|
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.
BK are unarmed weapons. Unarmed weapons deal unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes allow for any combat maneuver using an attack.
The "trip" quality on a weapon only allows you to drop your weapon if you fail the check. With unarmed and a fail, you're prone.Also, yes, one round of "doing nothing". And ? What's your point ?
By the same logic, I suppose inquisitors suck because they need two rounds to get Divine Might + Judgement + Bane and to land at least one hit ? But oh yes, they suck, don't mind the bloody pulp that comes on the following round.
At the same level, the fighter has roughly 50% to hit with a combat maneuver he invested feats in. My monk has pretty much a 100% chance to hit, and can avoid any harm on the first round thanks to good movement and AC. Have fun waving your arms hoping for a good roll and taking damage, while the monk prepares safely his auto-hit.
So yeah no +1 from brass knuckles then.
Yar.
"There is no (mechanical) difference between this way an the other" is not the same thing as "you are doing it this way and not the other."
That distinction is important to some people. Mechanically they produce the same result. Yes. But descriptively, they are very different.
This way, you can say:
"I sweep at his legs with my heavy mace in order to try and trip him."
...and it is a perfectly viable choice/tactic. Without that distinction, the GM could say in response.
"No, that's impossible. A heavy mace is not a trip weapon, and you can only trip with trip weapons, or unarmed. So you must drop your heavy mace and trip him with your bare hands. Those are the rules."
But that is not the case.
~P
So yeah no +1 from brass knuckles then.Yes you have.
You add any bonuses to attack from the weapon you use for your CMB check. +1 BK gives +1 Att/Dam, so +1 to CMB when using this unarmed strike as a "weapon" for the maneuver.
The last like 6 posts just clarified that you can use any weapon for a maneuver but you only get the bonus from the weapon for weapons with the correct quality
|
Yar.
"There is no (mechanical) difference between this way an the other" is not the same thing as "you are doing it this way and not the other."
That distinction is important to some people. Mechanically they produce the same result. Yes. But descriptively, they are very different.
This way, you can say:
"I sweep at his legs with my heavy mace in order to try and trip him."
...and it is a perfectly viable choice/tactic. Without that distinction, the GM could say in response.
"No, that's impossible. A heavy mace is not a trip weapon, and you can only trip with trip weapons, or unarmed. So you must drop your heavy mace and trip him with your bare hands. Those are the rules."
But that is not the case.
~P
Then you stare at him like the crazy person he is and say, "Then I sweep his legs with my leg. You know, the way people normally try to trip each other. And I keep my sodding mace, thankyouverymuch."
|
|
You're tripping unarmed, even if you happen to be holding a weapon at the time.
Not really. It's just that you don't get any bonus from "tripping with a weapon" if the weapon has not the Trip quality. Nothing says you can't try to trip with a shotsword flavorwise.
Note that if you have bonuses to unarmed, they would apply to BMC though, since you could use an unarmed attack instead of your held weapon to trip. So you can trip with whatever you want, you'll not get any bonus except with : unarmed bonuses, or Trip weapon.|
|
You're tripping unarmed, even if you happen to be holding a weapon at the time.Not really. It's just that you don't get any bonus from "tripping with a weapon" if the weapon has not the Trip quality. Nothing says you can't try to trip with a shotsword flavorwise.
Yes, but it's just that: flavor. You're welcome to it, but as I said before, it was a summary. I'm not going to split mechanically meaningless hairs for the sake of a summary. (headshake) I linked to the full FAQ for the people who wanted the whole deal, but the short version was precisely that. And can we please stop derailing the thread now?
|
|
The last like 6 posts just clarified that you can use any weapon for a maneuver but you only get the bonus from the weapon for weapons with the correct qualitySo yeah no +1 from brass knuckles then.Yes you have.
You add any bonuses to attack from the weapon you use for your CMB check. +1 BK gives +1 Att/Dam, so +1 to CMB when using this unarmed strike as a "weapon" for the maneuver.
My last, like, previous post clarified that BK are unarmed weapons, dealing unarmed strikes which are unarmed attacks, and that since this monk uses unarmed attacks for combat maneuvers, he applies the BK bonus to his CMB for any maneuver using an attack.
