Ok so first up the cestus has been errated, check the adventurers armoury for the most recent write up on it.
Here is the write up for the lazy such as myself, copy and pasted.
that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm.
It is reinforced with metal plates over the fingers and
often lined with wicked spikes and fangs along the backs
of the hands and wrists. While wearing a cestus, you are
considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal
damage rather than nonlethal damage. If you are proficient
with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning
or piercing damage. When using a cestus, your fingers
are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items
in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your
knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based
tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks).
So my basic question is, does some-one with increased unarmed damage (obviously i'm thinking monk here) deal his full damage with it?
I will also point out a cestus is a monk weapon.
Thoughts?
APG says a cestus does 1d4 damage, so I would guess it would stay that way. But what do I know?
Generally later books over-ride older ones in these cases, but from what i've gathered in a different thread, yes it does, until paizo gets around to errating that it doesn't. Pity I actually thought it was an intentional buff for a second.
Ok so first up the cestus has been errated, check the adventurers armoury for the most recent write up on it.
Here is the write up for the lazy such as myself, copy and pasted.
** spoiler omitted **
So my basic question is, does some-one with increased unarmed damage (obviously i'm thinking monk here) deal his full damage with it?
I will also point out a cestus is a monk weapon.
Thoughts?
The intent is to stay at 1d4, but do unarmed damage. The writing just could have been better.
Yeah wraithstrike, I get what you where saying, sloppy wording really. I got really excited for a second as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish they'd stop avoiding adding a simple way to just have magic weapon hands.
I wish they'd stop avoiding adding a simple way to just have magic weapon hands.
You mean an amulet of mighty fists?
I wish they'd stop avoiding adding a simple way to just have magic weapon hands.You mean an amulet of mighty fists?
In which you'd pay half again as much as two cestii for half the enhancement bonus, you mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've gotta admit, in my head I had associated it with the magic monk specific gloves that neverwinter nights had added for monks, weird how a gaming company noticed that giving them a half decent way to buff attacks wouldn't overpower them even with high damage rolls, but on the actual pen and paper it's taking so long.
In which you'd pay half again as much as two cestii for half the enhancement bonus, you mean?I wish they'd stop avoiding adding a simple way to just have magic weapon hands.You mean an amulet of mighty fists?
That doesn't change the fact that a 'simple way to have magic hands' already exists in game.
The fact that its expensive may be unfair, but it does exist by RAW.
Note, by RAW, you can 'emulate' a +10 weapon for most purposes with Permanent Greater Magic Fang (8100 gp at CL 20, unless I've done my math wrong) and a +5 amulet (at 125000) for a mere 133100, vs. 200000 for a +10 weapon. Its not AS good, but its close. Note that I'm not forgetting GMW here, but it does have the drawback of requiring a caster on hand to provide it every day vs. having to find a caster once for GMF.
If you want a fist weapon that do unarmed dmg use brass knuckles (APG 176). This weapon have a crit range of 20 x2. Cestus have 19-20 x 2, so they are not intended to bring the base crit chance of a monk to this level (and 17-20 with special ability or improved critical).
|
The cestus is a little odd since the other weapons that are logically similar, brass knuckles and gauntlets (which 3.5e actually declared as being identical to "cesti" just as the greatsword is a nodachi is a claymore is a flamberge, etc.) both just modify unarmed strikes, but not their damage. If one decided to see the actual similarity of the cestus to gauntlets then perhaps damage is increased one dice category? Personally, though I think that'd be easily unbalancing.
If you want a monk with a fist weapon just go with the brass knuckles (or possibly gauntlets, which seem to be identical sans the "official support" for them as monk weapons - oddly this makes them more expensive than brass knuckles, but less functional aside from ability to wield a weapon).
As for why I don't view the AoMF or magic fang (permanent or otherwise) as suitable replacements for monk magic weapons is that you can only apply an enhancement bonus with these (at least with RAW, most reasonable DMs would probably allow modified AoMFs at least), and not special properties like flaming or bane (and really, who doesn't want to see a monk with flaming fists?)
I'd that was is desired is less of a "simple" way and more of a "fair" way.
I should have done this a long time ago, but I am about to propose for my home game an items that boost your unarmed attacks, but only ones made with your fists/hands. Now if a monk wants to use his entire body he has to use AoMF.
As for why I don't view the AoMF or magic fang (permanent or otherwise) as suitable replacements for monk magic weapons is that you can only apply an enhancement bonus with these (at least with RAW, most reasonable DMs would probably allow modified AoMFs at least), and not special properties like flaming or bane (and really, who doesn't want to see a monk with flaming fists?)
Um, I have good news for you; Amulets of mighty fists explicitly allow you to add special abilities to them. More easily than with weapons in fact, as you dont even have to have a +1 first... which makes some 'key' abilities like Agile or Guided more quickly available on an amulet than on a weapon.
If your DM doesn't let you have special abilities on AoMF, that is a houserule, not the other way around.
I wish they'd stop avoiding adding a simple way to just have magic weapon hands.You mean an amulet of mighty fists?
Not really...
It's like, a necklace you wear to make your hands magic, and it's kinda uses the magic weapon system, but not really...
I don't know why you can't just enchant a pair of gloves to have weapon enhancements and call it a day.
I also don't know why you can't just enchant clothes with armor enhancements...
It's like, maybe I don't wanna wear armor, but I still want one of the effects armor has.
I just want a Greater Shadow Shirt man.
+1 a Greater Shadow Shirt is a no brainer.
|
If you want a fist weapon that do unarmed dmg use brass knuckles (APG 176).
