I have to say, Treantmonk, you've got a first-class temperament. Optimization as "helping people make the best of what's there" is a noble pursuit, I officially award you "the smartest guy in the room" award as far as I'm concerned, since you can prove it without making me hate you. Hoorah!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I officially award you "the smartest guy in the room" award...
Officially? WOOHOO!
YOU HEAR THAT EVERYONE? SMARTEST GUY IN THE ROOM...AND IT'S OFFICIAL!
Wait...does it matter if I'm in the room alone right now?
You're still rating non-options. :| That's noise that distracts from ratings of choices, which actually matter.
Rating non-options isn't irrelevant because the APG will include Alternate Class Features and then they'll become options, it also helps people who are using 3.5 material. It also gives you an idea about when to stop if you want to multiclass.
Humbly,
Yawar
One quick thought on the vital strike -- this is a bit of a stretch eats resources, and is rather situational -- however vital strike and improved vital strike on a large monk (achieved by whatever means you like... there are still several) comes out to a lot of dice, and you could still put a stun on it too. IF you only have a standard action and you want to hurt something it would let you hurt them more than before. 8d8 Vital (36 damage) 12d8 improved vital (54 damage) is a solid single hit, and that's before your normal strength, and possible power attack (adding 6 for a straight monk)... of course this is primarily only at levels 15 and higher (and only with a monk's belt then).
As for rating "non-options", if I am reading a map, I surely want to have dangerous routes and potential hazards marked on that map. I read these guides to supplement my normal RP, not to make optimal characters every time. If I want a sort-of bad choice, it's helpful that the guide tells me what to expect. If the really bad choices aren't in there, I am flying blind.
@ Abraham Spalding: It's a nice thought, but all of those dice won't mean much if you don't hit because of 3/4 attack bonus.
@ Abraham Spalding: It's a nice thought, but all of those dice won't mean much if you don't hit because of 3/4 attack bonus.
QFT
Not counting the large size (another -1 to hit) and he's mentioning using Power attack (more "to hit" penalties)
I would use Stunning Fist on attacks that have the best chance to hit, or you risk wasting them more often.
I would generally agree. However I've never really had issue with hitting on the first attack with 3/4 BAB even while power attacking... it's those secondary attacks that are flubs. Since we aren't taking secondary attacks it's only hitting with that first swing. With the exceptional strength the bonuses to strength from the size increase canceling out the size penalty to hit all you are really gaining from size is damage and AC penalty. IF you can get some way to Giant shape it would be more worthwhile as the sizes increase. Now as a Green or Blue option no, but in the orange range? Sure, it's situational, it has potential, and it will deal significant damage if it hits. Those were your three criteria and it means them. You're going to be using power attack anyways, and you still take the penalties for two weapon fighting... which means you are only actually losing 3 points from your attack roll at most, from not full attacking (full attacking is still the primary choice of course).
A few considerations:
-Ability Focus (Stunning Fist) and Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) are at least worth mentioning.
-Tengus are very nice options, altought being setting dependant and not automatically aviable. Also the fluff is amazing.
- Imp. Disarm can be done with a Msw Disarm Weapon for an extra +3 to the check. Note that that even iterative attacks will receive full base attack bonus to the CMB because of the Combat Maneuver Training, wich gives a nice alternative to attacks extremely unlikely to hit.
Humbly,
Yawar
A few considerations:
-Ability Focus (Stunning Fist) and Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) are at least worth mentioning.
-Tengus are very nice options, altought being setting dependant and not automatically aviable. Also the fluff is amazing.
- Imp. Disarm can be done with a Msw Disarm Weapon for an extra +3 to the check. Note that that even iterative attacks will receive full base attack bonus to the CMB because of the Combat Maneuver Training, wich gives a nice alternative to attacks extremely unlikely to hit.
Humbly,
Yawar
The last option isn't quite correct... you still take the -5 for the secondary attacks, so it won't be full BAB on those.
I was going to push more for the Weapon Focus - Unarmed, but I'm beginning to see that it isn't until mid-to-late levels (when the monk gets Monk Robes and an amulet and starts doing 1d10 or more) that the flurry weapons start to fall off. I would rate WF-unarmed a little higher, but I can see why you don't.
Guisarme 9 gp 1d6 2d4 ×3 — 12 lbs. S reach, trip
Ranseur 10 gp 1d6 2d4 ×3 — 12 lbs. P disarm, reach
I'm pretty sure that you could flurry with a single weapon, both (or either) ends of a quarterstaff, and/or punch, kick, headbutt, knee, etc.
