|
I'm building a npc monk ennemy for my party to encounter. The description of weapon finess is pretty clear (light weapon, rapier, whip, spiked chain) but still make non sense to me.
It seems normal that some monk might be even more agile (weapon finess) than most monk.
My question is: is there any update, errata or clarification that might allow monk to use weapon finess with unarmed strike?
|
|
I'm building a npc monk ennemy for my party to encounter. The description of weapon finess is pretty clear (light weapon, rapier, whip, spiked chain) but still make non sense to me.
It seems normal that some monk might be even more agile (weapon finess) than most monk.
My question is: is there any update, errata or clarification that might allow monk to use weapon finess with unarmed strike?
I'm sorry all for that hasty post but i found it!
... Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons...!
Was right under my nose!
i always thought it applied to light weapons and unarmed counts as light but i could be wrong
|
This true statement is important and often confused!Unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon.
True true.
I think that part of the problem is this line from the monk:
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 leaves some confusion as to what can and cannot effect the monks unarmed strike. Especially since I think that I have read that Improved Natural Attack does not work for the monk, even though the prereq says: "Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4."
I have to say I am surprised that improved natural attack comes up so often in these conversations, as it's a monster feat, and I would have thought they were all off-limits to characters anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I recall, "unarmed strike" is this bizarre mess of legal mumbo jumbo that's 100% needless and more or less the result of what happens when your rules get so thick they begin to strangle themselves.
Normally it wouldn't matter except the exceptionally dumb decision was made to claim that INA isn't allowable to monks because "Welp unarmed strike isn't a natural attack, also hahaha are you people still trying to play monks?"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing natural about being able to put your fist through a commoner's face. Which is what a 20 Strength, with power attack, pretty much automatically does (1d3+7)average commoners have 5 hp (with an 8 con) and you knock them out and to bleeding, just by hitting. A little harder, with monk training, a spiked gauntlet, or a crit, and the commoner dies pretty much instantly. Though you could still totally finesse a punch.
As I recall, "unarmed strike" is this bizarre mess of legal mumbo jumbo that's 100% needless and more or less the result of what happens when your rules get so thick they begin to strangle themselves.
Normally it wouldn't matter except the exceptionally dumb decision was made to claim that INA isn't allowable to monks because "Welp unarmed strike isn't a natural attack, also hahaha are you people still trying to play monks?"
From a completely mechanical standpoint I can see why Jason didn't want it to work. There is specific wording in INA that increases only a single specific natural attack. The problem with monk Unarmed Strike is that the very flavor dictates that every part of the monk's body is as deadly as his fists or feet. If a monk wanted to take INA specifically with his fists, I'd totally allow it. He would be at a lower dice penalty if he every had to attack with anything other than his fists, though.
That said, I don't see a monk with INA that affected his entire body unbalancing a game in which fighters can routinely do over 250 damage in a round and will hit more often than the monk towards the end of it. Just arguing from the "rules" standpoint.
From a completely mechanical standpoint I can see why Jason didn't want it to work. There is specific wording in INA that increases only a single specific natural attack. The problem with monk Unarmed Strike is that the very flavor dictates that every part of the monk's body is as deadly as his fists or feet. If a monk wanted to take INA specifically with his fists, I'd totally allow it. He would be at a lower dice penalty if he every had to attack with anything other than his fists, though.
The monk's body is it's natural attack.
Boom problem solved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a completely mechanical standpoint I can see why Jason didn't want it to work. There is specific wording in INA that increases only a single specific natural attack. The problem with monk Unarmed Strike is that the very flavor dictates that every part of the monk's body is as deadly as his fists or feet. If a monk wanted to take INA specifically with his fists, I'd totally allow it. He would be at a lower dice penalty if he every had to attack with anything other than his fists, though.The monk's body is it's natural attack.
Boom problem solved.
pretty much. Worked in 3.5 (see FAQs), I feel it as an unnecessary change.
I remember at time a lot of people reacted with horror to the amount of dice potentially rolled by the INA monk, not considering how flat bonuses to damage used by.. well, every other melee class increase damage so much more.
|
|
It's the same reason Dex-based fighters get messed over. People think bigger weapons should use more dice, and lighter weapons less. Never mind that characters using bigger weapons are using STR bonuses that often deal more damage than the weapon itself, and light weapon users tend to not have as much STR, making them deal much less damage.
It's the same reason Dex-based fighters get messed over. People think bigger weapons should use more dice, and lighter weapons less. Never mind that characters using bigger weapons are using STR bonuses that often deal more damage than the weapon itself, and light weapon users tend to not have as much STR, making them deal much less damage.
+1,000,000,000 (that's a billion)
Nevermind that Rapiers kill just as easily as Katanas. Better make that Katana deal 2 higher die of damage (D6 vs D10)! Otherwise the fighters using it couldn't deal more damage in one hit than a Rapier fighter could in a full round of attacks! Can't have light fighters being effective - that just ruins the game!
I do kinda get it, but considering how useless Charisma is to 70% of characters, I would like to see strength not be the "be-all end-all" of melee combat.
I'm yet to see these 250/round fighters at a game table, so no I dont think INA is reasonable.
The Monk PC's I've seen seem to work as intended, and the Monk NPC's seem to work as intended. Not sure where they are 'broken', as it doesn't seem to be coming through for us in day to day play.
Finesse is totally reasonable however.
