flurries with his feat. He only uses the reach weapon for attacks of opportunity.
I think it's a fine image and that's part of why I'm having trouble coming up with a houserule- I don't want to make building a polearm-monk impossible. But I don't want it to be the obvious best tactic either.
Really, the issue isn't just with reach weapons, it's with the fact that there is no incentive for a monk to keep his hands free. Many players do so anyway because they're thinking in-game- you keep your hands free in case you have to make a punch or palm-strike, giving you a slight edge over fighting with just your feet- but the rules don't bare that out. If you're not doing something with your hands (holding a potion, a sling, a magic item, whatever) then you're wasting a resource.
I should mention the Deflect Arrows feat, which is a much more monk-ish way to use that resource, but that requires a feat investment (which using a reach weapon doesn't) and still only takes one hand.
I should mention the Deflect Arrows feat, which is a much more monk-ish way to use that resource, but that requires a feat investment (which using a reach weapon doesn't) and still only takes one hand.
On the other hand, Deflect Arrows is on the monk bonus feat list, and you can't deflect an arrow AND make an AoO with a reach weapon in the same round (except with whips, I guess).
I know what you're saying -- that reach weapons are mechanically the true best manufactured weapon choice for monks who are primarily unarmed specialists -- but it's such an iconic image and such a limited mechanical benefit that I wouldn't (and havn't -- I've seen this issue before as well) change anything about it.
I can't believe this never occurred to me. Huh.
Although now that I'm picturing a monk wielding reach polearms and only kicking, I can't shake the image of planting the pole and using it to jump-kick someone in the face, which kind of demands a cool feat or something to describe it (like maybe just using lunge to handle the maneuver or adding a circumstance bonus to jumping skill to jump-kick a flying monster or something).
I'm basically thinking of Donatello's special move in Turtles in Time...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something doesn't have to be overpowered to be unbalanced. "Overpowered" things disrupt games; "unbalanced" things just make character choices less interesting. For what it's worth, though, threatening at both 5 feet and 10 feet is better than having the Step Up feat (which, by some accounts, is a must-have in Pathfinder).
But it's not that this is a huge advantage, just that it's an unmitigated one. There are no drawbacks for it. I like that some monks do this, what I hate is that every monk should do this. Monks with longspears shouldn't be the status quo, they should be something cool and different, one school among many.
A Monk also works well for a Zen Archer concept, you never have to draw a weapon or drop the bow as you threaten the 5' just like the polearm build mentioned above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they don't, it's because they're thinking in-game rather than thinking mechanically.
I think that good rules avoid glaring differences between "what makes sense in-world" and "what makes sense on paper". Hence the groping for a houserule. There should be some incentive for keeping your hand free to punch people with.
I'm leaning towards a -1 penalty to attacks if one hand is occupied and -2 if both are (whether holding a weapon, tied behind your back, hanging from the ceiling, whatever). Probably with some kind of 'kicky-happy' feat to negate those penalties.
The other option is to say that just because you're holding it doesn't mean you're armed with it, and that a monk can't flurry while armed with a non-monk weapon. After all, let's be honest, flurrying and also making attacks of opportunity with a weapon that you can't flurry with does sound like a loophole. Problem is that instead of making the spear-monk balanced it kills the concept outright.
I should mention the Deflect Arrows feat, which is a much more monk-ish way to use that resource, but that requires a feat investment (which using a reach weapon doesn't) and still only takes one hand.On the other hand, Deflect Arrows is on the monk bonus feat list, and you can't deflect an arrow AND make an AoO with a reach weapon in the same round (except with whips, I guess).
Nope, not even then, since whips don't threaten any squares, so even wielding a whip you can only make AoOs into adjacent squares.
As far as I'm concerned, it only takes one hand to hold a 2H weapon, so if you're holding a spear, or a glaive, or whatever, and someone shoots an arrow at you, you can let go with one hand, thus meeting the requirements of having one hand free to use your Deflect Arrows feat.
As soon as the arrow is deflected, you put your hand back on your weapon. You're now ready for your next round, and you're also ready to make an AoO if the opportunity presents itsefl.
I see nothing in the RAW that argues against this viewpoint.
I should mention the Deflect Arrows feat, which is a much more monk-ish way to use that resource, but that requires a feat investment (which using a reach weapon doesn't) and still only takes one hand.On the other hand, Deflect Arrows is on the monk bonus feat list, and you can't deflect an arrow AND make an AoO with a reach weapon in the same round (except with whips, I guess).Nope, not even then, since whips don't threaten any squares, so even wielding a whip you can only make AoOs into adjacent squares.
As far as I'm concerned, it only takes one hand to hold a 2H weapon, so if you're holding a spear, or a glaive, or whatever, and someone shoots an arrow at you, you can let go with one hand, thus meeting the requirements of having one hand free to use your Deflect Arrows feat.