PS Hey Paizo folks. How about a feat that lets a monk to flurry with any of the weapons a base monk is proficient with (except sling). And later allow a flurry with any melee or thrown weapon that monk is proficient with. If you limited the feats to levels 4 and perhaps 8, it would not be over-powered, and would give the monk some options for using more weapons and attack styles. Net flurry of blows...
The reason I think that you need two weapons to use Flurry of Blows (or at least strike with two different fists, etc) is:
When doing so he may make one additional 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
Using the Two weapon fighting feat requires two weapons.
So, although it doesn't say specifically that you have to use two weapons under Flurry - it does say so under Two Weapon Fighting.
For Flurry of Blows to be an exception to the rule (like it is for Str bonus to off hand weapons), it would need to say specifically that you could flurry with one weapon, unlike TWF.
I am fairly sure that a monk can flurry with a single weapon
I'm pretty sure that you could flurry with a single weapon
Are you seeing something I'm not? Or vise versa?
Ability Focus (Stunning Fist) and Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) are at least worth mentioning.
I'm pretty sure I heard that someone official (I think Jason) said that Monks could not benefit from Improved Natural Attack. Otherwise, I would think it would be an obvious choice.
Ability Focus needs consideration. I will consider, then rate it in the guide. Thanks Yawar.
I've avoided Bestiary races in my guides on purpose. I agree the race looks like a good Monk choice (good Rogue choice too actually, with the extra natural attack)
However I've never really had issue with hitting on the first attack with 3/4 BAB even while power attacking... it's those secondary attacks that are flubs.
Certainly primary attacks have a better chance to hit, but less so with the Monk, and especially less so without using Flurry of Blows. It's the painful Amulet of Mighty Fists I blame. You just wont have much in the way of enhancement bonus to hit without the cooperation of the party Wizard/Druid (which of course, you may have, I just don't like to count on it in the guide).
For Vital Strike, the large size 20th level unarmed damage is 4d8, which does benefit nicely from Vital Strike - but that's pretty late in the game. Druids are getting that 4d8 much earlier (Stegosaurus) which is why I recommended Vital Strike for them.
Enlarge Person also becomes a limited solution later on, because stupidly, Monks get SR, which prevents even friendly wand buffs, and when they become level 20, their capstone ability completely prevents buffs that only work on humanoids.
Usually, with Vital Strike, I think it's a good choice for a character class that doesn't have a lot of attacks, but has a big single attack. Monk is kind of the opposite.
I'll think about it some more, maybe at really high level when there is simply no hope of succeeding on a Combat maneuver and using Flurry is simply a non-option...
I'm not sure the rules don't support the use of gauntlets, because if you read the entry for gauntlets themselves it says,
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
"A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."
That sure would seem to indicate that it augments the unarmed strike, and since it is listed above unarmed strike, under the heading of "unarmed attacks", I would say that you are still unarmed.
Revolutionary!
Magic gauntlets for the monk.
I'm not sure the rules don't support the use of gauntlets, because if you read the entry for gauntlets themselves it says,
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
The gauntlets are not listed as a monk weapon. They act as unarmed strikes, but they are still a weapon unto themselves. To go even further if the combat section list what the unarmed weapons are, and gauntlets are not on the list.
The gauntlet is listed a a certain damage. A monk's unarmed damage scales.*
*I don't think its broken to use the gauntlets. It would actually be a good idea, but I am certain if they were acceptable as monk weapons it would have been discovered a long time ago, and the amulet of mighty fist would not exist. Those things are way overpriced
As for the Improved Natural Attack the errata is that it does not work for monks. I house rule differently. Monk already have too many obstacles to overcome as it is.
If I was DM'ing, I would also allow Improved Natural Attack for Monks, but since it's not legal by RAW, I'll leave it out of the guide.
I would also allow Monks to use gauntlets, although I'm less than convinced that it was intended for them to be able to use gauntlets, so I'll leave them out of the guide as well.
If I was however, playing in a campaign where the DM said Gauntlets were OK, I would be sure to get Enchanted Gauntlets as soon as I was able (I might have one cold iron and one silver gauntlet)
Then I would get the Amulet of Mighty Fists (holy) anyways. It would stack after all.
Also remember that if you DO allow monks to flurry with gauntlets, that they don't have to be SHAPED like "gauntlets". Brass knuckles and hardened fighting gloves are more visually appealing for "monks" than full hand gloves of metal.
