FYI you can stack dodge bonuses.
No, you can't stack an AOMF with brass knuckles. AOMFs specifically works on your unarmed or natural attacks. Brass knuckles are weapons, they are just weapons that use the monk's unarmed damage. But they are still manufactured weapons.
But could you stack the special abilities from two brass knuckles? After all, while flurrying I am pretty certain that you can use flurry weapons interchangeably just like you could use your limbs interchangeably.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It doesn't. Flurry is two weapon fighting for monks. To flurry with brass knuckles, you'd have to have two of them, and enchant them seperately just all other dual wields.
Correction, Flurry works LIKE two weapon fighting. It is NOT two weapon fighting; just follows they same mechanics for rules purposes. The rules specifically state that "When doing so he may one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with special monk weapon as if using the two weapon fighting feat." Multiple attacks with the same weapon certainly falls in that definition, nothing is stopping you from flurrying with a single weapon. The idea of rapid punches with a single hand, or rapid kicks with one leg? Totally viable and in line with the flavor of the class. Think about that boxer who just goes rapid fire with their lead hand, jab jab jab. Nothing is stopping you from having two brass knuckles however, and mixing them in your flurries, and actually doing some twfing.
|
Of course, I also houserule that they do unarmed damage with any monk weapon and give them one free weapon of their choice as a monk weapon, so there's that :p
This is exactly how I deal with it for my games as well. Though all players start with a non masterwork weapon of their choice anyway for my games just for ease.
No, you can't stack an AOMF with brass knuckles. AOMFs specifically works on your unarmed or natural attacks. Brass knuckles are weapons, they are just weapons that use the monk's unarmed damage. But they are still manufactured weapons.But could you stack the special abilities from two brass knuckles? After all, while flurrying I am pretty certain that you can use flurry weapons interchangeably just like you could use your limbs interchangeably.
Yes and no. If you had a +2 Flaming brass knuckles on one hand, and a +1 Unholy brass knuckles on the other hand, you could flurry and alternate your attacks to and use the +2 Flaming on the first attack, the +1 Holy on the second, and see which seemed to hurt the target more, and then slam him with whichever one seems to have worked (for example, if the Holy activated, you'd use it, if not, then you'd hit with the flaming the rest of your flurry).
EDIT: So in other words, you couldn't say you were going to do a +2 flaming holy flurry and use flaming and holy on each attack.
To pull up an old idea that got suggested when PF was in Beta, I remember there being a thought from JB himself that having monks do their normal unarmed damage during combat maneuvers might help bring more favor to the monk. Any holes with that thought?
To pull up an old idea that got suggested when PF was in Beta, I remember there being a thought from JB himself that having monks do their normal unarmed damage during combat maneuvers might help bring more favor to the monk. Any holes with that thought?
I was thinking of making a Brawler archetype for the Fighter (so high BAB and hitpoints, low skills/saves), that had just such an ability.
The only issue I can see is that you'd need to decide if it worked with combat maneuver checks that already dealt damage (such as grapple checks and spillover damage from greater sunder).
That, and there's supposed to be new feats that grant combat maneuvers when you crit, so you are already making an attack before the combat maneuver.
But it definitely feels appropriate to the combat style I envision for a martial artist. Typically, the "masters" in martial arts films don't just "pin" a guy.. they pin him and break his arm or leg in the process...
Actually.
Screw Brass Knuckles.
Zen Archer.
Zen. Freaking. Archer.
Sounds like an opportunity to a prestige class. Let me know when you get it ready.I don't like it.
The Monk should be self-sufficient, not vulnerable to the same "christmas tree" build problems that fighters etc. have.
Sure, the monks need a power up. That power up should not be magic items.
One possibility for this is to abandon both the necklace and the brass knuckles and give them a sort of self-additive magic item, like Arcane Archer or the Soulknife of old. They'd automatically add that enchantments to their attacks and gain more as they level, as a class feature
Of course, I also houserule that they do unarmed damage with any monk weapon and give them one free weapon of their choice as a monk weapon, so there's that :p
Prestige class nothing, it's what monks should automatically have :\
Of course, my houserules are bizarre and at times extensive, but for monks:
Monks can have their actual body enchanted at the same price as a magical weapon would.