Yar.
The last few posts only clarified things with regards to Trip attempts. As far as I can tell, the other maneuvers follow their own rules, as they actually have their own rules. The main rules (that Trip is called out as the exception to) is for CMB checks in general, which state:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.
Thus, when making a sunder attempt with your +5 Sap that you have weapon focus in vs a guy you are flanking, and while under the effect of your 1st level Bard companion's inspire courage ability, you make the check at BaB + Str + 5 (for the weapon's enhancement bonus) +1 (Weapon Focus) +1 (Inspire Courage) + 2 (flanking).
~P
|
|
There are only two maneuver tags to begin with: trip and disarm. Only trip actually requires you to have a weapon with the tag to gain any benefit from using the weapon to perform the maneuver. Disarm gives you a bonus to performing disarms with it, but you can disarm - or, for all that we can tell - use any other maneuver except trip with any weapon you can persuade your GM to let you use for it.
I don't, incidentally, automatically accept that any weapon that modifies an unarmed strike allows you to use it to perform a grapple. In fact, the Weapon Focus feat calls out grapples as distinct from unarmed strikes, and if you can use unarmed strikes to perform a grapple there would literally never be a reason to take Weapon Focus (grapple). Now, I strongly suspect it's just a leftover from 3.5, but it's still a rule on the books, and a GM with a literalist bent might not allow any modifiers to grapple as a result.
|
|
I don't, incidentally, automatically accept that any weapon that modifies an unarmed strike allows you to use it to perform a grapple. In fact, the Weapon Focus feat calls out grapples as distinct from unarmed strikes, and if you can use unarmed strikes to perform a grapple there would literally never be a reason to take Weapon Focus (grapple).
This I can agree with. There are "grapple" weapons, and even one with reach, but the grapple check is always separated from the attack one.
My last, like, previous post clarified that BK are unarmed weapons, dealing unarmed strikes which are unarmed attacks, and that since this monk uses unarmed attacks for combat maneuvers, he applies the BK bonus to his CMB for any maneuver using an attack.
BK's are a weapon with the special feature to do US damage, that does not mean they are Unarmed strikes.
Pirate!monk's flurry attack routine is only +18/+18/+13/+13. The fifth attack comes in at level 11. Also, the character has no abilities that allow saves, so the save DC is moot.
By my math, he does 51.3 damage per round with a Power Attacking flurry, without using Elemental Fist or a Ki point. (Does (.6*2+2*.35)*(22.5*1.2) look right?) Using a charge of Elemental Fist adds 6.5 damage to that; popping a Ki point adds 16.2.
I'm inclined to say flurrying with a Temple Sword in both hands gives you the two-handed effectiveness from Power Attack. If your GM isn't so charitable, the DPR for a flurry is 44.46 and popping a Ki adds 14.04.
Contrast him with Falchion Fred and Tempest Ted, a 2h and TWF fighter. Also consider Melvin 1.1 and his corrected DPR for an unarmed monk, and Melvin 1.1.2 for a nunchaku monk (who doesn't 2h the nunchaku; he does ~45ish if you let him do that).
Most of this extra damage is coming from the Temple Sword. Mighty Fist amulets just cost too much, even in PF, and two-handed Power Attack goes a long way. I'd argue that Elemental Fist is strictly inferior to Stunning Fist, though; it's just not a lot of damage, and landing a Stunning Fist is a lot more effective, even if you have to burn your first attack with a kick instead of a sword attack to use it.
The additional +'s are vestigual theory templating I did at a different time, they were not used to calculate the DPR in my post. (That's the second spoiler, it's a break down of single attacks, and various Flurry combinations.
Elemental fist adds an average of 6.3 DPR.
Comparing to the other fighters:
Using only power attack, he deals 8 less DPR than Falchion Fred, and 2 less DPR than Tempest Ted. Since Tempest Ted is a TWF, I'd say that he's competetive as a two weapon fighter.
When adding elemental fist to the attack retinue (57.6), he deals 1 less DPR than Falchion Fred, and 5 more than Tempest Ted. Not too shabby
When When Burning a Ki Point and Power Attacking, he deals 7 more damage than Fred, 14 more than Ted.
