Let us assume for the moment that you CAN enchant as you suggest in a method identical to a weapon. Here is the problem with that. A double weapon has to be enchanted twice. Once for each end.
A monk attacks with all parts of his body; hands, feet, elbows, knees, head... So if you want to enchant "the body" you are really going to have to enchant at a minimum four parts of the weapon" and some could argue for a higher number. That is why the amulet is so expensive... and if you look at what is covers it is already cheaper then it appears to be.
The closest option in the core rules is Greater Magic Fang combined with Permanency. Assuming you have cooperative spellcaster friends, the cost is 7500 gp. The drawbacks are that it can potentially be dispelled and the bonus is based on the caster level of the fang spell.
EDIT: Of course, this only affects one attack, but that is still fine with the way flurry is written.
When I read this text, I read it as a Monk can enchant his unarmed strikes just like a fighter can a sword . . .
"A 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."
Why else would they have that paragraph? "For spells like Magic Weapon" you say . . . If a mage can cast Magic Weapon on a Monk for his unarmed strikes to get a +1 magical enhancement bonus, why wouldn't a +1 enchantment bonus work? The enchantment is basically a permanent version of that spell. Furthermore, it even says in the spell Magic Weapon; "A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon"
That's two places they say a Monk's unarmed strike is a weapon, so by definition, he should be able to add enchantments to it.
A Monk doesn't even get a 1 to 1 ratio for their BAB (rogue BAB) so it wouldn't make any sense for a Monk to not be able to get enchantments when fighting with his primary weapon.
If that's not the case, it would be a no-brainer to take that same character and make him a fighter instead. You get a higher BAB progression, weapon training, weapon specialization, a feat every level, more Hit Points, and you can wear armor. If you are worried about losing the multiple attacks from flurry of blows, just use two weapons. You'd have a much better character.
-
A monk's body cannot be enchanted like a weapon. His mind can be enchanted like that of any other humanoid, though.
By Raw
It is not allowed, see above
.............................
By Homebrew
I see no problem with doing it. Just so long, as your enchanting specific parts of the bady (say an arm as a weapon, main torso for armor, foot for speed).
That way if your monk has a +2 Right hand of Flameshock, and a +1 left hand of Frost. You can attemp to sunnder (break that hand), or cut that hand off (remove the weapon), from the monk.
Only thing i would sujest tho, is that the Total Magical Creation cost be Doubled since you are not takeing up any body slot for the said enchantment.
Example = +2 Enchantment bonus to Sword = 8,000 gold. If you enchant the monks right hand with a +2 Enchantment bonus it would cost double for 16,000 gold.
Also = Some extra thing can destroy the Enchantment. Like being Reincarnated, True Ressursation, Being a Cloned, Regeneration after the body part has been forcable removed, which are in addition to any normal means to destory a magic item, like Mage's Disjunction, and the like.
I've never played a Monk before so why I'm after a clarification. I have both a monk and a fighter but I can't choose which one. I like having things clear before a person starts to avoid b!*#&ing later on . . . nothing worse than getting 5 levels into a character to find out you can't do something you thought you could.
The enhancement bonus lost due to being unarmed hurts mostly due to the lost to-hit bonus. To-hit bonuses really make difference for monks, as the more of their attacks that hit (and their are a lot of them), the more quickly their damage scales up.
IMHO monks are not meant to be enchanted like magic weapons. Their unarmed damage bonuses are a trade off. More damage, less chance to hit with it compared to magic weapons (assuming you didn't shell out for the amulet). That said a permanent greater magic fang only sucks if someone dispels it. Also there might be ways to protect the enchantment, with other spells or the GM might allow you to dump more gold into to make it less vulnerable.
wanna know why the monk is the weakest class ever?
here is my opinion
because the class is completely unneccessary.
yes, i'm likely the biggest Otaku on these boards, and i think the monk is unneccessary.
here is my fix
take the key abilities of the monk and turn them into unarmed combat feats.
the problem with designing decent unarmed combat feats is the existence of the monk itself as a class.
other things i beleive
a lot of the weapons are redundant
here is my opinion bastard sword/katana/falcata/khopesh = longsword
wakazashi/rapier/scimitar/cutlass = shortsword
kama = sickle
falchion/curve blade/claymore/zanbatou = greatsword
kukri/katar = dagger
and so on
we don't need 5 stat blocks for the same weapon
in fact, i beleive every exotic weapon should be dropped. and the base weapons be improved.
let the monk enchant his unarmed strikes, for the price of a single weapon, not 4 or 9, the weakest class needs all the help they can get.