Unarmed damage is now "monk damage" and works on all monk weapons
Monks can chose one weapon - any one weapon - as a "monk weapon" on start up.
What this means:
Weapon choice is largely fluff. Ok, one gives you a +2 to disarming. Man, whatever. The damage on all weapons is now the same due to monk damage, and hey, now the martial artist class has a reason to use martial arts. Plus it doesn't bizarrely and unfairly penalize them for no reason.
Weapon choice is largely fluff. Ok, one gives you a +2 to disarming. Man, whatever. The damage on all weapons is now the same due to monk damage, and hey, now the martial artist class has a reason to use martial arts. Plus it doesn't bizarrely and unfairly penalize them for no reason.
Dunno if I'd say mostly fluff for anyone who cares about optimization. Wouldn't a scimitar or rapier be incredibly more powerful than most other weapons? It's got a great threat range, and you can hold it with two hands for +50% strength damage.
Not saying that your rule isn't a good idea, just that some weapons will be faaar more useful than the more classical monk weapons.
Imo AoMF should exist in the form of any other kind of item (boots, cape, ring, etc..) because there is no reason to deny the use of amulets of natural armor and other items to monks.
Those Brass Knuckles look like a good option too, better than having monks asking about Permanency+Greater Magic Fang and other weird stuff.
Weapon choice is largely fluff. Ok, one gives you a +2 to disarming. Man, whatever. The damage on all weapons is now the same due to monk damage, and hey, now the martial artist class has a reason to use martial arts. Plus it doesn't bizarrely and unfairly penalize them for no reason.Dunno if I'd say mostly fluff for anyone who cares about optimization. Wouldn't a scimitar or rapier be incredibly more powerful than most other weapons? It's got a great threat range, and you can hold it with two hands for +50% strength damage.
Not really it won't get the two hand bonus while using flurry of blows and it would be easy to say that the unarmed strike damage replaces the weapons normal damage and critical range (since you are using it in the most "optimum" fashion which is why you are getting more damage out of it).
Not really it won't get the two hand bonus while using flurry of blows and it would be easy to say that the unarmed strike damage replaces the weapons normal damage and critical range (since you are using it in the most "optimum" fashion which is why you are getting more damage out of it).
Weapon choice is largely fluff. Ok, one gives you a +2 to disarming. Man, whatever. The damage on all weapons is now the same due to monk damage, and hey, now the martial artist class has a reason to use martial arts. Plus it doesn't bizarrely and unfairly penalize them for no reason.Dunno if I'd say mostly fluff for anyone who cares about optimization. Wouldn't a scimitar or rapier be incredibly more powerful than most other weapons? It's got a great threat range, and you can hold it with two hands for +50% strength damage.
Good call on not getting 2-hand damage, though it's still relevant when you can't make a full attack. But what you are saying is that you either get unarmed damage, crit at x2 or you get the weapon damage? That seems reasonable.
Only with the Ki Focus weapon special ability (which they qualify for). Think of the brass knuckles as exactly like a kama, only it gets to replace the damage entry on their stat line with the monk's unarmed damage.
It is still a weapon and not, in itself, an unarmed strike.
|
Only with the Ki Focus weapon special ability (which they qualify for). Think of the brass knuckles as exactly like a kama, only it gets to replace the damage entry on their stat line with the monk's unarmed damage.
It is still a weapon and not, in itself, an unarmed strike.
Okay. I grok that. Nice, but not always the best case then. Espcially when you want to beat outsiders to death with your ki-empowered Lawful fists.
Do they have Lawful DR creatures out yet? I think I heard of only one AP showcasing a chaotic outsider that it would be effective against.
