I'm looking around and getting nothing but confused, concerning the Flurry of Blows (FoB). I don't know what old information is valid, and what's changed.
Is the FoB strictly equivalent to
> TWF and Double Slice for melee monk weapons and unarmed strikes,
> and to rapid shot for shuriken?
Or are there other features of the FoB? It think it's clear that there are, or that there should be.
1. Can the FoB be used with a single weapon alone? I.e. a single temple sword, used to make iterative attacks? Can this weapon be held in two hands to do 1.5str damage?
2. Can the FoB be used with a single weapon, as long as it's used as a two weapons (i.e. a double weapon), in order to make separate attacks with different components of the weapon? Must this weapon be wielded to do 1str damage on each attack?
3. Can the FoB be used to deliver one attack with a quarter staff (2H), and another attack with an unarmed strike (i.e. feet)? Is this one important way in which FoB differs from TWF?
4. Can the FoB contain any combination of ranged shuriken attack, melee monk weapon attack, and combat maneuver for trip, disarm, or sunder?
5. Can gauntlets be used as part of flurry of blows? [Unless it's stated somewhere otherwise, I think the answer's an obvious yes]
___
In terms of discussions about monks vs. fighters, to me, it makes sense that Monks trade AC for better damage, in 'stand-your-ground' combat. Also note that monks don't get any reach weapons (unless they take exotic weapon proficiency with monk weapons, or simple weapon proficiency etc). And they don't even get bows or crossbows or slings. It's not even certain if they're proficient with gauntlets. And they have an effective -1BAB to hit on single attacks.
Essentially, pit a monk against a fighter, and even in rough terrain and whatever, I don't see how the monk stands a chance. Monk's don't initially have medium ranged options, so Deflect Arrows is a defense mechanism at best. Once they get within 10 ft, the fighter has access to his reach weapon. And closer than that, the fighter has better AC and higher damage output, and likely higher relevant stats too. The monk does have some cool 'save or suck' options (combat maneuvers or stunning fist), but a fighter with a spiked gauntlet for back up seems like they'd do just fine.
Monks do have higher saves, and some justification for running around naked, avoiding armor check penalties. So perhaps the thoughts are Spellcaster > Fighter > Monk > Spellcaster?
1. Can the FoB be used with a single weapon alone? I.e. a single temple sword, used to make iterative attacks? Can this weapon be held in two hands to do 1.5str damage?
2. Can the FoB be used with a single weapon, as long as it's used as a two weapons (i.e. a double weapon), in order to make separate attacks with different components of the weapon? Must this weapon be wielded to do 1str damage on each attack?
3. Can the FoB be used to deliver one attack with a quarter staff (2H), and another attack with an unarmed strike (i.e. feet)? Is this one important way in which FoB differs from TWF?
4. Can the FoB contain any combination of ranged shuriken attack, melee monk weapon attack, and combat maneuver for trip, disarm, or sunder?
5. Can gauntlets be used as part of flurry of blows? [Unless it's stated somewhere otherwise, I think the answer's an obvious yes]
Answers for CORE MONK
1)You can use a single weapon but if you two hand you still get 1xSTR but you do get the better power attack.2)You can use any legal option for any attack
3)Yes, but see the above two, you'd only get the 1xSTR for the 2H attack, but you'd get +3 from power attack instead of +2
4)Yes, same as 2, you can do any legal attack for any attack in the FOB
5)No, they aren't monk weapons. Gauntlets are weapons.
Answers for Unchained monk are the same except you do get 1.5xSTR for 2H a weapon.
Where are people getting the 1x str limitation when flurrying with a 2h weapon? I do not recall reading that anywhere.
I agree with Chess Pwn. I think all the answers can be found in the PRD description of the Flurry of Blows ability (relevant sentences highlighted):
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so, he may make on additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to use this ability). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.
At higher levels I find even core monks outpace fighters. They are full bab, have a similar number of bonus feats, better saves, skills, abilities, superior twf, end up with better overall ac, much better touch ac, speed and ability to get into melee, etc. Level one is particularly rough if you don't have access to mage armor.
With core monks, their damage comes from slight but rather nice benefits stacking up.
For unarmed, they get better damage dice. For weapons, they get cheap TWF-like style (only need to buy 1 weapon, thus you can spend more) and they can get 1.5x power attack. Nice, but about average in extra damage. It can get a bit dicy with damage comparison.
Now, if we are talking about a sohei (an archetype for core monks) they yeah, they are great. They get weapon training and qualify for gloves of dueling (basically getting half of the fighter's boosters), so even a standard action attack is on par with an inquisitor. And they can flurry with their weapon group, allowing you to get a TWF-like style with nodachis or reach weapons, which is particularly cool. Or they can grab light armor with the brawling property for unarmed strikes (since they can flurry in light armor too).