I believe the brass knuckles have been errata'ed to not work with monk damage since then.
Edit: Answer to both: No.
The text is clear, developers should give us an errata to change it. Players were not "confused" by the references to unarmed attacks. It's hard to be confused by this "Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them".
The only thing that really can confuse players is that this is an armed attack, so you can't use stunning fist nor add the bonus of the necklace of mighty fists.
The text is clear, developers should give us an errata to change it. Players were not "confused" by the references to unarmed attacks. It's hard to be confused by this "Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them".
Except there were issues that came up, and they DID issue errata to change and clarify things; as linked above by TOZ, all of these weapons are simply light melee weapons, and function as other light melee weapons.
Except that this don't change gameplay. None would take brass knuckle when there's amulet of mighty fist (that you can change in every type of wondrous item with a little more expense, and benefit from more of them).
Previous rules didn't work, "issues that came up" don't affect gameplay.
So... why? Same problem with rules for weapons with trip abilities. Original rules worked well, and hasty correction needed corrections over corrections. We can't accept blindly new rules if are worst than previous one. Also, to change a rules would be better an official errata, not posts and comments in a forum.
Well, if you are asking for the official Pathfinder rules on the topic, you kinda do need to blindly accept new rules.
Errata went out for the brass knuckles in the AA.
APG came out before that errata. They discussing how to fix the issue.
+1 a Greater Shadow Shirt is a no brainer.
But not technically legal as far as I know, as you can only put armor abilities on armor, not clothes.
Well, if you are asking for the official Pathfinder rules on the topic, you kinda do need to blindly accept new rules.
Errata went out for the brass knuckles in the AA.
APG came out before that errata. They discussing how to fix the issue.
I can't take a rule blindly, because game needs feedback. I can find and read the rule, then I have to decide if it is good or not. PF is a great game but there are too many SA, feats and archetype that are just WRONG in balance and in definition.
I think these weapons (brass knuckles, cestus, gauntlet, and similar) need to receive a special weapon property called unarmed which allow the user to treat the weapon as an unarmed strike for purposes of weapon proficiency, ki strikes, monk unarmed damage.
I suggest this on two factors: First that the attack motion between an unarmed punch and a brass knuckled punch is for all purposes identical, and that all other things being equal the extra mass of the knuckle should not be less effective than that of flesh and blood; Second that if the minimal material these "weapons" consist of blocks the monks ki then so too would the leather shoes the monk is wearing, or his pants, or his robes or his headband.
This exactly.
Well maybe not on ki strike that's a stretch and makes ki focus obsolete.The "fix" here on this issue is an attempt to simplify weapons. The nature of these weapons is silly when you consider things like Vorpal Cestuii, Brilliant Energy Brass Knuckles etc. I also feel like making them a weapon that follow weapon rules and ignore unarmed combat rules only benefits casters who can ill afford the feat tax on IUAS. In return the monk gets punished by being stuck with the ubercrap that is AoMF.
zagnabbit wrote:
+1 a Greater Shadow Shirt is a no brainer.DarthEnder wrote:
But not technically legal as far as I know, as you can only put armor abilities on armor, not clothes.
No it's not legal. Not at all.
It is a brilliant illustration of how the monk is repeatedly screwed by the item rules. Monks get no access to the armor slot so Greater Shadow and Silent Moves are not obtainable by a class that is partially a Stealth skill class. If they want to use one of their principle class features, UA Dmg, they must do so without the benefit of enhancement bonuses unless they pony up the loot for AoMF, an item that takes the same slot as the Natural Armor Amulet.Compromises and Expensive Item Pricing, what a joy in a system that is a magic shop Monty Haul delight.
It is a brilliant illustration of how the monk is repeatedly screwed by the item rules. Monks get no access to the armor slot so Greater Shadow and Silent Moves are not obtainable by a class that is partially a Stealth skill class.
Well, in 3.5 you could put armor special abilities on Bracers of Armor. So if your campaign still allows 3.5 books, a monk could go that route.
But again, it's unnecessarily obtuse. Bracers of Armor shouldn't even have to exist because you should just be able to put enhancement bonuses on robes or gi's.
Same with bracers of armor in PFRPG. They are not armor, but you can put special abilities on them, up to a maximum of +8. As long as the bracers have at least a +1 enhancement, you could get another +7 in special abilities (fortification, glammer, etc., etc.).
And there are several robes (including the Robe of the Archmagi) that give an armor bonus, but do not count as armor. This is true in Pathfinder as well as 3.5 and 3.0.
Master Arminas
|
In which you'd pay half again as much as two cestii for half the enhancement bonus, you mean?I wish they'd stop avoiding adding a simple way to just have magic weapon hands.You mean an amulet of mighty fists?
Not to mention them being capped at +5 and taking a slot that could otherwise be filled...
And there are several robes (including the Robe of the Archmagi) that give an armor bonus, but do not count as armor. This is true in Pathfinder as well as 3.5 and 3.0.
Which I always thought was weird was that there was specific clothing that had AC on it, but you couldn't put enhancement bonuses on a piece of clothing yourself.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that really can confuse players is that this is an armed attack, so you can't use stunning fist nor add the bonus of the necklace of mighty fists.
Cestus specifically state you're making an unarmed strike:
"...If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage..."
(Note that brass knuckles do not contain similar text.)
Conclusion:
1) Cestus: you make unarmed strikes, but monks do not get damage die increases.
2) Brass knuckles: monks get damage die increases, but are not making unarmed strikes (and thus Amulets don't stack).
2) Brass knuckles: monks get damage die increases, but are not making unarmed strikes (and thus Amulets don't stack).
Check the Link TOZ posted
Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.