|
Hunh. By RAW, that's perfectly correct. RAI might well be different, but there's no question it's legit by the book.
Interesting loophole. Will have to keep it in mind.
If you imagine a Polearm Master with Combat Patrol turned on, then a monk pretty much troll-dancing in this huge no-man's land without suffering any AoO from the poor fighter, then I think no one will have difficulties to imagine Spring attack used to improvise a combat maneuver at close range and without provoking.
Note that you don't provoke, but only from the target. If there are more creatures, you then provoke by moving in zones, using an unentrained combat maneuver, then by moving again in zones you left (by RAW you provoke only once by moving in a zone, but I guess that leaving it then reentering and moving in would provoke again.
Is he spring attack grappling? Is he going to try and focus on all combat maneuvers?Once he gets Spring Attack, he doesn't even need the "Improved" feats to do a Combat Maneuver with a high bonus without provoking an AoO. The grappling + Spring build wasn't a specific strategy, even if you could take the Hamatula strike feats to impale ennemies with your fists and grapple them at the same time. And from there, I wonder if you can grapple several ennemies on one round...
But like I said previously, nothing stops him to focus on whatever he wants to. He could even focus on damage if he wishes so, but it would make maneuvers less efficient. You can't have everything.
Sure, he "could do ANYTHING!!!" but that isn't really something you want to do. You want to do SOMETHING. Spring Attack doesn't assist in Grapple. That's a waste of a SERIES of feats. Which could go to improving something else. Now spring attack and unarmed disarm is hilarious - if you are sure to succeed.
You again assert that because science can't currently explain it, it is forever inexplicable. That's an excess failure of logic.
I know I promised not to post again on this, but what can I say? I failed my Will save.
Incorrect, I am merely allowing for the possibility that some things may not be explainable, ever. By foreclosing that possibility without any verifiable evidence to support why you are doing so, the fault in logic is yours. Excellent example of blind faith, as I said previously. Thanks for contionuing to reinforce my point.
Because that "logic" requires the reasoning that something has been literally caused by nothing, and for no reason to boot. I am forced to restate that the fact that something is currently unexplainable does not mean it is a miracle or religious mystery. There is a difference between accepting some things may never be explained, ever, and believing they are factually unexplainable - ie, a miracle or mystery (in the religious sense of the word).
Spring Attack only avoids AoOs from movement. He would still provoke from using maneuvers he doesn't have the feat for.Spring attack : "As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack."
You can "move and make a single melee attack against a target without provoking any AoO".
I see nothing about "only AoO from movement are avoided" in this text. Do you ?
That's impressive RAW manipulation - using Spring Attack to avoid AoOs for EVERYTHING. I applaud you, sir.
Scientists have faith too!
I'm not 100% sure where this is coming from, or how this contributes to the discussion on metrics.
There are plenty of practitioners of science who have some sort of faith, whether it be in a deity or their craft. But hat doesn't change much of how their science is evaluated. They all follow the sames steps more or less, and attempt to explain the world as best they can.
They do operate under the assumption that everything in nature can eventually be explained, but is that so wrong? Pointing out that it's no different than having blind faith in a religion is only an instance of antagonistic, and only serves to poison the atmosphere.
I asked a bunch of "Math and Science Majors" to define success, and their discussion was inconclusive.
The problem with your method was one that involved the issue of self-selection. Since it was a generic call to action, anyone who considered themselves a M&SM major would've chimed in, whether they actually fight into your criteria of that group or not.
Furthermore, because it was a free forum, even the supposed "Liberal Arts" majors could post.
On why it's possible to quantify and measure Pathfinder in particular: This game is fundamental a dice game, numbers are added to those dice, and those numbers are then compared to other numbers to determine success or failure. Figurines are then moved around the board based on their speed, and abilities are then considered active or inactive based on their range.
