Combined with the Monk Archetype, Monk of the Empty Hand, and Improvised Weapon Mastery, this allows a 6th level monk using any staff-like item to Flurry of Blows, dealing 1D8 plus Full Strength bonus per strike and treats all targets as Flat-footed. He would also be able to enchant this weapon with +'d bonuses, Fiery, Holy, etc, potentially dealing even more damage.
Which melee classes would be most susceptible to this combo? I know that the Rogue and Barbarian are basically immune due to Uncanny Dodge, but how would the others fare?
All input is welcome :)
--PC
Did you miss the fact that only unarmed opponents count as flatfooted (bearing in mind also that creatures with natural weapons etc count as armed) with Catch Off-Guard, or is there some way of overcoming that which I am unaware of?
I did, ty. However, since monks are masters of CMB, he'd need only use one of his flurry attacks to disarm the opponent, and for a good portion of the combat (probably even the remainder), that opponent would be flat-footed.
And so again, ty for catching that, yet is the fact that his opponents are flat-footed against all of his attacks an imbalanced mechanic?
--PC
It's not imbalanced, but it is a good idea! Now, he just needs sneak attack dice...
Many opponents cannot be completely disarmed - for example, anything with natural attacks or Improved Unarmed Strike. Those who can be disarmed will often have a high CMD relative to his CMB*. And the monk lacks a way to really capitalize on flat footed enemies (such as Sneak Attack) so he'll hit 10%-25% more frequently but that's about it, and that's without taking into account the fact that he isn't gaining the CMB, to hit, and damage benefits of magic weapons unless he spends a fair number of ki points, and even then only for 1 round. So while I think there are ways you could make this work, maybe by taking a few Rogue levels and going after casters, it certainly doesn't seem overpowered to me.
*Take a level 10 Monk with 18 Str and Imp Disarm vs a level 10 Fighter with 18 Str 14 Dex and Weapon Focus/Training with his weapon, Dodge, and a Ring of Prot +1. Monk has +16 CMB, Fighter has CMD 31. This Monk has about the same chance of success as of failing by 10 and losing his own weapon. I might be off a few bonuses on one side or the other, but the point is that a successful disarm is not assured.
@Eragar: you're mistaken, anything - including artifact level weapons - can be used in an improvised manner. What is being simulated/modeled by the monk of the empty hands is that they wield anything in an unconventional manner that makes enemies prone to misjudge attacks.
@Paulcynic:
Something else that isn't immediately obvious: I've asked James Jacobs before about Catch-Off Guard in conjunction with the Monk of the Empty Hand, and he explained that although it isn't explicit, the idea is that the archetype implicitly grants the feat to the monk.
That in itself probably doesn't hold for PFS play, but for your home games it might be relevant.
Eragar, the Monk is not enchanting a masterwork weapon. He is using a class feature which allows him to temporarily apply enchantments to an improvised weapon. It does not need to be masterwork to accomplish this.
Lorekeeper, only the Monk of the Empty Hand can use actual weapons (masterwork or not) as improvised weapons, and in doing so they would lose their masterwork or artifact status.
@Moglun: do you have a rule/page that backs up your statement? I sincerely doubt it (but nor do I have a nice refuting rule/page).
From my understanding: the only benefit the monk of the empty hand is really getting, is that he can flurry improvised weapons. His class ability also changes any weapon he wields (when wielded as improvised weapon) to effectively light-hammer, club, quarterstaff depending on size. But, when he wields a +1 longsword using his improvisation skills, it becomes a +1 club. The magic doesn't disappear from the item.
Anybody else can also wield a weapon in an improvised manner; there is just almost never a reason to do so. It is the GM's job to determine what the power level is of an improvised greatsword, but typically having it become the equivalent of a simple weapon of its size is an expedient way to handle it (for the GM). So if my fighter really wants to wield his greatsword in a manner that can deal blunt damage (i.e. a "mordstreich") then he is free to do so; without the appropriate feats, though, the penalty is -4 to attack and damage probably 1d6.
The rules for improvised weapon fighting do not distinguish between actual weapons and other objects; anything that you can wield can count as an improvised weapon.
Regarding the distinction between actual weapons and other objects, and whether they are interchangeable:
Page 144 of the Core Rulebook, under Improvised Weapons:
"Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat." This is followed by the normal rules for improvised weapons. Actual weapons are not "objects not crafted to be weapons" (they are in fact the opposite, "objects crafted to be weapons") so the improvised weapon rules do not apply. So the rules do distinguish between actual weapons and other objects. While the GM is free to adjudicate fringe scenarios as he sees fit, such as ruling that using the pommel of your sword against skeletons to overcome their DR means it functions as an improvised weapon with the stats of a club, the actual game rules only indicate that "objects not crafted to be weapons" follow the improvised weapon rules. The GM could just as easily declare that using the weapon this way takes -2 to hit and automatically deals minimum damage and it would be just as valid a judgement.
