Monk's unarmed strike damage and Brass knuckles / Cestus?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secane wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

So I have to buy all the new books just to make sure something in the book I already own didn't get nerfed? When did we start playing M:tG?


You know what's nice about home games? That you can ignore erratas like this and crane wing.


Not in PFS which goes by PDT intent.


I didn't realize PFS was a home game.

Lantern Lodge

Insain, Not everyone has the time for a home game.

PFS's flexibility means that a lot more people get to enjoy playing table-top RPGs.

It has done wonders to revive my local table-top RPG community, which pretty much died off after 3.5 and a year or 2 of 4e's living forgotten realms.
Now there are over a hundred players with games being played almost every other day.

Most erratas are to clarify how something works or for game balancing reasons. Just like any other game, there are bugs and erratas are the bug fixes. As an example, would you enjoy a MMORPG if it was unbalanced with over and underpowered classes and equipment and numerous bugs?

The ruling on Brass Knuckles may just be a way to address game balance. Sure it may not make "sense", but seriously lots of things in a game system don't make sense.

Lets get this FAQed and settle the matter once and for all.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Samasboy1 wrote:
post of the forum just doesn't make sense as a venue to change rules.

Most of the time it isn't a change in the rules as much as "you guys are not reading that rule correctly, it means this", so more of clarifying. A forum post is the best way to clarify and if I had a nickle every time a SKR post was vilified (maybe not by you) for "not being the wisdom on the design team" I'd be a rich man.

Samasboy1 wrote:
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.

Because you are reading it wrong, it is on you to get them to tell you "you are reading it wrong". ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I didn't realize PFS was a home game.

The OP ask for the purpose of PFS. Now stop being an ass. Thanks


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secane wrote:


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.

So you've got Sean's posting as RAI by the dev team at that point. If you download a copy of a purchased PDF of the APG you get the current APG including, I believe, contrary language to Sean's RAI. The APG is a rule book and so RAW.

So it looks like RAW is different than RAI. My understanding is that PFS uses RAW.

Until Paizo changes the APG or the PRD I believe it is still RAW that brass knuckles use improved monk unarmed damage.


As pointed out, RAW from the Ultimate Equipment shows that the Monk does not gain the benefit of his/her increased damage dice. When working with two versions of RAW that conflict, you use the newest source.

Barring that, you go with clearly defined RAI.

I don't like the ruling, and my groups ignore it and I have no problem pushing for it to change back.

That said, I cannot support the position that the RAI and RAW don't match. It has clearly been shown that while the change has not trickled down to all print sources yet, the change is RAW.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Most PFS chars could choose to get a magical weapon sometime during level 2, occasionally level 1 with some playups. +1 always available.

Not so for the poor unarmed monk, he's going to be waiting until sometime in levels 4-6 for enough fame to purchase a 4k item.(18 fame) and then pay twice as much AND eventually be limited to max of +5, AND blow neck slot

You can argue it's now the same cost as TWF, but that TWF will get one of them MUCH sooner, and the second will probably come before 18 fame as well.

brass knuckles maybe weren't the right flavor for all monks, but certainly would have been for some, and using flavor as a reason to excuse a class from standard enhancement bonus seems like a raw deal

it surely can't be balance reasons, because we've all see actual DPR calculations that show monk is NOT so great in comparison to other melees

boggles the mind!


Komoda wrote:

As pointed out, RAW from the Ultimate Equipment shows that the Monk does not gain the benefit of his/her increased damage dice. When working with two versions of RAW that conflict, you use the newest source.

Barring that, you go with clearly defined RAI.

I don't like the ruling, and my groups ignore it and I have no problem pushing for it to change back.

That said, I cannot support the position that the RAI and RAW don't match. It has clearly been shown that while the change has not trickled down to all print sources yet, the change is RAW.

While I agree that the intent likely is to not have the weapon do unarmed damage, if you read the entry in UE not knowing that the line from APG was removed then it is a legit reading to believe using the weapon conveys unarmed damage. So the new version is not a definitive change as much as an omission.

In any case, the post by Sean should be completely disregarded because a print version of the rule was printed after that post and was the complete exact opposite of his statement.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite.