This happen each and every time someone rolls the dice. Because of this, It's possible to measure the probabilities, the positioning, and the impact of those probabilities and positionings on the dice rolling of the game.
|
|
Sure, he "could do ANYTHING!!!" but that isn't really something you want to do. You want to do SOMETHING. Spring Attack doesn't assist in Grapple. That's a waste of a SERIES of feats. Which could go to improving something else. Now spring attack and unarmed disarm is hilarious - if you are sure to succeed.
Grapple is something I left from a personal build, and because it's one of the few feats for which you could eventually take the "Greater" version.
I didn't even thought about SA and Grapple working together before you highlighted this "combo". You could even drop it for another feat if you wish so, but at low-to-middle level a grapple can always be useful, especially on a spellcaster, 2HF or archer. Hamatula feats then give a bit more versatility to Grapple builds.On the other side, SA is more the "do the maneuver you want when you need it" feat for the monk.
You are asking what the build can do, I answered you : pretty much anything. He's only level 4. Feel free to take Improved Disarm at level 6 for a lot of fun robbing guys of their weapon with a quasi auto-win move. Or take Improved trip at level 6, Bull rush and Ki Throw feats to have some ways to control the battlefield. Or the Medusa's Wrath chain, with Scorpion Style instead of Grapple at low level.
He will not be able to do everything, but you have several roles you can take and be efficient or sickeningly good in, even if you will not be the best 24/24.
Everything from Fast movement to certain skills are quantifiable in terms of how they relate to DPR. The numbers are situational, the values can be slightly subjective, and I'm personally not good at it, but everything is quantifiable. All you need is a common denomenator.
Thank you for posting the fighter DPR.
Monk 10 = 72.9
Fighter 10 = 81.3
That's about 90%.
Now the questions:
1) Is that an acceptable handicap for a pure damage role?
2) Does the character still "feel" like a monk?
3) What utility and defenses does the character have left, and how do they compare to other classes that can do similar DPR (particularly the fighter since he is convenient to compare)?
4) Would the monk be better off pursuing a different role?
5) Are we ok with the answers to these questions, or does the monk need some love?
|
|
So you are not aware we can delete posts for a short time after posting? Such as when we post erroneous statements?
Yes, I am. Still, my answer was posted before yours disappeared.
Was I offensive or dismissive in my post ?Should I have deleted it, considering that thanks to it, at least two peoples learnt about the SA "loophole" in regard of AoOs ?
You made a discutable statement, this statement was argued politely, the argument learnt things to fellow roleplayers.
So what is the problem then ?
Lots of stuff, some of it somewhat defensive.
Just a few points in defense/rebuttal.
I fully admit this is going off on a tangent and could be a thread derail. But come on! This thread has over 1100 posts. Surely everything useful to be said on the original topic already has been, ad nauseum? Unless you think that "the truth" about monks will suddenly be revealed in the 1200th post, and the pro- and anti-monk crowds will decide to hug it out?
I know many scientists who have faith of different kinds, including good old-fashioned religious faith. I have great respect for faith. I have a little less so for people who do not recognize when they are putting faith in something.
I full acknowledged, in my first post, that pointing this out to people who do put their faith in (or assume the eventual supremacy of, if you prefer) science, will make some of them mad. It was not my intention to antagonize, but neither am I going to hide my opinions on something just because my opinion might make someone mad.
I fully admit my "survey" did not produce stastically valid data. It only produced anecdotal information. I actually know how to conduct a statistically valid survey, and it is not possible on a self-selected Internet forum. That doesn't mean that important insights cannot be gleaned from the anecdotal information, however. These insights are enough to form theories, but certainly not to prove them, and I admit that.