When Adding Elemental Fist to all that, he deals 13 more than Fred, 20 more than Ted.
I'd say that's pretty good.
Yar.
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
~P
Indeed.
The monk's unarmed stike is considered a manufactured weapon as well.
Yar.
It's still an attack with an Unarmed Strike.
If it's one or the other, it's unarmed, because the rules say so (quoted above). If it's BOTH, then it applies the benefits for being either one to situations that rely on being either one.
~P
Manufactured weapon.
Yup yup
Thought that was only for warforged monks...
Haha, no wai dude. Bruce Lee built himself into the killing machine that he was.
But they're both Natural and Manufactured Weapons for the purpose of determining benefits, not drawbacks.
I think that's in the monk's description for unarmed strikes.
Thought that was only for warforged monks...Haha, no wai dude. Bruce Lee built himself into the killing machine that he was.
But they're both Natural and Manufactured Weapons for the purpose of determining benefits, not drawbacks.
I think that's in the monk's description for unarmed strikes.
Except it isn't a cover-all as some would like. It is a manufactured weapon in regards to things that can target manufactured weapons, in other words it is like reverse brass knuckles.
BK's : manufactured weapon with US damage
Monks IUS: US that can be affected as though a manufactured weapon.
neither actually is the other though.
Yar.
If DPR is the only thing that matters, why play anything other than a Fighter?
Even paladins and rangers do less DPR than fighters in your run-of-the-mill full attack. The only time they can hope to compare is under the right circumstances (smites and favored). It’s the same with the monk. Trying to do what the fighter does (anytime run-of-the-mill full attack) the monk falls short of the fighter (40.5 DPR for MonkBlade McMaster), just like paladins and rangers do... but under the right circumstances (when the monks limited per day abilities come into play, aka swift use of ki point for an extra attack and a non-action use of elemental fist; just as with a paladins limited per day abilities, aka Smite against the right foes; and rangers limited bonuses, aka vs favored enemies), the monks DPR jumps up to comparable (73.8 for MonkBlade McMaster).
Isn't this how it's supposed to be? Fighters are the undisputed KINGS of regular full-attack DPR, while Paladins, Rangers, and Monks fall short except under the limited circumstances that exemplify the flavor of those classes.
~P
|
|
DPR stuff again
Let's look at an actual combat between a monk and Falcion Fred, shall we?
Falcion Fred's movement is likely going to be 30. A monk's movement is going to be 60.
Since they are both 10th level, in addition to whatever else the monk took along the way, the monk can now take spring attack as his 10th level feat.
Do you see the problem for Falcion Fred in actual game play?
|
|
It's still an attack with a manufactured weapon.
Well, funny because by RAW, it's in the list of unarmed attacks, an unarmed weapon, dealing "unarmed strikes". But yes, it's also a manufactured weapon, so it is both. Would you then object to apply the glove's enhancement bonus to any maneuver made with unarmed strikes, like using a +2 glove to get a +2 bonus when tripping someone with an unarmed attack, since any strike made with a gauntlet is already an unarmed one ?
BK are also "unarmed attacks". The big difference between BK and gauntlets is the special quality that allows monks to do full unarmed damage, and the monk quality to flurry with them. Seems pretty obvious that the BK is designed to patch the monk, serve as a "fist upgrade" and avoid the obligatory AoMF.
The point is, we are all right about this. By RAW, and because of the complexity of the rules, furthermore expanded by supplements and a voluntary lack of clarification on the most obscure points like "unarmed attacks" that originally didn't need a lot of precision, both points are totally correct. And this is the kind of situation where Paizo suggested everyone to play it the way they want because they feel they don't want to DM fiat for everyone out there. Understandable, since each time they errata a hot topic like Spring Attack, nerd rage ensues.
|
|
Let's not, because D&D in't a PVP game. Both of them are completely screwed against anything with wings. It illustrates a problem with both, but sharing the problem with another class doesn't really dilute it meaningfully.
You are right. It is not. Which is my point.
DPR is a single in game situation, it is not the game. Monks aren't going to out damage fighters, nor should they. It isn't what they do.