Mostly it's the magical (+1 enhancement gives this), and adamantine (which, presumably the knuckles can be made of), that are sought after (and ultimately, a +5 weapon bypasses it all anyways).
In the extremely rare situation that a Monk needed to bypass Lawful DR, he can switch to headbutting, heh.
Good call on not getting 2-hand damage, though it's still relevant when you can't make a full attack. But what you are saying is that you either get unarmed damage, crit at x2 or you get the weapon damage? That seems reasonable.Not really it won't get the two hand bonus while using flurry of blows and it would be easy to say that the unarmed strike damage replaces the weapons normal damage and critical range (since you are using it in the most "optimum" fashion which is why you are getting more damage out of it).
Weapon choice is largely fluff. Ok, one gives you a +2 to disarming. Man, whatever. The damage on all weapons is now the same due to monk damage, and hey, now the martial artist class has a reason to use martial arts. Plus it doesn't bizarrely and unfairly penalize them for no reason.Dunno if I'd say mostly fluff for anyone who cares about optimization. Wouldn't a scimitar or rapier be incredibly more powerful than most other weapons? It's got a great threat range, and you can hold it with two hands for +50% strength damage.
Yeah that would be my house rule if I was to have such. Honestly it just becomes a replacement for the monk's hand though I would allow the magic on the weapon to matter of course.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
On the Double Defending Quarterstaff:
By RAW, it totally does stack with itself and you are not required to attack with the weapon to get the AC bonus, only to hold it. The point of the Free Action deciding whether the bonus is added to attack or AC before making attacks is so that the character does not just take 2 Free Actions to get full bonus to attack, then full bonus to AC immediately afterward.
It's really not that cheesy because this is the most expensive way to buy AC bonus and it's probably considered balanced because a character is, theoretically, choosing to spend all his Weapon money on AC rather than being better at damage.
It gets a little weirder when it's a character like a Wizard or Sorcerer that doesn't get into melee much, or a Monk that can fight while holding the weapon, without using the weapon. But the money they spend on this would have otherwise gone into things like Metamagic Rods.
For the casters, in order to get the full +10 AC bonus from both ends, they would have to hold the Quarterstaff in both hands, just as though they were holding two +5 Defending daggers, negating somatic casting.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Actually, I'm pretty sure that there are rulings that say no same-source bonuses stacking with themselves. I.e. Wis bonuses from swordsage and monk don't stack, even with different names, because they are same source.
Rule would carry over to Defending. "I get a +5 bonus from defending, and then another +5 bonus from defending, and then another!"
"Uh, dude, those are bonuses from defending. same source."
"But it says they stack with all other bonuses!"
"Um, okay. So my ninja/monk/swordsage gets Wis bonus to AC, Wis Bonus to AC, and Wis Bonus to AC. I'm cool with that...they're all untyped, different sources, and don't say outside non-core rulings that they don't stack, right?"
"Um..."
==Aelryinth
"Um, okay. So my ninja/monk/swordsage gets Wis bonus to AC, Wis Bonus to AC, and Wis Bonus to AC. I'm cool with that...they're all untyped, different sources, and don't say outside non-core rulings that they don't stack, right?"
"Um..."
==Aelryinth
Swordsage doesn't stack because you have to wear light armor.
And Ninja says it doesn't stack.
double enchanting Defending on 2 ends of a quarter-staff is ... lame. IMO, "same source" *would* totally apply as it's the same enchantment (and, frankly, a waste of enchantment really if doubled up like that).
At best, my games, I'd let Defending fly 1 time, period. But hey - I missed the 'two end' junk initially. I was wowed w/the idea of just one end Defending Weapon to +5, put all to defense, and then just drinking potions of Greater Fang/etc to get the damage boon on hand damage from the "flurry" type strikes, etc.
Basically, just using the weapon *like* a shield - cool idea.
double-defending weapon ... WTF!?!?
"Um, okay. So my ninja/monk/swordsage gets Wis bonus to AC, Wis Bonus to AC, and Wis Bonus to AC. I'm cool with that...they're all untyped, different sources, and don't say outside non-core rulings that they don't stack, right?"
