|
| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got a question on how the monk's unarmed damage interacts with the Brass knuckles or Cestus.
Question: When using a Monk uses a monk weapon like the Brass knuckles or Cestus that that "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike" to perform an unarmed strike, which damage is deal? The Monk's unarmed strike damage or the weapons?
For example:
For a lv 1 monk with unarmed damage of 1d6, with a +1 Brass knuckles (1d3 damage) , would it be,
Would it be 1) 1d6(unarmed) + Str mod + 1 (enchantment) to damage?
or 2) 1d3 (brass knuckles) + Str Mod + 1 (enchantment) to damage?
If its of any concern, this is for PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the line "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike" is referred to those that do not posses the Improve Unarmed Strike feat, like warriors or barbarians. Normally, anyone can punch someone, dealing 1d3 nonlethal damage. Having Brass Knuckles equipped lets you deal 1d3 lethal damage instead.
For monk specifically, brass knuckles works exactly like any other monk weapon, they overrides your class based damage progression with the weapon based damage (1d3).
There was once a time where brass knuckles dealt the damage dice of a monk's fists.
That time has passed and they no longer work that way.
A monk with brass knuckles deals 1d3 just like a fighter using brass knuckles. It's the latter of your two options.
Why use brass knuckles? Things like unarmed strike and particular damage reductions, mainly. That said, the temple sword is a monk weapon that deals 1d8 and is far superior for any of these purposes.
Paizo doesn't believe in giving monks a method to deal "unarmed damage" with an enhancement bonus unless they use AoMF. Fortunately you can go Qingong Monk and get Barksin as a SLA and open up your neck slot.
During the ACG playtest I had a short conversation with a dev about the subject and that is pretty much what was said.
Another way of phrasing that would have been "There aren't any methods to deal unarmed damage with an enhancement bonus unless you use an AoMF."
Same message, without attacking anyone.
Well, other than greater magical fang or the bodywraps of mighty strike. The bodywraps...simply don't work for most unarmed builds. It is mostly just for 1 bit hit natural attackers, or for someone mixing fist and sword.
Greater magical fang is a valid option though. The largest downside, the inability to get past DR even with the right amount of enhancement bonus, is rather moot for monks for anything other than DR/evil (well any alignment other than lawful...but come on) because of ki strike. And the fun part is that your unarmed strikes are considered only one weapon for the purposes of such spells. So...I suppose that if the party has a druid or something, your enhancement item are the pearls of power you give them.
Anyway, is the cestus really that bad? I mean, it is a light weapon that you can flurry with (which means you only need 1 with all the enhancement and such for all of your attacks). It also has a decent crit range of 19-20/x2, and since it can also deal bludgeoning damage, it can be keen. All of that seems more important than simple weapon damage dice, since it all better compliments the static bonuses to damage that make up the majority of your damage.
Plus, I tend to go with sohei anyway when making unarmed character. The sting of AoMF's price (which is not really that unreasonable anymore since it is priced like a pair of TWF weapons, going along with how flurry works) is not as much of a concern when you can grab untyped +2's from both dueling gloves and brawling armor.
|
|
Thank you for the answers.
As I encountered my above question while running a PFS game, could anyone redirect me to an official post, clarification or faq, that clarify how a monk's unarmed damage works in relation to brass knuckles and cestus. Just something I could redirect my players to. As currently, some of the players are under the impression that these 2 weapons work with a monk's unarmed damage.
Thanks.
Ultimate Combat FAQ for Brass Knuckles, never seen anything to suggest you could use monk damage with the Cetus.
if u want to enchant a monk weapon use the Sansetsokon it does 1d10 damage crits on 19-20x2 and you can flurry with it. so it will be as good as a monk of 8th to 11th level and you can enchant it. problem solved =D
You have to burn a feat to gain proficiency. The temple sword is a better choice.
It was never FAQd, just a statement from SKR here
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kqan&page=2?Adventurers-Armory-Questions#5 1
Of course it's worth noting that this is just the opinion of a single dev and not all the devs and is not in a FAQ and is therefore not law.
If you talk to your DM and explain to them that a Barb can enchant one weapon to be at full effectivness, but an unarmed monk needs to give up his neck wondrous slot and pay double a weapon enchant cost by using AoMF in order to be less effective than a Barb at melee he will probably understand and let your brass knuckle do Monk unarmed damage.
Most reasonable DMs would understand.
I think the spirit of it was in the right place. If Brass Knuckles/Cesti get everything an unarmed strike gets for a Monk then the Monk suddenly has zero reason to ever fight unarmed again. Bad news for anyone looking to play a zen master since brass knuckles are generally a very street brawler affair and aren't seen as something a disciplined and honorable monk would use (bull, but you know).