I completely disagree with your characterization of the game. What you have described is a tactical fantasy miniatures wargame, which is indeed what PF/D&D evolved from nearly four decades ago (Chainmail). It is much more than that now. Frankly, as a tactical wargame, it is a complete and utter failure, but as a roleplaying game with tactical elements it is a great success and a lot of fun. Success in the game is determined not just by die rolls and character builds, which are indeed quantifiable but also by player decisions and how well someone plays their character, which is not. So, if you try to determine the success of the character by concentrating only on the quantifiable variables, while discarding any variable that is not easily quantifiable, you are invalidating your result. It is poor math and poor science. Just like anecdotal evidence, it might reveal some insights sufficient to form a theory, but not sufficient to prove it.
|
\
A monk shouldn't try and grapple a giant. Nor should any class. That would be dumb.
You don't do anything all of the time. You do what is most effective at the time.
Beowolf did it. I'm sure others like Thor did too.
So, no it isn't dumb.Monk should use Enforcer/Shatter defenses to boost damage. No save qualify for medusa's wrath. Better than hoping for a stun (though you can do that too).
Grendel wasn't a Giant and Thor is a God.
|
|
I like your first sentence above. It is very honest and descriptive. Then you ruin it with the rest of your post. You claim first that it has been "proven" that science will eventually be able to explain everything when it becomes suffieicntly advanced. This statement is, of course, preposterously false.Yes, science clearly hasn't advanced beyond what it was in the stone age.
As for scientific theories, the key word is theories. Many scientific theories go on to eventually be proven via rigorous application of the scientific method. Many others are either disproven through application of those same methods, or remain theories as they cannot currently be proven or disproven through those methods.You again assert that because science can't currently explain it, it is forever inexplicable. That's an excess failure of logic.
And all of this is way off topic.
It is the formula that is the issue. The variables aren't useful for answering the question of the experiment.
The formula is testing for one thing as if it was a single metric that defined game play.
It is like measuring the weight of food to determine it's nutritional value. Yes, you would acquire a number that is reflective of the apple. No, that number doesn't answer the question about the nutritional value.
|
|
Sure, he "could do ANYTHING!!!" but that isn't really something you want to do. You want to do SOMETHING. Spring Attack doesn't assist in Grapple. That's a waste of a SERIES of feats. Which could go to improving something else. Now spring attack and unarmed disarm is hilarious - if you are sure to succeed.
If only monks could get spring attack as a bonus feat without needing all the pre-requisites...
Grendel wasn't a Giant and Thor is a God.\
A monk shouldn't try and grapple a giant. Nor should any class. That would be dumb.
You don't do anything all of the time. You do what is most effective at the time.
Beowolf did it. I'm sure others like Thor did too.
So, no it isn't dumb.Monk should use Enforcer/Shatter defenses to boost damage. No save qualify for medusa's wrath. Better than hoping for a stun (though you can do that too).
Grendel originally was basically an ogre. Which description are you using (his mother was something else strangely)?
I completely disagree with your characterization of the game. What you have described is a tactical fantasy miniatures wargame,
What he described is the game as it exists. The main method of deciding anything is a dice roll, you get a number generated to which you add other numbers which you then compare against opposing numbers. This can all be represented mathematically.
Success in the game is determined not just by die rolls and character builds, which are indeed quantifiable but also by player decisions and how well someone plays their character, which is not.
Yes, that indeed represents success in the abstract sense. Except that is not how anything is decided in Pathfinder. CONCRETE success is entirely numerical. Your numbers are put up against another set of number to judge concrete success or failure.
So, if you try to determine the success of the character by concentrating only on the quantifiable variables, while discarding any variable that is not easily quantifiable, you are invalidating your result. It is poor math and poor science.
Says the person arguing things that aren't in the rules.
Unless you think that "the truth" about monks will suddenly be revealed in the 1200th post, and the pro- and anti-monk crowds will decide to hug it out?
That would be kinda grooovy.
So, if you try to determine the success of the character by concentrating only on the quantifiable variables, while discarding any variable that is not easily quantifiable, you are invalidating your result. It is poor math and poor science. Just like anecdotal evidence, it might reveal some insights sufficient to form a theory, but not sufficient to prove it.
Well, I actually believe that all things done in pathfinder are quantifiable, and I'm not going to discard something just because it's difficult.