Nowadays you can just use brass knuckles.
:)
yes and no ...
SKR says that brass-knuckles (and any other "glove" style weapon) referring to unarmed damage is a mistake. However, your local GM might let it slide.
Edit- to get back to the OP, I think when deciding whether to play a fighter or monk you have to ask yourself a question. Do you want just a brawler or do you want a mystic? A fighter will never have ki powers. If you like the idea of Ki powers, super speed, various immunities, and being able to jump over small buildings, go with the monk. The trade off is that they hit a bit less. But that is how they work, they hit less than fighters, but get lots of attacks, a crap-ton of mobility, and some supernatural powers.
If you just like the idea of a barehanded fighter, and don't care about supernatural stuff, go with the fighter. The fighter is more of a tough guy, who has more HP to soak damage that a monk would evade, and has stronger weapon attacks, even if he concentrates on unarmed fighting. With fighter feats and weapon training fighters will have the highest to-hits most of the time of any class. Fighters fight, its what they do best.
|
yes and no ...SKR says that brass-knuckles (and any other "glove" style weapon) referring to unarmed damage is a mistake. However, your local GM might let it slide.
Not exactly, Anburaid.
The quote you linked is specific to adventurer's armory, dated may 24, 2010. The brass knuckles present in the advanced players guide have this explicit line in their entry:"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk
unarmed damage when fighting with them."
And my edition of the apg pdf is December 2010, which makes it the more current information and thus the version of the rules you should currently be using :)
It can be irritating trying to find the latest ruling on stuff that goes back and forth like that.
I'm actually in the middle of a pretty ambitious dpr comparison between the fighter class and the monk class.
So far, without any magical gear, the fighter out dpr's the monk. Adding in magical weapons only, the monk starts outdamaging the fighter at lvl 4, and continues through level 19. The level 20 fighter weapon mastery ability puts him over the top at level 20, by about 7 points in a normal chain, and 30 points in a power attack chain.
Of course, this is all assuming full round attacks and not just one hit after moving. I haven't gotten to that section of the calculations yet, but I imagine that from what I'm seeing, monks will take over 1-hit damage about the time I add in other magical gear like belts, manuals, and so on.
yes and no ...SKR says that brass-knuckles (and any other "glove" style weapon) referring to unarmed damage is a mistake. However, your local GM might let it slide.
Not exactly, Anburaid.
The quote you linked is specific to adventurer's armory, dated may 24, 2010. The brass knuckles present in the advanced players guide have this explicit line in their entry:
"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk
unarmed damage when fighting with them."
And my edition of the apg pdf is December 2010, which makes it the more current information and thus the version of the rules you should currently be using :)It can be irritating trying to find the latest ruling on stuff that goes back and forth like that.
I'm actually in the middle of a pretty ambitious dpr comparison between the fighter class and the monk class.
So far, without any magical gear, the fighter out dpr's the monk. Adding in magical weapons only, the monk starts outdamaging the fighter at lvl 4, and continues through level 19. The level 20 fighter weapon mastery ability puts him over the top at level 20, by about 7 points in a normal chain, and 30 points in a power attack chain.
Of course, this is all assuming full round attacks and not just one hit after moving. I haven't gotten to that section of the calculations yet, but I imagine that from what I'm seeing, monks will take over 1-hit damage about the time I add in other magical gear like belts, manuals, and so on.
Huh, well look at that. That's what I get for skimming during my break at work.