So basically, a given person could be in one of four situations:
• Has only seen the APG version
• Has only seen the UE version
• Has seen both versions
• Has seen SKR's post

Someone in the first situation simply believes it works how it says it works.

Someone in the second situation would very likely conclude that brass knuckles deliver your unarmed strikes rather than their own damage, from which point it's an easy extrapolation that a monk's increased damage applies.

Someone in the third situation would reasonably interpret the difference as meaning it doesn't work.

Someone in the fourth situation knows it's not (or at least wasn't) intended to work.

So two reasonable people can come to different conclusions based solely on which things they're aware of.

This is something I would call a bad thing. :/

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Voadam wrote:
RAW that brass knuckles use improved monk unarmed damage.

That isn't the RAW at any table I'm running, because we have newer printings (UE), dev comments, and we know RAI.

Jiggy wrote:
This is something I would call a bad thing. :/

+1

This is the type of problem I wish they would update all the things they want fixed. But they don't put a priority on fixing things, especially on older books with less of a reprint chance.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
In any case, the post by Sean should be completely disregarded because a print version of the rule was printed after that post and was the complete exact opposite of his statement.

The APG first print run sold out so fast that Paizo basically had to hit "go" on a second printing of the book without making extensive errata changes to the book, such as correcting the brass knuckles entry.

And, of course, you are ignoring that the Ultimate Equipment text doesn't include the line about monks using their unarmed damage with brass knuckles, and UE was published after the APG errata and after my boards post stating that monks shouldn't get their special unarmed damage when using brass knuckles.

But that's okay, keep stubbornly being wrong in the face of evidence contradicting you.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Edit: Sorry, I misinterpreted the intent of two posts, and was an ass in my reply. My apologies.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
In any case, the post by Sean should be completely disregarded because a print version of the rule was printed after that post and was the complete exact opposite of his statement.

The APG first print run sold out so fast that Paizo basically had to hit "go" on a second printing of the book without making extensive errata changes to the book, such as correcting the brass knuckles entry.

And, of course, you are ignoring that the Ultimate Equipment text doesn't include the line about monks using their unarmed damage with brass knuckles, and UE was published after the APG errata and after my boards post stating that monks shouldn't get their special unarmed damage when using brass knuckles.

But that's okay, keep stubbornly being wrong in the face of evidence contradicting you.

I wonder if bringing this post to Mike and John's attention could get us a PFS FAQ or Additional Resources note, so as to have something clear to show PFS players who don't own UE and haven't seen your original post. Hm, I've got work to do.

Sczarni

Geez, Jiggy, it took you a whole 10 minutes to post this over in the PFS Forum. Computer crash?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Edit: Sorry, I misinterpreted the intent of two posts, and was an ass in my reply. My apologies.

I didn't see what you wrote, but I jumped to the same conclusion you did about the posts before it.

It is so funny how the English language works that way, especially in writing.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed some overly hostile posts. Let's not be hasty jumping to conclusions and making accusations—and take the time to read what you're responding to and your own words.


Rest the odds of someone playing significantly with brass knuckles and not being informed they may not work the way they think they do is low.

In the case of someone who only owns the apg chances are /someone/ they play with can point them the right direction.

The player is then left to insist it works like the apg and expect table variation or choose to accept it and move on.

Personally I'd personally just spend 2 pl on a wand of magic fang and move on.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nefreet wrote:
Geez, Jiggy, it took you a whole 10 minutes to post this over in the PFS Forum. Computer crash?

Things were crazy at work. :)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
In any case, the post by Sean should be completely disregarded because a print version of the rule was printed after that post and was the complete exact opposite of his statement.

The APG first print run sold out so fast that Paizo basically had to hit "go" on a second printing of the book without making extensive errata changes to the book, such as correcting the brass knuckles entry.

And, of course, you are ignoring that the Ultimate Equipment text doesn't include the line about monks using their unarmed damage with brass knuckles, and UE was published after the APG errata and after my boards post stating that monks shouldn't get their special unarmed damage when using brass knuckles.

But that's okay, keep stubbornly being wrong in the face of evidence contradicting you.

