And the monk doesn't have to buy armor to keep his AC up, so that frees up more income compared to the fighter.
not really true monks use/need bracers of armor.
|
@ Magicdealer: Don't forget that the fighter almost certainly will have double the crit threat range and/or a higher multiplier. Also, flaming, frost and shock can't all be active simultaneously. The bonuses are also almost always situational (holy only against evil, axiomatic only against chaos, fire doesn't work on fire resistant). This part does help the monk's story, though.
...Sean, I wanted to say thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread. I certainly can't speak for anyone else but your comments helped clear up any confusion in my mind....It's true that you, as a game designer, can not say "screw game balance". Plus, we're dealing with a fantasy game and there are plenty of times real-life just doesn't apply.
Thanks!
This is very true. However hostile my post(s) may come off - it's in NO way directed at you personally.
It's the shortcomings I'm finding in general as to what's been laid out for monks. They a LOT of impediments in their way, and it was looking like brass knuckles/cestus *could* help them along ... a tiny bit, but it's just been yanked away. So ... yeah. I am, however, w/you in that cestus is NOT for monks anyway - doesn't fit the archetype, IMO.
The game is already arbitrary enough in terms of the collection of "junk" that's been put in the blender to make it work, so it's hardly the most offensive inclusion.
In all sincerity, though, thanks for even attempting to lend some clarity - even if I vehemently disagree with the decisions and rulings.
|
My house ruling for the Cestus is this:
* Converts unarmed damage to lethal if not already.
* Adds +1 to damage. (so a normal medium human would do 1d3+1 lethal instead of 1d3 non-lethal)
* In enhanceable as a normal weapon (pay for each cestus, like a double weapon).
this does not break the monks damage, but still gives the feel of hitting harder.
As for monks who use weapons being weaker. Bruce Lee + Nun-chucks.
|
|
My house ruling for the Cestus is this:
* Converts unarmed damage to lethal if not already.
* Adds +1 to damage. (so a normal medium human would do 1d3+1 lethal instead of 1d3 non-lethal)
* In enhanceable as a normal weapon (pay for each cestus, like a double weapon).this does not break the monks damage, but still gives the feel of hitting harder.
As for monks who use weapons being weaker. Bruce Lee + Nun-chucks.
Bruce Lee + Nun-chucks + Ping-pong.
Bruce Lee + Nun-chucks + MatchesThen again, bruce lee could throw about 20 punches a second.
@ Magicdealer: Don't forget that the fighter almost certainly will have double the crit threat range and/or a higher multiplier. Also, flaming, frost and shock can't all be active simultaneously. The bonuses are also almost always situational (holy only against evil, axiomatic only against chaos, fire doesn't work on fire resistant). This part does help the monk's story, though.
Not sure where you're getting this from. Could you please cite a rule for it?
Just to hit some of the more ridonculous statements/assessments I've seen so far here:
*barbarians deal more damage than fighters
*I didn't say monk damage scaled to compete with FIGHTERS ... it should scale to compete with the CR's of what it's fighting at those higher levels. Seriously - each class is different, and that's cool. Competing w/fighters for damage is just out and out INSANE! {especially w/the revamps you guys made to the class}
*+1 to unarmed striking damage is *hardly* unbalanced.
*+1 to the threat-range of unarmed striking is likewise *hardly* unbalanced.
*enchanting 2 cesti/gauntlets/brass knuckles or what have you is, again, *hardly* unbalanced.
*IRL, martial artists *do* shatter stone w/their bare hands ... truth!
*Daggers and greatswords are manufactured weapons with clearly different advantages - many of which are left to abstraction by the system (ie: length of the blade = reach of the weapon overall, speed of wielding = edge to the dagger, etc). If I put a roll of quarters in my hand - it WILL increase my punching power - truth.
*monks using cesti are "weak" is just wrong. It's more like desperation in order to keep up with the other PC's and enemies in the game.
*Monks don't need armor to keep AC up .... no. They just need to invest in EVERY POSSIBLE stat to maintain function in a party with anyone else that's NOT a monk. And stat-points are given away like candy in this game, too! Plus, there's a bridge that-a-ways that's for sale. REAL cheap, too! ;-) Joking aside, Bracers are more expensive than Armor. They need both Dex and Wis - if they do have equal investment, *maybe* they get an AC boon ... but then either they can't take a hit (con takes a hit), or they sacrificed striking power (str takes a hit) to get there. Likely - both.
*"monks" and wuxia types from movies are NOT the comparison point. If they were, they would be lit up like x-mas trees as well as any "straight" D&D character. However ... equipment is pointedly de-emphasized in all of those movies, etc. In *this* game, getting a kitted out is expected and REQUIRED now (as wealth by level indicates).
