I'm not an experienced player, so I fear I'm reading the rules too favorably in some cases, and not favorably enough in others. Please help.
Questions about Catch Off Guard
This stuff might be 'too good to be true,' OR it might be the stuff that lets monks compete on the battle field.
1) Does the 'Catch off guard' feat effectively allow a player to be proficient with any and all weapons? It takes away the -4 penalties to using an 'improvised' (feat description also adds 'unorthodox') weapon, and when looking at how much damage an improvised weapon does, you're supposed to compare the improvised weapon to one that's most comparable--In the case of using a weapon you're not trained in, would this weapon be itself?
2) Additionally, an unarmed opponent is flat footed against such an attack. SO, say I had a monk and disarmed an opponent (freely taking the weapon for myself), would I then be able to attack him with his own weapon on my next turn, or on his if he provokes an attack of opportunity? And would I then make that attack against his flatfooted AC?
3) Alternately, does this feat allow me to wield my sais in an unorthodox manner, using them to do piercing damage instead of bludgeoning damage, all while getting to make the attack against an opponents flat footed AC?
4) It seems that weapons of a different size classes might also be perfectly usable as well, though as different weapons, ie. a short sword sword instead of a long sword, or whatever. Again, attacks would go against flat footed AC.
5) What's the deal when it comes to using broken weapons as improvised weapons?
Questions about 'Throw Anything'
I imagine the 'catch of guard' feat does NOT apply to improvised thrown weapons, since that might fall under the 'Throw Anything' feat, which deals with ranged weapons.
0) Bows, crossbows, and slings are all ranged weapons. If I wasn't proficient in them, I'd have to use them as 'improvised' ranged weapons, right? Would the 'throw anything' feat apply, again making the PC able to use any and all ranged weapons?
1) If I threw a great ax 10 feet at someone, what damage do I do? Do I do the damage of a great ax? So, with the 'throw anything' feat, could I replace my shurikens with sais? The sais would do bludgeoning damage, but they'd do more of it. Although sais are 5 times more expensive than shurikens, they don't have the same risk of being damaged or lost, which seems nice.
2) With the 'catch off guard' improvised weapon feat, can I fashion improvised but effective shurikens relatives cheaply from sundered weapons and the like? They're just sharpened pieces of metal, after all.
3) I think it was TreentMonk's 'guide to monks' that suggested using a combination of Flurry of Blows with shurikens as the ranged attack of choice with monks...Perhaps the Quick Draw feat made this possible, but is that right? Could you throw a bunch of shurikens as your flurry of blows? The alternate reading would be to use shurikens as melee weapons when using them as part of a flurry, but then it seems they do less damage than fists, and that hardly makes sense. Perhaps they're an option to do non-bludgeoning damage, but I have a hard time visualizing that unless they're doing slashing damage...Maybe they're useful to sunder armor, or something?
4) Will the Quick Draw feat allow me to take out and throw multiple shurikens on my turn, as part of flurry of blows? Would I be able to do the same thing with sais if I have the 'throw anything' feat?
Some last questions about Overrun:
1) If I run through an opponents square and he's flanked by his allies, do they get an attack of opportunity on me, even though my and their ally are in the same square? Would they risk damaging their ally instead of me?
2) When the target of my overrun chooses to let me pass, does he remain in his square the entire time, and I simply pass through?
3) Overrunning is a standard action. If my target chooses not to engage me, and lets me pass, have I burned that standard action, or am I free to use a different standard action at the end of my move action?
1) Does the 'Catch off guard' feat effectively allow a player to be proficient with any and all weapons? It takes away the -4 penalties to using an 'improvised' (feat description also adds 'unorthodox') weapon, and when looking at how much damage an improvised weapon does, you're supposed to compare the improvised weapon to one that's most comparable--In the case of using a weapon you're not trained in, would this weapon be itself?
No.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Improvised weapons are objects that are not weapons. A real weapon is not an improvised weapon except in the hands of a Monk of the Empty Hand, a special case.
Furthermore, though the description of an improvised weapon says to compare it to a reasonable match in a real weapon, it could compare poorly. Nothing says that the improvised weapon has to deal as much damage as the matching real weapon. Sure, a detached wooden table leg is equal to a club. But a long-handled shovel would deal only 1d6 damage as a polearm. It makes a poor halberd.
