|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why a monk would ever be bothering with brass knuckles in the first place. He already gets to do lethal damage, so the brass knuckles don't offer any mechanical benefit.If the monk could use brass knuckles to do his unarmed strike damage it would lead to a magically enhanced attack and free up the neck slot instead of relying on the AMoF.
And since Monks can perform their Flurry of Blows with a single weapon, it means paying half the price of the AoMF for the same effect. They'd also be able to surpass the +5 cap that the Amulet has.
since people be like "but i can punch with brass knuckles"
I be like you can punch with daggers too, using the daggers hilt as the brace, but we can't use that either. let's face it, the damage comes from contact with the monks actual body for some reason(oh right it's because the writers wanted to nerf monks ;-;).
Wouldn't it be a better solution to fix the monk in a more universal way than allowing them to use one item with their unarmed damage?Yes, but there are people at Paizo who don't want what is called "incremental design" in the game, which is where you make changes to the game rules that are more significant than changing a sentence or two in errata. I understand their reasons for not wanting to do so, but I also understand the need to fix a core class that is poor compared to the others.
Thanks for the insight, Sean. That makes a fundamental imbalance issue hard to address.
Are additional feats considered small enough changes? I was thinking about answers to the MAD issue they face...
Wouldn't it be a better solution to fix the monk in a more universal way than allowing them to use one item with their unarmed damage?Yes, but there are people at Paizo who don't want what is called "incremental design" in the game, which is where you make changes to the game rules that are more significant than changing a sentence or two in errata. I understand their reasons for not wanting to do so, but I also understand the need to fix a core class that is poor compared to the others.
Thanks for the insight, Sean. That makes a fundamental imbalance issue hard to address.
Are additional feats considered small enough changes? I was thinking about answers to the MAD issue they face...
Monks dont actually have a "job", and if the focus on any one area it really hurts them somewhere else.
Depending on how you play the games there are a lot of solutions.
You know, a weapon enchantment, that allowed a Monk to deal his unarmed strike damage with the enchanted weapon, sounds like a decent idea.
Make it a +2, or +3 enchantment, or a specific weapon.
maybe...
Wushu
cost: +2
A Wushu weapon must be a light or one-handed melee weapon.
allows a weapon to effectively be counted as an unarmed strike for all purposes (including monk unarmed damage) when wielded by someone with the Improved Unarmed feat. The Unarmed strike will use all other enhancements on the weapon as normal.
this allows the weapon to work with any style feat that requires an unarmed strike, but does not count as a free hand nor can it have its damage type changed.
Wouldn't it be a better solution to fix the monk in a more universal way than allowing them to use one item with their unarmed damage?Yes, but there are people at Paizo who don't want what is called "incremental design" in the game, which is where you make changes to the game rules that are more significant than changing a sentence or two in errata. I understand their reasons for not wanting to do so, but I also understand the need to fix a core class that is poor compared to the others.
Thanks for the insight, Sean. That makes a fundamental imbalance issue hard to address.
Are additional feats considered small enough changes? I was thinking about answers to the MAD issue they face...
Leaving aside the problems of using feats in a splatbook to patch a core class, I suspect any feats good enough to sort out the issues with the basic monk would run afoul of the Paizo dev's official stance that there shouldn't be any material that overshadows the core options, or is so good that it becomes an auto-include for any monk. YMMV on how well they stick to the policy in all their products, but as I understand it that is their official design goal.
snip
You know, for someone who has complained multiple times in this thread about people making false accusations and aspersions about your actions, you sure don't mind doing it yourself.
Assuming I must be seeking some advantage is a horrible assumption, since I already said that isn't true.
As for Gauntlets, I said in my very first post in the thread that I think it should apply to gauntlets, brass knuckles, cestus (cesti?), and rope gauntlets since they all have similar language. Its just easier to keep saying one rather than list them all each time.
Yes, I am disregarding the dev team in favor of an actual change in the FAQ/errata. You make that sound like a crime but someone agrees with me...
No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.
This serves a couple of purposes.
First, it allows the design and development team to interact with fans, and have rules discussions with fans, in an exploratory, argumentative (and I mean that in a construct sense) and even sometimes a playful manner without the fear of taking such comments out of context. This is good for everyone.
Second, it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings. Many of us enjoy doing such things, but not everyone, and it should not be seen as a requirement for playing Pathfinder.
If someone wants to follow a dev's post, especially in really screwed up rules situations, I don't see that as a problem. But I do have a problem with people attacking me for not following the rules because I don't feel obligated to.
My "wishful thinking" is REALLY straight forward.