The knuckles weren't too strong, of course; it was the unarmed strikes that were too weak. But they approached the problem by nerfing the knuckles rather than buffing the unarmed strikes.
Fortuneatly their is a work around for Monks who do want to unarmed.
Qingong for barkskin SLA to replace Amulet of natural armor. Then take an amulet of mighty fists get good str, don't need a high dex, later on stock up on potions of mage armor until a decent Bracers of Armor drop for you, eventually grab Monk robes, grab dragon style feats.
You'll tear people up!
Alternatively weapon master monk with a Temple Sword and flurry with it for hilarity.
|
|
@lantzkev,
After reading his comments, I kinda understand SKR's position.
Consider this, all weapons have their own damage dice. Why should the brass knuckles and cestus be any different?
If these 2 weapons are allowed to work with a monk's unarmed damage, then what is point of an amulet of mighty fist? Every monk that specializes in unarmed combat would go for these 2 weapons for enchantment properties.
More importantly by denying the use of a monk's unarmed damage with brass knuckles and cestus, it would make all weapons used by monks consistent with each other. (As in Monk weapons can be used to flurry. Dealing their listed damage.)
If these 2 weapons are allowed to work with a monk's unarmed damage, then what is point of an amulet of mighty fist?
Natural attacks, which is why it seems to cost so much to begin with. Paying double price to enhance all (and you can have a lot of them) of your innate attacks that function at full or full -5 BAB and are not tied to BAB for how many you can perform in a round is fair. Needing to spend the same amount on unarmed strikes, which function as sub-par manufactured weapons, is not.
|
|
Needing to spend the same amount on unarmed strikes, which function as sub-par manufactured weapons, is not.
A monk's unarmed damage goes up as a monk gain levels. By the argument that needing to spend more money on an amulet of might fist for unarmed strikes being not fair, won't it be "fair" if monk deal just as much unarmed damage as any other class with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?
After all monks already got flurry (which is worth 3 twf feats), surely they don't need more damage? =_=!!
But its not just those two weapons.
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.
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.
While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.
Each rope gauntlet takes a full minute to wrap and another minute to soak, but once applied can be worn for a day; removing a rope gauntlet takes 1 full round.
When wearing rope gauntlets, you are considered armed and your attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with rope gauntlets, you may use the rough edges of the ropes to deal slashing damage rather than bludgeoning damage.
Your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in your hands while wearing rope gauntlets, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision based tasks involving your hands (such opening locks).
These are all weapons that are written, not to be weapons in their own right, but only as modifications to your unarmed strike.
In this case, the 1d3 listed under damage isn't the weapons' own damage, but simply restating the amount of damage of an unarmed strike.
I totally respect Sean, and understand his reasoning. I just don't agree with it. If the weapon merely changes an unarmed strike to lethal damage, then you should use the damage of your unarmed strike with that weapon. Even if you are a monk (or Warpriest) who deals more than 1d3 damage with your unarmed strike.
Plus, doesn't it seem strange that you can punch someone bare-knuckled for 1d10 but when you add a small piece of metal designed to make you punch better you only do 1d3?
For myself, its not in the FAQ so I am not following it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
@Samasboy1,
Just noticed something on your quote for Brass Knuckles... I don't see the last line for it in UE... my is up to date. (Just checked)
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike. 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 successful concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles. Brass knuckles can’t be disarmed.
The line "Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them." does not appear. It just say Monks are proficient, nothing about them able to use their monk unarmed damage with them...
???
Needing to spend the same amount on unarmed strikes, which function as sub-par manufactured weapons, is not.A monk's unarmed damage goes up as a monk gain levels. By the argument that needing to spend more money on an amulet of might fist for unarmed strikes being not fair, won't it be "fair" if monk deal just as much unarmed damage as any other class with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat?
After all monks already got flurry (which is worth 3 twf feats), surely they don't need more damage? =_=!!
1. For most of a Monk's lifespan his increased die size is still inferior or only marginally better than most weapons worth using, but even at 2d10 (at 20th) I would rather have something else because 20 x2 crit is terrible. Unarmed strikes are meh even as Monk and throwing a double cost on top of it is just making it worse.
2. If your class feature is based around unarmed combat, then yes, it should be better than another class at it. Giving a kinda cool thing (yay stronger punches) and then immediately neutering it because you will never have enough plusses compared to any other weapon user is just kicking the monk while he's down.
