ACG Oversight?

[erik542]

It seems as though dazing fist, befuddling strike, and paralyzing strike are modeled after stunning fist, touch of serenity & co. Yet the 3 from ACG do not have the clause regarding monk's getting 1 use per level per day. Is this intentional?

[wraithstrike]

erik542 wrote:

It seems as though dazing fist, befuddling strike, and paralyzing strike are modeled after stunning fist, touch of serenity & co. Yet the 3 from ACG do not have the clause regarding monk's getting 1 use per level per day. Is this intentional?

Nobody can say for sure. It could be an error, or maybe they are trying to help the monk out.

[Rub-Eta]

They are not monk feats. I don't see why a monk should be allowed to use it four times as much as a Brawler (or any other class for that matter). Sure it would help the monk, but why make feats exclusively better for a monk?

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Because monks are cool.

[Scythia]

I think it's better for the Monk as written. If it had the special monk language it would also draw from the uses of Stunning Fist per day. This way the Monk has options that don't cannibalise each other.

[Gnomezrule]

Rub-Eta wrote:

They are not monk feats. I don't see why a monk should be allowed to use it four times as much as a Brawler (or any other class for that matter). Sure it would help the monk, but why make feats exclusively better for a monk?

Because it fits into the monk concept fluff wise more than any other class. It is something that they should have an edge on.

[erik542]

Rub-Eta wrote:

They are not monk feats. I don't see why a monk should be allowed to use it four times as much as a Brawler (or any other class for that matter). Sure it would help the monk, but why make feats exclusively better for a monk?

Well the brawler in particular counts as a monk for purposes such as these (martial training).

Quote:

If it had the special monk language it would also draw from the uses of Stunning Fist per day.

The uses would not cannibalize on each other, they're entirely separate pools of abilities.

[Rub-Eta]

Gnomezrule wrote:

Because it fits into the monk concept fluff wise more than any other class.

I disagree, it fits more concepts than just monk. But even if I did think so, I would still find it poor to exclusively make it better for monk/brawler. It should never be "for this class, this is better", no reason except that it's just better. All of a sudden the feat isn't as good because you don't approach the concept with monk/brawler levels. Then you may as well just make monk/brawler a prerequisite.

Monk/Brawler (or any other class/archtype that are fits the concept) is still better at using these feats than any other (see the Improved Unarmed Strike prerequisite).

[Zwordsman]

It does fit anu concept with unarmes strikes available. It could be the 2 haned sword guy 300 style kicking a dude etc.. but.

Yeah but thay are the masters of unarmed. Outside a few abiilities to raise damage dice, those classes hit harder with unarmed, so itd make sense they do it better. Putting an addendum in for monks to gain extra use in no way diminishes the fear for bother classes.

I think the guy who can punch me way better than anyone else (anyone else being any othe clases han brawlr monk)would be trained well enough to employ special wayss of hitting more often. I saw the limited uses as being tired or damage from using your fist to punch the guy in metal armour, or a dragon. The guy who has extra trained his body is gonna know how to hit correctly for his anatomy. Thats why new boxes often hurt themselves on weight bags.. they havent trained enough to put their full body force into it.

Same comparison is power attack. For 2 handed peeps its way better, but it certainly is usuable for anyone else. Similar situation.

[Rub-Eta]

Zwordsman wrote:

Same comparison is power attack. For 2 handed peeps its way better, but it certainly is usuable for anyone else. Similar situation.

This is what I mean, power attack has a general function that benifits certain concepts, it isn't just straight out better for a Barbarian.

[Under A Bleeding Sun]

I read some of those getting excited then realized that as well. As with most the ACG, who knows.

[Scythia]

erik542 wrote:

Scythia wrote:

If it had the special monk language it would also draw from the uses of Stunning Fist per day.

The uses would not cannibalize on each other, they're entirely separate pools of abilities.

You're right, my mistake. I was thinking of the four winds monk getting Elemental fist in place of Stunning fist.

[Gnomezrule]

Rub-Eta wrote:

Gnomezrule wrote:

Because it fits into the monk concept fluff wise more than any other class.

I disagree, it fits more concepts than just monk. But even if I did think so, I would still find it poor to exclusively make it better for monk/brawler. It should never be "for this class, this is better", no reason except that it's just better. All of a sudden the feat isn't as good because you don't approach the concept with monk/brawler levels. Then you may as well just make monk/brawler a prerequisite.

Monk/Brawler (or any other class/archtype that are fits the concept) is still better at using these feats than any other (see the Improved Unarmed Strike prerequisite).

Yes it does fit more concepts than just monk but if fits the monk better. I mean a monk could fight with a long sword and a shield too but it fits the lore and fluff of a paladin or a fighter better. Strikes that impose conditions on opponents is a monk thing. Some wizards shape shift but druids do it better.