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike
So both
A)you are attacking with Brass Knuckles, since they are creating an effectAND
B)you are making an unarmed strike, since that is what is affected
have to be true for that sentence to make sense.
If you are making an unarmed strike, then monk damage applies.
See, simple.
JohnF, wraithstrike and Nefreet have it mostly covered. The point would be to give the Monk an option to enhance their unarmed strikes that is parallel to the option Fighters have for wielding a weapon. Monk options are more expense, take magic item slots, and have caps on enhancement bonus lower than weapons do.
Even if you dont have the improved unarmed strike feat you can make one with those weapons at their listed base damage. The text saying you can make an unarmed strike never says you get to outdo the table. The sawtooth sabre already does 1d8 damage so that really proves nothing. It functions as a longsword for the purpose of feats such as weapon focus, and even if it did less damage it would be a point against you since it would prove you need specific language to trump the table.
I am still waiting on RAW that says you get to over ride the table. Without it you can't do it.
I am still waiting on RAW that says you get to over ride the table. Without it you can't do it.
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethal
Seems like monks do it all the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, here is the rule
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.and just so we are all super clear
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.
This isn't a matter of interpreting the written rules, or making a case based off the text. This is a case of the text being wrong as to how the item is supposed to function.
Even if you dont have the improved unarmed strike feat you can make one with those weapons at their listed base damage. The text saying you can make an unarmed strike never says you get to outdo the table. The sawtooth sabre already does 1d8 damage so that really proves nothing. It functions as a longsword for the purpose of feats such as weapon focus, and even if it did less damage it would be a point against you since it would prove you need specific language to trump the table.
I am still waiting on RAW that says you get to over ride the table. Without it you can't do it.
So, is it RAW that Brass Knuckles states you use them to make unarmed strikes? Yes.
Is it RAW that monks get increased damage on unarmed strikes? Yes.So, if Brass Knuckles are used to make unarmed strikes, and unarmed strike damage is increased by monk, then....?
Specific text isn't necessary so long as Brass Knuckles state using them is an unarmed strike. The T-shirt doesn't have to say, "Duelist can use Precise Strike while wearing this armor" because Duelist can use Precise Strike in any light armor.
The text in sawtooth sabre say it is treated as a longsword. Brass Knuckles say it is an unarmed strike. Those are analogous statements, BK actually probably stronger since they are unarmed strikes and not just "treated" as such.
So, if you have no problem with a Warpriest with WF-longsword doing 1d10 damage with the sawtooth sabre, there shouldn't be an issue with monks doing 1d10 with BK.
Even if you dont have the improved unarmed strike feat you can make one with those weapons at their listed base damage. The text saying you can make an unarmed strike never says you get to outdo the table. The sawtooth sabre already does 1d8 damage so that really proves nothing. It functions as a longsword for the purpose of feats such as weapon focus, and even if it did less damage it would be a point against you since it would prove you need specific language to trump the table.
I am still waiting on RAW that says you get to over ride the table. Without it you can't do it.
So, is it RAW that Brass Knuckles states you use them to make unarmed strikes? Yes.
Is it RAW that monks get increased damage on unarmed strikes? Yes.
So, if Brass Knuckles are used to make unarmed strikes, and unarmed strike damage is increased by monk, then....?Specific text isn't necessary so long as Brass Knuckles state using them is an unarmed strike. The T-shirt doesn't have to say, "Duelist can use Precise Strike while wearing this armor" because Duelist can use Precise Strike in any light armor.
The text in sawtooth sabre say it is treated as a longsword. Brass Knuckles say it is an unarmed strike. Those are analogous statements, BK actually probably stronger since they are unarmed strikes and not just "treated" as such.
So, if you have no problem with a Warpriest with WF-longsword doing 1d10 damage with the sawtooth sabre, there shouldn't be an issue with monks doing 1d10 with BK.
Don't let these guys lead you down the rabbit hole. Anyone who demands to "see RAW, else it didn't happen" should be prepared to show where in the RAW that is says "Even if something is specifically called out as being something, it isn't."
This is a case where errata is needed to correct the problems with the text because as written this item doesn't function as intended. Arguing the written text will not "prove" that purple is B-flat. "But they are both waves on the EM spectrum!" doesn't change a thing.
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strikeSo both
A)you are attacking with Brass Knuckles, since they are creating an effect
AND
B)you are making an unarmed strike, since that is what is affected
have to be true for that sentence to make sense.
If you are making an unarmed strike, then monk damage applies.
See, simple.
JohnF, wraithstrike and Nefreet have it mostly covered. The point would be to give the Monk an option to enhance their unarmed strikes that is parallel to the option Fighters have for wielding a weapon. Monk options are more expense, take magic item slots, and have caps on enhancement bonus lower than weapons do.