As soon as the arrow is deflected, you put your hand back on your weapon. You're now ready for your next round, and you're also ready to make an AoO if the opportunity presents itsefl.
I see nothing in the RAW that argues against this viewpoint.
You can hold a glaive in one hand, but you can't actually use it unless you use two.
Even if you say that someone can shift their grip as a free action (and any greatsword-wielding cleric hinges on this interpretation), you still can't do so when it isn't your turn, meaning that you can't deflect arrows and also make AoOs over the same round.
|
Oh sure. Where were you guys when I was slugging it out in this thread? :)
(You will just have to trust me, this is discussed in there, you may have to sort thorough a whole bunch of other stuff to find it.)
As I stated in that thread I don't believe that striking with your feet is a monk exclusive ability.
"Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following..." (pg. 182)
If you add in the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you are then considered armed and can do lethal damage as well as threaten adjacent squares with AoO and attack armed opponents without provoking AoO.
This would mean that anyone could use the IUS feat and a reach weapon to achieve the same result. The monk merely gets it for free as a class ability. Of course the damage dealt by non monks strikes aren't all that flattering but...
Cheers
|
|
Even if you say that someone can shift their grip as a free action (and any greatsword-wielding cleric hinges on this interpretation), you still can't do so when it isn't your turn, meaning that you can't deflect arrows and also make AoOs over the same round.
Here we go again! :)
How about replacing free action above with "non action" (page 182)?
The normal rules for unarmed strikes do not explicitly say that you can attack with your hands full. The rules for monk attacks do.
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.
None of that text is duplicated for the default unarmed strike rules; presumably, unarmed strikes for them work just like any other attack (the 'punch/kick/headbutt' thing is just flavor text).
Not that I wouldn't let someone make an unarmed strike with their hands tied, mind you, but that's Rule 0 in action, not RAW.
I should mention the Deflect Arrows feat, which is a much more monk-ish way to use that resource, but that requires a feat investment (which using a reach weapon doesn't) and still only takes one hand.On the other hand, Deflect Arrows is on the monk bonus feat list, and you can't deflect an arrow AND make an AoO with a reach weapon in the same round (except with whips, I guess).Nope, not even then, since whips don't threaten any squares, so even wielding a whip you can only make AoOs into adjacent squares.
As far as I'm concerned, it only takes one hand to hold a 2H weapon, so if you're holding a spear, or a glaive, or whatever, and someone shoots an arrow at you, you can let go with one hand, thus meeting the requirements of having one hand free to use your Deflect Arrows feat.
As soon as the arrow is deflected, you put your hand back on your weapon. You're now ready for your next round, and you're also ready to make an AoO if the opportunity presents itsefl.
I see nothing in the RAW that argues against this viewpoint.
You can hold a glaive in one hand, but you can't actually use it unless you use two.
Even if you say that someone can shift their grip as a free action (and any greatsword-wielding cleric hinges on this interpretation), you still can't do so when it isn't your turn, meaning that you can't deflect arrows and also make AoOs over the same round.
Why not?
Clearly, releasing one hand from the weapon is a free action that can be performed on anyone's turn. So I'm sure you're not arguing against that.
Which only leaves putting your hand back on your weapon when you're done deflecting the arrow. So let's look at that.
Imagine a monk with no weapon at all. Picture him in your mind. He's in combat, so he is crouched a little, his feet properly set shoulder-width apart, one foot a half-step ahead of the other. His arms are raised in a ready position, one hand generally in the vicinity of his face, the other in the vicinity of his belly, ready to block or strike as needed. You know, the usual martial-arts stance.
Now some archer fires an arrow at him.
Quick as lightning, he flicks out his left hand and swats that arrow aside - then he leaves his stiffened left arm and hand sticking out there like a stiff old tree branch, daring anyone to chop his unmoving arm off at the elbow. Picture him now, with his left arm sticking out to the side, unmoving, just casually forgotten out there, extended, exactly where he left it after he deflected the arrow.
What? He doesn't do that?
Of course he doesn't. Like any trained combatant, especially a martial artist, as soon as he swats that arrow he immediately resumes his ready stance, retracting his arrow-deflecing arm and and returning his left hand to its defensive position - the same position he was in before he deflected the arrow.
Now that we agree the monk is not stupid enough to leave his arm sticking out in left field, let's shift our focus a bit.
Imagine another monk. This one holds a spear. He is still semi-crouched, his feet in the same position as the first monk, but he has his two hands on his spear, holding it in a ready position.
Now some archer fires an arrow at him.
Quick as lightning he flicks out his left hand and swats that arrow aside - then he leaves his stiffened left arm and hand sticking out there like a stiff old tree branch...
Wait, we already decided he doesn't leave his left arm sticking out to the side.