I still think its a bit dubious. What makes brass knuckles different from rope gauntlets, or the cestus, or regular gauntlets that are still in the unarmed category? Still seems a bit thorny to me.
A weapon must be masterwork before it can be made magical. A person can be masterful, but not masterwork :p
That pretty much sums up my issue with it . . . that wording is pretty clear.
I guess I'll be using Monk weapons.
-
|
Monks are specifically listed as being able to use a single weapon for their full flurry of blows, so it's perfectly viable to buy something like a Temple Sword, enchant it, and use it for flurry.
I'm not sure that's exactly right. Monks can use Flurry of Blows with unarmed attacks and special monk weapons, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. I'd say that means you can't flurry with just a single weapon, but that you can flurry with, say, a staff (as a double weapon), a sai in each hand, or combining your single temple sword with an unarmed attack. In the end the monk will always need two enchanted whatevers to power-up all their flurry attacks, just like any other Two-Weapon Fighter.
I convinced my GM to let me instead get Fist Tattoos...
That's a very cool idea. The Legacy of Fire AP gives an option for...
So, based on that, Paizo seem okay with allowing 'non-weapon weapons' to be enchanted as if they're weapons in certain situations (although it's far from RAW, and unlikely to fly in Society games).
wanna know why the monk is the weakest class ever?
here is my opinion
because the class is completely unneccessary.
Creepy chinese doll girl is off her rocker! ;-P
I have played a monk, I had a great time, so it's anything but unnecessary!
here is my fixtake the key abilities of the monk and turn them into unarmed combat feats.
Being able to do jumps that would make a grasshopper green with envy (if they weren't green already) has nothing to do with unarmed combat. Being very hard to hit despite wearing nothing but jammies is not an unarmed combat feat, and neither is the tendency to be generally immune or highly resistant to anything an enemy might want to do to you. Etc.
The monk is not the "unarmed fighter" class. If all you want to do is Make Someone Stop Living With Your Fist, play a fighter - or play HoL, that game has a skill for that. The skill is actually called Make Someone Stop Living With Your Fist.
The monk is good at unarmed shenanigans, though not necessarily at doing tons of damage. He can be great at combat manoeuvres (a monk specialised in grappling is just peerless at grappling. Not just for the really good grapple CMB, but for the CMD which is beyond insane.).
However, that is hardly the only thing he is good at. Monks are skill monkeys, especially when it comes to movement. And their defensive capabilities are also really nice.
Monks are a great asset to the game.
a lot of the weapons are redundant
here is my opinion bastard sword/katana/falcata/khopesh = longsword
Bastard swords are definitely not longswords. Because they're bastard swords. one-and-a-half-handed swords. Katanas make sense as bastard swords. The other swords: Maybe. Though the fact that at least some of them offer something for those who want to get into exotic weapons(as in "too good to be martial", not in "unknown in these parts"), I'll be willing to leave them.
wakazashi/rapier/scimitar/cutlass = shortsword
Let's ignore the cutlass, since that's not core, anyway. And the wakizashi makes sense as a shortsword.
But the scimitar is nothing at all like a short sword. The short sword (which is basically a Roman gladius in Pathfinder) is a sword with a short, straight and relatively broad blade, with which you stab at people (through the gladii were apparently good for slashing, too, something that the Pathfinder short sword isn't made for), while the scimitar has a long, often narrow, and always curved blade. The real-world weapons that are lumped together under the name scimitar were often used from horseback, and were slashing weapons (curved blades don't make good stabbing weapons).
And rapiers are quite slender, but very long.
kama = sickle
No argument there. Especially since their game stats are identical. It's one of the changes I did in my campaign: There are no stats for a kama, it's just an Eastern name for the sickle, maybe with a slightly different design.
falchion/curve blade/claymore/zanbatou = greatsword
Zanbatou - I can't remember ever seeing D&D or PF stats about it.
Curve blades aren't greatswords. They're large, curved swords invented by the elves. It's very light-made and allows a more agile fighting style, which is rare with two-handed weapons.
Claymore - In Pathfinder at least, I know of no stats for that.