Brass Knuckles had the line changed to "Brass knuckles allow you to deal lethal damage." I believe in the advanced armory?(I don't actually have any of the books)
My stance is that either the devs mean the rules to say what they do, or they should issue a FAQ/errata. Since FAQ/errata are official ways to address rules issues. Requiring me to keep up with hundreds of comments in posts, many of which I probably am not even aware were made, is ridiculous.
Again, your assumption that I know I am reading it wrong and just don't care is wrong, in many ways. But thanks for being patronizing.
I think you just do not read the rules as well as you think you do, most likely because you want them to be more specific instead of having to be read in context.
PS: I am not saying that having to read them in context is a positive thing, but it is how they work.
That is how I knew the intent of haste before the errata.
Before haste called out "held weapons", but it was meant for all weapons.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are additional feats considered small enough changes? I was thinking about answers to the MAD issue they face...
Sadly, then it becomes a "feat tax" for the monk to function normally as a class.
Yes, I am disregarding the dev team in favor of an actual change in the FAQ/errata. You make that sound like a crime but someone agrees with me...
And, like I said earlier, there a difference between:
"I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
Samasboy, there's no point in discussing this with you any more. I told you the intent and told you the plan was to put it in the printed book (even though that didn't happen, and you're still arguing against it. You'd argue against having to use RAI instead of RAW in the five minutes it would take between a designer posting the intent of a rule and actually entering that intent into the FAQ.
-----
By the way, UE entry for unarmed strike also says this:
And Adventurer's Armory with errata says this for BK:
Nothing in the above AA errata'd text about dealing unarmed strike damage.
So like I said earlier, by creating the BK as a weapon, it gets stuck right in the middle of a knot of rules that probably need about three paragraphs to fully explain, including
"if you're wearing BK, are you actually armed with a weapon?"
"if I'm armed with a weapon when using BK, is this actually an unarmed strike?"
"do I add +1 from Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) when wearing BK?"
"is 'Weapon Focus (brass knuckles)' even a meaningful thing?"
"if I have +1 flaming brass knuckles, do I add +1 to hit, +1 damage, and +1d6 fire to my unarmed strikes while wearing them?"
And so on.
And because we're dealing with a 3-year-old item's rules added to a 4-year-old rules patch to a 14-year-old game system, the language is going to be clunky and convoluted unless you want the rulebooks to read like a legal document. Which I don't, because that would suck.
Bits and pieces of the rules contradict each other, and there's no obvious context or precedent for which rules chunk has priority within the same book. That's why we have a GM with a human brain to interpret the rules and make rulings, because you can never write a rule so clearly that 100% of the readers will understand it. And if you're in a situation (like PFS) where you can't rely on a GM to make a ruling, you have to rely on the people whose job it is to make rulings on the game, which is the PFS team and/or the design team. The end. If you don't accept the authority of the PFS team, and you don't accept the authority of the design team, why are you even playing PFS, and why do you care which way they rule it?
I am done here also. My intent on the rules thread is to let the people know what the intent is. I think that has been done. Whether or not they choose to go by the intent is well beyond my concern.
And since RAW says unarmed strikes are not made with weapons, and that is the latest RAW writing I guess that should solve the situation, but I doubt it will.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I am advocating using the current, official rules. Until those are changed, even if someone says they will change in the future, those are still the current, official rules.
But not everyone agrees with you that the current official rules are in alignment with you. The developers currently do not agree with you nor do they agree the official rule is your way.
There is a difference between:
"I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
And when I said, "brass knuckles are supposed to work like this," that wasn't my opinion, that was a designer's statement about how the design team plans to change the official rules of the game by using errata. I don't have control over print runs, or what we reprint, or when it gets reprinted, so I have no control over when that errata will appear in the next print run of the APG and its PDF, but you shouldn't dismiss anyone on the design team's board posts as "just an opinion" when they're telling you how they're going to update the official rule.
When you say "brass knuckles are supposed to work like this" that is a different statement than "we'll update the book in the next printing to say x". It sounds a lot more like "it should work like this."
There are explicit statements in the FAQ for many rules saying "this will be updated in the next printing of the book". That is not here for this change.
Remember, the statement was made in 2010 referring to advanced armory and the updates and new books since then still included a reference to doing lethal unarmed strike damage and we are now discussing that updated language from UE.
As you said, there are a ton of steps and time between Paizo intending a change and it actually appearing. Paizo can change its mind back and forth on intent at many stages between the intent you described in 2010 and the current 2014 printed rules and official errata noted in the FAQ.