Besides, the formulation of theory comes first, proofs comes second. Once I formulate my ideas, I'll post them, and get other's inputs.
Well, I actually believe that all things done in pathfinder are quantifiable, and I'm not going to discard something just because it's difficult.
Besides, the formulation of theory comes first, proofs comes second. Once I formulate my ideas, I'll post them, and get other's inputs.
And I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that, even if I think you are setting yourself an impossible task. Kind of like one of my grad school housemates who, 8 years into his Math PhD studies, discovered that the problem he was working to solve for his dissertation was, in fact, impossible to solve. You are certainly welcome to try, however, and if, against all odds, you manage to succeed, I'll be the first to congratulate you. Until then I would recommend a certain book by Cervantes for your next read.
A discussion about faith? Seriously?
This is worst than the real world comparisons i was apart of about the Monk.
Really, the only reason i keep coming back to this thread is to see LT post a build of how he would play a monk.
And for the sake of this LT, i shall accept whatever reasons you give for stats, feats, and general tactics of this Monk, being able to spy/scout etc. These things are valuable after all.
My only criticisms will come if you say run up and grapple bad guy, and follow it up with but he's not a frontline fighter. Running to the front and getting there first = frontline fighter unless by frontline fighter you mean tank. Then ill agree with you.
LT, you have the floor
Inb4 you havent posted a comparable framework and justified it
Typical Carty stuff.
Recognizing the limited utility in engaging with you, but also realizing that I'm a little bored today, I say, why the hell not?
Just a few succinct points:
-- As you well know by now, since countless people have told you, repeatedly, and you are not unintelligent, as far as I can tell, the term "the game as it exists" is meaningless. There are as many different playstyles as there are participants in this forum. The fact that you and few others continue to insist that there is only one way to play the game says much more about you than it does about the game.
-- I'm not understanding your distinction between abstract and concrete success, unless you are defining concrete success as being only those things involving a die roll. In which case you are engaged in very neat circular logic. I define success in the game two ways. First, success for a character is when they achieve their in-game goals, which, IMHO is based far more on the decisions they make during gameplay than on their stats, builds or dierolls. Second, success for a character is when you have fun playing it and the other people at the table have fun playing with that character. Have fun statistically defining what makes something fun.
-- I suggest you reread the rules. While there is indeed massive quantities of "crunch" in the rules, there is more than a little bit about roleplaying, adventure design, the art of GMing, and other things that aren't totally defined by numbers.
While we are at it and since the whole point is about "monks : broken" or "monks can't contribute", does anyone dare pretend that the previous level 4 build I posted, including it's possible evolutions through leveling, is broken and can't contribute effectively to a party ?
Whats your AC?
|
|
Oh, it surprised me you know. And I'm sure a lot of people will lose their jaw, because it's actually lower than a fighter !
Go figure. Totally not predictible, and probably a perfect argument to ignore the offensive potential and say the monk sucks. But maybe I'm too naïve...
AC : 10 + 4(Wis+Bon) + 2(Dex) + 1(Armor) + 1(Dodge)
= 18/17/16.
|
|
A discussion about faith? Seriously?
This is worst than the real world comparisons i was apart of about the Monk.
Really, the only reason i keep coming back to this thread is to see LT post a build of how he would play a monk.
And for the sake of this LT, i shall accept whatever reasons you give for stats, feats, and general tactics of this Monk, being able to spy/scout etc. These things are valuable after all.
My only criticisms will come if you say run up and grapple bad guy, and follow it up with but he's not a frontline fighter. Running to the front and getting there first = frontline fighter unless by frontline fighter you mean tank. Then ill agree with you.
LT, you have the floor
Inb4 you havent posted a comparable framework and justified it
So in a sense you are here on faith that LT will post a build?
:)
Seriously, what will you gain from that?
Until then I would recommend a certain book by Cervantes for your next read.