Falchion - we can go two ways here. If we go the historical way, we can't claim that this is even remotely like a greatsword. Falchions were one-handed weapons. Design varied, but they were said to combine the advantages of axe and sword. A bit like a meat cleaver.
If we go the game mechanics way, the two-handed sword with a curved blade is not a greatsword. Its damage is less, but it has a better crit range. Choices like that are good, and I think should remain in the game.
kukri/katar = dagger
The katar is not a dagger, even though the name in the game is "punching dagger". It is completely useless as a thrown weapon, and in close range, you don't fight with a punching dagger the way you fight with a dagger.
The kukri, too, differs from the dagger in several key aspects
we don't need 5 stat blocks for the same weapon
True. However, most of the examples you gave are not the same weapon at all. There are differences in appearance, usage, and, of course, game statistics.
I like variety. And those 5 weapons are different enough in appearance and game stats, I don't mind them all being here.
in fact, i beleive every exotic weapon should be dropped. and the base weapons be improved.
I don't. The exotic weapon concept certainly needs cleaning up, since there are two different definitions ("weapon that is too good to be a martial weapon" and "weapon that isn't common in the assumed standard setting") and there should only be one (I'd go for "superior weapons which usually also happen to be extraordinary in appearance").
However, I like the idea that even fighters can get further training with weapons to get weapons that are more powerful than the weapons they are automatically proficient with.
let the monk enchant his unarmed strikes, for the price of a single weapon, not 4 or 9
I might agree that the current 2.5x (which is quite removed from x4 or x9) is a bit much, but 1x sounds too low. I'd go with 1.5 - the same as a matched pair of weapons in a houserule some of us were contemplating in a different thread the other day.
|
|
Well, from my pathfinder searching, I've come to the following conclusion.
Some people think you need two damage sources *such as fist and elbow* to use flurry of blows because of the line about "as two-weapon fighting".
Other people think you only need one damage source *such as brass knuckles* because of the line about "any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a monk weapon".
Personally, I would say that the any combination line is a specific overriding the general two-weapon fighting rules, but I was unable to find an official answer after about half an hour of searching.
I have rolled a one.
*hangs head in shame*
And I could have sworn I saw a thread about this a while back with an official post too...
While certainly not definitive, I am also of the opinion that you can flurry with a single weapon. It might not be specified in the RAW but scores of Jackie Chan and Jet Li movies seem to have moments where a fighter kicks a whole bunch with one leg or punches favoring one arm. If that interpretation allows for more Kung Fu movie moments, it's good by me.
Monks are specifically listed as being able to use a single weapon for their full flurry of blows, so it's perfectly viable to buy something like a Temple Sword, enchant it, and use it for flurry.I'm not sure that's exactly right. Monks can use Flurry of Blows with unarmed attacks and special monk weapons, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. I'd say that means you can't flurry with just a single weapon
If you read the first part of the sentence, it's pretty straightforward: "When [making a flurry of blows] he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon..." So, "any combination" covers punching and kicking, two punches (possibly using the same fist), two kicks (possibly with the same foot), weapon and fist, weapon and kick, two weapons, both ends of a double weapon (quarterstaff), two strikes with one end of a double weapon, and two strikes with a single weapon. Note that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not use the phrase "any combination." This is a specific exception to the general rule (primary and off-hand).
|
|
... If that interpretation allows for more Kung Fu movie moments, it's good by me.
Of course it'll generally do the opposite, in that the monk will use whatever's his best weapon to the exclusion of all other options (just like everyone else does) which, IMHO, makes it much less 'kung fu movie' than a guy who at least throws a punch, kick, or headbut into his attack routine each round, along with his sword attacks...
|
|
"When [making a flurry of blows] he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon..."
'Combination' tends to imply combining things... ('a single thing formed by two or more things being joined together' as Webster's Dictionary puts it) i.e. more than one...
... If that interpretation allows for more Kung Fu movie moments, it's good by me.Of course it'll generally do the opposite, in that the monk will use whatever's his best weapon to the exclusion of all other options (just like everyone else does) which, IMHO, makes it much less 'kung fu movie' than a guy who at least throws a punch, kick, or headbut into his attack routine each round, along with his sword attacks...