As to flying, as with anything it depends. A monk can jump ridiculously high, and a stun or grapple after a jump could be effective depending on elevation. Similarly readying a stunning fist or a grapple against flyby, buying a couple of fly potions, or retreating to an area less open with a low ceiling.
It is a game of options, and when it is well run even the DM will be surprised by what the players come up with to resolve problems.
This is why it is problematic to reduce it all to a formula. Using formulas for specific analysis of a specific ability is one thing, but when you built to meet formula criteria you sacrifice other abilities in other areas.
The DPR Olympics is a game in and of itself. Falcion Fred would need as strong supporting cast to be viable in an actual AP.
He readies I plink with shuriken instead, I only need one object on the field to negate his ability to charge.Do you see the problem for Falcion Fred in actual game play?He has to ready actions to trade one for one blows with the monk?
Or gets constant charge attacks.
So you counter an in-game action by using metagame knowledge. Yeah, good argument basis.
Let's not, because D&D in't a PVP game. Both of them are completely screwed against anything with wings. It illustrates a problem with both, but sharing the problem with another class doesn't really dilute it meaningfully.
You are right. It is not. Which is my point.
DPR is a single in game situation, it is not the game. Monks aren't going to out damage fighters, nor should they. It isn't what they do.
The problem is what DO the Monks do that Fighters can't do better.
Citerose, monk can jump high, but not THAT high - just see the high jump rules.
Perhaps this could be overcomed using more little jumps in a single move.
It should be pointed out that four winds monk CAN fly, even if at a limited rate, and any monk can take cloud step if high level enough.
Let's look at an actual combat between a monk and Falcion Fred, shall we?Let's not, because D&D in't a PVP game. Both of them are completely screwed against anything with wings. It illustrates a problem with both, but sharing the problem with another class doesn't really dilute it meaningfully.A few points:
1) DPR seems to be one of the issues that people against the monk so it is something to look at. I don't think it's an issue but it is brought up 100% of the time in these threads by those who think monks aren't good enough.
2) The world should have more than just monsters to fight. Many campaigns use NPCs more than monsters. NPCs are valid enemies to look at at. If they have PC gear, we just have to remember that they are +1 CR
3) Creatures with flight can be dealt with in enough ways that it shouldn't be an issue after level 4 or so. Potions are cheap.
|
|
Citerose, monk can jump high, but not THAT high - just see the high jump rules.
Perhaps this could be overcomed using more little jumps in a single move.
It should be pointed out that four winds monk CAN fly, even if at a limited rate, and any monk can take cloud step if high level enough.
My mistake, but point remains the same.
|
|
DPR is a single in game situation, it is not the game. Monks aren't going to out damage fighters, nor should they. It isn't what they do.Actually, they pretty much are on par.
But if dealing damage isn't what monks do, then what do they do?
Depends on what you need.
Every character should be built in the context of the party. A monk can fill a number of roles in a given encounter or group, depending on what is needed. That is what I like about the class.
DPR is a single in game situation, it is not the game. Monks aren't going to out damage fighters, nor should they. It isn't what they do.Actually, they pretty much are on par.
But if dealing damage isn't what monks do, then what do they do?
Depends on what you need.
Every character should be built in the context of the party. A monk can fill a number of roles in a given encounter or group, depending on what is needed. That is what I like about the class.
ciretose is just being dense. This is not an example.
A few points:
1) DPR seems to be one of the issues that people against the monk so it is something to look at. I don't think it's an issue but it is brought up 100% of the time in these threads by those who think monks aren't good enough.
2) The world should have more than just monsters to fight. Many campaigns use NPCs more than monsters. NPCs are valid enemies to look at at. If they have PC gear, we just have to remember that they are +1 CR
3) Creatures with flight can be dealt with in enough ways that it shouldn't be an issue after level 4 or so. Potions are cheap.
Damage is one of the issues. Damage-per-round is simply a way of measuring and analyzing damage. I'd say that the post-APG situation is that monks do comparable damage to straightforward core builds when they use temple swords, but still lag pretty far behind if they can't.
But you are right that most games have more than just monsters to fight. And that doesn't just mean NPCs to fight. Most games involve a variety of different challenges, and unless one of those challenges is "get to the bottom of this hole ASAP" or "win a footrace", monks are pretty poor at dealing with challenges that don't involve punching... er, swording people.