I think this is the first time I've ever been called quixotic.
Cool.
@Maxximilus, how did you get power attack @lvl1? Monks have +0 BAB and PA requires +1. Other than that, I really can't answer your question. I know that target AC is 17, which means you hit on a 9+, or 60%.
On a full attack, you deal about 12 avgDPR, 18 if you pop a ki point. This can get pretty close to a 2RKO, but you'll need a little bit of a buff to put it over the top. Not half bad though, and I'm sure that when the GM throws lower CR dudes, you'll strike home reliably.
EDIT: AC of 18 means that the average damage of a creature @CR goes down, that's not bad at all.
DC for Touch of Serenity is 35% success of a good save, 55% on a bad save. Not half bad in my opinion.
Looks pretty decent to me.
Oh, it surprised me you know. And I'm sure a lot of people will lose their jaw, because it's actually lower than a fighter !
Go figure. Totally not predictible, and probably a perfect argument to ignore the offensive potential and say the monk sucks. But maybe I'm too naïve...
AC : 10 + 4(Wis+Bon) + 2(Dex) + 1(Armor) + 1(Dodge)
= 18/17/16.
Not gonna shoot your build down based on AC
Just wanted to know.That build is fine so long as its played correctly, ie: staying mobile
A discussion about faith? Seriously?
This is worst than the real world comparisons i was apart of about the Monk.
Really, the only reason i keep coming back to this thread is to see LT post a build of how he would play a monk.
And for the sake of this LT, i shall accept whatever reasons you give for stats, feats, and general tactics of this Monk, being able to spy/scout etc. These things are valuable after all.
My only criticisms will come if you say run up and grapple bad guy, and follow it up with but he's not a frontline fighter. Running to the front and getting there first = frontline fighter unless by frontline fighter you mean tank. Then ill agree with you.
LT, you have the floor
Inb4 you havent posted a comparable framework and justified it
So in a sense you are here on faith that LT will post a build?
:)
Seriously, what will you gain from that?
Id just like him to justify all his talk that the monks are viable but has never posted a build... so that
Alright, so I took Pirate's Build, and made it my own following the DPR Olympics rules.
Oread Monk of the Four Winds and Sacred Mountain
STR: 22 (+6) (15 base, +1 level, +2 racial, +4 Belt)
DEX: 12 (+1)
CON: 14 (+2)
INT: 8 (-1)
WIS: 20 (+5) (13 base, +1 level, +2 Racial, +4 Hat)
CHA: 8 (-1) (10 Base, -2 Racial)
HP: 93 (10d8 + 40)
Ki Pool: 10 pts.
AC: 24 (10 +5 Wis, +1 Dex, +2 Natural, +2 Monk, +1 Dodge, +2 Armor, +1 Deflection)
DR 1/-
Conditional AC of 26 to 30.