There is a difference between:
"I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
And when I said, "brass knuckles are supposed to work like this," that wasn't my opinion, that was a designer's statement about how the design team plans to change the official rules of the game by using errata. I don't have control over print runs, or what we reprint, or when it gets reprinted, so I have no control over when that errata will appear in the next print run of the APG and its PDF, but you shouldn't dismiss anyone on the design team's board posts as "just an opinion" when they're telling you how they're going to update the official rule.
When you say "brass knuckles are supposed to work like this[i/]" that is a different statement than "we'll update the book in the next printing to say x". It sounds a lot more like "it [i]should work like this."
There are explicit statements in the FAQ for many rules saying "this will be updated in the next printing of the book". That is not here for this change.
Remember, the statement was made in 2010 referring to advanced armory and the updates and new books since then still included a reference to doing lethal unarmed strike damage and we are now discussing that updated language from UE.
As you said, there are a ton of steps and time between Paizo intending a change and it actually appearing. Paizo can change its mind back and forth on intent at many stages between the intent you described in 2010 and the current 2014 printed rules and official errata noted in the FAQ.
But the current rules still don't support them using the monk's unarmed damage. They just need to rewrite those weapons to remove ambiguity.
But the current rules still don't support them using the monk's unarmed damage. They just need to rewrite those weapons to remove ambiguity.
I disagree that the current RAW don't support being used with unarmed strikes.
As written in UE brass knuckles say "These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and [b]allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.[b]"
If that were not there I'd agree that it is a straightforward manufactured weapon that can not be used as part of an unarmed strike and only uses its own damage listing which the monk's class ability does not alter.
Reading it as written it indicates that they can be used as part of an unarmed strike.
This is contrary to the developer intent Sean expressed in 2010 (as he says, after changing his position after talking to Jason), but that is the natural reading of the current rules text as I see it.
But the current rules still don't support them using the monk's unarmed damage. They just need to rewrite those weapons to remove ambiguity.
I disagree that the current RAW don't support being used with unarmed strikes.
As written in UE brass knuckles say "These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike."
If that were not there I'd agree that it is a straightforward manufactured weapon that can not be used as part of an unarmed strike and only uses its own damage listing which the monk's class ability does not alter.
Reading it as written it indicates that they can be used as part of an unarmed strike.
This is contrary to the developer intent Sean expressed in 2010 (as he says, after changing his position after talking to Jason), but that is the natural reading of the current rules text as I see it.
The weapon does its own damage, and since it is doing an unarmed strike it does 1d_.
Following the chart damage is an actual rule in the book. <---RAW
Nothing says the user gets to use his own damage if it is greater than the weapon's damage. <------There is no mention of overiding the chart anywhere in the book.
So now you have two possible sources of damage.
Show me the rule that says the user trumps the weapon if both are doing unarmed strike damage and like I said this is not a bonus so you can't use the rule saying the higher bonus takes precedence.
I presented the same challenge before, and nobody has been able to do it yet.
edit: Your formatting was off with the "quote" code.
When you say "brass knuckles are supposed to work like this" that is a different statement than "we'll update the book in the next printing to say x". It sounds a lot more like "it should work like this."
Here is my August 2011 post about how the APG didn't end up getting the errata'd Adventurer's Armory version of the brass knuckles:
There it is, official statement by designer, "the [updated brass knuckles] will appear in the next printing of the APG."
Which is most definitely a "we'll update the book in the next printing to say X" sort of statement.
-----
By the way, UE entry for unarmed strike also says this:
So that is the general rule subject to specific enumerated exceptions.
And Adventurer's Armory with errata says this for BK:
Nothing in the above AA errata'd text about dealing unarmed strike damage.
1 in AA errata they explicitly magnify the amount of force of a punch and punches, as you quoted immediately before that, are unarmed strikes.
This looks like a specific exception to the general rule.
2 I thought that we had to use UE alone for the rules text anyway as the later released book.
So like I said earlier, by creating the BK as a weapon, it gets stuck right in the middle of a knot of rules that probably need about three paragraphs to fully explain, including
"if you're wearing BK, are you actually armed with a weapon?"
"if I'm armed with a weapon when using BK, is this actually an unarmed strike?"
"do I add +1 from Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) when wearing BK?"
"is 'Weapon Focus (brass knuckles)' even a meaningful thing?"
"if I have +1 flaming brass knuckles, do I add +1 to hit, +1 damage, and +1d6 fire to my unarmed strikes while wearing them?"And so on.