"Um..."
==Aelryinth
Swordsage doesn't stack because you have to wear light armor.
And Ninja says it doesn't stack.
Ninja says it doesn't stack because if it was not explicitly called out people would have tried it. The editors caught that one. The defending one got through the cracks. That does not mean it is legal. It just means they did not think to state it.
Sometime after Gencon an FAQ will be put out. It will be handled then.
"Um, okay. So my ninja/monk/swordsage gets Wis bonus to AC, Wis Bonus to AC, and Wis Bonus to AC. I'm cool with that...they're all untyped, different sources, and don't say outside non-core rulings that they don't stack, right?"
"Um..."
==Aelryinth
Swordsage doesn't stack because you have to wear light armor.
And Ninja says it doesn't stack.Ninja says it doesn't stack because if it was not explicitly called out people would have tried it. The editors caught that one. The defending one got through the cracks. That does not mean it is legal. It just means they did not think to state it.
Sometime after Gencon an FAQ will be put out. It will be handled then.
Or...it could mean that things of that nature stack as a general rule unless otherwise stated. :P
There are two sides to everything.
"Um, okay. So my ninja/monk/swordsage gets Wis bonus to AC, Wis Bonus to AC, and Wis Bonus to AC. I'm cool with that...they're all untyped, different sources, and don't say outside non-core rulings that they don't stack, right?"
"Um..."
==Aelryinth
Swordsage doesn't stack because you have to wear light armor.
And Ninja says it doesn't stack.Ninja says it doesn't stack because if it was not explicitly called out people would have tried it. The editors caught that one. The defending one got through the cracks. That does not mean it is legal. It just means they did not think to state it.
Sometime after Gencon an FAQ will be put out. It will be handled then.Or...it could mean that things of that nature stack as a general rule unless otherwise stated. :P
There are two sides to everything.
"stacks with all others"=not itself
If I give 100 dollars to all the others, I am sure I am not giving myself 100 dollars.
I know the game sometimes uses words in a different way that normal conversations, but the word other is not one of them.
It could have easily been written as stacks with all bonuses including other defending bonuses if that was the intent.
Edit:RD stop messing with me. RD:1 WS:0
I can't beleive I took the bait on that one. I miss the ":P"
"stacks with all others"=not itself
If I give 100 dollars to all the others, I am sure I am not giving myself 100 dollars.
I know the game sometimes uses words in a different way that normal conversations, but the word other is not one of them.
It could have easily been written as stacks with all bonuses including other defending bonuses if that was the intent.
Edit:RD stop messing with me. RD:1 WS:0
I can't beleive I took the bait on that one. I miss the ":P"
Just playing devil's advocate.
I've seen people argue that two defending weapons, by their very nature, are two different sources (after all, they are two separate distinct weapons).
I don't know if I agree with that logic or not, but I don't think it is any less of a valid argument than the one you've made.
If my players are willing to pay for it, and it looks like it will increase their fun without ruining the fun of other players, I'm generally pretty lenient about things like that in my games.
Kind of a pet peeve of mine. The purpose of a monk is to not need weapons and armor and to avoid materially posessions. I prefer a monk that want his melee combat to be without any weapons or magic items that buff him. But that is a design issue that I feel missed the point of the monk.
Kind of a pet peeve of mine. The purpose of a monk is to not need weapons and armor and to avoid materially posessions. I prefer a monk that want his melee combat to be without any weapons or magic items that buff him. But that is a design issue that I feel missed the point of the monk.
Which was one thing I loved about the Vow of Poverty from Book of Exalted Deeds.
Unfortunately, you had to be Lawful Good.
Also... almost every DM I knew took one glance and screamed WTFOPLMFAOGTFO!! Which I found somewhat strange when comparing their bonuses to what was available via magic items at similar levels.... not to mention the other disadvantages that came from a Vow of Poverty. *shrug*
Kind of a pet peeve of mine. The purpose of a monk is to not need weapons and armor and to avoid materially posessions. I prefer a monk that want his melee combat to be without any weapons or magic items that buff him. But that is a design issue that I feel missed the point of the monk.