Attack: +17 (7 +6 STR, +3 Enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus)
Power Attack: +15 (Attack - 2 Power Attack)
Flurry: +18/+18/+13/+13/+8 (10 -2 TWF, +6 STR, +3 Enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus)
Power Flurry: +15/+15/+10/+10/+5 (Flurry - 3 Power Attack)
Temple Sword Damage: 13.5 (1d8 +6 STR, +3 Enhancement)
Power Attack Damage: 19.5 (Temple Sword Damage + 6 Power Attack)
Power Flurry Damage: 22.5 (Temple Sword Damage + 9 Power Attack)
Elemental Fist Damage: 10.5 (3d6)
Special Abilities
Elemental Fist
Iron Monk
Bastion Stance
Iron Limb Defense
Adamantine Monk
Ki Pool - Lawful
Maneuver Training
Fast Movement
Still Mind
Purity of Body
Wholeness of Body
Feats
Lvl 1: Defensive Combat Training
Lvl 1: Dodge
Lvl 1: Improved Initiative
Lvl 2: Improved Grapple
Lvl 2: Toughness
Lvl 3: Weapon Focus (Temple Sword)
Lvl 5: Power Attack
Lvl 6: Improved Trip
Lvl 7: Quick draw
Lvl 9: Greater Grapple
Lvl 10: Improved Critical (Temple Sword)
CMB = +16 (10 + 6 STR)
CMB Grapple = +20 (CMB +4 Feat)
CMB Trip = +22 (CMB +2 Feat, +3 Enhancement, +1 Focus)
CMD = 36 (10 +10 BAB, +5 WIS, +1 DEX, +6 STR, +1 Dodge, +1 Deflection, +2 Monk)
CMD Grapple = 40 (CMD + 4 Feat)
CMD Trip = 38 (CMD + 2 Feat)
Equipment:
Gear: (62,000 gp)
Belt of +4 str (16,000)
Hat of +4 wis (16,000)
Bracers of armor +2 (4,000)
Ring of Protection +1 (2,000)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2,000)
Haversack (2,000)
Cloak of Resistance +1 (1,000)
Temple Sword +3 (18,000)
1k money left
And the break down:
AVG Single Attacks:
Normal:11.34
Power Sword: 18.69
Elemental Sword: 0 <-- Strange Glitch in Google Docks.
Elemental Power Sword: 20.34
AVG Flurry:
Sword: 40.5
Elemental Sword: 48.375
Power Sword: 51.3
Elemental Power Sword: 57.6
AVG Ki Flurry
Sword: 52.65
Elemental Sword: 60.525
Power Sword: 67.5
Elemental Power Sword: 73.8
tl;dr - Without using any resources, FoB deals 40.5 DPR, this can be bumped to 73.8 by using Power Attack, Elemental Fist, and a Ki Point.
Also, if the Monk has any ability that allows saves, the DC is 20, which means a 30% chance of success against a Good Save, 50% against weak.
Before anyone gripes: by RAW, elemental fist can be used with weapons, and power attack is calculated using the FoB's BAB as opposed to the monk's, the latter was clarified by errata I believe.
I'll be doing a Zen Archer Next.
Here is a level 4 build for a maneuver monk. At level 7, you can add the possibility to Spring attack your combat maneuvers.
** spoiler omitted **
How do you get +10 unarmed? I am seeing 4STR + 3BAB + 1 weapon focus which is 8, flurry takes it to 9 (which you can't do while spring attacking) which means grapple is only 11 when not spring attacking and 10 otherwise. Of course you even noted yourself you couldn't beat the fighters CMD so I don't know if this guy makes a very good maneuver specialist, I don't see you raising these by more then 2 by level 7 either.
|
|
How do you get +10 unarmed? I am seeing 4STR + 3BAB + 1 weapon focus which is 8, flurry takes it to 9 (which you can't do while spring attacking) which means grapple is only 11 when not spring attacking and 10 otherwise.
Here is a level 4 build for a maneuver monk. At level 7, you can add the possibility to Spring attack your combat maneuvers.
** spoiler omitted **
Manuever training allows the monk to use his level as his BAB for CMB checks all the time.
|
|
@Maxximilus, how did you get power attack @lvl1? Monks have +0 BAB and PA requires +1. Other than that, I really can't answer your question. I know that target AC is 17, which means you hit on a 9+, or 60%.
EDIT: AC of 18 means that the average damage of a creature @CR goes down, that's not bad at all.
DC for Touch of Serenity is 35% success of a good save, 55% on a bad save. Not half bad in my opinion.
Looks pretty decent to me.
Whoops yeah, you're right about PA. Make it Toughness instead, damage wasn't the point of this specific level 4 build.
Also, note that 18 AC goes to 22 with 1 Ki Point.
How do you get +10 unarmed? I am seeing 4STR + 3BAB + 1 weapon focus which is 8, flurry takes it to 9 (which you can't do while spring attacking) which means grapple is only 11 when not spring attacking and 10 otherwise. Of course you even noted yourself you couldn't beat the fighters CMD so I don't know if this guy makes a very good maneuver specialist, I don't see you raising these by more then 2 by level 7 either.