First off, I am going to attempt to phrase this as politely as possible. Your response to me was not justified. I am not attacking you. I am not attacking your authority. The very first line of my post that you quoted states very clearly that I agree the current developer intent is for brass knuckles not to use monk unarmed damage. I put that as the first line so that someone would not be able to skip it. That line in my post is meant to establish my actual belief in light of the argument I was about to put forward.

Specifically about the section of my post that you quoted: there was no intended affront to your authority. It was not an attack. It was an exact factual statement, and was one directly inspired by a recent post of yours. You said that the most recent print version trumps the PRD. It then stands to reason that the most recent printed document trumps a one-off non-FAQ post from before the print date of a book. I understand that UE removes that line. I knew that before I posted. I am not ignoring anything. In that exact post I discussed the UE version. The point I was making is that your post from 4 years ago is not a reasonable resource to derive intention because a subsequent printed document countermanded that intent. Was is a rush-job? Was it an oversight? Maybe. But the game user has no way of differentiating that. If instead you had made an FAQ entry in May of 2010 then we might have been able to discern intent from it because the FAQ specifically trumps printed materials.

Now, that all out of the way, I understand the intent in this case. I understand intent because of the UE entry (and because I understand that it differs from the APG.) That has nothing to do with your post from May 2010. That post doesn't belong in this conversation because it was trumped by a printed book. That is not an attack on you personally. I am not say that Sean is wrong. I'm not saying Sean didn't have the authority to say what he said. I am only saying that particular post happened before. It was earlier than another thing. Just a factual statement recounting an order of events.

So, I implore you, please don't attack me like that again. If you decide that you must attack me, please, take a moment to read my post and see if I said something that is the exact opposite of what you believe I said. Please try to determine if the use of a proper noun (even your name) was only used as a qualifier to label something else and not as an attack. Please take a moment to determine if, perhaps, I am speaking from the perspective of someone who doesn't frequent the boards and isn't fully up to date on every piece of minutiae in the rule set (ie... My players and ie... A particular piece of equipment printed in different books where one has a line and another omits a line and that difference causes a major functional difference between the two.) I think it is only fair if you plan to dress me down that you at least take a moment to make sure I deserved it. Thanks for your consideration.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

BigDTBone wrote:

Your response to me was not justified.

there was no intended affront to your authority.

1st line "So the new version is not a definitive change as much as an omission."

I think we are all sorry, because I also misinterpreted your post. It isn't as clear as it could be.

The problem is the first line has that ommission language, which is confusing to me. I couldn't work out until this post of yours which side you agreed or disagreed.

In any event, he is probably reacting to the people who legitimately ignore posts on the forums. I could spend 10 minutes and post links to 10+ threads where posts unilaterally ignore, bash, or condescend posts by SKR and other devs when they don't agree. Because this does happen, it is too easy to let a post fall into that trap.


James Risner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Your response to me was not justified.

there was no intended affront to your authority.

1st line "So the new version is not a definitive change as much as an omission."

I think we are all sorry, because I also misinterpreted your post. It isn't as clear as it could be.

The problem is the first line has that ommission language, which is confusing to me. I couldn't work out until this post of yours which side you agreed or disagreed.

In any event, he is probably reacting to the people who legitimately ignore posts on the forums. I could spend 10 minutes and post links to 10+ threads where posts unilaterally ignore, bash, or condescend posts by SKR and other devs when they don't agree. Because this does happen, it is too easy to let a post fall into that trap.

Not to beat on this too much more but the line I was talking about was
BigDTBone wrote:
]While I agree that the intent likely is to not have the weapon do unarmed damage,

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
First off, I am going to attempt to phrase this as politely as possible. Your response to me was not justified. I am not attacking you. I am not attacking your authority. The very first line of my post that you quoted states very clearly that I agree the current developer intent is for brass knuckles not to use monk unarmed damage. I put that as the first line so that someone would not be able to skip it. That line in my post is meant to establish my actual belief in light of the argument I was about to put forward.

Okay, fair enough, and I accept your explanation for your post.