And because we're dealing with a 3-year-old item's rules added to a 4-year-old rules patch to a 14-year-old game system, the language is going to be clunky and convoluted unless you want the rulebooks to read like a legal document. Which I don't, because that would suck.
This one seems easy.
If you want them to be treated as normal non unarmed strike weapons that is the default for simple manufactured weapons. No special language needed. They then are not subject to any unarmed strike rules exceptions. Just do not include any language indicating they can be used with unarmed strikes. Or if you do for purely descriptive purposes explicitly state that their use does not constitute unarmed strikes.
If you want them to be used as part of unarmed strikes and subject to the unarmed strike specific rules (provoking, threatening, weapon focus unarmed strike, etc.) state that in the description. This will be one sentence. Then all rules applicable to unarmed strikes apply except enumerated exceptions (like dealing lethal damage instead of default nonlethal unarmed strike damage).
If you consciously want only certain unarmed strike features to work, set up the base conditions one way or the other as above and enumerate the exceptions.
So you're just going to ignore where I refuted your earlier comment, and just change the subject. Okay.
(And let me point out that I am not the person who needs to be convinced about changing the BK to something more useful to monks.)
You are not punching anyone. That is flavor text, but for the sake of argument the RAW would then be that it only applies to unarmed strikes landed with punches, which is not the argument Samasboy1 is making.
Personally I like the idea of being only to enhance punches at a cheaper price.<---That is what I would like for Paizo to do, but I also recognize that is not the intent of what Jason intends to happen, at least not right now.
Hopefully they backtrack and change it back to the original version, but I am not holding my breath.
PS: Personally arguing over the words used is pointless since we know the intent. Nobody is saying you have to follow SKR's breakdown. SKR is just trying to tell you the current intent behind the writing. <----After that you(or the GM) can decide to ignore it or follow it.
Wait, I thought we used the most recently printed rule? So now we are going back to a previous version of the rule in AA? Moving the goal posts much?
And the currently most recent printed rule says "unarmed strike."
"I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
And the latter is still a dev post, and as such, not an official ruling. I am not saying it is an opinion. It is an acknowledgement of the issue and promise to fix it. But it isn't a fix by itself.
Wait, I thought we used the most recently printed rule? So now we are going back to a previous version of the rule in AA? Moving the goal posts much?
And the currently most recent printed rule says "unarmed strike."
And the latter is still a dev post, and as such, not an official ruling. I am not saying it is an opinion. It is an acknowledgement of the issue and promise to fix it. But it isn't a fix by itself."I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
I am still waiting for the RAW that says the character damage overrules the table damage.
What if the table damage was 20d6, which would you go by?
So you're just going to ignore where I refuted your earlier comment, and just change the subject. Okay.
(And let me point out that I am not the person who needs to be convinced about changing the BK to something more useful to monks.)
I originally checked the FAQ for the APG and saw nothing in there. I was referring to the statement of yours I directly quoted and the 2010 quote of you that's been discussed in this thread.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kqan&page=2?Adventurers-Armory-Questions#5 1
I'm not trying to selectively quote you to make you look bad, I'm responding to your actual statements as I come across them. I had never seen the 2011 statement before.
You posted the 2011 reference while I was composing my post and I did not see your most recent post when I posted mine. I have now read it and the linked original post.
So in August 2011 you said explicitly in a forum post they would update brass knuckles in the next APG printing.
Ultimate Equipment came out in August 2012 so a year after that statement of intent to update was made. The UE description of BK was modified, removing an explicit reference to monk improved unarmed strike damage but retained language stating brass knuckles allow lethal damage with unarmed strikes.
This retained unarmed strike language seems contrary to the stated intent for brass knuckles to not not be a type of unarmed strikes.
So to sum up, there was a statement of intent, a statement that it would be updated, a new version was published that changed it but retained language that seems counter to the stated intent.
(And let me point out that I am not the person who needs to be convinced about changing the BK to something more useful to monks.)
No. The original poster asked for the applicable rules for use as a PFS DM. My understanding is PFS uses RAW as modified by the FAQ and PFS documents.
So I read the RAW on the prd entries, looked for FAQ errata or clarifications and gave my reading and reasons for my reading.
I've got my reading of the RAW which indicates to me they allow the user to use them as part of an unarmed strike based on the language of allowing lethal damage with unarmed strikes.
Wraithstrike says they use their listed weapon damage, but I'm not sure whether he thinks they are unarmed strikes for other purposes (provoking, threatening, feat applications).
Sean you seem to be saying they are not unarmed strikes for any purpose leaving the statement in the description about unarmed strikes as incorrect language to be ignored in discussing the actual rules.
All three end results seem possible reasonable design goals that do not lead to absurd results.