2) Additionally, an unarmed opponent is flat footed against such an attack. SO, say I had a monk and disarmed an opponent (freely taking the weapon for myself), would I then be able to attack him with his own weapon on my next turn, or on his if he provokes an attack of opportunity? And would I then make that attack against his flatfooted AC?
A real weapon is not an improvised weapon. This would work for a Monk of the Empty Hand, though.
3) Alternately, does this feat allow me to wield my sais in an unorthodox manner, using them to do piercing damage instead of bludgeoning damage, all while getting to make the attack against an opponents flat footed AC?
Monk of the Empty Hand, again, 3rd-level ability Versatile Improvisation.
4) It seems that weapons of a different size classes might also be perfectly usable as well, though as different weapons, ie. a short sword sword instead of a long sword, or whatever. Again, attacks would go against flat footed AC.
Real weapons are not improvised weapons.
5) What's the deal when it comes to using broken weapons as improvised weapons?
This one works for anyone with Catch Off-Guard. But a broken weapon would be inferior to its unbroken form.
I imagine the 'catch of guard' feat does NOT apply to improvised thrown weapons, since that might fall under the 'Throw Anything' feat, which deals with ranged weapons.
That is right. Catch Off-Guard says "improvised melee weapon" and a thrown weapon is a ranged weapon. However, this does give your monk a chance to use a real weapon as an improvised weapon. If the real weapon does not have a range, then throwing it makes it an improvised ranged weapon.
0) Bows, crossbows, and slings are all ranged weapons. If I wasn't proficient in them, I'd have to use them as 'improvised' ranged weapons, right? Would the 'throw anything' feat apply, again making the PC able to use any and all ranged weapons?
Lacking proficiency in a real weapon does not make it an improvised weapon.
1) If I threw a great ax 10 feet at someone, what damage do I do? Do I do the damage of a great ax?
A greataxe does not have a range, so throwing it would make it an improvised ranged weapon. A monk with Throw Anything would be proficient in throwing it. Given the nature of a greataxe, I would say that it is a two-handed improvised thrown weapon that deals full damage (1d12) but only has x2 on a critical due to improvised weapon rules.
So, with the 'throw anything' feat, could I replace my shurikens with sais? The sais would do bludgeoning damage, but they'd do more of it. Although sais are 5 times more expensive than shurikens, they don't have the same risk of being damaged or lost, which seems nice.
Improvised thrown sais would lose the monk weapon property, so your monk could not throw them during a flurry. Except the Monk of the Empty Hand, who can flurry with improvised weapons.
3) I think it was TreentMonk's 'guide to monks' that suggested using a combination of Flurry of Blows with shurikens as the ranged attack of choice with monks...Perhaps the Quick Draw feat made this possible, but is that right? Could you throw a bunch of shurikens as your flurry of blows? The alternate reading would be to use shurikens as melee weapons when using them as part of a flurry, but then it seems they do less damage than fists, and that hardly makes sense. Perhaps they're an option to do non-bludgeoning damage, but I have a hard time visualizing that unless they're doing slashing damage...Maybe they're useful to sunder armor, or something?
Treantmonk did suggest throwing shuriken during a flurry of blows. Shurikens have a special property that lets them be drawn as ammunition, like arrows or sling stones, so that the monk can draw them during a full-attack action without the Quick Draw feat. Furthermore, Treantmonk described a high-strength monk. Thrown weapons use dexterity as the bonus on the ranged attack roll, but they still get a strength bonus to damage.
The number of shuriken a monk can throw during a flurry is limited to the number of attacks the monk receives during a flurry.
See http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/treantmon k-s-guide-to-monks
Sanjiv Jagtap wrote:5) What's the deal when it comes to using broken weapons as improvised weapons?
This one works for anyone with Catch Off-Guard. But a broken weapon would be inferior to its unbroken form.
Agree with most of what you said (although I personally would not allow the thrown greataxe to do full damage) but if this is referring to a weapon with the 'broken' condition - that is, a weapon which has taken at least half it's HP in damage and thus has -2 to hit and -2 to damage, rather than a weapon which has actually been destroyed and can no longer be used as a weapon at all - then it would still be a normal weapon, not an improvised one. If it really is a weapon which has been rendered unusable, then yes it could be used as an improvised weapon.
