Something to consider though...
For stronger Monks that wield Sais, you might pick up improved sunder and greater sunder. You get a +2 bonus for sunder attempts with a Sai, and you could use them like can openers and slowly shell that lobster of a fighter of his armor. Added benefit, with greater sunder you get to do damage as well.
Edit: A higher level Monk with the option of Complete Warrior material might pick up Eagle Claw strike and just do this unarmed. (Monk unarmed damage being greater than that of the Sai.)
Try that cheese in any game with a DM with half a lick of sense and you'd get laughed at. Or... they might let you catch that battleaxe or sword blade first. (rolls for damage) ;p
You need to have a "free hand" to be able to hold something. RAW/RAI call it what you will... the intend is that you disarm a foe unarmed, and you wrench the weapon away from them and hold it in your formally empty hands.
No, the rule is that you need to wield an item in your hand to use it. There's no rule that you can only hold things in a free hand because that'd be silly, people hold things in their teeth or in the crook of their arm or under their chin or between their legs or multiple things in one hand all the time. You don't like the mental image of a monk disarming with his teeth? What about allowing swords to pass between his arm and his chest and disarming like that? C'mon, use your imagination.
It's flavorful, it's memorable, and it's hardly overpowered. It doesn't break the game in any way. Why ban something awesome just because it wasn't intentionally possible? And especially why punish a player for doing something clever?
*snip*
Hmmm... naaah... clever is good, but disarming someone with your teeth is a little far out there for me. Trying to disarm a foe with a sword with your teeth is just asking for a Joker Smile *tm. :)
I have no problem with a Monk disarming a foe with elbow, arm, foot, etc... its the "holding the weapon" part afterwards I have issue with. Try catching several pounds of spinning 4-5 foot long razor sharp steel or a spiked morning star in your hands when you are already holding something without suffering a nasty wound. I might be willing to agree that the monk could use a free action to drop what they are holding to catch the weapon... but they need that free hand.
Granted I'd have allot less issue with the disarming of a club, mace, or other such blunt instrument with no sharp points or edges... and would almost readily agree to "holding" or catching such a weapon in the crook of the arm or etc.
Something to consider though...
For stronger Monks that wield Sais, you might pick up improved sunder and greater sunder. You get a +2 bonus for sunder attempts with a Sai, and you could use them like can openers and slowly shell that lobster of a fighter of his armor. Added benefit, with greater sunder you get to do damage as well.
Edit: A higher level Monk with the option of Complete Warrior material might pick up Eagle Claw strike and just do this unarmed. (Monk unarmed damage being greater than that of the Sai.)
Hmm - continuing this thought.
For example... A 12th level Monk does 2d6 damage per attack and has 5-6 attacks.
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
Keeping this in mind a Monk with the Eagle Claw attack feat adding his Wisdom modifier and strength modifier to damage on sunder attempts could smash through objects fairly well.
Is this a viable Monk tactic? You only need to deal half the objects total HP to "break" an object after all.
Broken: Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.
If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
If the item is a suit of armor or a shield, the bonus it grants to AC is halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty on skills.
If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty.
If the item is a wand or staff, it uses up twice as many charges when used.
If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use. Items with the broken condition, regardless of type, are worth 75% of their normal value. If the item is magical, it can only be repaired with a mending or make whole spell cast by a character with a caster level equal to or higher than the item's. Items lose the broken condition if the spell restores the object to half its original hit points or higher. Non-magical items can be repaired in a similar fashion, or through the Craft skill used to create it. Generally speaking, this requires a DC 20 Craft check and 1 hour of work per point of damage to be repaired. Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item's total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined).
I have no problem with a Monk disarming a foe with elbow, arm, foot, etc... its the "holding the weapon" part afterwards I have issue with. Try catching several pounds of spinning 4-5 foot long razor sharp steel or a spiked morning star in your hands when you are already holding something without suffering a nasty wound. I might be willing to agree that the monk could use a free action to drop what they are holding to catch the weapon... but they need that free hand.Try conjuring fire by studying a book.
We just come back to the Fighters Can't Have Nice Things dilemma again. You've got a RAW-possible ability that is unique to the monk that doesn't imbalance the game one whit, and you won't give it to the teleporting guy who can jump over a tree because it isn't realistic.
