They can be enchanted at level 2 when they become +1 weapons.
I'm inferring that the monk's BAB directly improves his unarmed strike, which isn't much of a stretch since the unarmed damage goes up with level as it is (which doesn't happen for any other class). The BAB can be inferred as an enchantment, for the monk.
I think that is a bit of a stretch, actually. Not that I don't support enchanting monks (or anyone else, really) directly, just that the logic here is a bit weak.
When brass knuckles came out they were lauded as a huge help for monks, which they are. Being able to add weapon enhancements to your unarmed strike is a lot.
Unfortunately it really messes with the flavor a lot of people want out of their monks.
Where does it say in the book(s) that a Monk can Flurry with Brass Knuckles?
Where does it say in the book(s) that a Monk can Flurry with Brass Knuckles?Under the definition of the 'monk' weapon quality.
"Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows"
I assume that because it says Monks are proficient with Knuckles that it's considered a "Special Monk Weapon"?
I didn't disbelieve it, I just wanted to know. Don't have my books atm.
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
See the table and weapon entry here.
RAW on that very site says they can't. Well, it isnt mentioned on the list that can be used for Flurry.
I'd imagine RAI it can be.
So RAI, can you flurry with a Temple Sword?
|
These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.
Brass knuckles 1 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. B monk, see text
Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows
Temple sword 30 gp 1d6 1d8 19–20/×2 — 3 lbs. S monk, trip
Yes, RAW you can flurry with a Temple Sword. Unlike brass knuckles, monks are not automatically proficent with it however.
These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.Brass knuckles 1 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 1 lb. B monk, see textMonk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blowsTemple sword 30 gp 1d6 1d8 19–20/×2 — 3 lbs. S monk, tripYes, RAW you can flurry with a Temple Sword. Unlike brass knuckles, monks are not automatically proficent with it however.
Sweet, it'd be cool if they edited the actual Monk page
Unlike brass knuckles, monks are not automatically proficent with it however.
Temple sword description in APG says that Monks are proficient in Temple Swords. PG 179.
Well, advanced equipment (APG and so on) is not mentioned in the text taken from the core book as it's from a book that wasn't out at the time the core was released and retroactively rewriting would actually be hell of a work as it would force to include all options from various sources Paizo released and continual updates.
I think d20 pfsrd is trying to do that and stay updated.
Well, advanced equipment (APG and so on) is not mentioned in the text taken from the core book as it's from a book that wasn't out at the time the core was released and retroactively rewriting would actually be hell of a work as it would force to include all options from various sources Paizo released and continual updates.
I think d20 pfsrd is trying to do that and stay updated.
Honestly, they really should have just had the monk say 'May flurry with any weapon that has the Monk property', rather than list them. This happened with 3.5 as well, when expansions came out. Oh well.
I think that is a bit of a stretch, actually. Not that I don't support enchanting monks (or anyone else, really) directly, just that the logic here is a bit weak.
It does appear weak. But if you think about what the BAB actually is, it's basically an enhancement bonus to your character. This doesn't mean much beyond "Yay, +1 BAB" to most classes, because most classes use weapons. Even if the character itself gets a bonus, their weapon remains the same.
But monks actually use their body as their weapon, so the bonus to the character is a bonus to their weapon.
I realize it's a very grey area, but what someone quoted Monte Cook saying earlier really resonates with me and I will rule monks can enchant their unarmed attacks in my house rules. Maybe even anyone who takes improved unarmed attack.
I think that is a bit of a stretch, actually. Not that I don't support enchanting monks (or anyone else, really) directly, just that the logic here is a bit weak.It does appear weak. But if you think about what the BAB actually is, it's basically an enhancement bonus to your character. This doesn't mean much beyond "Yay, +1 BAB" to most classes, because most classes use weapons. Even if the character itself gets a bonus, their weapon remains the same.
But monks actually use their body as their weapon, so the bonus to the character is a bonus to their weapon.
I realize it's a very grey area, but what someone quoted Monte Cook saying earlier really resonates with me and I will rule monks can enchant their unarmed attacks in my house rules. Maybe even anyone who takes improved unarmed attack.