You'd think that... but what do you see in almost every movie depicting martial arts (even the ones that follow those ways of thinking) when someone attacks them with weapons...
They pick up something on hand to defend themselves with. A belt to block/catch a blade, or a chair to tangle spears or swords.
Granted, that's not "brass knuckles used all the time", but honestly a Monk isn't using the brass knuckles to make his unarmed strikes lethal or more damaging... he's using them to make his attacks with that fist do magical effects (like wounding, or flaming, etc).
It's as much a circumstantial benefit to pick up a flaming knuckles to better affect an ice creature, as it is to pick up a chair to better defend/disarm an enemy wielding a weapon.
It does rankle against the idea of a "no worldly possessions" type concept, but that's what the Vow of Poverty was designed for really. In D&D, CRs and Encounter Levels expect a certain amount of "bonus" over and above what's granted from your class...
Which was one thing I loved about the Vow of Poverty from Book of Exalted Deeds.
Unfortunately, you had to be Lawful Good.
Also... almost every DM I knew took one glance and screamed WTFOPLMFAOGTFO!! Which I found somewhat strange when comparing their bonuses to what was available via magic items at similar levels.... not to mention the other disadvantages that came from a Vow of Poverty. *shrug*
I did this once, and made a monk with Vow of Poverty. Given the general survivability of the monks I had made previously, I wanted to see how well this monk stood up to things.
So I front-lined him. He was the first in and the last out to combat.
It honestly was no fun. Sure he survived, and survived so well that it wasn't even a challenge. YMMV of course, and I'm not saying that it was not a great idea, but for me, it removed the uncertainty in combat. I retired him that same game.*shrug*
Kind of a pet peeve of mine. The purpose of a monk is to not need weapons and armor and to avoid materially posessions. I prefer a monk that want his melee combat to be without any weapons or magic items that buff him. But that is a design issue that I feel missed the point of the monk.
Hm... see I don't really see that as part of the monk at all. Monks learn to use weapons because they are effective -- most times more so than bare handed fighting. Bare handed fighting was taught because they often were not allowed to travel with weapons and weapons were expensive -- but that is not the same as ineffective.
I'm generally pretty lenient about things like that in my games.
We know and we have given you enough heat on the boards about it, but as long as you have fun go for it. :)
Actually, Monk and Swordsage don't stack because they don't stack, it was ruled. Swordsage bonus works in light or no armor...you don't HAVE to wear armor to get the bonus.
Ninja was caught because the 3.0 ninja stacked with monk, and was horribly abused thereby. They actually had to specifically address the rule because people thought they stacked. "The Class Abilities have different abilities, so they aren't same source!" was the cry then, it didn't work, still doesn't.
VoP monk also has problems in A-M shells...the feat is supernatural, so Anti Magic shuts down all bonuses. Too, he can't fly, and has to rely on others for all sorts of things.
Yeah, he's effective...to an extent. Sucks a lot of stuff off the party keeping him going, too.
==Aelryinth
Brass Knuckles = good news for the monk,
Now would a brass knuckled hand be considered empty for grappling attempts?
Kind of a pet peeve of mine. The purpose of a monk is to not need weapons and armor and to avoid materially posessions. I prefer a monk that want his melee combat to be without any weapons or magic items that buff him. But that is a design issue that I feel missed the point of the monk.Which was one thing I loved about the Vow of Poverty from Book of Exalted Deeds.
Unfortunately, you had to be Lawful Good.
Also... almost every DM I knew took one glance and screamed WTFOPLMFAOGTFO!! Which I found somewhat strange when comparing their bonuses to what was available via magic items at similar levels.... not to mention the other disadvantages that came from a Vow of Poverty. *shrug*
Stops being good around... level 15 or so usually. First ten levels though? Fun as hell.