Some last questions about Overrun:
1) If I run through an opponents square and he's flanked by his allies, do they get an attack of opportunity on me, even though my and their ally are in the same square? Would they risk damaging their ally instead of me?
2) When the target of my overrun chooses to let me pass, does he remain in his square the entire time, and I simply pass through?
3) Overrunning is a standard action. If my target chooses not to engage me, and lets me pass, have I burned that standard action, or am I free to use a different standard action at the end of my move action?
1. Yes they would get an attack, and no there is no risk of damaging their ally.
2. That is correct.3. You have used the action regardless of whether the target chooses to avoid you. Using the action is what triggers that choice in the first place.
|
The monk of the open hand is the only way to be proficient with improvised weapons. This is how you can take weapon focus (improvised weapon). You can use weapons in an improvised fashion, such as attacking with the non-pointed end of a spear. In all, improvised weapons will never be as good as real weapons.
The monk of the open hand is the only way to be proficient with improvised weapons. This is how you can take weapon focus (improvised weapon). You can use weapons in an improvised fashion, such as attacking with the non-pointed end of a spear. In all, improvised weapons will never be as good as real weapons.
The abilities of the Monk of the Empty Hand are hard to understand, partly because they override so many other rules and partly because the description of their weapon proficiencies is poorly written. The actual text says, "Monks of the empty hand are proficient with the shuriken only." But James Jacobs, the Pathfinder Creative Director, clarified that they are proficient in improvised weapons.
My previous comment might make Monk of the Empty Hand seem like a master of all weapons, but really he is a master of inferior weapons. The Monk of the Empty Hand does not get to use any special properties of weapons, not even magic properties. The only way for a Monk of the Empty Hand to wield a reach weapon would be to improvise an object, such as a ladder, that is undeniably an improvised reach weapon. I think that shuriken and unarmed strikes still have their special properties, but I am not sure.
In addition, "improvised weapons" is too big a category for Weapon Focus. That would be like Weapon Focus(claws, bites, and all other natural weapons) or Weapon Focus(steel weapons). The monk would have to take Weapon Focus(shovel) and Weapon Focus(broken bottle) and Weapon Focus(rock) and so on. James Jacobs even said Weapon Focus(improvised quarterstaff) is iffy--that would be a good one because the monk treats all two-handed weapons as improvised quarterstaves--and would be up to GM discretion.
If I threw a great ax 10 feet at someone, what damage do I do?
Remember also that throwing a two-handed weapon is a full round action.
So, with the 'throw anything' feat, could I replace my shurikens with sais?
You would need quickdraw to draw more sai. You can draw shuriken for free because they are (treated as) ammunition. But once you threw the two sai you were holding, you need a move action (or Quickdraw) to draw more.
Quick questions would be: Where do I look to find out how to calculate damage for improvised weapons? I'm sure this stuff must've been spelt out somewhere by now. Ie. If I tie two metal bars together, do I get a nanchaku? What if I attach a kitchen knife or a butchers knife to a mop? Or simpler yet, what if I were to stab someone with a pen?
After giving it moderate thought, I'm still hung up on the 'improvised' weapon thing, so I have two types of concerns: The first has to do with game balance, and the second has to do with style. I'm pretty confident I'm correct on the style point, but concerning game balance, well, I really have very little real game experience.
First, assuming a GM were to allow untrained weapons to be treated as improvised weapons (house rules), would that break the game? Sure, monks would be able to pick up absolutely anything and use them as weapons, but they'd be doing so at -1 BAB compared to flurry of blows (and other fighters), would never be able to increase their proficiency at these weapons (ignoring alternatives such as the open handed style, discussed above) , nor would they gain the special properties of weapons (though I think this should certainly be debatable from a style perspective). Simply, this [false reading of the] feat doesn't seem like it would make monks that much stronger than they are now, just more versatile. Though yes, for non monks, I see how this feat could be overpowered, but they'd be missing out on some other feat that would allow them to get increasingly better at a particular weapon. ie. Even exotic or martial weapon proficiency are for a single weapon, not the entire class of weapons. The feat seems to have players trade versatility for specialization, which passes the smell test, at the very least.