I am still waiting for the RAW that says the character damage overrules the table damage.
For the 2nd time now, here you go.
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethal
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk.
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.
The weapon does its own damage, and since it is doing an unarmed strike it does 1d_.
Following the chart damage is an actual rule in the book. <---RAW
Nothing says the user gets to use his own damage if it is greater than the weapon's damage. <------There is no mention of overiding the chart anywhere in the book.
So now you have two possible sources of damage.
Show me the rule that says the user trumps the weapon if both are doing unarmed strike damage and like I said this is not a bonus so you can't use the rule saying the higher bonus takes precedence.
I presented the same challenge before, and nobody has been able to do it yet.
edit: Your formatting was off with the "quote" code.
Thanks for the catch but its too late to edit the formatting as paizo cuts off editing posts. :)
Unarmed strikes have their own listing on the weapon chart as well.
A monk's class feature allows them to do more damage with an unarmed strike, which modifies the listed damage of the weapon (unarmed strike) on the chart.
If brass knuckles do an unarmed strike then a monk should modify the damage of that unarmed strike with his class feature.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.
Sean you seem to be saying they are not unarmed strikes for any purpose leaving the statement in the description about unarmed strikes as incorrect language to be ignored in discussing the actual rules.
No, I'm saying the text is ambiguous.
And as I'm having to repeat myself over and over again, including to people who have just joined the conversation and apparently skipped by me explaining what happened in earlier posts, I'm out of this thread.
Bye, good luck.
Wait, I thought we used the most recently printed rule? So now we are going back to a previous version of the rule in AA? Moving the goal posts much?
And the currently most recent printed rule says "unarmed strike."
And the latter is still a dev post, and as such, not an official ruling. I am not saying it is an opinion. It is an acknowledgement of the issue and promise to fix it. But it isn't a fix by itself."I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
I think Paizo has made an official policy of including its official errata in the FAQ so that there is a single repository of official errata people can easily refer to.
So the FAQ has entries such as
Barbarian--Totem Warrior: Does this APG archetype allow you to take more than one type of totem rage powers?
No, the line in Ultimate Combat is in error; a barbarian cannot select from more than one group of totem rage powers.
This error will be corrected in the next printing of Ultimate Combat.
I think Paizo has made an official policy of including its official errata in the FAQ so that there is a single repository of official errata people can easily refer to.
Well, there are errata files in addition to the FAQ, but the FAQ is considered official, yes.
I don't understand your point though, because this isn't addressed in the FAQ. It was in a forum post.
Some versions of Brass Knuckles have received errata, but the statement that Brass Knuckles are used to make unarmed strikes has not.
Sean, you have quit three times now. If you don't want to post, that's fine, but you can't say that I can't.
|
*sigh* Guys, this has been beaten like a dead horse a long time ago at this point. Neither of you are going to convince each other because you've both exhausted all of your points and are going in circles. Agree to disagree at this point and all of your lives will be better because of it. Your mileage may vary, expect table variation, etc.
If you look at my previous post in this thread, I think there's a much more important discussion that needs to happen. Not a rules question, but one that talks about how rulings should be made in PFS and the overall interaction between Paizo and it's customers.
I am still waiting for the RAW that says the character damage overrules the table damage.For the 2nd time now, here you go.
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethalA monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk.These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.
That says nothing about over riding anything I am still waiting.
Doing more than damage than a normal person is not the same as over riding a weapon on the chart.
I am still waiting for the RAW that says the character damage overrules the table damage.For the 2nd time now, here you go.
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethalA monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk.These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.That says nothing about over riding anything I am still waiting.
Doing more than damage than a normal person is not the same as over riding a weapon on the chart.
Unarmed Strike IS a weapon on the chart. It does 1d3 damage. The monk ability specifically says that you do more.
That ability overrides the table's listed damage.
That says nothing about over riding anything I am still waiting.Doing more than damage than a normal person is not the same as over riding a weapon on the chart.
Unarmed strikes are a weapon on the weapon chart.
Monk class feature overrides that listing's damage.
Unarmed Strike
Price —
Type simple
An unarmed strike is an attack such as a punch or a kick where the attacker is not using a weapon to make the attack. A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (Core Rulebook 182). An unarmed strike can't be disarmed.
Note that the description of the weapon unarmed strike says that medium characters do 1d3 damage and does not say that a monk gets to use his improved unarmed strike damage with a weapon unarmed strike.
However, Monks do get to use their improved unarmed strike damage with their unarmed strikes.
I am still waiting for the RAW that says the character damage overrules the table damage.For the 2nd time now, here you go.