*If you're comparing fighters and damage, don't forget the fighter will have MORE strength because he is far less MAD than the Monk. AND the fighter (if going 2-handed) will completely blow the monk out of the water for damage AND enchantment on his weapon (because the Mighty Fist is so expensive), AND Fighters get Weapon Training - seriously, you guys forget that? It's a +4/+4 to hit and damage over and above what a monk can rock on his best flurry. Plus, the fighter has +2 for the WpnFocus tree, and - on account of a higher str score, will have additional + to hit anyway ... he's going to hit more often, and a LOT harder than a monk will. It's not really a good comparison to make - fighter's kick all kinds of butt now. Best comparison point for a fighter is using identical short swords, or some maybe something more exotic w/a greater threat range ... and he's STILL going to out-strike and out damage the monk ... by a LOT.
ok ... I'm done with my nutty observations so far.
|
|
@ Magicdealer: Don't forget that the fighter almost certainly will have double the crit threat range and/or a higher multiplier. Also, flaming, frost and shock can't all be active simultaneously. The bonuses are also almost always situational (holy only against evil, axiomatic only against chaos, fire doesn't work on fire resistant). This part does help the monk's story, though.Not sure where you're getting this from. Could you please cite a rule for it?
All of those properties have a analogous wording as follows:
Upon command, a ____ weapon is sheathed in ___ that deals an extra 1d6 points of ___ damage on a successful hit. The ___ does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
Now this second line may mean one of two things:
* "There is another command that turns this off, and it stays on until it's spoken."OR
* "Any other command given to the weapon shuts this off."
Most people have gone with the latter because it is more likely (complications such as with the first interpretation are usually called out explicitly) and prevents cheesy fire/ice weapons (it burns AND cools?).
The consequence of that latter interpretation is that a command to the weapon to turn on frost will turn off flaming.
That isn't to say I think it's unbalancing; I do agree that fire/cold shouldn't mix but the other combinations should be fine.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure there was a forum post about this issue somewhere...
EDIT2: Oddly the BURST part (extra Xd10 on criticals) of the burst properties WOULD stack.... They still trigger when the main part is inactive.. odd.
Sure it does.
In martial arts movies, is the master martial artist using something like a cestus to be the ultimate badass? No, he's unarmed, or using a conventional weapon (sword, staff, etc.). In fact, the guy using armor on his arms or hands (like Iron Arm Mi, one of the guys in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon who attacks Jen at the inn) is doing so to make up for a shortcoming in his actual skill.
Those guys are all using different techniques that they have developed, i.e. they have made character development choices. I understand the trope of the master needs no sword, but I don't think that is the only way to view monks. Another way to view that trope is that the level 20 monk does that damage with anything because his understanding of combat kinesthetics transcends the need for conventional weapons. Its not that his hand is equivalent to huge dragon craw, but rather his understanding of physics allows him to maximize his damage. I could totally see a 20th level monk being able to use his improved unarmed damage with catch-all.
Now for sure fighters are weapon masters, but monk weapons, which all do about the same damage, are as much a part of the image of the monk as his unarmed strike. No one else uses them (not usually anyway). The only mechanical difference I can see is that they allow some options, and they can be enchanted for cheap. If monks did monk damage with monk weapons, then the choosing a weapon would be more of a choice of which tactical advantage to push. Hell, if you wanted to keep unarmed damage most advantageous, then what about keeping monk weapons down one die advance? That keeps unarmed damage as the highest but, lets a monk decide they want to be better at disarming/tripping, or what have you.
@StabbittyDoom:
I can see where you're coming from, but I'm pretty sure that either Sean or Jason said that a single command turns the sword on, and it stays on until you decide to turn it off.
Also, don't see the cheese here. A "Sword of Fire and Ice" is pretty much a fantasy staple. In fact, given the prevalence of fire and cold resistance, it's probably the worst possible combination from a CharOp perspective.
|
Yeah, I hear that one a lot. Fire and frost not stacking, that is.
The line in question is: "The effect remains until another command is given."
There are two ways to look at this. Either the effect remains until you give the command again to deactivate it.
or
The effect deactivates any time you use another item that uses a command activation.
With the first interpretation, the fighter can activate whatever abilities the weapons have, stick them in his sheath, and wait for combat.
With the second interpretation, the fighter can activate just one ability, and when he activates another magic item, his flaming weapon winks out.
As an example, whenever the paladin with the holy avenger uses his greater dispel magic from the weapon, his bonus cold damage stops working.
Or if he activated the ability to fly from his celestial armor. Or if he uses his gem of brightness to shed light.
I believe that the entry is specifically referring to the command that activates the original ability, not any other commands that the character is able to use.