I'm generally pretty lenient about things like that in my games.We know and we have given you enough heat on the boards about it, but as long as you have fun go for it. :)
I did not mean the reliance on weapons, what I meant more was the reliance on buffs through magic items. A monk should not want to be buffed by a magic item because then it is not a true reflection of their combat ability. Though they should try to minimize reliance on the material world. Weapons would be okay for fighting critters that you don't fight unarmed (most nonhumanoids, and magic items should be used only when critters require magic items, like wraiths and shadows. Just my opinion and taste.
I would let monks have all weapons btw, train everything, prefer unarmed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ring of Mighty Fists
Boots of Mighty Fists
Hairpin of Might Fists
Robe of Mighty Fists
Paper Airplane of Mighty FistsNow you can use an Amulet of Natural Armor...
or:
Ring of Natural Armor
Boots of Natural Armor
Hairpin of Natural Armor
Robe of Natural Armor
Paper Airplane of Natural Armor
we really really really need a low magic version of this game (sigh), when was the last time someone had a bottle of air, bag of tricks, or something just cool. I like magic items, but when they are just something for buffing your character it becomes redundant, just have your character. I like 3.x rules but i prefer 1e and B/X styles of play. Hmmm, really wonder if I could redo CR of critters for a low magic item world, that's the key I think.
Ring of Mighty Fists
Except those items aren't core, can't be used in PFS (not that I play PFS, though) and would be extremely pricey with the guidelines (+50% for unusual slot, +100% for slotless IIRC).
we really really really need a low magic version of this game (sigh), when was the last time someone had a bottle of air, bag of tricks, or something just cool. I like magic items, but when they are just something for buffing your character it becomes redundant, just have your character. I like 3.x rules but i prefer 1e and B/X styles of play. Hmmm, really wonder if I could redo CR of critters for a low magic item world, that's the key I think.Ring of Mighty Fists
Boots of Mighty Fists
Hairpin of Might Fists
Robe of Mighty Fists
Paper Airplane of Mighty FistsNow you can use an Amulet of Natural Armor...
or:
Ring of Natural Armor
Boots of Natural Armor
Hairpin of Natural Armor
Robe of Natural Armor
Paper Airplane of Natural Armor
Have you played E6? Max level is 6, after that you get extra feats instead of levels. It's low-level enough that low magic won't break it, and just skip ye ol' magic shop and you'll be fine.
Honestly, I never have an issue with magic items. Not with everyone picking armor bonus. Usually my players end up with a variety of stuff.
There's an easy way to control it. Peer Pressure.
I just point out to the guy who's buying enough items to get himself a 29 AC at 5th level that the rest of the party has a 20. And that if I put something out that can hit him 3 in 20 times, I will be hitting his compatriots 12 in 20 times with the same enemy.
That is usually more than enough for the rest of the group to groan and tell the AC happy gamester to knock it off and trade in his armor for something else.
Honestly, once they look at their AC during character building, most of my players look around a little sheepishly if it's too high and ask what everyone elses armor is. We recently had a 19/18/19/27 party. The inquisitor winced at that and sold off enough to bring himself down to 24.
Have you played E6? Max level is 6, after that you get extra feats instead of levels. It's low-level enough that low magic won't break it, and just skip ye ol' magic shop and you'll be fine.we really really really need a low magic version of this game (sigh), when was the last time someone had a bottle of air, bag of tricks, or something just cool. I like magic items, but when they are just something for buffing your character it becomes redundant, just have your character. I like 3.x rules but i prefer 1e and B/X styles of play. Hmmm, really wonder if I could redo CR of critters for a low magic item world, that's the key I think.Ring of Mighty Fists
Boots of Mighty Fists
Hairpin of Might Fists
Robe of Mighty Fists
Paper Airplane of Mighty FistsNow you can use an Amulet of Natural Armor...
or:
Ring of Natural Armor
Boots of Natural Armor
Hairpin of Natural Armor
Robe of Natural Armor
Paper Airplane of Natural Armor
I am intrigued, do you have any links about this system that you would recomend.
actually Rings are 'universal slots'. YOu can have a Ring of Nat Armor at no cost penalty.