Now, that said, given the kind of posts you have made about me and at me, are you surprised that an ambiguous post by you was interpreted by me as an attack? (Especially as I'm not the only person who interpreted it as an attack.)

Phrasing matters.

What you said was, "In any case, the post by Sean should be completely disregarded because a print version of the rule was printed after that post and was the complete exact opposite of his statement."
When you just as easily could have said, "In any case, Sean made that post years ago, and there is a new ruling in print that supersedes it, so you should use the newer print rule rather than the older dev comment."

The first one reads a lot more judgmentally than the second one. You could even add "I really wish Paizo would make an official FAQ or post clarifying this because the printed sources contradict each other" to the second one and it would still read as less judgmental than the first statement.

Anyway (unless SRM and JB have changed their mind since I left Paizo), monks aren't supposed to get their special unarmed damage progression when using brass knuckles, the UE entry on brass knuckles deliberately doesn't include the "and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them" text, the APG text hasn't been updated to match that, that is probably confusing some readers, and could use an official clarification.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

well this certainly resolves the lack of clarity

at least until the next time someone wonders and questions it

a little research shows this issue comes up over, and over, and over

Ask yourself why, do they really want brass knuckles that bad, or do they just not want the monk to be a second class citizen when it comes to an enhancement bonus/weapon properties


plaidwandering wrote:

well this certainly resolves the lack of clarity

at least until the next time someone wonders and questions it

a little research shows this issue comes up over, and over, and over

Ask yourself why, do they really want brass knuckles that bad, or do they just not want the monk to be a second class citizen when it comes to an enhancement bonus/weapon properties

Quoted for truth.


I think people should be grateful to get any type of real-time feedback from the game's writers/creators.

People should also appreciate that PF serves more than one type of player. Not all people place the highest value on DPR. It's pretty clear that monks and bards were never intended to be offensively equivalent to fighters and sorcerers, but get other things to make them interesting. If one wants purely mechanical equivalence between classes, perhaps one should be playing a different system?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kwauss wrote:
I think people should be grateful to get any type of real-time feedback from the game's writers/creators.

Okay, you (and others) keep saying that, but honestly how much feedback has Sean really given in this thread? He hasn't addressed the reasoning behind the nerf at all; at most, he's made it very clear that it was the intent of Paizo as a whole (or at least the consensus) to remove the benefit of the Brass Knuckles. Which should be entirely self-evident and not even need discussion.

I'd like to have a clearer picture as to what Paizo expects people to do with the Brass Knuckles as they currently are. I'd like to know why Paizo chose to nerf the Brass Knuckles rather than buff unarmed strikes. I've already asked this twice in this thread, but Sean seems to prefer responding to accusations over questions.


This reminds me of the Glorious Heat thread.

There were dev comments that the feat should work differently, and PFS accepted an alternate version of how the feat works, but the rules text of the feat was never changed in FAQ/errata and was even reprinted unchanged in a new book after the comment.

So there is the dev comments, and there is the actual text of the feat.

Similarly, these weapons say they modify unarmed strikes, which would include monk unarmed strikes. We have a dev comment that the weapons should work differently, but no change to the actual rules text (well, Brass Knuckles lost a line of text, but still says its an unarmed strike). And they have been reprinted after the comment was made.

The rules text is still what it is, until it is actually altered.

Kwauss wrote:

I think people should be grateful to get any type of real-time feedback from the game's writers/creators.

People should also appreciate that PF serves more than one type of player. Not all people place the highest value on DPR. It's pretty clear that monks and bards were never intended to be offensively equivalent to fighters and sorcerers, but get other things to make them interesting. If one wants purely mechanical equivalence between classes, perhaps one should be playing a different system?

Yes, feedback is a wonderful thing. But remember that the company benefits by being engaged with their audience as well. Poor communication is the leading cause of customer complaints, and a leading cause for loss of business.

And monks are designed as a melee combatant class. There has to be some rough equivalence in their combat abilities with Fighters (and Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins, etc) to fulfill their role. No one wants them to be the same, just not handicapped in their job.