So, he brings it back to his ready position - exactly like he would do if he had no spear. But he has a spear, so his ready position involves bringing his had back to grip his spear.
We've already asserted that he can bring his hand back to ready. But can he grab his spear, or must he simply leave his empty hand right there along his spear shaft, maybe even lightly touching it, but not grasping it?
Now this is the point you might validly argue. Picking an item up, or drawing a weapon, or other similar actions can only be done on your turn, and grasping his spear shaft is a gamist approximation of drawing a weapon, so a gamist might argue that the RAW intends for our monk to use an action to grasp his spear, which means he has to wait until next round.
Me, I argue more from a simulationist angle. If opening his fingers, an action that requires his fingertips to move about an inch, or less, is a free action that can be performed on anyone's turn, then closing his fingers, an action that requires his fingertips to move about an inch, or less, should be an equally free action. His hand is already there. I see no problem with closing his fingers as a free action.
******************************************
Don't like that argument? Well, by RAW, there is no need for you to like it. You can defend your position that he needs to wait until his turn to close his fingers and the RAW will back you, not me.
So here's a totally gamist argument.
Imagine our monk with no spear. On his turn, he does something, whatever, then his turn ends. Next, an orc runs through his threatened square so he makes an AoO with a kick (or punch, or knee, or head butt, or whatever). Next, a different orc fires an arrow at our monk, so he deflects it since he has an empty hand.
No problem, right? He certainly can do both things, yes?
Now imagine our monk with a spear. On his turn, he does something, whatever, then his turn ends. Next, an orc runs through his threatened range, so he makes an AoO with the spear. Next, a different orc fires an arrow at our monk, so he lets go of his spear with one hand and deflects the arrow.
You wouldn't have a problem with that, would you? If the spearless monk can do it, the the spear-wielding monk can too - the only difference here is the free action to let go of his spear with one hand.
So, if you don't have a problem with those, then consider our monk with a spear. On his turn, he does something, whatever, then his turn ends. Next, an fires an arrow at our monk, so he lets go of his spear with one hand and deflects the arrow. Next a different orc runs through a space 10' away, so our monk makes an AoO with his spear.
That last example is identical to the one before it. In both examples, our monk uses a free hand to deflect an arrow and uses his spear to make an AoO. The only difference is the sequence.
Speaking from a pure gamist example, if it is OK for the monk to make both actions (AoO and deflection) in the same round, then it must be OK for him to do it in either order. Any other ruling is unfair to the monk and unfair to the player who invested in the feat.
Doesn't that seem agreeable?
Even if you say that someone can shift their grip as a free action (and any greatsword-wielding cleric hinges on this interpretation), you still can't do so when it isn't your turn, meaning that you can't deflect arrows and also make AoOs over the same round.Here we go again! :)
How about replacing free action above with "non action" (page 182)?
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
(Emphasis mine)
You could argue that shifting your grip is a non-action made as part of an attack of opportunity, but while you're holding the glaive in one hand you don't threaten to begin with and the attack of opportunity never happens.
This is all conjecture, though, as the action-ness of shifting your grip is never defined. I feel that the intent of the rules is clear, and I think that arguing the letter of the rules when there is no letter is kind of silly.
|
|
The normal rules for unarmed strikes do not explicitly say that you can attack with your hands full. The rules for monk attacks do.
Why do they have to?
None of that text is duplicated for the default unarmed strike rules; presumably, unarmed strikes for them work just like any other attack (the 'punch/kick/headbutt' thing is just flavor text).
Maybe the monk entry is the "flavor" text.
|
|
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.(Emphasis mine)
You could argue that shifting your grip is a non-action made as part of an attack of opportunity, but while you're holding the glaive in one hand you don't threaten to begin with and the attack of opportunity never happens.
This is all conjecture, though, as the action-ness of shifting your grip is never defined. I feel that the intent of the rules is clear, and I think that arguing the letter of the rules when there is no letter is kind of silly.
Just so I am clear on your position. Are you saying that your monk from above with a glaive threatens and can make AoO with both his feet at 5' and the glaive at 10'?
If he has Combat Reflexes can he do both in one round?
Clearly, releasing one hand from the weapon is a free action that can be performed on anyone's turn. So I'm sure you're not arguing against that.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I argued against. Most free actions can only be taken on your turn.
Your "simulationist" arguments are pretty weak (you're ignoring simultaneity in the game world- the monk can't deflect the arrow because he is actively busy wielding the polearm at all times), and your "sequence shouldn't matter" argument is completely hollow (sequence almost always matters. Getting knocked to -30 hitpoints then receiving a heal spell is not the same as doing it the other way around).