No enchantment bonus does grant any additional attcksa, quite unlike base attack bonus. And enchantment bonuses don't stack, BAB does (when you multiclass you get two BAB bonuses). So, no "Yay, +1 BAB" ;)
BTW with that logic you should allow dragons to get an anchantment bonus to their jaws for example.
Honestly, they really should have just had the monk say 'May flurry with any weapon that has the Monk property', rather than list them. This happened with 3.5 as well, when expansions came out. Oh well.Well, advanced equipment (APG and so on) is not mentioned in the text taken from the core book as it's from a book that wasn't out at the time the core was released and retroactively rewriting would actually be hell of a work as it would force to include all options from various sources Paizo released and continual updates.
I think d20 pfsrd is trying to do that and stay updated.
I think that's what we get when a lot of text is taken from that very source...
I think that is a bit of a stretch, actually. Not that I don't support enchanting monks (or anyone else, really) directly, just that the logic here is a bit weak.It does appear weak. But if you think about what the BAB actually is, it's basically an enhancement bonus to your character. This doesn't mean much beyond "Yay, +1 BAB" to most classes, because most classes use weapons. Even if the character itself gets a bonus, their weapon remains the same.
But monks actually use their body as their weapon, so the bonus to the character is a bonus to their weapon.
I realize it's a very grey area, but what someone quoted Monte Cook saying earlier really resonates with me and I will rule monks can enchant their unarmed attacks in my house rules. Maybe even anyone who takes improved unarmed attack.
No enchantment bonus does grant any additional attcksa, quite unlike base attack bonus. And enchantment bonuses don't stack, BAB does (when you multiclass you get two BAB bonuses). So, no "Yay, +1 BAB" ;)
BTW with that logic you should allow dragons to get an anchantment bonus to their jaws for example.
I agree that the given reasoning is weak. But I honestly wouldn't have any problem, as a DM, with dragons putting weapon enhancements on their bites. Of course, they're actually probably better off getting the Amulet of Mighty Fists and enhancing all of their natural attacks--it's actually fairly priced for that purpose...
I agree that the given reasoning is weak. But I honestly wouldn't have any problem, as a DM, with dragons putting weapon enhancements on their bites. Of course, they're actually probably better off getting the Amulet of Mighty Fists and enhancing all of their natural attacks--it's actually fairly priced for that purpose...I think that is a bit of a stretch, actually. Not that I don't support enchanting monks (or anyone else, really) directly, just that the logic here is a bit weak.It does appear weak. But if you think about what the BAB actually is, it's basically an enhancement bonus to your character. This doesn't mean much beyond "Yay, +1 BAB" to most classes, because most classes use weapons. Even if the character itself gets a bonus, their weapon remains the same.
But monks actually use their body as their weapon, so the bonus to the character is a bonus to their weapon.
I realize it's a very grey area, but what someone quoted Monte Cook saying earlier really resonates with me and I will rule monks can enchant their unarmed attacks in my house rules. Maybe even anyone who takes improved unarmed attack.
No enchantment bonus does grant any additional attcksa, quite unlike base attack bonus. And enchantment bonuses don't stack, BAB does (when you multiclass you get two BAB bonuses). So, no "Yay, +1 BAB" ;)
BTW with that logic you should allow dragons to get an anchantment bonus to their jaws for example.
I'd actually go either tatoo or permanent enchantment way as well, but at different pricing than weapons.
|
As for monks, I think it was in Evolved Arcana that Monte Cook outright said monks could have their "natural attack" enchanted as if it were a weapon. That always seemed one of the best solutions to me, alongside letting monks do "monk damage" with all monk weapons rather then just "unarmed damage."Well, to me this ends the discussion, since RAW state that monk weapons are treated as both manufactured and natural weapons. Technically, it was already RAW to be able to enchant your fists, elbows knees and toes, knees and toes....
Link?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually if you look at Ember, the monk from 3rd edition Player's handbook you can see what the wrappings could look like.
Yeah, that's actually the image I'm shooting for. :) Ember was always close to the aesthetic I wanted out of my monks, along with the new Qinggong lady.
I think that is a bit of a stretch, actually. Not that I don't support enchanting monks (or anyone else, really) directly, just that the logic here is a bit weak.They can be enchanted at level 2 when they become +1 weapons.