Contributor

Arachnofiend wrote:
Kwauss wrote:
I think people should be grateful to get any type of real-time feedback from the game's writers/creators.
Okay, you (and others) keep saying that, but honestly how much feedback has Sean really given in this thread? He hasn't addressed the reasoning behind the nerf at all; at most, he's made it very clear that it was the intent of Paizo as a whole (or at least the consensus) to remove the benefit of the Brass Knuckles. Which should be entirely self-evident and not even need discussion.

1) It was all explained 4 years ago when it was errata'd for Adventurer's Armory. So I shouldn't have to type it all out again.

2) I don't work for Paizo any more, I don't speak for the rules team any more, and have no control over when they'll issue FAQs or errata for anything.
3) Even if I am not an employee, I do have the right to defend myself if insulted.

Not having to spend time on (1) or (2) means I have plenty of time for (3). I've already told you to FAQ-flag a thread about brass knuckles to get (2) to happen. Shall I repeat that?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I've already told you to FAQ-flag a thread about brass knuckles to get (2) to happen. Shall I repeat that?

No need. It seems clear that the community has realized that procedure won't be particularly helpful in a (1)predictable or (2) short amount of time. So there is a discussion going on about how to deal with the rule (and yes, we all know how it is intended to work, we aren't ignoring you) in light of the printed contradictions.

Part of that discussion includes how to explain to players who buy books (because they are excited about the game) that the book they just bought doesn't have accurate rules even though it is the latest printing. This includes players (from the other thread on this topic) who are 11 year old girls who spent their allowance on the book.

Do you have any suggestions about telling 11 year olds that spent their allowance on pathfinder stuff that what they bought may not work right and the only way to know is read every single other book (that she doesn't own) cover to cover to make sure there isn't a contradictory entry? That would be some super helpful advice for you to give.

Shadow Lodge

I think some people might need to take a step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and just relax a minute. :)


Voadam wrote:
Secane wrote:


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.

So you've got Sean's posting as RAI by the dev team at that point. If you download a copy of a purchased PDF of the APG you get the current APG including, I believe, contrary language to Sean's RAI. The APG is a rule book and so RAW.

So it looks like RAW is different than RAI. My understanding is that PFS uses RAW.

Until Paizo changes the APG or the PRD I believe it is still RAW that brass knuckles use improved monk unarmed damage.

Actually PFS uses RAI(the actual rule). RAW is there for cases when the intent is not clear. As an example if you use feats or a combination of them that may have table variance then it resorts to RAW.

Otherwise you get dead PC's still taking actions.<---That is RAW.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Do you have any suggestions about telling 11 year olds that spent their allowance on pathfinder stuff that what they bought may not work right and the only way to know is read every single other book (that she doesn't own) cover to cover to make sure there isn't a contradictory entry? That would be some super helpful advice for you to give.

I point out that over 99% of the book is accurate, and there are some little things that might have slipped through that we have to change, but it doesn't make the book bad. Tell the kid that mistakes happen, and we just have to change them when we find them. Point out other good options, and that the book she bought is still one of the best books out there in the game. Make her feel good about the purchase instead of feeling bad about it because of one thing that was missed when reprinting it due to the rush in reprinting.

Now, looking at that argument (and yes, I read the thread about the 11 year old), and seeing how a lot of people have played rules wrong over the years even when they were written properly, and then those people have to change when they are told the correct rules, well I'm willing to give the writers, developers and editors a break when they miss something. Players miss enough.

Angus

Contributor

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure:

Hey, 11-year-old. You're smart. You're creative. You don't have to follow the rules exactly if it's fun for your campaign. If you want to let monks deal full unarmed strike damage with brass knuckles, go right ahead. This unresolved issue in the official rules only matters if you play Pathfinder Society. If you're not playing PFS, don't let "the man" tell you what to do, run it how you want. It's kinda like when you go to McDonald's and you said "I don't want pickles on my hamburger," and they put pickles on it anyway... just take the pickles off. You're allowed. It's your hamburger. They made a mistake, you can easily fix it. You don't need to hand it back to the employee and have them remove the pickles for you. You're old enough to make decisions about your life, like whether you can take pickles off your own burger or whether you can decide that brass knuckles in your campaign with your friends deal monk unarmed damage or not. There are some people who play home games who insist on having the most official ruling for everything. I don't know why they're like that. You don't have to be like that. It's your game. Play it. Have fun. Because a lot of times in this world, you can't rely on other people for the answers, you just have to make a decision and go with it. Sometimes it's the right decision. Sometimes it's the wrong decision. But this particular decision is about what kind and how many dice to roll in a game with goblins and dragons, so you can risk making the "wrong" decision. Because it's just a game. Have fun.