==Aerlyinth
actually Rings are 'universal slots'. YOu can have a Ring of Nat Armor at no cost penalty.
==Aerlyinth
Say what? Can you please cite me where that's stated in the rules?
|
Of course, if you're dual-wielding and my previous point about having to "use" the weapons still stands, that means you have to make two (likely ineffectual) attacks to gain full benefit of the AC bonuses.
It doesn't say you have to use the weapon to attack, just that you have to use it. There's some technicality cheese, you could use it to swing it through the air while you flurry with your feet.
On the Double Defending Quarterstaff:
By RAW, it totally does stack with itself and you are not required to attack with the weapon to get the AC bonus, only to hold it. The point of the Free Action deciding whether the bonus is added to attack or AC before making attacks is so that the character does not just take 2 Free Actions to get full bonus to attack, then full bonus to AC immediately afterward.
It's really not that cheesy because this is the most expensive way to buy AC bonus and it's probably considered balanced because a character is, theoretically, choosing to spend all his Weapon money on AC rather than being better at damage.
It gets a little weirder when it's a character like a Wizard or Sorcerer that doesn't get into melee much, or a Monk that can fight while holding the weapon, without using the weapon. But the money they spend on this would have otherwise gone into things like Metamagic Rods.
For the casters, in order to get the full +10 AC bonus from both ends, they would have to hold the Quarterstaff in both hands, just as though they were holding two +5 Defending daggers, negating somatic casting.
+1 to this.
I am intrigued, do you have any links about this system that you would recomend.
Have you played E6? Max level is 6, after that you get extra feats instead of levels. It's low-level enough that low magic won't break it, and just skip ye ol' magic shop and you'll be fine.
Here you go! e6: The Game inside D&D
"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." This to me means that you can enchant the monk's unarmed attacks (not that the cheap little brass knuckles make much of a difference in price).
My current monk has +1 flaming ghost touch on his unarmed attacks. I had to have my character spend 8 hours a day getting her body enchanted for the ghost touch. The GM Ruled that since *I* am ghost touch I can grapple/combat maneuver incorporeal creatures. It was pretty cool trying to pin a wraith.
Honestly, I never have an issue with magic items. Not with everyone picking armor bonus. Usually my players end up with a variety of stuff.
There's an easy way to control it. Peer Pressure.
I just point out to the guy who's buying enough items to get himself a 29 AC at 5th level that the rest of the party has a 20. And that if I put something out that can hit him 3 in 20 times, I will be hitting his compatriots 12 in 20 times with the same enemy.
That is usually more than enough for the rest of the group to groan and tell the AC happy gamester to knock it off and trade in his armor for something else.
Honestly, once they look at their AC during character building, most of my players look around a little sheepishly if it's too high and ask what everyone elses armor is. We recently had a 19/18/19/27 party. The inquisitor winced at that and sold off enough to bring himself down to 24.
That sounds less like a min/max player problem to me and more like bad GMing (that is, the hurting other PCs to challenge one PC, part).
Why shouldn't a tank be good at tanking?
That sounds less like a min/max player problem to me and more like bad GMing (that is, the hurting other PCs to challenge one PC, part).
Why shouldn't a tank be good at tanking?
I beg your pardon?
Let's break this down.
A) You haven't played in my games, so please keep your attack posts in check.
B) A tank can be good at tanking. Having 4-5 more AC than everyone else IS good at tanking. Having 10 more AC than everyone else isn't being good at tanking, it's being above the curve so far that you can't even see it.