Well, a monk's best weapons are their unarmed strikes (possibly using brass knuckles and/or an amulet of mighty fists) in most circumstances, once they gain a few levels. The only exception is when fighting enemies that you don't want to touch directly (i.e., oozes/slimes, certain undead IIRC, etc.).
"When [making a flurry of blows] he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon..."'Combination' tends to imply combining things... ('a single thing formed by two or more things being joined together' as Webster's Dictionary puts it) i.e. more than one...
Or just a sequence... (i.e., a combination lock does not require different numbers)
After all, there are real-world martial art styles (bear kung-fu, IIRC) that only use one hand for all blocks and strikes.
wanna know why the monk is the weakest class ever?
here is my opinion
because the class is completely unneccessary.
yes, i'm likely the biggest Otaku on these boards, and i think the monk is unneccessary.
here is my fix
take the key abilities of the monk and turn them into unarmed combat feats.
the problem with designing decent unarmed combat feats is the existence of the monk itself as a class.
other things i beleive
a lot of the weapons are redundant
here is my opinion bastard sword/katana/falcata/khopesh = longsword
wakazashi/rapier/scimitar/cutlass = shortsword
kama = sickle
falchion/curve blade/claymore/zanbatou = greatsword
kukri/katar = dagger
and so on
we don't need 5 stat blocks for the same weapon
in fact, i beleive every exotic weapon should be dropped. and the base weapons be improved.
let the monk enchant his unarmed strikes, for the price of a single weapon, not 4 or 9, the weakest class needs all the help they can get.
+1
Going back to the original topic, there are a couple ways you can enchant the monk's body, with some interpretation of the rules.
1) Magic Tattoos - The simple way of handling this is with a feat (Craft Magic Tattoo) that allows magical tattoos to be drawn on the body. For game balance reasons, they should probably follow the rules for body slot items (to include the increased cost if they don't take up a "body slot"). Pros - they can't be stolen/taken away without cutting off the body part, they can be concealed (for the most part) by clothing, they're a flavorful addition to the rules. Cons - they can't be changed to/sold for something different (only improved), all tattoos have to be commissioned instead of being found, you and the crafter both have to spend the full item creation time together, keeping track of where each tattoo is if the party uses hit location rules.
2) Magic Prosthetics - Straddling a line between construct creation and fleshcrafting (see Second Darkness), magic prosthetics replace a missing body part with a crafted duplicate (to include grafting undead body parts to a living creature). The duplicate is typically crafted from bone (to include ivory), metal, stone (to include gems), or wood. Pros - the new body part is usually more resistant to damage and can have various magic enhancements that make it superior in function to the original. Cons - it's more difficult and expensive to create and enchant the replacement than it is to simply have a cleric cast regenerate (910 gp). Although it could be interesting to have a Toothy (alternate racial trait) half-orc or a barbarian with the Animal Fury rage power get their teeth replaced with alchemical silver or cold iron versions and enchanted.
|
Does a monk really NEED to be enchanted? Their hands scale up in damage pretty quickly. I can see using the Amulet of Mighty Fists to deal with attack rolls and certain DR, but not much more than that. Considering that a monk can potentially cause as much damage as a two-handed sword by about twelfth level (and likely have more attacks than a user of said weapon) that should be enough. If you are really looking for unarmed damage, try a variant from the Advanced Player's Guide. If you look, you will know which one I speak of.
|
|
Or just a sequence... (i.e., a combination lock does not require different numbers)
Which seems correct:
This meal is a combination of eggs, chips, beans, and spam.
or...
This meal is a combination of spam, spam, spam, and spam.
;)
After all, there are real-world martial art styles (bear kung-fu, IIRC) that only use one hand for all blocks and strikes.
He threw a quick right / left combination punch.
Vs.
He threw a quick right / right combination punch.
To be honest, in the end you're probably right as far as the McFlurry goes... it's just that it's not as simple and clear-cut by the text as people seem to think.