Additionally, since picking up flaming frost shock, ect. is suboptimal anyhow, I don't see the problem with it. Spells can apply two different damage types, such as *off the top* meteor shower that does bludgeoning and fire damage.
I have never understood the concept that magic can't make flames and ice function at the same time. It's magic, and by its nature it ignores the laws of physics including thermodynamics.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The way I see it:
Flame and shock and frost and all those types of weapons are safe to leave on all the time. You can turn them off if you want to disguise the fact that they're magic or something like that, but there's no real reason to turn them off otherwise. Just leave them on all the time.
And you can have multiple types on one weapon. It's a bit counter-intuitive and a lot of folks have issues with the flavor of a "hot-cold" weapon, but you can do it. In my opinion, it's better to do this when you're building a specific weapon with a specific flavor, not just to numbercrunch the best bang for the buck.
|
You say that you don't like the flavour of monks using weapons. If that's the case then why have monk weapons at all?
You think that if the Cestus could be used with unarmed damaged as well as enchanted then no-one would have an unarmed monk and it would make monks too powerful. Yet you also say that the Amulet of Mighty Fists is still a viable option.
I agree that fighters should be the ones who are the best with weapons. However monks use very different types of weapons than fighters do. Also the damage progression would be very different. Monks still would not be doing as much damage as a fighter.
It all comes back to why have monk weapons at all if you don't like the flavour and think they should be underpowered.
You know, reading this topic makes me realize that it was really a big mistake on the part of the original designers of the monk class to give them increasing damage. It really would have been better to make the damage consistant, and give them other abilities to make up for it. It is too bad that Paizo has gotten stuck with design flaws from previous versions of D&D.
After all, why should a monk get increased damage with his primary weapon while the other classes don't? Sure, you can say that monks learn to make deadlier and more precise attacks to maximize damage, but why can't a guy who puts the same amount of devotion into mastering the use of a knife do the same? They should have kept things consistant so that things like the cestus problem in pointed out in this topic wouldn't come up. Then maybe there would be no balance issues with letting a monk use a cestus to increase his damage (and maybe lose access to other abilities while he's using it).
|
Creative Director
|
You say that you don't like the flavour of monks using weapons. If that's the case then why have monk weapons at all?
You think that if the Cestus could be used with unarmed damaged as well as enchanted then no-one would have an unarmed monk and it would make monks too powerful. Yet you also say that the Amulet of Mighty Fists is still a viable option.
I agree that fighters should be the ones who are the best with weapons. However monks use very different types of weapons than fighters do. Also the damage progression would be very different. Monks still would not be doing as much damage as a fighter.
It all comes back to why have monk weapons at all if you don't like the flavour and think they should be underpowered.
We have monk weapons because in a lot of kung-fu movies, those guys use exotic weapons. Personally, were the choice up to me, I would indeed have monks not have special monk weapons, but that choice was already made. Limiting those "monk weapons" to weapons that are traditionally used by kung fu type fighters is a pretty good compromise, I guess, since a monk who wields something like a quarterstaff or a sai still feels like he's doing some sort of martial arts.
And a plain old weapon is indeed underpowered for a monk opposed to his unarmed strike. That's the way it is. The way you power up a monk's weapon isn't necessarily by taking monk levels... you do so by taking feats or by upgrading the monk weapon's magic abilities.
Frankly, drastic changes to how monks work was NEVER really part of the plan for the PFRPG. That type of rebuilding and revision should wait until we get around to doing a 2nd edition of Pathfinder... which is probably a decade or so in the future. Perhaps longer.
We have monk weapons because in a lot of kung-fu movies, those guys use exotic weapons. Personally, were the choice up to me, I would indeed have monks not have special monk weapons, but that choice was already made. Limiting those "monk weapons" to weapons that are traditionally used by kung fu type fighters is a pretty good compromise, I guess, since a monk who wields something like a quarterstaff or a sai still feels like he's doing some sort of martial arts.
And a plain old weapon is indeed underpowered for a monk opposed to his unarmed strike. That's the way it is. The way you power up a monk's weapon isn't necessarily by taking monk levels... you do so by taking feats or by upgrading the monk weapon's magic abilities.
Frankly, drastic changes to how monks work was NEVER really part of the plan for the PFRPG. That type of rebuilding and revision should wait until we get around to doing a 2nd edition of Pathfinder... which is probably a decade or so in the future. Perhaps longer.
First, I have to drool over the idea of 2nd edition Pathfinder. *drool*
I've taken martial arts classes at various times in my life, and I can tell you from experience that learning how to use a martial arts (monk) weapon is considered an 'advanced technique', not a crutch like some people are saying. Students start by learning their standard punches/kicks/grapples, and later on learn to use weapons. Martial Arts weapons are actually much more difficult to use on the same level as unarmed attacks because of the finesse that they require, but they are generally more effective once you master them.