I'm inferring that the monk's BAB directly improves his unarmed strike, which isn't much of a stretch since the unarmed damage goes up with level as it is (which doesn't happen for any other class). The BAB can be inferred as an enchantment, for the monk.
Personally I'd go with another line of reasoning:
Managing to become a monk means your body is masterwork.
If need be, that status might be put off until they get a ki pool, to show when their mind, body, and soul are fully synched up and all monk calibrated.
Managing to become a monk means your body is masterwork.So full of win.
Indeed. I think we can all agree on that.
EDIT: Not only can we probably agree, but it strikes me as RAI. Your monkliness allows your fists to deal lethal damage if you choose, where others could not. The "masterwork" quality is there. Your fists (et al) are better weapons because you have made them better.
EDIT2: I wonder if some tiny blue golem on high might see fit to say that a monk's body is masterwork when imp unarmed striked is chosen?
Managing to become a monk means your body is masterwork.So full of win.Indeed. I think we can all agree on that.
EDIT: Not only can we probably agree, but it strikes me as RAI. Your monkliness allows your fists to deal lethal damage if you choose, where others could not. The "masterwork" quality is there. Your fists (et al) are better weapons because you have made them better.
EDIT2: I wonder if some tiny blue golem on high might see fit to say that a monk's body is masterwork when imp unarmed striked is chosen?
Can you hear the following questions hanging in the air? (Do I get that +1 to attack? NO! But why?!? Because they say that he doesn't but what is...)
|
Ember was always close to the aesthetic I wanted out of my monks, along with the new Qinggong lady.
When I was writing up Ember for M&M, I went with a gear-adjacent design philosophy as well, because it just worked better with my own view of the character, being focused less on becoming good with a bunch of faux-asian weapons (that have nothing to do with her culture), and instead concentrating on learning to leap like a panther, run like a gazelle, swim like a crocodile and grappple like a python.
D&D/PF don't currently encourage that sort of thinking, but I'd be totally in favor of a well-designed Monk Archetype that allow magic items to be assimilated into the character (or sacrificed as part of the Monk's adjusting his chi to internally replicate their effects, or something).
[tangent]I like Lockwood's Ember, but his Naull is my absolute favorite.[/tangent]
Can you enchant bk to get +x to hit and damage for unarmed strikes?
Can monk's damage reduction bonus through level be passed through bk?
Can weapon focus and weapon specialization be applied to bk?
Only if your attacking with the BK's
Only with a certain enchantment
yes
Just a side-note to the complaints that an Amulet of Mighty Fist is 2.5 times the cost of an enchanted weapon: given that we're talking about a pseudo-two-weapon fighter, the cost should really be adjudicated by the cost normally incurred by a two-weapon fighter, i.e. two enchanted weapons. Now the cost distinction goes from 1 vs 2.5 to 2 vs 2.5, i.e. a 25% mark-up. This doesn't seem over the top to me, particularly considering that the amulet *may* be enchanted with flaming, ghost-touch, whatever, without the pesky +1 first requirement.
|
|
Ember was always close to the aesthetic I wanted out of my monks, along with the new Qinggong lady.When I was writing up Ember for M&M, I went with a gear-adjacent design philosophy as well, because it just worked better with my own view of the character, being focused less on becoming good with a bunch of faux-asian weapons (that have nothing to do with her culture), and instead concentrating on learning to leap like a panther, run like a gazelle, swim like a crocodile and grappple like a python.
+10 That is exactly the sort of feel I'm hoping to get out of the monk.
D&D/PF don't currently encourage that sort of thinking, but I'd be totally in favor of a well-designed Monk Archetype that allow magic items to be assimilated into the character (or sacrificed as part of the Monk's adjusting his chi to internally replicate their effects, or something).
[tangent]I like Lockwood's Ember, but his Naull is my absolute favorite.[/tangent]
I really hope something along those lines, at least with the end result, is present in Ultimate Combat. I'd be willing to pay over cover price for that option alone.
Can you enchant bk to get +x to hit and damage for unarmed strikes?
Can monk's damage reduction bonus through level be passed through bk?
Can weapon focus and weapon specialization be applied to bk?