Regarding the enhancement bonus carrying over from normal weapon to improvised:
From a purely rules related perspective, the fact that nothing states that the bonuses carry over should be sufficient. Considering also that there are obvious problems which may arise (an edged weapon with the 'keen' enhancement being used as a club, for instance) and that the rules make no accounting for this, there is no implication of bonus transfer. Finally, the statement on page 111 of the APG that the weapons substitute "all of their statistics" indicates that the weapon would lose the magical statistics as well as the mundane ones.
From the perspective of "what is reasonable", how does it make sense that a masterwork or +1 longsword, which is weighted better to make faster slashes and thrusts, has a sharper blade, and in general is designed to be a better longsword, has that superior craftsmanship apply equally when holding it by the wrong end and bashing someone with the handle?
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
That's the full reading. I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, but you're inferring quite a bit. Crafted as a weapon and Not Crafted as a weapon are not mutually exclusive; i.e. being one does not mean it cannot be the other. You can use a sword to unscrew a hinge, should we rule that isn't possible because it wasn't intended for that use? This is pretty grey and I would like to see/find an official ruling.
However, there are a couple of things special to the MotEH. Firstly, he can change the damage type of an improvised weapon, thus allowing an edged weapon with keen to be used as if a club... that deals slashing/piercing damage. I would rule that the Keen enchant would apply. lul.. that's a nice and convoluted twist :)
The other issue is how do we treat a quarter staff then? You make a MW staff, enchant it with +5 Kaboomdeath, and then use it in an improvised way. By the MotEH rules, it's the equivalent of a.. quarter staff.
But the greater issue for me remains: Is treating a great majority of humanoid foes as flat-footed an imbalanced mechanic? Imagine this Archetype going after a Wizard, he's likely unarmed, easily disarmed if he's not. How about a sword-and-board Fighter? Same deal. The Monk has a minor speed-bump in having to disarm his target, and then he gets to Medusa's Wrath all day.
Lore and other's reading both my threads, forget the entirety of my other thread, the major concerns posted was that auto-flat-footedness was imba. This seems like its virtually the same mechanic. I feel that as a stand-alone feature, easily making opponents flat-footed is not imbalanced. But please, if anyone has more insight/disagrees, it would be helpful to see how it would be imbalanced.
--PC
The unarmed target restriction changes the feat from overpowered to niche. A natural weapon or a spiked gauntlet or a blade boot etc makes the target immune to it, leaving the feat only useful for an edge in barfights or for unconventional assassinations. That empty hand disarm specialist could use it best, but it's sucking up a lot of feats for a style that most normal campaign encounters are immune to.
Crafted as a weapon and Not Crafted as a weapon are not mutually exclusive; i.e. being one does not mean it cannot be the other. You can use a sword to unscrew a hinge, should we rule that isn't possible because it wasn't intended for that use? This is pretty grey and I would like to see/find an official ruling.
By definition they are mutually exclusive. In fact the word 'not' in this context exists specifically to exclude one from the other. Regardless, I'm not saying that in practice it's wrong to rule that you can use a normal weapon in an improvised manner. I'm saying that it is not supported in the actual game rules and so comes down to house rules and GM discretion. This is why I took issue with Lorekeeper's post when he declared that one way of playing it was wrong and his way was right, when in fact the rules don't support that.
Yes, sorry, I meant not mutually exclusive when being used in an improvised way; ie an improvised weapon is used in an improvised way, and so too can a weapon be used in an improvised way. I think what Lore was saying is correct, that the MotEH fights in such a way that opponents misjudge his strikes, leaving them flat-footed. Very clean, simple, and true a great deal of the time in actual play.
However, your specific argument, that weapons are not improvised weapons and vis-a-vis is a correct one. Though your assertion that MW and Artifact weapons lose their properties when used in an improvised way may be a wash when, specifically, in the hands of this Monk Archetype.
To reuse my example, you have a +5 Sword of Fierynonsense, which you are using to bash opponents like a club. They're still going to take the fire damage, and the MotEH will deal decent weapon damage equivalent to a club, which he can modify to deal as Piercing, Blunt, or even Slashing. If he uses it like a club--hence in an improvised way--but chooses to deal Slashing damage with it, then the +5 magical enhancement and fiery damage would apply. Specifically because the edge doesn't lose it sharpness, nor does the fire go out. I think my point is that this whole area can be debated on each specific circumstance/method of using the weapon. But why bother, the monk is going to use it in the most effective way possible; and so I'd personally choose to keep it simple, and rule that he 'may as well' keep the benefits.
I think we're agreeing on my last point, just arguing the razor-fine points of these mechanics. In this regard, it would be nice to have an official ruling.
--PC