Honestly, I think the only reason why any martial artist would use his fists over a weapon is because he either wasn't trained with that weapon, or if he just didn't have access to the weapon. A monk being more effective with his fists rather than his monk weapons while still having training with his monk weapons just blows my mind.
Of course, D&D is not equal to real life, lol. I guess that many D&D monks are really looking for perfection, not martial arts mastery. If you you think that's what D&D monks are really aiming for, it would make more sense for those 'monk weapons' to not even exist so that people wouldn't want to use them.
...actually, all this just gave me an idea for a martial artist / varient monk class where the character would start off with unarmed attacks, and at higher levels gains the option to learn how to use various 'monk' weapons effectively. *plots*
*IRL, martial artists *do* shatter stone w/their bare hands ... truth!
I think you are confusing "I am able to break a brick or thin slab of stone in half if I punch or kick it" (which anyone can do) with "my unarmed strike damage is so awesome that I can literally punch at a stone wall and carve a hole through it as if I were using a mining pick." You're talking about the first thing, I'm talking about the second thing (where as soon as a monk's unarmed strike damage exceeds 8, he can karate-chop his way through a 5 ft. thick stone wall, inch by inch).
Honestly, I think the only reason why any martial artist would use his fists over a weapon is because he either wasn't trained with that weapon, or if he just didn't have access to the weapon. A monk being more effective with his fists rather than his monk weapons while still having training with his monk weapons just blows my mind.
And I think you're mistaking a discussion about "I fiddle with my punches" weapons (like a cestus or rope gauntlets) with a discussion about "I'm an actual weapon" weapons like staffs, sais, and nunchaku.
Ask actual martial artists what they think of "weapons" like the cestus, if they require skill to use compared to fully unarmed combat. Ask if they think a martial artist would be MORE effective in combat wearing such a "weapon." Ask if they think a martial artist would be hindered by such a weapon rather than helped. Find one whose martial art involves grabs and throws as well as punches and kicks, and ask if the cestus would make it easier or harder to perform those maneuvers.
And I think you're mistaking a discussion about "I fiddle with my punches" weapons (like a cestus or rope gauntlets) with a discussion about "I'm an actual weapon" weapons like staffs, sais, and nunchaku.
Ask actual martial artists what they think of "weapons" like the cestus, if they require skill to use compared to fully unarmed combat. Ask if they think a martial artist would be MORE effective in combat wearing such a "weapon." Ask if they think a martial artist would be hindered by such a weapon rather than helped. Find one whose martial art involves grabs and throws as well as punches and kicks, and ask if the cestus would make it easier or harder to perform those maneuvers.
My last reply was focused more on James' talk about monk weapons in general than the 'punch modification' discussion. You're right that something like a cestus is quite different from a staff, and a lot of martial artists wouldn't want to use them. However, I would say that the simple solution in game terms would be that weapons which modify punches such as a cestus would increase unarmed damage by one step while causing the monk to lose the benefit of his 'Manuver Training' class skill. I believe that would accurately reflect what the monk is giving up to benefit from the additional damage a cestus gives. After all, it does do more damage than a normal punch, but it also limits a skilled user who is used to doing grabs and trips.
Edit: At least, that's how I would houserule it. This way, there are definately advantages and disadvantages to using a 'punch modification' weapon such as a cestus, and you wouldn't end up with every monk using one by default.
I find the "we don't want monks wielding weapons" stance particularly mind-boggling since the iconic monk wields a temple sword and a set of brass knuckles.
|
Creative Director
|
I find the "we don't want monks wielding weapons" stance particularly mind-boggling since the iconic monk wields a temple sword and a set of brass knuckles.
You'll also note that our iconic monk is using a weird sword/sickle/something that, for a long time, we actually didn't even have stats for.
This whole thing is, in my opinion, starting to get blown all out of proportion. If you want a monk to up his damage with a cestus or brass knuckles, go for it. It's not something we built into the core rules... there's not even a cestus to TALK about in the core rules. Nor are there brass knuckles. AKA: The monk was painted by an awesome artist who decided to give him brass knuckles not because he wanted monks to be able to do more damage with them, but because he thought it would look cool.
And the monk isn't intended to be an accurate model of a real-world martial artist. He was designed by folks who, I suspect, draw most of their martial arts lore not from actual training but from watching kung-fu movies.
Anyway... there's a lot of reasons we made the decisions we made when designing the monk. I was only trying to give an insight into those decisions. If that's only confusing or annoying anyone more... please just feel free to ignore those posts I made.
I find the "we don't want monks wielding weapons" stance particularly mind-boggling since the iconic monk wields a temple sword and a set of brass knuckles.
That is a surprisingly good point, lol!
I contend that a true master uses an umbrella!