However, like I said last post, I feel that the letter of the rules is too nebulous for meaningful debate (the 'free action' premise for this last exchange was pure conjecture), and the spirit of the rules is perfectly clear- if you could jocky items between hands as freely as you're implying then 'hand requirements' would lose all meaning and would not receive so much emphasis in the rules.
None of that text is duplicated for the default unarmed strike rules; presumably, unarmed strikes for them work just like any other attack (the 'punch/kick/headbutt' thing is just flavor text).Maybe the monk entry is the "flavor" text.
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but I'm not interested in explaining why "a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full" is rules text while "punches, kicks, and head butts" is not. I'm pretty sure that if you don't understand the difference it is because you don't want to.
Just so I am clear on your position. Are you saying that your monk from above with a glaive threatens and can make AoO with both his feet at 5' and the glaive at 10'?
If he has Combat Reflexes can he do both in one round?
Yup, I think so. I could always be missing something, but nothing in the rules has been found to say that you can't be armed with both at once. It's a lot like combining polearms with armor spikes (which is something I've already houseruled away, but which was fairly common in 3.5), except that you're probably making your full-attacks with the shorter ranged of the two weapons rather than the longer.
|
|
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but I'm not interested in explaining why "a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full" is rules text while "punches, kicks, and head butts" is not. I'm pretty sure that if you don't understand the difference it is because you don't want to.
I am not being facetious.
My point is, just because the monk entry includes a line that the monk can strike with "his hands full", that does not preclude everyone else from doing it.
It doesn't say monks and only monks can...
If I had never read the monk class description and looked up unarmed attack, it would say that I can make unarmed attacks with kicks, punches etc. Why would I hunt through the rest of the book to find a caveat that says my hands must be empty to kick someone?
It would seem more likely that unarmed strikes work just like their description reads (or the caveat should be included right there in the unarmed attack bit of text).
|
|
Yup, I think so. I could always be missing something, but nothing in the rules has been found to say that you can't be armed with both at once. It's a lot like combining polearms with armor spikes (which is something I've already houseruled away, but which was fairly common in 3.5), except that you're probably making your full-attacks with the shorter ranged of the two weapons rather than the longer.
Yet you would deny this ability to fighters who took the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?
I find this baffling. What scenario (aside from purely role playing reasons) sees anyone taking IUS (other than monks who get it for free) under your interpretation? Grapple specialists? Who would be better served with a dagger in their hand or a spiked gauntlet?
As with most rules interpretations one is always on the look out for how things could be abused. What I fail to understand is wherein lies the abuse of letting anyone make unarmed strikes against opponents using their feet if there hands are full?
Anyone making an unarmed attack does 1d3 damage (if medium sized) plus strength and cannot threaten AoO unless they spend a feat to do so.
Is being able to kick someone for that little damage while your hands are full really an abuse of the rules? If someone can provide me with a way to abuse this I would most interested.
Cheers
PS Another example of an end run around the reach weapon and unarmed strike combo, one is totally within the rules IMO, is to use a glaive as an improvised weapon (equal to a quarterstaff) to strike adjacent creatures. Take Catch Off Guard and Improvised Weapon Mastery and you suffer no penalties and do better damage with your "staff".
Yet you would deny this ability to fighters who took the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?
Oh, of course not. I would extend the 'hands full' clause to anyone with IUS, and whatever rules I come up with to govern polearm monks will apply there as well.
But just because I would do something in my game doesn't mean it's RAW, or vice-versa.
... In the case of this monk, he used a feat to get the ability to proficiently wield a Naganata. ...
... The other path, taking a level of fighter ...
You don't have to be proficient with a naganata to use it. Holding one is still better than not holding one; making AoOs at a -4 penalty is better than not making them at all. If you DO want to take the feat for +4 to those attacks, that's your prerogative.
Like I've said, the problem isn't with any of the specific things you can do with your hands, it's with the lack of incentive for keeping them empty to punch or chop. Free hands are a resource, and doing anything with them is better than not.
Consider the following: Monk player ends every turn with readied free action to loosen grip on two handed weapon if targeted by a missile weapon.
Readying an action is always a standard action, even if the action which you ready is not. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
Iron Heroes changes this (so that you can ready a move action as a move action), and if you actually use that rule it seriously changes the tempo of the game. Readied move actions automatically foil any melee attack, without compromising your own ability to attack/shoot/cast spells in turn.
|
|
Yet you would deny this ability to fighters who took the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?Oh, of course not. I would extend the 'hands full' clause to anyone with IUS, and whatever rules I come up with to govern polearm monks will apply there as well.
But just because I would do something in my game doesn't mean it's RAW, or vice-versa.
This is what I'm getting at. The RAW is unclear when it comes to monks/hands full/unarmed strikes/IUS etc.
I can rule however I want in my group, but it would be nice to clarify the rules for the sake of universalism. And even then people can ignore the official rules if they see fit. That is the beauty of the game.
Cheers