It is a game of options, and when it is well run even the DM will be surprised by what the players come up with to resolve problems.Yes, it is a game of options.
Odd that people are so adamant in defense of the fighter and monk, the classes with the fewest options for dealing with problems.
I have never seen a monk or fighter with nothing to do outside of combat. My players use their skills and feats that are not combat oriented every session. I don't understand the idea that they are useless out of combat. No class can cover every situation. If the players build their characters in a vaccuum and never consider what's going on with the party, it may look like one class overshadows another but I have noticed that is a party dynamic problem not a character problem. These types of games tend to have GMs that have favorite classes as well and only have situations that favor those classes while disregarding what the party may consist of. That's fine for some games but it isn't for others.
Will saves ?
The problem is what DO the Monks do that Fighters can't do better.
So do Wizards...
But how does one DO anything by having better will saves?
Every character should be built in the context of the party. A monk can fill a number of roles in a given encounter or group, depending on what is needed. That is what I like about the class.
And I managed to build one that's able to reasonably deal damage and take hits.
Something that has been mentioned previously that monks should not be able to do.
@MiB: Instead of quick draw, take out improved initiative, it's not as important to the build as quickdraw which allows the monk to grapple at no penalty.
And the only reason he's an Oread, is to increase his WIS modifyer by 1, swapping out for human would not impact his DPR (Racial goes to STR) and increase the number of feats he has by 1 (in which place the list would be correct.)
So after about 1300'ish posts we've learned the following: For monks wanting for focus on damage, skip Brass Knuckles and go Temple Sword.
I also while building this character that it's more economical to invest in a Hat of Wis +4 than in a Monk's Robe for the purpose of AC for any monk that does not use Unarmed Strike or Stunning Fist.
|
|
While it can be argued that Spring Attack can be used in conjunction with any action that can be taken instead of a melee attack, most combat maneuvers fall outside of this.
In fact, only Disarm and Trip might be used with Spring Attack (depending on whether the GM allows for Spring Attack to be used with something else than the single melee attack explicitely mentioned in the feat's description).
Concerning Trip, I feel that the FAQ misses one essential point. Even though there is no difference between tripping with a +5 longsword and tripping with an unarmed attack, there is a very distinct difference between tripping with an unarmed attack and tripping with, say, a longspear, ie Reach.
So, can you trip an opponent who is 10' away with a reach weapon, even if said weapon does not have the trip special feature ?
they're a MAD non-int class
Just wanted to point out that this phrase is meaningless for anyone who rolls for stats rather than uses point buy. Only point buy monk characters can be safely assumed to have a lower intelligence. Even then, not all point buy players dump stats, or seek to optimize along the lines generally recommended.
Which does bring me to a question that might shed some light. How many of those who are strong proponents of the monk roll for stats as opposed to using point buy? Rolling for stats certainly gives a chance to have the high scores across the board that make the monk more effective. I personally roll for stats, and probably would not choose to make a monk unless the dice gave me some good scores.
As for your question as to what monks can contribute outside of combat, my group has always used them as fast scouts. They maximize the physical skill ranks, and are adept at getting in to where they need to go unseen, and then fast enough to get out if things go to hell. They climb, jump, swim and sneak pretty darned well, and have the perception scores to not be surprised and not miss things while scouting.
I also love the fact no one can run away unless the monk chooses not to chase them.
And on the battlefield, their speed gives them tremendous tactical flexibility. They can flank virtually anyone. They can reach opponents who think they are safely behind the lines. Their presence on the battlefield is like having a bishop on a long diagonal in chess. They threaten a lot of spaces and can disrupt a lot of different things. I almost never play them to go toe to toe with any opponent solo. They almost always work in tandem with other party members, and their flanking, stunning and combat maneuvers make those characters more effective, too.
But then I love speed. In just about every RPG or military game I've ever played, I've always been happy to sacrifice punching power or defense for pure speed. Speed kills. It lets you determine when and where a fight will take place. You can both decline combat if conditions are not favorable, and prevent the enemy from doing the same. I love it.