D: Now I totally want to have an old man with an umbrella beat down my players, just for the wtf effect.
Anyway... there's a lot of reasons we made the decisions we made when designing the monk. I was only trying to give an insight into those decisions. If that's only confusing or annoying anyone more... please just feel free to ignore those posts I made.
Sorry if it seems that we're blowing this out of proportion or anything, and we definately appreciate hearing about how you guys come to your decisions. Personally, I'm just discussing this stuff to see if anything interesting comes out of it. The last point that Sean made about the Cestus helped me make a pretty important addition to any house rules that I create involving the thing ;)
I find the "we don't want monks wielding weapons" stance particularly mind-boggling since the iconic monk wields a temple sword and a set of brass knuckles.You'll also note that our iconic monk is using a weird sword/sickle/something that, for a long time, we actually didn't even have stats for.
This whole thing is, in my opinion, starting to get blown all out of proportion. If you want a monk to up his damage with a cestus or brass knuckles, go for it. It's not something we built into the core rules... there's not even a cestus to TALK about in the core rules. Nor are there brass knuckles. AKA: The monk was painted by an awesome artist who decided to give him brass knuckles not because he wanted monks to be able to do more damage with them, but because he thought it would look cool.
And the monk isn't intended to be an accurate model of a real-world martial artist. He was designed by folks who, I suspect, draw most of their martial arts lore not from actual training but from watching kung-fu movies.
Anyway... there's a lot of reasons we made the decisions we made when designing the monk. I was only trying to give an insight into those decisions. If that's only confusing or annoying anyone more... please just feel free to ignore those posts I made.
its cool, man. That insight is always helpful, IMHO, never annoying. If anything I think it helps people appreciate the RAW more, because we get to see a slice of the thought process (even if we ultimately draw different conclusions about what is "best"). I know we must come off as monday morning quarterbacks a lot of the time, which is hope isn't too annoying either.
|
|
... Ask if they think a martial artist would be hindered by such a weapon rather than helped. Find one whose martial art involves grabs and throws as well as punches and kicks, and ask if the cestus would make it easier or harder to perform those maneuvers.
Can we have some feats for throws? I know that we have grapple and trip. but since you brought it up, how would we represent a monk doing a throw? (a very iconic, weapon-less martial arts move if you ask me)
Grapple does not cover it. Sure you can grab them, and then move them. but nothing about them ending up on their back or taking any damage.
Or you can damage them, but then it is more like you are punching/headbutting/etc while both standing.
I guess that you could say trip, but then you are not re-positioning them at all, just dropping them in the same location.
I don't mind a weaponless monk (which is why I change the cestus to be a magic item that allows enhancements rather then a weapon), but I think that we need more feats (say in in a future book) to expand the combat maneuvers.
You can throw people with bull rush.
There are also new combat maneuvers in the APG that let you pull a creature closer or move it to a different adjacent square.
|
|
You can throw people with bull rush.
There are also new combat maneuvers in the APG that let you pull a creature closer or move it to a different adjacent square.
Now if the Combat Manoeuvre that lets you pull an enemy closer was also supported with feats that make the forced movement provoke opportunity attacks then that would be brilliant.
Just a few fun videos of humans breaking stuff ... real life, and truth.
Man breaking a steel pipe w/his fist!
Man kicking lined up bricks - never seen this one before
splitting a coconut w/bare hands
shattering massive blocks of ice
ridiculous long line of brick smashing
Now ... sure - the above isn't breaking through full on solid stone walls - but it's pretty tough.
Speaking of solid stone walls - go pick up a sword or an axe and try the same - do you *really* think it's going to fare any better against a solid stone wall? They're weapons - not picks or digging tools. Sure - they're metal, but they're thin, and will break with enough well-placed shots.
Using game-mechanics doesn't really help that point.
"But wait! I'll use my *magic* weapon! That's the ticket!!!"
You mean *magic* like 'enchanted beyond normal' capacity? Like ... the monk's fists in the first place?
Nah - still don't buy it.
By the way - "thin" is not how I'd describe most of those bricks in the videos above - they're like 2-4" thick at least (the ice much thicker).
Breaking things with our hands/feet is a gimmick. That's why you never see it done with an actual brick wall.
Speaker in Dreams is contrary for the sake of contrariness. Citing what other people said and then using obscure statements or out of place comparisons isn't useful!
What we have:
Unarmed attacks are not only punches!
Obviously this can't be stated enough. Adding a weapon like caestus can easily not be useful at all if you are using kicks, elbowing, headbashing and so on in addition to punching.
If you like, then say that part of the package is the flowing ki-energy that the monk transfers upon his strikes and that Gauntlets prevent this.