But speaking of smell test, how could a monk possibly be better at wielding an improvised weapon than an actual weapon? Normally both have a -4 to attack roles (I think), but then some monk gets a talent for using a pale, but can't figure out how to use a spear? How could a monk be -4 less likely to hit with a sword than an egg plant? The other issue has to do with special abilities, ie. using a whip to trip. Stylistically, I've seen Jackie Chan use ropes and chains to great affect, and he's even made great defensive use of a ladder, using it to obtain partial concealment (you've seen the scene, right? I think he's wearing yellow). Or you've seen Fat in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon using a birch to whip away the chick with the prized sword. Concerning the 'catch of guard' feat, I know the rules are there to make the game better, and I wouldn't feel right going against the intention of the designers (it's their art, after all), but monks being able to use anything seems to fit the lore exactly.
The only real question is if it breaks the game, I feel. Of course I'm not even slightly equipped to answer that.
Edit: Oye, I'm ashamed of all my spelling errors(can't go back and edit them now). I'm also ashamed I haven't thanked you guys for helping me. Thanks.
update:
I've looked at a few threads, but I haven't yet come across interesting discussion on whether letting monks actually be like Jackie Chan breaks the class.
I have, however, come across the idea of letting improvised weapons do damage based on their size, but that clearly goes against the established rules, which (at first reading)only apply a penalty to the attack role. And I think that makes sense. Doesn't it make sense that the difficulty in using an improvised weapon be in using it? Ie. It may be hard to use a normal hammer in combat, but when it hits, are you going to tell me it does less damage? How does that make any sense?
Though perhaps I do have a proposed change to the existing 'improvised weapon' damage calculations. Rather than comparing it to any existing weapon, how about only comparing the damage to a weapon you're proficient with? I.e. you can't use a chain of salami as a nunchuck--unless you actually do know how to use a nunchuck...Of course the GM should apply a -4 or something for damage...though if that was done, would rolling low on damage let your enemies eat the salami to regain health? Hmm...
Though I'd argue with myself on this--I think one should be able to use an improvised weapon as any other, because the -4 to attack roles already accounts for this difficulty. And likewise, if a character is talented at making intuitive use of an object as a weapon, then really, making an exception for unfamiliar weapons seems like rules-lawyering against the players, rather than even respecting the intent of the monk class.
As a side note, the monk's flurry-friendly weapons were all designed to be improvised weapons in the eyes of their opponents, originating as simple farm tools and the like when peasants weren't allowed weaponry. The sai, for example, were meant for planting seeds and weeding, later adopted to pierce through samurai armor and to break samurai blades. And you know the weapon that's described as 'like a scythe?' Well, yeah. You guessed it.
But all this goes out the window if this change breaks or overpowers the class. I do understand that rpg games place game design over realism.
Quick questions would be: Where do I look to find out how to calculate damage for improvised weapons?
There is no official list or rigorous method. The GM wings it. In most cases, I would look for a comparable weapon, weaken it somehow to reflect that it isn't a real weapon, and add special properties that seem appropriate. Beware my silly streak: "Yes, that mop deals 1d6 bludgeoning damage. And it is a two-handed double weapon like a quarterstaff, but the mop head only deals nonlethal damage. Oh, it's still wet and soapy? You can use it for dirty trick combat maneuvers, too."
First, assuming a GM were to allow untrained weapons to be treated as improvised weapons (house rules), would that break the game? Sure, monks would be able to pick up absolutely anything and use them as weapons, but they'd be doing so at -1 BAB compared to flurry of blows (and other fighters), would never be able to increase their proficiency at these weapons (ignoring alternatives such as the open handed style, discussed above) , nor would they gain the special properties of weapons (though I think this should certainly be debatable from a style perspective). Simply, this [false reading of the] feat doesn't seem like it would make monks that much stronger than they are now, just more versatile. Though yes, for non monks, I see how this feat could be overpowered, but they'd be missing out on some other feat that would allow them to get increasingly better at a particular weapon. ie. Even exotic or martial weapon proficiency are for a single weapon, not the entire class of weapons. The feat seems to have players trade versatility for specialization, which passes the smell test, at the very least.
Taking Catch Off-Guard to be able to use all melee weapons at the cost of losing their crit ranges and special abilites would not give many new options. A improvised bastard sword would be marginally better than a longsword--more damage but fewer critical hits. It would not break the game balance. But it would mess with the fun of having a variety of weapons. Just like every crit-based combatant takes rapier, scimitar, or falchion, every Catch-Off-Guard combatant would take bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, or greataxe. Especially the monks, because monk weapons are low damage. Except for the Monks of the Empty Hand, for whom an improvised greataxe acts like a quarterstaff.