How's that?


I agree that mistakes happen and that is completely understandable and no problem. That doesn't mean that those mistakes don't have to be dealt with. These threads are acknowledging that mistake in an attempt to address them.

At times, when you are fixing mistakes, you may complain a bit or b~+@# a bit. It sucks to have to fix mistakes. That isn't blaming anyone, that isn't insulting anyone. When the dog piddles on the floor then you clean it up. Saying outloud, "I hate cleaning up dog piddle, I wish the dog wouldn't piddle the floor anymore" isn't insulting the dog. It is just expressing frustration with the situation.

The grandstanding in the middle of the discussion isn't helping anyone though. If while you were cleaning up the dig piddle the dog jumped right in your face and said "stop talking about how much it sucks to clean my piddle! I piddled! It happens! You already know how to clean it up! Stop insulting me!" Then you would likely be taken aback by the talking dog but then directly you would realize that the dog wasn't being helpful and you would be really happy if the dog would just go away while you cleaned up its piddle.


The rule is what the rule is so I will make this simple.

PFS: You just have to deal with it, or get lucky and find a GM who does not follow the rules as intended.

Home game: Try to get it changed if you are not the GM. If you are the GM then change it for your game.

I have seen decent monk builds without this so it is not needed. Yeah a high level of system mastery was needed, but even if you were to allow this you would still need a high level of system mastery to make monks work under certain GM's.

edit:This was not directed at anyone in particular.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sure:

Hey, 11-year-old. You're smart. You're creative. You don't have to follow the rules exactly if it's fun for your campaign. If you want to let monks deal full unarmed strike damage with brass knuckles, go right ahead. This unresolved issue in the official rules only matters if you play Pathfinder Society. If you're not playing PFS, don't let "the man" tell you what to do, run it how you want. It's kinda like when you go to McDonald's and you said "I don't want pickles on my hamburger," and they put pickles on it anyway... just take the pickles off. You're allowed. It's your hamburger. They made a mistake, you can easily fix it. You don't need to hand it back to the employee and have them remove the pickles for you. You're old enough to make decisions about your life, like whether you can take pickles off your own burger or whether you can decide that brass knuckles in your campaign with your friends deal monk unarmed damage or not. There are some people who play home games who insist on having the most official ruling for everything. I don't know why they're like that. You don't have to be like that. It's your game. Play it. Have fun. Because a lot of times in this world, you can't rely on other people for the answers, you just have to make a decision and go with it. Sometimes it's the right decision. Sometimes it's the wrong decision. But this particular decision is about what kind and how many dice to roll in a game with goblins and dragons, so you can risk making the "wrong" decision. Because it's just a game. Have fun.

How's that?

That wasa super great helpful post. Thanks.

Contributor

BigDTBone wrote:
That wasa super great helpful post. Thanks.

I'm not sure if you're being sincere, or sarcastic. If you're being sarcastic, I really don't know what you want at this point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I just wanna know why Monks have to give up their neck slot for weapon enchantments while every other class can just enchant the weapon. I'd say that's a pretty fair query.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monks have to give up their neck slot and pay twice as much because it wouldn't make sense for Monks to not have to give up their neck slot and pay twice as much!

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

... except the AoMF cost has already been errata'd, it's not x2 any more. And Jason's already explained his reasoning for that. But go on.


The AoMF had a significant decrease in price. This was done over a year ago IIRC. The neck slot also allows you to attack with every unarmed strike the monk has such as elbows, feet, and so on. Even if the monk had to wear gloves they would be losing the hand slot, and most likely the attack would only apply to punches.

51 to 100 of 334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Monk's unarmed strike damage and Brass knuckles / Cestus? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.