4 Str + 4 BAB + 1 Weapon Focus + 1 from Brass Knuckle = +10.
Wait, where did I say I couldn't beat the fighter's CMD ? Cast on yourself True Strike, and you have +30 to your next maneuver check, when the most legally munchkinized fighter of same level (let's say +5 Str, +3 Dex, 4 BAB, +2 from weapon, so 24), will be at 34 DMC against disarm. Take Improved Grapple, and you have +12 to beat 24, and even better chances if this is a THF who avoided dexterity.
Whoops yeah, you're right about PA. Make it Toughness instead, damage wasn't the point of this specific level 4 build.
Yeah, that's probably the most frustrating thing about Monk building, a lot of feats that Full BAB classes get right away, a monk has to wait till 3, or even later for them. Other 3/4s classes either have promient class features that help them get theses things quicker (Rougue Talents) or spell casting.
I hope that Ultimate Combat expands the feat list for Monks, it would be great if weapon focus and power attack were able to be take as bonus feats @1st level.
Yar.
FYI, although I don't like speaking for others, I will in this case. TL has already stated that (s)he will not post builds until the criteria for "success" is determined.
I posted a semi-build because someone provided a simple criteria, and I stated when I posted it that that was the only thing I was considering, and immediately (some) people started "moving the goalposts" by adding caveats and conditions to the criteria after the fact (but it doesn't do this! It didn't follow these rules for creation that I made up somewhere else! blah blah blah). This is something that I (and LT from what I've read) want to AVOID.
By discussing the minutia of the criteria required to be considered successful or able to contribute to a party facing CR appropriate challenges, we are setting the goal. We are determining what we must aim for. THEN we can work on a build to meet it... and discover whether it is even possible with the current rules or not.
This way saves both time and headaches. Set the goal THEN try to meet it, as opposed to post random builds, move the goal posts, tear them apart, try again, move goalposts again, tear them apart, try again, ad nausea. That is both (more) time consuming and incredibly frustrating (imo).
~P
4 Str + 4 BAB + 1 Weapon Focus + 1 from Brass Knuckle = +10.
Wait, where did I say I couldn't beat the fighter's CMD ? Cast on yourself True Strike, and you have +30 to your next maneuver check, when the most legally munchkinized fighter of same level (let's say +5 Str, +3 Dex, 4 BAB, +2 from weapon, so 24), will be at 34 DMC against disarm. Take Improved Grapple, and you have +12 to beat 24, and even better chances if this is a THF who avoided dexterity.
One round of doing nothing in order to cast true strike, and brass knuckles don't have maneuver features so that enhancement doesn't work.
|
|
Is there a rule stating that you can only add masterwork bonuses to CMB if the weapon has a maneuver tag? I thought all bonuses to attack rolls were added to CMB.
As far as I know, that ruling is specific to trip. Otherwise, it depends on whether you can perform the maneuver with the weapon in question - as long as you can, you're golden.
It's pretty iffy question as to whether you are supposed to be able to use brass knuckles to grapple someone, though.
|
I see no rules stating that you can only use a weapon to perform a maneuver if that weapon has the appropriate tag, so I will say that brass knuckles can be used to disarm, and the +1 masterwork bonus counts to CMB. However, I cannot find the rule about different sized weapons getting a bonus or penalty to the roll. Do light weapons no longer take a -4 to maneuver checks?
I see no rules stating that you can only use a weapon to perform a maneuver if that weapon has the appropriate tag, so I will say that brass knuckles can be used to disarm, and the +1 masterwork bonus counts to CMB. However, I cannot find the rule about different sized weapons getting a bonus or penalty to the roll. Do light weapons no longer take a -4 to maneuver checks?
What is the point of having the maneuver tag then? If that was the case my barbarian wouldn't have bothered with the AMOF.
yar.
