If a monk takes a Tekko-Kagi (assuming it has EWP), and uses it as a buckler, do they use their monk armor, fast movement, and flurry of blows?
Relavent rules text:
"A tekko-kagi can be used as an offensive weapon, defensively like a buckler, or to disarm an opponent's weapon."
"When wearing armor, USING A SHIELD (emphasis mine), or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities."
Looks like you've got the entire relevant text right here. A Tekko-Kagi is a weapon and not a shield, even if you can use it as such. Interestingly enough you would take an armor check penalty if you were using it as a buckler. Since monks are not proficient with any type of shield.
Two answers, both state that all the relevant text is there but both come to different conclusions... nice.
My guess would be that JR is right. But I'm not sure about it in the least.
|
Looks like you've got the entire relevant text right here. A Tekko-Kagi is a weapon and not a shield, even if you can use it as such. Interestingly enough you would take an armor check penalty if you were using it as a buckler. Since monks are not proficient with any type of shield.
Being a weapon, and being a shield, are not exclusive things.
Looks like you've got the entire relevant text right here. A Tekko-Kagi is a weapon and not a shield, even if you can use it as such. Interestingly enough you would take an armor check penalty if you were using it as a buckler. Since monks are not proficient with any type of shield.Being a weapon, and being a shield, are not exclusive things.
Yeah, they kinda are.
Even if you use a weapon as a shield, it is still a weapon, not a shield.
Likewise, if you use a shield as a weapon, it is still a shield. Hence why (without a Feat) you can't enchant your shield and have it work as a weapon (adding its armor enhancement to-hit).
|
|
Looks like you've got the entire relevant text right here. A Tekko-Kagi is a weapon and not a shield, even if you can use it as such. Interestingly enough you would take an armor check penalty if you were using it as a buckler. Since monks are not proficient with any type of shield.Being a weapon, and being a shield, are not exclusive things.Yeah, they kinda are.
Even if you use a weapon as a shield, it is still a weapon, not a shield.
Likewise, if you use a shield as a weapon, it is still a shield. Hence why (without a Feat) you can't enchant your shield and have it work as a weapon (adding its armor enhancement to-hit).
Actually, you can. Also, Light and Heavy shields are, in all ways, weapons.
You sure? Why would there be a dedicated Feat (Shield Master) for doing that if that were the case?
Looked it up, must have missed that part before.
I always figured shields were in the boat of "Treated as weapons, but aren't actually weapons" kinda like a few things in this game work (Treated as X, but still actually classified as Y).
That's a bit more ambiguous then, but I still think the Tekko-Kagi is fine. It can be used "defensively like a buckler" but that is LIKE a buckler, not actually IS a buckler.
Simple rule of thumb :
Question : Can you enchant it to enhance it's shield bonus?
A : If yes, then it's a shield, and it interferes with monk abilities. If no, then it's not a shield, and it doesn't interfere with monk abilities.
Honestly, there's no need to overthink this. It's as simple as that.
If it helps there are other ways to get a shield bonus. Those should be possible for the monk, too. So perhaps that might be a hint that the tekko-thing works as well.
Blocking weapons (the weapon trait, not some magic enchantment) give you a shield bonus to AC when using them to fight defensively. So in some way you are using them to shield you, or in other words as a shield.
Blocking: When you use this weapon to fight defensively, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC. Source: Ultimate Combat.
Simple rule of thumb :
Question : Can you enchant it to enhance it's shield bonus?
A : If yes, then it's a shield, and it interferes with monk abilities. If no, then it's not a shield, and it doesn't interfere with monk abilities.Honestly, there's no need to overthink this. It's as simple as that.
Good point
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Honestly, there's no need to overthink this. It's as simple as that.
I think it is as simple as this:
When you are receiving a Shield bonus from a mundane item or from a spell or item that "wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield" (Ring of Force Shield) type language, you lose your monk abilities when wielding a shield.
Most blocking weapons are monk weapons.
I'd think it strange if fighting defensive with a monk weapon caused a monk to loose his AC bonus.
Honestly, there's no need to overthink this. It's as simple as that.I think it is as simple as this:
When you are receiving a Shield bonus from a mundane item or from a spell or item that "wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield" (Ring of Force Shield) type language, you lose your monk abilities when wielding a shield.
And I think you are wrong.
By your logic, wearing bracers of armor stop monk abilities, because they grant an Armor Bonus.
The ring of Force Shield becomes an actual shield made of force, and you take up your hand to use the shield. That would probably be a corner case.
By your logic, if a monk got the two weapon defense feat, he'd lose his monk abilities when he used two weapons to fight (two fists) and gained the shield defense. Uhmm, no, not seeing it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
By your logic, wearing bracers of armor stop monk abilities, because they grant an Armor Bonus.