I guess we all can then simply accept the fact that a Monk is supposed to be fighting unarmed 99% of the time and maybe use an exotic monk weapon for special reasons (ranged, reach, damage reduction).
Breaking things with our hands/feet is a gimmick. That's why you never see it done with an actual brick wall.
Exactly.
Show me a verifiable video of an actual martial arist punching his way through an actual stone wall (the example I've given three times now) and I'll send you a hand-annotated copy of Adventurer's Armory with your own version of the cestus in it.
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puu6haYQy1c&feature=related
Not exactly punching through a stone wall, but a pretty impressive display of punching endurance which probably comes about as close as we can get to the endurance needed to actually punch through a stone wall. Of course the spacers help quite a bit on that.
Then there's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnepLIzWemY
which is more of a *all at once* element.
I think the missing element here is that a stone wall doesn't have anywhere to go. The force of a bludgeoning hit is dispersed into the ground behind it, whereas breaking bricks give the energy an optimal path to snap the bricks in two.
This was the best I could find in about an hour of searching :/
So, theoretically speaking, I imagine a martial artist could batter his way through a stone wall only if there was nothing *like dirt or more stone* behind that wall.
You can get an idea here of what we might be talking about with a stone wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEnRKpaB6Ew&feature=related
The fellow here is splitting it with tools, and even then you can tell it's taken him some time.
It's a shame I couldn't find any videos of man vs stone wall :P
|
|
I have not read all the way through this thread but just skimmed and saw a mention of monks or martial artists not being able to break through a brick wall...and honestly--I personally think in real life it depends on *what* is behind the brick wall...because I have seen some insane stuff done for martial arts training, and some Shaolin monks can do amazing things!!!
Check this out (pretty cool):
Martial Artist & Flaming Bricks!!!.
And you know, I think the reason why a monk class fits in nicely with Pathfinder (or D&D type games) is because what they do seems like TOTAL fantasy. Some of it seems completely impossible! There is a giant tree in the Shaolin Temple that actually has hundreds of cylinder/tube shaped holes in the trunk of it...From what? From the finger jabs of several monks over the years of practice!!! Woah!
|
|
OMG! I love the Jackie video! He's one of my favorite actors! The thing about Jackie is that he's trained in Kung Fu literally his entire life. Actual Chinese Kung Fu does not have a belt system so he doesn't normally tell people whether he is a black belt or whatever and from what I have noticed he doesn't go around flaunting his stats...but it's fun to see him show off his abilities like in this video! Wow!!! His family placed him into a school for Chinese Opera/Martial Arts when he was tiny...the stories of this school are just insane. I read his biography when it first came out (highly recommended if you like martial arts, or Jackie himself) and I was amazed. He's always been a role model to me because he just can do things that most people cannot. The stunts he's done...omg! He's the closest thing to an IRL superhero.
So, I think when people get into the controversy of Monks being able to "do certain unrealistic things" it actually is kind of realistic (in the real world even) for Jackie Chan (or others like him). But he has trained his entire life...
So, who wants to stat up Jackie Chan as a Monk character? That'd be awesome...and he'd probably be like 12th level lol.
So, who wants to stat up Jackie Chan as a Monk character? That'd be awesome...and he'd probably be like 12th level lol.
Jackie Chan plays real life with an Action Point variant that allows him to cash in Action Points to prevent himself from dieing.
Seriously, he's broken basically every bone in his body at least once and nearly paralyzed and/or killed himself several times. He's insane. And insanely awesome. And a nice guy, from all reports. But crazy.
not for being "contrary" or anything, but *how* exactly did we get on RL as the absolute limit of what's possible for the monk class?
No other classes are limited by "real" life are they? Certainly not Clerics, Wizards, or Sorcerers anyway ... ???
Most of the videos - just for cool stuff to share. Seriously isn't that stuff *mildly* impressive?
:shrugs:
Anyway - point was to show something *reasonably* "real" IRL, and then to extrapolate how the monk would/should/could surpass that as the game is not really limited by RL.
What's a *real* guy punching down a brick wall have to do with any of that? It wasn't even me talking about it ... wtf???
{Confused enough to have lost any *real* care for the developer's ideas on the matter at this point, though. House rule, and move along for me.}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puu6haYQy1c&feature=related
Not exactly punching through a stone wall, but a pretty impressive display of punching endurance which probably comes about as close as we can get to the endurance needed to actually punch through a stone wall. Of course the spacers help quite a bit on that.
Seriously, for the last time, a wall of stone is not a series of carefully stacked 1" thick pieces of brick, cinderblock, or stone. Breaking a think section of a cinderblock is not the same as breaking a solid stone.
not for being "contrary" or anything, but *how* exactly did we get on RL as the absolute limit of what's possible for the monk class?