Did light weapons ever have a -4 to maneuvers? Making disarm attempts without a weapon imposes a -4, and Bull-Rushes have a -4 per creature pushed beyond the first, but I see nothing about weapon size imposing a negative (only creature size).
And yes, by RAW, if you use a weapon to perform a combat maneuver, you add all of it's attack bonus' to the roll (masterwork, enhancement, special). You also add any feats and abilities that modify your attack (weapon focus, flanking, etc). If that weapon is also a "insert maneuver name here" weapon, it gains an additional bonus (usually an additional +2 to the check, or the ability to be dropped instead of countered w/regards to Trip).
The only "iffy" part is with Trip weapons, which state "You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped"... however, you do not NEED a weapon to make trip attacks (or more specifically, you can use Unarmed Attacks to make trip attacks, so why not other weapons. I can see someone being knocked over by a longsword strike to the back of the knees), and nothing in the Trip special attack description does it say that you can or cannot use a weapon (regardless of properties) to make trip attacks.
Sunder, Disarm, Bull-rush, Drag and Reposition all seem fair game with weapons (with some humorous visuals... using your rapier to drag your opponent back by his nose, for example). Grapple can make sense with Brass Knuckles as they enhance your unarmed strikes, and you can make a grapple check to inflict damage... nothing in the rules say otherwise (though all things subject to GM discretion, of course). Overrun doesn't make much sense (unless you describe it as running forward while swinging your weapon to push aside/knock over what's in your way).
meh. Perhaps this little side topic should be redirected to the rules forum.
:/
~P
EDIT:
What is the point of having the maneuver tag then?
They grant Additional bonuses. usually an additional +2 on top of everything else. Or the ability to be dropped instead of counter-tripped.
~P
|
|
I don't have my books, so I am forced to use the PRD. But I really see nothing stating you can only use Trip weapons to trip, etc. Which makes the tag pretty useless in that it doesn't add anything. The Disarm tag at least adds a +2 to Disarm checks.
With regard to trip weapons specifically, it has been dealt with in the FAQ. Short version: you have to use a trip weapon to trip with a weapon. You can trip without a weapon, of course, but getting any benefit from a weapon requires the weapon to have the trip feature.
More generally, it's all GM's call as to whether you can use the weapon to pull it off. Normally I allow it, but not all the time.
However, I cannot find the rule about different sized weapons getting a bonus or penalty to the roll. Do light weapons no longer take a -4 to maneuver checks?
Nope. The rule was removed in Pathfinder. I'd forgotten for awhile, but the Rules You Don't Think People Know thread reminded me of it again.
Yar.
With regard to trip weapons specifically, it has been dealt with in the FAQ. Short version: you have to use a trip weapon to trip with a weapon. You can trip without a weapon, of course, but getting any benefit from a weapon requires the weapon to have the trip feature.
More generally, it's all GM's call as to whether you can use the weapon to pull it off. Normally I allow it, but not all the time.
Sorry, I need to fix your short version answer (as it is incorrect).
You CAN trip with any weapon regardless of it being a trip weapon or not. You only gain the benefits of that weapon (masterwork, enhancement, weapon focus: that weapon) if it has the trip property.
If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?
No. Note that when making a trip combat maneuver, you don't need to use a weapon at all--for example, you can trip when you're unarmed, even though unarmed strike isn't listed as a trip weapon.
There are advantages to using a weapon with the trip special feature (a.k.a. a "trip weapon") when making a trip combat maneuver. One, if your trip attack fails by 10 or more, you can drop the trip weapon instead of being knocked prone. Two, you can apply the weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon-specific attack bonuses such as Weapon Focus, and so on to your trip combat maneuver roll.
For example, you'd add the enhancement bonus from a +5 whip to your trip combat maneuver roll because a whip is a trip weapon. You wouldn't add the enhancement bonus from a +5 longsword to your trip combat maneuver roll because a longsword is not a trip weapon. In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt.
~P