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethalA monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk.These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.That says nothing about over riding anything I am still waiting.
Doing more than damage than a normal person is not the same as over riding a weapon on the chart.
Unarmed Strike IS a weapon on the chart. It does 1d3 damage. The monk ability specifically says that you do more.
That ability overrides the table's listed damage.
I was asking about brass knuckles or any weapon that says unarmed strike in it's writing. I agree that any character who uses a feat or ability to do more than 1d3 will do more than 1d3, assuming no weapons are involved.
As an example if you had a weapon with the same verbiage that says it does 3d6, but the monk only does 1d8 at the time he gained the weapon which damage would you allow the monk to do?
I am still waiting for the RAW that says the character damage overrules the table damage.For the 2nd time now, here you go.
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethalA monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk.These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.That says nothing about over riding anything I am still waiting.
Doing more than damage than a normal person is not the same as over riding a weapon on the chart.
Unarmed Strike IS a weapon on the chart. It does 1d3 damage. The monk ability specifically says that you do more.
That ability overrides the table's listed damage.
I was asking about brass knuckles or any weapon that says unarmed strike in it's writing. I agree that any character who uses a feat or ability to do more than 1d3 will do more than 1d3, assuming no weapons are involved.
As an example if you had a weapon with the same verbiage that says it does 3d6, but the monk only does 1d8 at the time he gained the weapon which damage would you allow the monk to do?
In that hypothetical rules scenario, the monk would still do 1d8. His class ability is a specific rule that overrides the general.
Wait, I thought we used the most recently printed rule? So now we are going back to a previous version of the rule in AA? Moving the goal posts much?
And the currently most recent printed rule says "unarmed strike."
And the latter is still a dev post, and as such, not an official ruling. I am not saying it is an opinion. It is an acknowledgement of the issue and promise to fix it. But it isn't a fix by itself."I think it should work like this"
and
"we're aware of the issue and we'll update the book in the next printing."
The former is an opinion. The latter is not.
so the wiki says it's the most updated version, and I'm just going to guess that's not true anymore? sigh.
In that hypothetical rules scenario, the monk would still do 1d8. His class ability is a specific rule that overrides the general.I am still waiting for the RAW that says the character damage overrules the table damage.For the 2nd time now, here you go.
Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 ×2 — — B nonlethalA monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk.These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.That says nothing about over riding anything I am still waiting.
Doing more than damage than a normal person is not the same as over riding a weapon on the chart.
Unarmed Strike IS a weapon on the chart. It does 1d3 damage. The monk ability specifically says that you do more.
That ability overrides the table's listed damage.
I was asking about brass knuckles or any weapon that says unarmed strike in it's writing. I agree that any character who uses a feat or ability to do more than 1d3 will do more than 1d3, assuming no weapons are involved.
As an example if you had a weapon with the same verbiage that says it does 3d6, but the monk only does 1d8 at the time he gained the weapon which damage would you allow the monk to do?
I would have gone in the opposite direction. In any event they need to remove that unarmed strike verbage even though I understand why it was there.
|
(And let me point out that I am not the person who needs to be convinced about changing the BK to something more useful to monks.)
I'm not saying this as a challenge or mockingly, but something that popped in mind as I read this and other replies is that this might need a good playtest. And what better place than in PFS for just that, as it's already sort of a issue as far as exactly what is the legal answer on the issue.
My understanding is that, currently, Brass Knuckles do allow for extra Monk's Unarmed Strike Damage, (as only official errata, legal sources fro the additional Resources page, and official forum changes listed as such from Mike Brock count as official PFS rulings again, as far as I know), play it as written in PFS and see how it goes. If it's really that much of an issue, then we will see this popping up in the PFS forums nearly rivaling the topics on Ninjas, Gunslingers, Magus', and Summoners. And if not, well, we can actually gauge just how bad or disruptive it is. And, within a specific time frame.
Let me say this again, I am in no way trying to argue that the RAI of BK is to allow Monk's extra damage, nor am I at all trying to throw SKR under the bus. I'm just saying, if someone, anyone, needs convincing, what better way that through PFS where so much is done to (well in theory) make everyone pretty much equal.
In that hypothetical rules scenario, the monk would still do 1d8. His class ability is a specific rule that overrides the general.
Interesting - I think you could rule it that the monk would do 3d6 damage, based on the bolded:
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk.
The monk wouldn't be dealing more damage than a normal person would in this scenario, so it could be ruled that the monk would get the benefit of the improved weapon in that case while getting the benefit of the monk's improved unarmed damage in the case of the brass knuckles.
Just food for thought...