There are plenty of things that fist fighters strap to their knuckles to improve their damage output. Provided you keep the same mechanics for "gauntlet" then get creative! As far as game balance goes, I see zero problem, here. It probably falls under "house rule" category, but since it brings monk back to being on par with everybody else, I'd say go for it.
Oh, and if this is allowed, I would disallow Treantmonk's stacking idea. Either you're hitting with weapon #1 (gauntlets) OR you're hitting with weapon #2 (bare body), but never both in the same strike.
Oh, and if this is allowed, I would disallow Treantmonk's stacking idea. Either you're hitting with weapon #1 (gauntlets) OR you're hitting with weapon #2 (bare body), but never both in the same strike.
Which is why I brought it up. If you allow it, then you need to consider the consequences ;)
Not that I think it would be unbalanced either. Monks are a tough case. I think they can be effective, but it's easier to accidentally make a non-effective Monk than most other classes I think.
Though the Alchemist could be in a similar boat if it ends up published close to its current incarnation...
If I was DM'ing, I would also allow Improved Natural Attack for Monks, but since it's not legal by RAW, I'll leave it out of the guide.
How not? It's a 'natural weapon'... put it with a stipulation that it has to be run by the the DM first.
"A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."
That sure would seem to indicate that it augments the unarmed strike, and since it is listed above unarmed strike, under the heading of "unarmed attacks", I would say that you are still unarmed.
Revolutionary!
Magic gauntlets for the monk.
Word of God clarified that Guantlets were simple weapons and since they aren't a monk weapon you can't Flurry of Blows with it.
Humbly,
Yawar
Question on something in the guide. You said flurry doesn't stack with two weapon fighting. Would you mind explaining this? When I looked at this idea a few months ago I couldn't see why this wouldn't work.
My idea was a monk with a quarter staff and two weapon fighting. According to my thoughts he would get one attack with either end of the staff and one unarmed attack (kick, headbutt, assbash). They would each be at -4 (-2 from two weapon attacks, and -2 for flurry).
Also, I have a responce to the following...
When doing so he may make one additional 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 would say "any combination of" would indicate you could could flurry with the same weapon. Just my opinion, and how I rule it as a DM
Word of God clarified that Guantlets were simple weapons and since they aren't a monk weapon you can Flurry of Blows with it.
Humbly,
Yawar
Can or Can't?
"A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."
That sure would seem to indicate that it augments the unarmed strike, and since it is listed above unarmed strike, under the heading of "unarmed attacks", I would say that you are still unarmed.
Revolutionary!
Magic gauntlets for the monk.
Word of God clarified that Guantlets were simple weapons and since they aren't a monk weapon you can Flurry of Blows with it.
Humbly,
Yawar
???
Can or Can't?Word of God clarified that Guantlets were simple weapons and since they aren't a monk weapon you can Flurry of Blows with it.
Humbly,
Yawar
Can't, sorry for the typo. It's already fixed.
Question on something in the guide. You said flurry doesn't stack with two weapon fighting. Would you mind explaining this?
Not at all.
Flurry of blows works like Two Weapon Fighting. So it's already getting two-weapon-fighting extra attacks.
3.5 flurry had no such specification, so TWF + Flurry was OK. Not so for Pathfinder.
I would say "any combination of" would indicate you could could flurry with the same weapon. Just my opinion, and how I rule it as a DM
Although I think the next sentence suggests that "any combination" would require some form of combination, rather than a single attack (just as TWF would), I think from a balance perspective, what you would do as a DM works just fine.
Word of God clarified that Guantlets were simple weapons and since they aren't a monk weapon you can't Flurry of Blows with it.
What's "Word of God"?
Divine revelation Yawar??? ;)
How not? It's a 'natural weapon'...
I'm under the impression that James Jacobs claimed that Errata was going to specifically exclude Monk's unarmed attacks from qualifying from Improved Natural Attack.
You don't want it to be a natural weapon; considering "Natural weapons" are specifically excluded from things that work with flurry of blows.
From the PRD:
"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."Right there is my specific argument on the specific instance of improved natural weapon and unarmed strike.
RAW it's perfectly legal. It is an effect (feat) that enhances (actually improves ) a natural weapon, and unarmed strike specifically states that it counts as a natural weapon for such effects.
Hence it's almost the definition of what is legal in pathfinder for the monk to do.
EDITTED due to Treantmonk ninja: IF it does get errata'ed that way then yeah this part will have to go... however I would consider that a pretty sorry event since it's practically the definition of what should be allowed.