Yes, yes and yes.
Ember was always close to the aesthetic I wanted out of my monks, along with the new Qinggong lady.When I was writing up Ember for M&M, I went with a gear-adjacent design philosophy as well, because it just worked better with my own view of the character, being focused less on becoming good with a bunch of faux-asian weapons (that have nothing to do with her culture), and instead concentrating on learning to leap like a panther, run like a gazelle, swim like a crocodile and grappple like a python.+10 That is exactly the sort of feel I'm hoping to get out of the monk.
Well, you get that already without items. The problem is that you fall behind those that use magic items or that you get it at s few levels later.
I really hope something along those lines, at least with the end result, is present in Ultimate Combat. I'd be willing to pay over cover price for that option alone.D&D/PF don't currently encourage that sort of thinking, but I'd be totally in favor of a well-designed Monk Archetype that allow magic items to be assimilated into the character (or sacrificed as part of the Monk's adjusting his chi to internally replicate their effects, or something).
[tangent]I like Lockwood's Ember, but his Naull is my absolute favorite.[/tangent]
I absolutely loved the fire genasi from Forgotten Realms.
Just a side-note to the complaints that an Amulet of Mighty Fist is 2.5 times the cost of an enchanted weapon: given that we're talking about a pseudo-two-weapon fighter, the cost should really be adjudicated by the cost normally incurred by a two-weapon fighter, i.e. two enchanted weapons. Now the cost distinction goes from 1 vs 2.5 to 2 vs 2.5, i.e. a 25% mark-up. This doesn't seem over the top to me, particularly considering that the amulet *may* be enchanted with flaming, ghost-touch, whatever, without the pesky +1 first requirement.
A monk can flurry with any single Monk weapon or brass knuckles, so I don't think x2 is really an appropriate cost. If I were to mark it up above the cost of a single enchanted weapon at all, I'd probably say x1.5.
D&D/PF don't currently encourage that sort of thinking, but I'd be totally in favor of a well-designed Monk Archetype that allow magic items to be assimilated into the character (or sacrificed as part of the Monk's adjusting his chi to internally replicate their effects, or something).
Trailblazer, which I just discovered yesterday, allows you to do this with Action Points. Basically, you can bind an item to you, and improve it with Action Points at the appropriate levels. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to adjust the system so no gear was needed, and you could improve yourself directly.
Action Points:
You get 6 to use at each level. (If you only use these for gear you could say you get 6 total, ever. You can use these to increase the "Big Six" which are: armor/shield, magic weapon, natural armor, deflection bonus, resistance item, and stat boosters.)
Spend one to bind a magic item to you. (Or fix this for monks so you can just get a +1 to stuff at level 3.)
At levels 6,9,12,15 the bonus automatically increases by +1. (You should probably spend the appropriate amount of gold to do this in PF. Maybe a donation to the temple.)
There are no good monk weapons. They do very little damage
Temple Sword
A monk can flurry with any single Monk weapon or brass knuckles, so I don't think x2 is really an appropriate cost. If I were to mark it up above the cost of a single enchanted weapon at all, I'd probably say x1.5.Just a side-note to the complaints that an Amulet of Mighty Fist is 2.5 times the cost of an enchanted weapon: given that we're talking about a pseudo-two-weapon fighter, the cost should really be adjudicated by the cost normally incurred by a two-weapon fighter, i.e. two enchanted weapons. Now the cost distinction goes from 1 vs 2.5 to 2 vs 2.5, i.e. a 25% mark-up. This doesn't seem over the top to me, particularly considering that the amulet *may* be enchanted with flaming, ghost-touch, whatever, without the pesky +1 first requirement.
There are no good monk weapons. They do very little damage, may require their own exotic weapon feat, etc. Chances of finding them in a treasure horde are nearly zero - so, they will likely have to be custom made.
Considering the long list of problems with monk weapons (the only advantage they grant is with regards to damage resistance), I've got no problem with giving them the little bennie of working well with AoMF.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see what it has to do with what was being discussed. LoreKeeper was saying the AoMF should cost x2 as much as enchanting a single weapon, since Flurries emulate TWF. I said that I thought that was still too much, since a Flurry doesn't require more than one weapon.