Perhaps because clerics, wizards, and sorcerers rely on magic, and the monk's unarmed damage is not magical in any way? Unless you think it should stop working in an antimagic field....
Anyway - point was to show something *reasonably* "real" IRL, and then to extrapolate how the monk would/should/could surpass that as the game is not really limited by RL.
If you can't demonstrate to me that a martial artist (or even an incredibly strong boxer or UFC fighter) can damage stone (which a monk with Str 13 can do at level 4 because he's doing 1d8+1 damage and stone's hardness is 8), then why should I accept your arguments that monks should be able to do this? This is 2010, we have 1000 years of civilization, advanced medical technology, steroids, yet we don't have a single video of someone punching a stone wall and breaking a hole in it. Plenty of demonstrations of the gimmick of breaking boards, thin bricks, cinderblocks, and so on... but that's just a gimmick. A 5yo child can break a .5" thick board... I'm not impressed.
Confused enough to have lost any *real* care for the developer's ideas on the matter at this point, though. House rule, and move along for me.}
And if you don't care, I don't care. :)
Yup - I house ruled it like ... 1 page and many posts back *already* man! lol
As to the rest of your specific things - I always thought the monk's hands *were* magic ... is that a PF change or something? I swear it was so in 3.x ... {even more confused now}
I never thought of the possibility of it "not" working in an anti-magic field, HOWEVER, if the first "ki" ability gained is "magic" designation ... isn't that of necessity making it vulnerable to Anti-magic field? {more confusion} I mean, if it's treated as "magic" why should it not be vulnerable like "magic" as well?
On the example ... no - I can't find anything like it. Honestly, given the amount of abstraction and that I was under the impression that monk's attack *are* magic by default ... I see little point in finding one. Unless, somehow - it's NOT *really* magic {which leads to even MORE confusion on this class ... }
Other than that, though - I'm cool if you're cool on the "how's it run" thing. Seriously - disagreement aside, you and your company are truly exceptional.
Edit: just for ha-ha's, here's one for you to consider. A monk w/13 str can inflict 1d8+1 damage by level 4, and *can* damage stone walls by 1 hp, ASSUMING maximum damage (ie: he'd HAVE to peck it to death - only way).
A specialized fighter, by level 4 (I'm going 1/2 orc for the str boon as a fighter) will have a str of 21 likely by that point (doesn't really matter, but point being 1-stat focus in build) will have a +5 to his damage. If we make him a *puncher* for lack of a better term {ie: wpn focus = Unarmed, wpn sp = unarmed, and at level 5 he'll put wpn training in unarmed as well - not there yet, though at 4th} will inflict w/gauntlets or cestus, or whatever 1d4+7 points of damage. His MINIMUM damage will shake the foundations, and his max will put the monk's strike to shame ... Add to this he'll hit more often w/a higher BAB, and str bonus on top of this {+1 over monk by bab, and +4 over monk by str, +1 w/wpn focu, and it gets worse w/wpn training - not that it's *hard* to hit a wall mind you}.
At the top end the Fighter will have grtr specialization (+4 damage), an outrageous strength (go w/30 for a round figure to get a +10), and wpn training boons on top of this (+4/+4). His damage will increase it's damage multiplier as well (x3 for unarmed striking), AND he can enchant the heck out of his gauntlets/cesti with no problems and use his amulet for more armor or something (unlike the monk). Figure on +5 enchantments and we're looking at an easy 1d4+23 base before stuff like "flaming" or any of that. Add keen and he'll be critting more often and being a fighter w/critical feats ... yeah ...
So ... can you find me a video of a gauntleted/cestus'd guy punching some holes in walls? ;-)
Perhaps because clerics, wizards, and sorcerers rely on magic, and the monk's unarmed damage is not magical in any way? Unless you think it should stop working in an antimagic field....
Actually, it is, at 4th level and up. Ki strike, which is automatically applied as long as the monk has at least 1 ki point remaining, is a supernatural ability and thus IS lost in an antimagic field. And without ki strike, monks lose a ton of their punch (pun not intended), because practically everything has DR/magic. Furthermore, spending ki points gives the monk the ability to deal more unarmed damage, but again it's a Su ability and thus suppressed in an AMF.
Further, I'd posit that your entire argument here is inherently flawed. The only class in the entire game without any magical or superhuman abilities is the Fighter. The Monk is chock-full of magical abilities. They can teleport, they can heal themselves of mortal wounds in the blink of an eye, they can walk through walls, they can jump 30 feet straight up from a standing start without any tools ... and they can punch through solid walls.
I'll kill you with my tea cup.I find the "we don't want monks wielding weapons" stance particularly mind-boggling since the iconic monk wields a temple sword and a set of brass knuckles.I contend that a true master uses an umbrella!