:/
Its a matter for each DM to decide for their games. What I "allow or do not allow" in my games is a matter between me and my players ultimately. To be completely honest, when things like this come up at the table, I generally rule in the players favor the first time. Call it luck or extreme skill... whatever. But if I have further issue with it I then make a ruling. I also tend to allow what the group says as a whole influence what I decide is "rule". If the other players do not have issue with it, I'll often let it slide in favor of everyone having fun.
I generally like to stick to RAW as it gives a common ground for the group to stand and what they expect, but ultimately I want my games to be fun.
Monks don't get -4 on disarm attempts considering they are "armed" even when unnarmed.
With that in mind and the fact that said monk will probably be hoding nothing, he can disarm the foe and have his weapon in his hand for free, so, disconsidering obvious abuse, he can hold 2 weapons of disarmed oponents and still attack with his elbows, knees, feet and whatever comes to mind. Said foe would have to disarm the monk to get his weapon back, considering the guy is now unnarmed that would be nigh impossible.
The -4 statement for unarmed opponents is clearly stated for those that do not have Unarmed strike.
|
Monks don't get -4 on disarm attempts considering they are "armed" even when unnarmed.
...
The -4 statement for unarmed opponents is clearly stated for those that do not have Unarmed strike.
I believe the -4 he was referencing was the fact that in 3.5 disarming with a light weapon, which unarmed strikes are classified as, incurred a -4 penalty.
I can't find this rule in the PRPG book, so I am assuming it has been removed. Just another little 'gotcha' change.
Gotcha indeed...
I nice little change that makes great sense.
|
Monks don't get -4 on disarm attempts considering they are "armed" even when unnarmed.
...
The -4 statement for unarmed opponents is clearly stated for those that do not have Unarmed strike.
I believe the -4 he was referencing was the fact that in 3.5 disarming with a light weapon, which unarmed strikes are classified as, incurred a -4 penalty.
I can't find this rule in the PRPG book, so I am assuming it has been removed. Just another little 'gotcha' change.
The -4 penalty comes from nonprofiency, which is still carried over from 3.5. The monk doesn't get that because of the Improved Unarmed Strike ability that they possess.
|
|
I can agree it does make it streamlined and gives more weight to the weapons that give bonuses to CM in their descriptions. But it does sacrifice realism a bit. Which is actually a good thing in my view.
The -4 penalty comes from nonprofiency, which is still carried over from 3.5. The monk doesn't get that because of the Improved Unarmed Strike ability that they possess.
I don't have the reference, but I believe all characters are proficient in unarmed strikes now, so that isn't a big deal anymore. IUS just lets you deal lethal damage now.
I can agree it does make it streamlined and gives more weight to the weapons that give bonuses to CM in their descriptions. But it does sacrifice realism a bit. Which is actually a good thing in my view.
I have a friend who has been training in martial arts since he was 10. Now 22 he could most likely take away any weapon I might try and swing at him.
With proper training, you learn the correct striking points/torc/body positioning/what-have-you to be able to make up for any lack of having a weapon. Consider how the body reacts to having a "funny-bone" struck and how hard it is to use that limb afterwards at least temporarily. I think it makes perfect sense to me.
Just out of curiousness... why do you think it sacrifices realism?
Just out of curiousness... why do you think it sacrifices realism?2-handed better than 1-handed better than light.
I see...
As I'm not extensively trained in martial arts myself, I'm afraid I cannot explain the details very well. I think this is not so much an issue though depending on where you are struck to cause a reflexive action from your hand or arm of your lead hand, proper torc could wrench the weapon out of the weak hand. Not sure...
I'm going to have to get my friend to give me a demo at some point. I've got one of the Calimacil squire foam swords that is sized like a bastard sword which should work. Hopefully I won't end up with a dislocated shoulder or something. Wish me luck... heh.
Nor am I, so I can totally accept my view may be off. And it is better for the game that all weapons are equal except for certain ones that are better at some things than others.
Agreed! :)
Monks get a -4 to disarm while unarmed, just like everyone else.
But monks are never unarmed...
i'm just chiming in because i've really enjoyed my monk, Silent. He's lvl 7, and i turned a possibly threatening fight with 3 driders and a handful of mooks into a drow-stomping fest. I tied up 2 of the driders by myself in a mighty grapple-fest while the team turned the rest of the drow into so much paste. The driders looked up to see an angry mob storming them.
Yes, i realize monks have always been grapple-monkeys, but hey, we're touting the awesomeness of the Pathfinder Monk, and it really came through for me there. I mean... tying up two large creatures in one grapple-fight?
Sign me up!