I'm yet to see these 250/round fighters at a game table, so no I dont think INA is reasonable.
The Monk PC's I've seen seem to work as intended, and the Monk NPC's seem to work as intended. Not sure where they are 'broken', as it doesn't seem to be coming through for us in day to day play.
Finesse is totally reasonable however.
I think the issue is that it takes a good player to make monks work most of the time, and people don't want system mastery to be necessary to run a base class. I have seen every class run decently well by a new player except monks. They always end up being lackluster, and if the GM is only allowing 15 point buy then it is hard to build and run an effective monk.
To be honest thats a pretty lazy attitude for those players to have...
All you require is system 'competency' frankly, though yes I would agree that it takes a little more thought to play, I'm ok with that.
I'd rather see the rise of skilled players than a dumbing down of a system... in MMO parlance "more skill required than simply mashing two buttons" :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question will be, and always has been: What IS the monk "working as intended?"
The monk has always had special abilities that all come together to make basically no sense at all.
It has speed focus to move fast, but can't move while using Flurry of Blows.
It gains use of exotic "monk only" weapons only they're all awful.
It has unarmed strike that does increasingly more damage but can't enhance it.
It gains an AC bonus when unarmored but desperately requires wisdom to make up for the difference.
In a way, the monk's class design - both from 3.x AND Pathfinder, quite frankly - follow the 3.5 monk perfectly: a flurry of misses. A whole lot of small abilities that all combined just don't make up for anything.
To be honest thats a pretty lazy attitude for those players to have...
All you require is system 'competency' frankly, though yes I would agree that it takes a little more thought to play, I'm ok with that.
I'd rather see the rise of skilled players than a dumbing down of a system... in MMO parlance "more skill required than simply mashing two buttons" :p
If I wanted to work, I'd work.
When I want to sit back and play some elfgame, I don't want to be punished for not memorizing feats and tables for it and figuring exact mathematical solutions.
To be honest thats a pretty lazy attitude for those players to have...
All you require is system 'competency' frankly, though yes I would agree that it takes a little more thought to play, I'm ok with that.
I'd rather see the rise of skilled players than a dumbing down of a system... in MMO parlance "more skill required than simply mashing two buttons" :p
How is the attitude lazy? If they are not good enough to make the class work they just aren't good enough. If the "system competency" idea was true then there would not be as many "monks suck" threads and people agreeing that you need to be a better player to run a monk effectively without GM coddling.
|
|
There is nothing natural about being able to put your fist through a commoner's face.I'm sure there are a number of boxing champs who would disagree.
Many of them are functionally mutants, they worked their butts off to get there, and even then there isn't a professional boxer on Earth who is a level 1 character. "Technically" professional doesn't count. If your job title is "Boxer" it counts, if it's something you do as an aside, it doesn't.
My question will be, and always has been: What IS the monk "working as intended?"
The monk has always had special abilities that all come together to make basically no sense at all.
It has speed focus to move fast, but can't move while using Flurry of Blows.
It gains use of exotic "monk only" weapons only they're all awful.
It has unarmed strike that does increasingly more damage but can't enhance it.
It gains an AC bonus when unarmored but desperately requires wisdom to make up for the difference.
In a way, the monk's class design - both from 3.x AND Pathfinder, quite frankly - follow the 3.5 monk perfectly: a flurry of misses. A whole lot of small abilities that all combined just don't make up for anything.
I never seen as a problem the lack of sinergy between flurry and movement. Just use the proper one when necessary. The monk improved, at least at the level we played it (12).
Th only thing wich didn't improved at all is the MADness.
If the "system competency" idea was true then there would not be as many "monks suck" threads and people agreeing that you need to be a better player to run a monk effectively without GM coddling.
Yet I game with some 'ok' people who I would never describe as system masters and they seem to happily be able to pull the monk off.
So we come full circle.
I guess when I eventually see a 250/round fighter that the 'monks suck' people place up as their counterpoint to prove the case, then perhaps I'd have to go back and look atthe monk. As all I have seen is ok monks, and no 250/round fighters, then I guess I'll just have to dismiss their argument.
Skilled players thanks, not two-button mashers.
If the "system competency" idea was true then there would not be as many "monks suck" threads and people agreeing that you need to be a better player to run a monk effectively without GM coddling.Yet I game with some 'ok' people who I would never describe as system masters and they seem to happily be able to pull the monk off.
So we come full circle.
I guess when I eventually see a 250/round fighter that the 'monks suck' people place up as their counterpoint to prove the case, then perhaps I'd have to go back and look atthe monk. As all I have seen is ok monks, and no 250/round fighters, then I guess I'll just have to dismiss their argument.
Skilled players thanks, not two-button mashers.
There seem to be more that have an issue with it than those that don't. I am not arguing from a group specific point, but from a general one.
ToB is ok in my group but a lot of people don't like. That means "it is ok in my group" does not qualify as proof that it is ok.What is "250/round"?
|
Many of them are functionally mutants, they worked their butts off to get there, and even then there isn't a professional boxer on Earth who is a level 1 character. "Technically" professional doesn't count. If your job title is "Boxer" it counts, if it's something you do as an aside, it doesn't.There is nothing natural about being able to put your fist through a commoner's face.I'm sure there are a number of boxing champs who would disagree.
If you have a 20 Str and Power Attack you have worked your butt off to get good at it. And Just because it is level one does not mean you do it as an aside.
Removed a post - please be civil to each other.