3. Regarding Flurry being some ultimate damage dealing method that shames everyone else, look up any Monk thread and look for the term "Flurry of Misses."
I got that line out of my copy of the Advanced Player's Guide, pg 176.
However, even without that line (which, you are right, doesn't appear in Ultimate Equipment), it is still clear that they only modify an unarmed strike rather than operate as a weapon in their own right.
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike. 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 successful concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles. Brass knuckles can’t be disarmed.
So I think the reasoning that the unarmed strike damage is dealt still works here.
|
|
I got that line out of my copy of the Advanced Player's Guide, pg 176.
However, even without that line (which, you are right, doesn't appear in Ultimate Equipment), it is still clear that they only modify an unarmed strike rather than operate as a weapon in their own right.
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike. 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 successful concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles. Brass knuckles can’t be disarmed.So I think the reasoning that the unarmed strike damage is dealt still works here.
Well, I do feel that the fact that they took out the sentence, which did clearly state that brass knuckles works with a monk's damage, is a clear indication that Paizo don't want brass knuckles and similarly themed weapons to work with a monk's unarmed strikes.
I mean, that sentence is quite clear on how brass knuckles originally worked with a monk's unarmed damage. There was no reason to remove it unless it was to errata how brass knuckles worked with unarmed damage. Surely Paizo removed it for a reason.
Well, I do feel that the fact that they took out the sentence, which did clearly state that brass knuckles works with a monk's damage, is a clear indication that Paizo don't want brass knuckles and similarly themed weapons to work with a monk's unarmed strikes.
I mean, that sentence is quite clear on how brass knuckles originally worked with a monk's unarmed damage. There was no reason to remove it unless it was to errata how brass knuckles worked with unarmed damage. Surely Paizo removed it for a reason.
Well, there are other possible reasons why the line could have been removed.
Word count, redundancy, and "stealth" errata are all possibilities.
But for me, since it still says Brass Knuckle attacks are unarmed strikes, it would still be enhanced by monks unarmed strike.
I don't think that allowing the monk to more easily enchant their unarmed strike is a problem either. In my experience, yes, monks can use the help.
|
|
I don't think that allowing the monk to more easily enchant their unarmed strike is a problem either. In my experience, yes, monks can use the help.
In my homebrew I think it make sense too. I will likely even allow spiked gauntlets and to be used by monks as a monk weapon.
In PFS games however, GMs have to follow RAW. Which is why I asked for clarification is the first place.
Well, RAW, it is an unarmed strike. And a monk's unarmed strike does more damage.
I would still expect table variance, because RAW isn't a fix-all and people still read it differently.
I got that line out of my copy of the Advanced Player's Guide, pg 176.
However, even without that line (which, you are right, doesn't appear in Ultimate Equipment), it is still clear that they only modify an unarmed strike rather than operate as a weapon in their own right.
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike. 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 successful concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles. Brass knuckles can’t be disarmed.So I think the reasoning that the unarmed strike damage is dealt still works here.Well, I do feel that the fact that they took out the sentence, which did clearly state that brass knuckles works with a monk's damage, is a clear indication that Paizo don't want brass knuckles and similarly themed weapons to work with a monk's unarmed strikes.
I mean, that sentence is quite clear on how brass knuckles originally worked with a monk's unarmed damage. There was no reason to remove it unless it was to errata how brass knuckles worked with unarmed damage. Surely Paizo removed it for a reason.
That line about monk unarmed strike damage is still there in the APG gear section of the PRD. It has not been removed from the PRD, just not repeated in every section of the PRD.
If you are looking for RAW it is explicitly there. The removal being errata is an inference of RAI, not how the RAW are RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One reason to go with an amulet of mighty fists over brass knuckles is so you can wield wield/hold something in that hand. I would not allow an unarmed strike if you are holding something. That is not much but something.
Even before brass knuckles I allowed monks to buy gloves with weapon enchantments. It used their glove slot but that is not a neck slot.
Kicks are still unarmed strikes.
The explicit line was to the effect of "Monks can use their unarmed damage while using Brass Knuckles." That line is gone. The new RAW does not allow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't gone. It is still in the PRD.
And removing that line does nothing to stop it from still being an unarmed strike, and being affected by things that affect unarmed strikes.
Agreed. A non-FAQd response from a dev is not law.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
People need to realize that my comments about these things were after a discussion with Jason, and are not merely my opinion on the matter.
People also need to get over using "well it's just Sean's opinion, not a FAQ, so it's not official" as a rebuttal.