Right now, a character's weapons say something about his class. ("When you peek around the corner, you see a human wearing a leather armor and holding a mace." "A mace? I check his garments for any sign of holy symbols or other clerical adornment.") That information is more useful for player characters than for non-player characters. The PCs only hear the GM's brief descriptions, but the NPCs see the detailed visions inside the GM's mind.
But speaking of smell test, how could a monk possibly be better at wielding an improvised weapon than an actual weapon? Normally both have a -4 to attack roles (I think), but then some monk gets a talent for using a pail, but can't figure out how to use a spear?
That comes with trying to define all improvised weapons with a one-paragraph description and trying allow a character to effectively improvise weapons with a single feat. The incongruity almost never comes up, because characters equip themselves with the best weapons they can use and afford; therefore, it isn't worth adding a half page to the rulebook for a better system.
I suspect that Monk of the Empty Hand was invented to let people play a Jackie Chan character. Note that Jackie Chan's fight scenes last a long time, so his improvised weapons are not dealing heavy damage.
I've looked at a few threads, but I haven't yet come across interesting discussion on whether letting monks actually be like Jackie Chan breaks the class.
Search the archives. The players who want Pathfinder monks to act like martial-arts-movie monks are temporarily distracted by the new monk archetypes and feats in Ultimate Combat.
Though perhaps I do have a proposed change to the existing 'improvised weapon' damage calculations. Rather than comparing it to any existing weapon, how about only comparing the damage to a weapon you're proficient with? I.e. you can't use a chain of salami as a nunchuck--unless you actually do know how to use a nunchuck...Of course the GM should apply a -4 or something for damage...though if that was done, would rolling low on damage let your enemies eat the salami to regain health? Hmm...
That sounds like a good system. However, it is best discussed in the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew subforum rather than the Rules Questions subforum.
Quick defense of Jackie: Lots of enemies; more combat maneuvers; weapons used defensively rather than offensively. Speaking of which, what feats would I need to do for my PC to be able to create partial concealment for himself, using a ladder? (kidding)
My biggest problem at the moment is that there's no lore explanation behind why one would be able to effectively use 'improved weapons,' yet still be incompetent with 'untrained weapons.' It doesn't make role playing sense to me, at the moment.
But then there's the issue of whether being able to use any weapon would break the signature style of the monk class. I don't think it would. Even if a monk could improvise any weapon, as discussed, wouldn't flurry-friendly combat still be the better option? Both in terms of hit% and damage? So it would be a very strange monk who chose to run around with a mace or a mop as a main weapon. And wouldn't combat maneuvers still be made with a higher base attack bonus than attacking with an improv weapon? If so, I have a hard time accepting that the ability to use improve weapons would take away from the core monk style, since flurry and combat maneuvers would still be their best options, most of the time.
But that's most of the time. I still think it's up in the air as to whether my reading of the feat would break the class. I'll give some examples:
1. Some of the time, you'll be facing an unarmed enemy, and the feat in question would let you roll against their flat footed AC...I guess that could be useful. It'd be neat to disarm and enemy, and then stab them with their own weapon (not in a single turn, unfortunately).
2. If you're fighting an enemy with resistances you're not prepared for, it'd be neat to pick up your fallen comrade's weapon and use it well enough to make a difference.
...That's all I can think of at the moment. Frankly, the former just seems like a style choice, and the latter seems to correct a problem people have often brought up about weaponless monks' inabilities to bypass DR.
PS. I thought of third game breaker, but I kind of got carried away with it.
There's also the issue that some GMs might just not be sensitive to a monk's needs, and won't give them flurry-friendly weapons as treasure. Or the GM could be excellent in every way, and strive to be 'authentic.' Perhaps the local black smiths are just unfamiliar with monks' strange style of weapons, and are unable to make masterwork quality monk weapons--The monk is a stranger in a strange land, and must find a suitable master and prove his worth to him, so the ancient one will give up his heirloom weapons that have been passed down over the generations...That's excellent and all, but being able to improve weapons in the mean time seems nice.
Is that from 3.5? I couldn't easily find it on the Pathfinder PRD.