By your logic, if a monk got the two weapon defense feat,
Just so we are clear, neither of those would fit with my logic.
Bracers is a magic thing that provides armor, but isn't "worn like armor". It works like Mage Armor spell.
Two Weapon Defense feat also isn't "worn like a shield" so wouldn't block.
A mundane item that provides a shield bonus should be considered a shield just like Cleric Evangelist Sermonic Performance is considered Bardic Performance by feats that improve Bardic Performance. So if you use a mundane item "like a buckler" you are using a buckler and lose your monk ac.
By your logic, wearing bracers of armor stop monk abilities, because they grant an Armor Bonus.
By your logic, if a monk got the two weapon defense feat,
Just so we are clear, neither of those would fit with my logic.
Bracers is a magic thing that provides armor, but isn't "worn like armor". It works like Mage Armor spell.
Two Weapon Defense feat also isn't "worn like a shield" so wouldn't block.
A mundane item that provides a shield bonus should be considered a shield just like Cleric Evangelist Sermonic Performance is considered Bardic Performance by feats that improve Bardic Performance. So if you use a mundane item "like a buckler" you are using a buckler and lose your monk ac.
A snakeskin tunic is a body slot item that provides armor. Would you rule a monk loses abilities if he wears it? How about a gunman's duster, another body item?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A snakeskin tunic is a body slot item that provides armor. Would you rule a monk loses abilities if he wears it? How about a gunman's duster, another body item?
Again, both are like Bracers of Armor. Neither say "when worn as armor" or anything of the sort. Neither say "worn as a chain-shirt" or anything similar.
Let me make my position crystal clear.
If the mundane or magical thing says "as a blah" or "like a blah" and the blah is a mundane armor or shield, then it blocks monk AC bonus.
Off the top of my head this Klar, Tekko-Kagi, and Ring of Force Shield.
At that point, it is armor (specifically, a shield), so they lose their armorless monk abilities.
Edit: What James said. The specific text "like X" or "as X" means "treat this as if it were X". The gunman's duster does not include this text. The type of bonus is not relevant.
This is the same mess we got into with the scorpion whip and the various whip feats, reach, weapon class, and so on, which is just a hop away from the bastard sword fiasco.
I have no problem with enchanting it as a buckler, at least unless a developer states otherwise.
I won't even bother replying to the last line, because come on.
No, it wouldn't be game breaking. But like you said, it'd be all or nothing. Either you really do treat it as a buckler, and forgo monk abilities for the ability to enchant it, use it with shield/buckler feats and abilities, and so on or you don't really treat it as a bucker and just get the +1 shield bonus with the buckler caveats, but keep your monk abilities instead of getting the rest.
I think RAW supports the former, but real-world play could easily support either one. I mean, monks have a hard enough time as it is.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
really? Is letting the monk gain the AC bonus of a buckler going to be game breaking? I'd surely hope not.
Whether or not it is game breaking, it would be a slippery slope that would put the GM in a hard position to explain why one buckler is ok but another is not.
Also, as to the all or nothing comment. Yes all is the best way to think of it. It is a buckler in every way except the way it deviates.
A mundane item that provides a shield bonus should be considered a shield
So you really think a monk fighting defensive with either of these weapons should loose his AC bonue?
Tonfa, Sansetsukon, Dan bong, Nine-section whip, Bo staff.
All of those are monk weapons. Some martial, some exotic. And all are mundane items that provide a shield bonus to AC when used to fight defensive.
A mundane item that provides a shield bonus should be considered a shield
This I do not agree with. The item must be used or treated "like a shield" or "as a shield". There are many ways, mundane and magical, to get a shield bonus; these should not, by default, interfere with a monk's abilities.
Shield bonuses and shields are completely separate things. One does not imply the other.
Blocking: When you use this weapon to fight defensively, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC.
This is the rule in question in Gingerbreadman's post.
Sounds good to me. : )
How about I rephrase. If it works like a shield, it is.
Why?
Working LIKE something without being that thing is pretty clearly saying "this thing is not a shield".
After all, if it WERE a shield, they wouldn't have to say "it acts as a shield" since, well, y'know...it would be a shield already.
Cause the opposite would create wonkie-ness.
I would argue that saying things that clearly are not shields (because they are weapons) ARE shields is a lot wonkier than saying a thing is what it is (a weapon).
Blocking: When you use this weapon to fight defensively, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC.This is the rule in question in Gingerbreadman's post.Ok I back up. A blocking weapon would be fine.
How about I rephrase. If it works like a shield, it is.
I would be ok with that.