I'm tired of being the scapegoat for being the member of the design team most willing to actually engage with the community and answer rules questions, whether informally in a board post or officially in a FAQ post. Now that I'm not an employee, I don't have to put up with these ridiculous accusations that I was just making rulings without consulting the rest of the team. If you think my posts about brass knuckles are not what the design team* intended at the time those posts were made, get some FAQ-flags going and get an official answer from the design team about this question.
In other words, put up or shut up.
* Which, mind you, was just Jason and I, as Stephen hadn't yet been hired.
P.S. Also, because of how Paizo handles errata files, not all errata updates get sent to the PRD, so the latest printing of the printed book trumps the PRD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I don't see anyone accusing you of making anything up (at least in this thread). Nor were you in anyway scapegoated.
It shouldn't matter if you are an employee or not, a post of the forum just doesn't make sense as a venue to change rules. It leads to thousands of situations where someone says "X said this" or "Y said that", and they could be remembering someone else saying it, misremember what was said, and frequently can't find the post where it was said.
That's why FAQs and errata exist. To serve as a single location for rules changes. Also why the PRD (Pathfinder reference document) should be an authoritative location for rules information. It only exists for that purpose.
And I don't see how the onus is on me to FAQ a question for advocating a weapon that says it is an unarmed strike, even in the most recent printing, should work like an unarmed strike.
Hmm, I don't see anyone accusing you of making anything up (at least in this thread). Nor were you in anyway scapegoated.
It shouldn't matter if you are an employee or not, a post of the forum just doesn't make sense as a venue to change rules. It leads to thousands of situations where someone says "X said this" or "Y said that", and they could be remembering someone else saying it, misremember what was said, and frequently can't find the post where it was said.
That's why FAQs and errata exist. To serve as a single location for rules changes. Also why the PRD (Pathfinder reference document) should be an authoritative location for rules information. It only exists for that purpose.
And I don't see how the onus is on me to FAQ a question for advocating a weapon that says it is an unarmed strike, even in the most recent printing, should work like an unarmed strike.
The PRD is for reference. (That's what you bolded.) The books are the authoritative source. (That's why one is free and the other one you pay for.) (emoticon to denote light-hearted post)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In support of Samas's point, it was just the other day that I was trying to look up Sean's ruling on the brass knuckles to discuss some Monk modifications with my GM but could not find it in the midst of all the threads that come up if you search "monk brass knuckles pathfinder". Would have been much easier if it had just been organized in the FAQ.
That being said, it's still rather... disingenuous to argue that a ruling from a leading developer would not reflect the intentions of the dev team as a whole.
That being said, no matter how many people discussed it in Paizo's backroom before it was posted it was still not a very good ruling. It did it's job at protecting the unarmed styled Monk, true, but turned the Brass Knuckles into a waste of ink that would include wording that would continue to frustrate and confuse anyone that hadn't been browsing the forums enough. It also didn't do anything to make unarmed strikes as good as other standard weapons; a decent option being nerfed doesn't make the bad option it replaced any better. Flurrying with unarmed strikes still looks really bad next to TWF'ing with kukris, and looks even worse when compared to the traditional 2-handed power attack.
Basically instead of nerfing everything that is superior to a CRB martial option it would be a neat idea to instead buff the CRB martial options
That being said, it's still rather... disingenuous to argue that a ruling from a leading developer would not reflect the intentions of the dev team as a whole.
And reading over my posts, I don't see that I ever made that argument.
The PRD is for reference.
Yes, and reference materials are useless unless correct. That is kinda the point of referencing it. :P
We could have a whole nother thread on how it takes 2 years to get ranges for almost a quarter of the Witch hexes, but that wouldn't be appropriate for this thread.
Also if you're tired of reading our posts you don't have to read our posts, or even respond. Just flag and move on.
On topic. Monks who use Brass knuckles unarmed damage and for enhancement bonus are still below the DPR of all the full BAB characters, so a DM taking that away from them is just further nerfing monks into obscurity.
The brass knuckle entry in my ult equipment says These weapons fit snugly around the
knuckles and allow you to deal lethal
damage with an unarmed strike. 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 successful concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell
you’re casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles. Brass
knuckles can’t be disarmed.
Monk unarmed strike says
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would
Because there is no FAQ and PFS uses RAW I would argue that because RAW Monk unarmed damage applies to brass knuckles that a Monk's unarmed damage would in fact apply to brass knuckles.
Same applies to Cestus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tired of being the scapegoat for being the member of the design team most willing to actually engage with the community and answer rules questions, whether informally in a board post or officially in a FAQ post.