I'm told it was a thread specifically on Improved Natural Attack in the rules forum. I admit I did not personally see it. I'll see if I can locate it.
I'm told it was a thread specifically on Improved Natural Attack in the rules forum. I admit I did not personally see it. I'll see if I can locate it.
Well what's stated in a thread and what actually comes out in the Errata are not always the same... consider the old posts for the "finished" iconics and the errors with them. I wouldn't leave something out (personally... admittedly I've not done what you have, so grain of salt as always) until it's got something in the rules that states it should be.
Possibly just some notes on the end as an addendum that mentions these sorts of things and the possible issues behind their use?
Sorry, but I found it.
James Jacobs kills INA for Monks
Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:
"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."
Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.
So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.
Word of God clarified that Guantlets were simple weapons and since they aren't a monk weapon you can't Flurry of Blows with it.What's "Word of God"?
Divine revelation Yawar??? ;)
This. For purpose of this forums it would be Jason in regards of oficial rulings.
You just gave an example of Word of God.
Humbly,
Yawar
smoking gun
Oh yeah... the one place I completely disagreed with him and actually felt he reneged on a promise. I think I had purposefully forgotten he had said that... hopefully he will to and it stays out... (aka until I actually have it in the errata it didn't happen... ;)
This. For purpose of this forums it would be both Jason and James in regards of oficial rulings.
OK - that's much clearer.
Do you have a source by chance?
Oh yeah... the one place I completely disagreed with him and actually felt he reneged on a promise. I think I had purposefully forgotten he had said that... hopefully he will to and it stays out... (aka until I actually have it in the errata it didn't happen... ;)
I'm with you on the ruling. However, denial doesn't work for the guide - though it certainly works in your home game (if your DM practices the denial with you).
I can't say I agree with every ruling that Jason makes, but you work with what you're given.
I can hardly say that looking at an 8th level Monk attacking 5 times in a round un-hasted (with Ki) 3 of those attacks at full BAB, each hit doing pretty decent damage is doing poorly in that regard.
probably not in all truth. I guess it just galls me so much cause it's really the only place I disagreed with what they did... take that back the odd wording on the flurry of blows bothers me but not as much (since over all it is still generally better than the 3.5 flurry of blows).
I think there is no doubt that Pathfinder Monks are in better shape than their poor, poor 3.5 cousins. It was "Flurry of Misses" in those days.
My 3.5 Monk Guide would have been really easy, "NEVER PLAY A MONK...THE END"
Giving full BAB on Flurry and CMB was a big step forward for Monks, and certainly makes them quite playable, and offensively dangerous.
I don't think giving them INA would have hurt anything though. Monks could afford a bit of a boost without unbalancing anything.
Re: Shuriken, is there anything by RAW preventing Flurrying + Rapid Fire?
This. For purpose of this forums it would be both Jason and James in regards of oficial rulings.OK - that's much clearer.
Do you have a source by chance?
Sorry, the discussion about spiked gauntlets started of topic wich complicates it beyond my search fu.
Humbly,
Yawar
For future reference, ShadowChemosh very studiously watches the decisions of the folks from on high (ie, Jason and James usually) and then updates the unofficial Pathfinder FAQ page on d20pfsrd.com. You can find that page here. Also, you'll note that he had that note about monks and INA. In the future it might be easier to check the FAQ first (or not, your choice lol).
I'm wondering if we may not eventually see a feat like Superior Unarmed Strike. I think some of what bothered the developers was using a sort of "backdoor" method of a feat designed for monsters to apply to a class feature of a trained combatant, and that it might be more of a thematic issue.
Then again, maybe when James said that Jason crunched the numbers he does mean that the developers feel this would bump the monk too much. Not entirely sure.
Well, my statement was based only on James' comment about Jason's answer to the question, as posted by Treatmonk above. In other words, I'm not injecting my opinion, just stating that apparently some numbers were crunched in the process of making the clarification.
|
I think this thread and the 90K others prove it; the world wants a good monk :). Maybe one day they'll make a class called the "Martial Artist", which loses a bit of the divine flair of the monk in exchange for not completly sucking at life. And no, I'm not just looking for a few feats for the fighter.
Bards are good now. Pallys are good. Fighters are good past level 2 (never thought I'd see this day). Why did they leave behind the Monk? Well, and the Ranger and Barbarian, but they aren't nearly as beloved as the monk.
For purpose of this forums it would be Jason in regards of oficial rulings.
I remember a reaction from James on monk + gauntlets (boiling down to "not in my game"), but nothing from Jason. Really would be nice if you could track that down.