In that hypothetical rules scenario, the monk would still do 1d8. His class ability is a specific rule that overrides the general.Interesting - I think you could rule it that the monk would do 3d6 damage, based on the bolded:
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk.The monk wouldn't be dealing more damage than a normal person would in this scenario, so it could be ruled that the monk would get the benefit of the improved weapon in that case while getting the benefit of the monk's improved unarmed damage in the case of the brass knuckles.
Just food for thought...
Yes, there are many problems with that scenario. Which is why I was particular to point out that it was hypothetical.
(And let me point out that I am not the person who needs to be convinced about changing the BK to something more useful to monks.)I'm not saying this as a challenge or mockingly, but something that popped in mind as I read this and other replies is that this might need a good playtest. And what better place than in PFS for just that, as it's already sort of a issue as far as exactly what is the legal answer on the issue.
My understanding is that, currently, Brass Knuckles do allow for extra Monk's Unarmed Strike Damage, (as only official errata, legal sources fro the additional Resources page, and official forum changes listed as such from Mike Brock count as official PFS rulings again, as far as I know), play it as written in PFS and see how it goes. If it's really that much of an issue, then we will see this popping up in the PFS forums nearly rivaling the topics on Ninjas, Gunslingers, Magus', and Summoners. And if not, well, we can actually gauge just how bad or disruptive it is. And, within a specific time frame.
Let me say this again, I am in no way trying to argue that the RAI of BK is to allow Monk's extra damage, nor am I at all trying to throw SKR under the bus. I'm just saying, if someone, anyone, needs convincing, what better way that through PFS where so much is done to (well in theory) make everyone pretty much equal.
Here is the point of contention..
Version 1 of BK called out monk damage. -->"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."
Version 2 of BK removed the line calling out monk damage to prevent that, but the unarmed strike verbage is still there. Some read this is "use the weapon of the monk damage whichever is greater" as RAW, even if they are not convinced it is RAI.
Despite my arguments I do admit that I understand why they see it that way.
I am going to allow the monk to use the BK for punching only in my next game as a houserule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(And let me point out that I am not the person who needs to be convinced about changing the BK to something more useful to monks.)I'm not saying this as a challenge or mockingly, but something that popped in mind as I read this and other replies is that this might need a good playtest. And what better place than in PFS for just that, as it's already sort of a issue as far as exactly what is the legal answer on the issue.
My understanding is that, currently, Brass Knuckles do allow for extra Monk's Unarmed Strike Damage, (as only official errata, legal sources fro the additional Resources page, and official forum changes listed as such from Mike Brock count as official PFS rulings again, as far as I know), play it as written in PFS and see how it goes. If it's really that much of an issue, then we will see this popping up in the PFS forums nearly rivaling the topics on Ninjas, Gunslingers, Magus', and Summoners. And if not, well, we can actually gauge just how bad or disruptive it is. And, within a specific time frame.
Let me say this again, I am in no way trying to argue that the RAI of BK is to allow Monk's extra damage, nor am I at all trying to throw SKR under the bus. I'm just saying, if someone, anyone, needs convincing, what better way that through PFS where so much is done to (well in theory) make everyone pretty much equal.
Here is the point of contention..
Version 1 of BK called out monk damage. -->"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."
Version 2 of BK removed the line calling out monk damage to prevent that, but the unarmed strike verbage is still there. Some read this is "use the weapon of the monk damage whichever is greater" as RAW, even if they are not convinced it is RAI.
Despite my arguments I do admit that I understand why they see it that way.
I am going to allow the monk to use the BK for punching only in my next game...
Actually, the issue is that Version 2 removed a portion, but not the entirety of the rules that indicate it's is an unarmed strike. The original intent was to allow it to count, and the revised intent was to not, but as it stands the RAW and the RAI do not match up. So for home games, if you care about developer posts, we have a clear answer to go with RAI over RAW (in this case). Which is fine, home games are home games. It becomes a problem in things like PFS where everyone is supposed to be following the same rules, and table variation is a very bad thing, where exactly what the correct legal source for this case should be, and then you also have some individuals not seeing that there is a difference between RAW and RAI, making it even worse.
|
I don't know why people think Brass Knuckles use your unarmed strike damage. They clearly removed that line from the most recently released core book, Ultimate Equipment. All they say is:
"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."
Brass Knuckles deal 1d3 damage. While I'm wielding them my unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but that's just an ability of the weapon. It's pretty cool that I can put them on and my knees get more deadly, but nothing about them says that they share any other benefits like enhancements or anything else with my unarmed strike, and they removed the bit that said they deal damage equal to my UAS, sooo.....