Riddik's SO much more than just a monk, though ... ;-)
Guys, a monk's unarmed strike ability is completely nonmagical. Nothing in the Unarmed Strike ability suggests otherwise. A monk's damage dice isn't tied to the ki strike ability, thus a ki pool being supernatural is irrelevant. A monk punching a regular person once per round, whether mnk1 or mnk20, has nothing to do with magic.
Guys, a monk's unarmed strike ability is completely nonmagical. Nothing in the Unarmed Strike ability suggests otherwise. A monk's damage dice isn't tied to the ki strike ability, thus a ki pool being supernatural is irrelevant. A monk punching a regular person once per round, whether mnk1 or mnk20, has nothing to do with magic.
ok! Got ya (I think) this is saying that the Unarmed Strike (feature = Ex) is separate from, but enhanced by Ki Pool (feature = Su), yes?
Seriously, though - until you JUST pointed this out, I've never even thought about it as "not magic" ... lol
Now, how about that man w/gauntlet video ... ?
;-)
The problem still exists that your complaint is that a monk can break stone *in game* and I just showed you a fighter can break more stone *in game* ... can we at least call that somewhat even?
Even if you take away the gauntlets/cesti it's still 1d3+7 damage (1 point more than the monk's). Game mechanics isn't really the best thing to cite in this case.
Just sayin' ...
|
|
Seriously, for the last time, a wall of stone is not a series of carefully stacked 1" thick pieces of brick, cinderblock, or stone. Breaking a think section of a cinderblock is not the same as breaking a solid stone.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puu6haYQy1c&feature=related
Not exactly punching through a stone wall, but a pretty impressive display of punching endurance which probably comes about as close as we can get to the endurance needed to actually punch through a stone wall. Of course the spacers help quite a bit on that.
Yeah, that's kind of the point I was making :P The best I could find with an hour of searching was a guy going through and breaking multiple stacks. Which was meant to exemplify how far it is from breaking through solid stone. Without the give space between each brick, each subsequent layer of brick becomes significantly more difficult as the force is distributed instead of focusing on a particular point.
Smile :D I was agreeing with you
|
level 20 monk sans feats deals 2d10 damage over eight attacks
level 20 fighter sans feats deals 2d6+4 damage over four attacks
for the monk, thats 16d10, or 16-160
for the fighter thats 8d6+16, or 24-64
With power attack *adding -6 to hit, +12 for monk and +18 for fighter
weapon specialization for the fighter
greater weapon specialization for the fighterThe 20 monk with power attack now deals:
2d10 + 12 over eight attacks.The 20 fighter with power attack now deals:
2d6+26for the monk, that's 16d10 + 96, or 120-256
for the fighter thats 8d6 + 104, or 112-152
The fighter with the higher bab has a better chance of hitting with all his attacks. But let's see what happens to this potential max damage with a +5 monk and a +10 fighter.
The monk adds 5 more damage on every hit, and now deals 160-296
The fighter requires a bit more thought. For ease of calculation, lets go with +5, flaming, frost, shock, and holy. thats +5 and 5d6 damage.
The fighter adds 40 base damage and 140 max damage, and deals 152-292 damage. This puts them at a pretty comparable spot. The monk gets more benefit from str bonuses, while the fighter gets less but is more likely to have a higher str.
Allowing the monk to pick up the extra +5 in bonuses would change the damage potential on the monk to 5-30 per hit, or a total 200-536
I can see why the monks bonuses are restricted to +5 instead of +10 :D
Why has everyone ignored this post? Seems like the most important one in the thread.
For what it's worth - if a player wanted his monk to wear a cestus I would let him, and make it have no mechanical effect at all.
If it suits your character concept then I'm fine with that. If you're just looking for a mechanical advantage that isn't in the rules then i'm not (see quoted post)
Because in this thread posts that offer any solutions at all are consequently ignored by a few induhviduhals that really like to find THE giant flaw that breaks Pathfinder as a game in the unarmed attack of the monk not being enhanced by gauntlets.
Well ... for *my* part, I ignored it because I can't figure out how 2d10 damage popped in when monks cap out at 2d8 ...
I also find other bits of it simply *wrong* as the monk is being compared on DPR vs. a 2-handed build and given extra "umpf" for more attacks, but only cursory analysis is put into the to hit % difference (which at THAT level is extreme and will leave the monk constantly playing catch-up).
Basically, for *me* it's not good enough of an explanation. There are major gaps in the analysis, and it seems to be taking a set-up and approach of greatest convenience.
If you're going to go "flurry" then you need to work with a dual-wielding build for a *fair* comparison, IMO.
The 2-hander *will* out raw damage the monk on a single strike, especially w/PA in use, though. Likely w/the Vital feats and such. Add in the critical feats - likely on a fighter build, etc, etc.