C) I have had this issue before in games. No matter how you handle it, someone screams 'No Fair'. If you use RTAs or AOE against the tank, he screams no fair, because you are ignoring his armor. If you put straight attacks out there that can only hit the rest of the group on a 15+ then they can only hit the Tank on a 20, and the other players scream 'No Fair' when they get targeted instead of the tank (I refuse to play my npcs as idiotic morons who keep attacking someone they can't hit, when they can obviously switch targets). Or, if you put out someone who can hit the tank on a 17+ then they hit everyone else on a 10+.
D) You can ignore making attacks against the tank that are AC depending, and just cast spells at him. This is again a 'not fair' thing to do, because it means you are taking away his tanking ability.
It's not an issue of 'bad GMing'. I would have to respond to you that it's a case of selfish min/maxing by a crybaby player who wants to never have any risks to himself, even at the expense of making life difficult for everyone else. Either way you go, RTAs, AOEs, high To-Hits, massive swarms to flank and overcome, whoever has the 'normal' ac is going to get slammed.
This is a BAD thing for a GM to do, because it reinforces the arms race of AC. I don't understand people like you who think that trying to run a balanced game is 'bad GMing', that somehow the GM should accomodate every possible thing you want to do without any restrictions and then make it fair for everyone. GMs are people to, and making their job harder by throwing hissy fits and calling them bad GMs because they don't bow and scrape and cater to your every whim is one reason why nobody wants to GM. It's a mostly thankless job, interspersed with occasional thanks but way more dealing with paperwork, planning, balancing issues, hair pulling over getting plots to work out right, and just general headaches. That's before you add on people like you who want everything under the sun with no personal responsibility to contribute to a balanced and fun game. You make the argument it's the GMs responsibility to accomodate your wishes, but you abrogate your own responsibility to try to contribute to a game that everyone can enjoy, both your fellow players and the GM.
You sound extremely selfish to me.
I beg your pardon?
Let's break this down.
A) You haven't played in my games, so please keep your attack posts in check.
B) A tank can be good at tanking. Having 4-5 more AC than everyone else IS good at tanking. Having 10 more AC than everyone else isn't being good at tanking, it's being above the curve so far that you can't even see it.
C) I have had this issue before in games. No matter how you handle it, someone screams 'No Fair'. If you use RTAs or AOE against the tank, he screams no fair, because you are ignoring his armor. If you put straight attacks out there that can only hit the rest of the group on a 15+ then they can only hit the Tank on a 20, and the other players scream 'No Fair' when they get targeted instead of the tank (I refuse to play my npcs as idiotic morons who keep attacking someone they can't hit, when they can obviously switch targets). Or, if you put out someone who can hit the tank on a 17+ then they hit everyone else on a 10+.
D) You can ignore making attacks against the tank that are AC depending, and just cast spells at him. This is again a 'not fair' thing to do, because it means you are taking away his tanking ability.It's not an issue of 'bad GMing'. I would have to respond to you that it's a case of selfish min/maxing by a crybaby player who wants to never have any risks to himself, even at the expense of making life difficult for everyone else. Either way you go, RTAs, AOEs, high To-Hits, massive swarms to flank and overcome, whoever has the 'normal' ac is going to get slammed.
This is a BAD thing for a GM to do, because it reinforces the arms race of AC. I don't understand people like you who think that trying to run a balanced game is 'bad GMing', that somehow the GM should accomodate every possible thing you want to do...
A) I guess I owe you an apology. I did not mean it as an attack.
B) I respectfully disagree, though I imagine that has a lot to do with a difference of playstyles than anything.
C) Tis' a sad truth.
D) See C.
As to your second to last paragraph: I believe somebody who has gone through the trouble of eliminating many risks to their character should largely get the benefits of having done so. I also don't think other players should be punished for it by upping encounters. After all, Mr. Safe has likely invested so many resources as to suffer in other areas (such as defense). What's more, as you said, the occasional spell or non-AC effect will keep things exciting for him (just don't overdo it lest their be cries of "unfair!").
As to your last paragraph: I don't think running a balanced game is bad GMing. I think throwing an encounter that is too powerful for 3/4 of the player characters is bad GMing. There is a clear difference between the two.