While I may not agree with many of your rulings SKR, I was definitely appreciative of your willingness to put up with the internet in an attempt to communicate with the customer base. Sometimes you can understand why many devs just don't respond to any requests for clarification: someone will always end up being angry with the result.
It seems to me like a lot of these arguments stem from PFS requiring strict RAW, but I believe as you or JJ have said in the past, the 3.X system ultimately being a collaborative system where small inconsistencies are expected to be ironed out on a table by table basis. In many respects PFS feels like a different game wherein a dedicated FAQ team MtG style would be a real benefit... but unfortunately that would cost money for no tangible gain on the company end, so I do understand why it doesn't happen.
|
|
@Insain Dragoon,
As Sean has said, the ruling he posted is the official intend of the design team.
We should not try repeatedly insist on our personal views on this. Its like banging our heads on a concrete wall and expecting the wall to give way.
As a definite clarification via a FAQ may be needed, we should follow his advice and make a proper FAQ request thread.
One that is clear to understand, in order to gain the FAQ requests needed.
If anyone good with words could come up with a good way to phrase a FAQ question on how Brass knuckles/cestus and other weapons with "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike" wording in their descriptions works with a monk's unarmed damage, it would be much appreciated.
This issue has already gotten a million and a half FAQ requests.
Sean posting on rules interpretation/design
TL;DR
Things should be the same, or they should be different.
So, the unarmed strike referenced in these weapons should be the same unarmed strike enhanced by a monk.
I actually think you phrased the question pretty well in your first post.
Question: When using a Monk uses a monk weapon like the Brass knuckles or Cestus that that "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike" to perform an unarmed strike, which damage is deal? The Monk's unarmed strike damage or the weapons?
So I FAQ'ed the opening post, to get the ball rolling.
|
|
FAQed too.
A "FAQ Request: Monk's Unarmed strikes & Brass Knuckles/Cestus" thread would be more clear on the subject, but I guess this thread could too.
@Insain,
Yes there has been many FAQ attempts made, that does not discount from the fact that a new FAQ request is need.
SeanKR don't have to reply to these posts, but he was gracious to give answers in the previous posts. Now that an appropriate manner to resolve this question has been given by him, shouldn't we try it?
After all, the worse is that it is ignored and unanswered. While NOT trying would just imply that options were given and no one bothered to use them.
Whos fault would it be then?
I believe they prefer you do not put FAQ request in the thread title.
I've ignored this so far...
Don't expect a FAQ answer, SKR did in fact answer the original request in the giant thread linked above. Sean can answer rules questions. Period.
It hasn't been addressed because it's a hot button topic that gets people worked up but is otherwise pretty fringe. At that time there was a LOT of unpublished Monk stuff in the final stages of development. The ruling was on the side of caution.
For home games, this is a "Rule 0" question. Ask the DM.
For PFS don't play a monk, for more reasons than this one outlier. Monks face much more significant challenges in organized play including weak understanding of the Grappling Rules, the magic item economy and their place as the most MAD class ever. Add to that the reality that it is the only Defensive designed class in an arena that that does not require most of the Monk's special MoJo. If you just have to do it, go with a weapon like a Temple Sword. Your life will be easier and OP will be more rewarding as you move from table to table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if the solution to the issues and confusions with a core class is "give up on playing it" then that is a serious criticism of the designers.
People need to realize that my comments about these things were after a discussion with Jason, and are not merely my opinion on the matter.
People also need to get over using "well it's just Sean's opinion, not a FAQ, so it's not official" as a rebuttal.
I'm tired of being the scapegoat for being the member of the design team most willing to actually engage with the community and answer rules questions, whether informally in a board post or officially in a FAQ post. Now that I'm not an employee, I don't have to put up with these ridiculous accusations that I was just making rulings without consulting the rest of the team. If you think my posts about brass knuckles are not what the design team* intended at the time those posts were made, get some FAQ-flags going and get an official answer from the design team about this question.
In other words, put up or shut up.
* Which, mind you, was just Jason and I, as Stephen hadn't yet been hired.
P.S. Also, because of how Paizo handles errata files, not all errata updates get sent to the PRD, so the latest printing of the printed book trumps the PRD.
The problem with this is that your post was made in May 2010 and the APG second print was is December 2010 and still contained the line about monks getting unarmed damage with the brass knuckles. The second print is the most current version of that book, no prd trump required.
|
|
The problem with this is that your post was made in May 2010 and the APG second print was is December 2010 and still contained the line about monks getting unarmed damage with the brass knuckles. The second print is the most current version of that book, no prd trump required.
Which was removed in Ultimate Equipment, an even more current book.