Does a monk really NEED to be enchanted? Their hands scale up in damage pretty quickly...
It seems to be more about maxing the attack bonus than it is about the damage die... but I'm sure the 'monk as a DPR machine' crowd will want to wring the biggest possible damage out of the poor guy too... (Flaming + Frost + Shocking, etc. brass knuckles... it's enough to make you weep... ;p).
Does a monk really NEED to be enchanted? Their hands scale up in damage pretty quickly. I can see using the Amulet of Mighty Fists to deal with attack rolls and certain DR, but not much more than that. Considering that a monk can potentially cause as much damage as a two-handed sword by about twelfth level (and likely have more attacks than a user of said weapon) that should be enough. If you are really looking for unarmed damage, try a variant from the Advanced Player's Guide. If you look, you will know which one I speak of.
While he might do more damge than a two handed sword.
He is doing less damage than a +1 2 handed sword with Fire blast ( 1d6 + 1d10xCrit for any crit), Holy ( +2d6 vs any evil ).
While true, no class need to have anything or everything, many monk do WANT the extra specal abiitys.
.............
The only question is, do you want to follow RAW, and make it very hard for them to get the abilitys. Because of this rule or that, that prevents it.
Or do you want to, Homebrew, and just make them pay {Double} for being a monk, what other people are paying for there magic effects and weapons, and let them have them.
|
|
Or just a sequence... (i.e., a combination lock does not require different numbers)Which seems correct:
This meal is a combination of eggs, chips, beans, and spam.
or...
This meal is a combination of spam, spam, spam, and spam.
;)
After all, there are real-world martial art styles (bear kung-fu, IIRC) that only use one hand for all blocks and strikes.He threw a quick right / left combination punch.
Vs.
He threw a quick right / right combination punch.
To be honest, in the end you're probably right as far as the McFlurry goes... it's just that it's not as simple and clear-cut by the text as people seem to think.
Does a monk really NEED to be enchanted? Their hands scale up in damage pretty quickly...It seems to be more about maxing the attack bonus than it is about the damage die... but I'm sure the 'monk as a DPR machine' crowd will want to wring the biggest possible damage out of the poor guy too... (Flaming + Frost + Shocking, etc. brass knuckles... it's enough to make you weep... ;p).
Some of that can be done with the Amulet of Mighty Fists, and a Flaming Two-Handed Sword doesn't raise it's own damage four levels later. I can see the desire to do it, but I can also see why the Amulet of Mighty Fists works the way it does. Monks get the equivalent of Magical weapons that can't be disarmed (unless the statement is made a bit too literal) and scale up with levels.
Would be fun, but a little much. Most groups and DMs I've dealt with seem to hate monks because they are considered to be too powerful to start. Not saying it couldn't be done, just redundant.
Attack rolls I understand well, though.
|
|
Ypur thinking Boxing too much.
You must have never seen the Right hook, right elbow, right backfist combo; rather common in most martial arts (even boxing, outside the ring)
Sure... but that's not the same as just using a single weapon to Flurry - it's using two weapons (right hand and right elbow)... which was kinda' the point... ;)
|
|
Any time you attempt to resolve combat mechanics with real world combat, you're going to have a problem.
ProfPotts, your example with the combo plates was incorrect, because it assumed results and not options.
Instead of saying "This meal is a combination of spam, spam, spam, and spam." you could say: From the combination menu of eggs, chips, beans, and spam, I selected spam for all four options.
Try this instead:
You are at a buffet. You have three items to choose from, in any combination. Potatoes, Roast Beef, and Ham.
You could choose Potatoes, roast beef, and ham.
Or you could choose to get roast beef, more roast beef, and even more roast beef.
Any combination does not mean any combination except repeated selections of the same choice.
When you order a pizza with a coupon that says any combination of specialty pizzas, they do not deny your order or coupon because you want three meat lovers. Given a selection, such as fist, knee, elbow, ect., the only invalid combination is one which includes an element that is not present in the selection, or one that attempts to make more selections than offered.