So yeah...sohei are great. Frankly, easier to build than core or unchained monks, since you can just grab light armor at the start (unarmored is eventually better for AC....but that is AFTER two stat boosters and AC boosters). So they can go with a str build and not worry too much.
We seem to have gotten a disagreement about Gauntlets and Flurry of Blows. Is there any official ruling on this?
RAW indicates that a gauntlet ("metal glove") serves no purpose other than to "let you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes," and "a strike with[or "using"] a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." This means they modify no feature of the unarmed strike other than the damage type (possibly at the user's option), and they are, in fact, unarmed strikes. Otherwise, one would be arguing that "unarmed attack == armed attack," which is absurd.
Note: Brass knuckles are significantly different from gauntlets, in that one armed with a brass knuckles are armed, and threaten AOOs.
To the extent that "gauntlets are weapons," well, so are unarmed strikes, and unarmed strikes aren't listed with the "monk" property in the weapons table, either.
That's my take on it, RAW. RAI, I can go so far as to believe that monk's are not proficient in using gauntlets from the get-go, and if there's a game-balance reason for delaying monks from powering their unarmed attacks, then I could perhaps get behind that as well. What are the best reasons for denying monks gauntlets, by RAI?
|
Gauntlets are not Monk weapons, and they are not unarmed strikes.
Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) does not apply to attacks with Gauntlets, and Gauntlet attacks are not affected by feats and abilities that alter or enhance unarmed strikes.
You cannot have an Amulet of Mighty Fists(Flaming) and a +1 Gauntlet, used together, to produce a +1 Flaming Gauntlet attack.
To the extent that "gauntlets are weapons," well, so are unarmed strikes, and unarmed strikes aren't listed with the "monk" property in the weapons table, either.
But unarmed strikes are specifically mentioned as allowed in flurry of blows, as well as special monk weapons: "A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows."
Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) does not apply to attacks with Gauntlets
Source? If you're just repeating a mantra, then obviously that's not going to be enough to sway me.
But enough people have said this, that I believe there has to be a source out there. It's just that no one's shown it to me, nor referenced it.
@BBtroll: A foot is not an unarmed strike either. A foot is a foot. But an unarmed strike can be done with a foot, just as it can be done with a gauntlet. See text in the description for the gauntlet. And being equipped with a gauntlet does not mean that one is armed. These are all, as far as I am concerned, specifically stated.
@Callum: See description of gauntlet, where it influences attacks done with unarmed strikes. Gauntlet strikes are, in fact, unarmed strikes. They are described as such, and are also described as NOT being the opposite, as in, they are not armed attacks. That's RAW.
More specifically, a guantlet is a piece of equipment, and less so a weapon in and of itself.
The onus now is to state, explicitly, that gauntlets are not compatible with Flurry of Blows, because by default (being unarmed strikes), they are.
Sanjiv Believe what you want. I feel most if not all people you meet will agree with us that gauntlets aren't unarmed strikes and have nothing to actually do with unarmed strikes. We don't need to prove it cause we know. If you don't want to accept our help that's fine. You're not going to be changing anybodies mind though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok, but WHY? I want to believe you. Give me a reason to.
Don't make me feel like a jerk just because I'm reading the rules.
EDIT: After doing some more searching regarding brass-knuckles, here's the best I've gotten:
Treating brass knuckles, gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cesti, and rope gauntlets as "unarmed attacks" doesn't make a lot of sense (because you're not unarmed, you have metal/leather/rope/etc. there).
Except that in the case of gauntlets, it makes perfect sense. Weapon descriptions for the Cestus and Brass Knuckles were changed to exclude references to unarmed strikes, but gauntlets weren't, probably in part because it doesn't make sense to. Else they could (and perhaps should) simply change the description of how gauntlets are used to say "strikes with gauntlets provoke attack of opportunities," rather than have all that language about "with unarmed strikes" or "are otherwise unarmed strikes."
It does make sense that paizo wants to limit aspects of the flurry for game balance or reasons of fairness, which is excellent. But then that should be clearly stated, rather than making appeals to "what makes sense," and meeting continued requests for a FAQ with "no reply required." I think this is lazy, flippant, and disrespectful.
If paizo wanted to simplify the matter, they could have (and perhaps should still) simply describe that: and not make mention of unarmed strikes. That would solve all problems. By dismissing the need to address a known problem in a FAQ, they've wasted my time, in terms of PFS.
most if not all people you meet will agree with us that gauntlets aren't unarmed strikes and have nothing to actually do with unarmed strikes.
I dare say the reason for this would be bullying and peer pressure, or they haven't read the description for gauntlets.
Else one of you would have been able to direct me to the ruling I linked above sooner.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, why don't you go to the Rules Forum, and start a thread?
Put "Do attacks made with Gauntlets count as unarmed strikes?" in your first post.
Hit the FAQ button next to that post. Hope you get your explicit FAQ.
Discuss with others, about the rules, in the rules forum.
What do you say?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That makes sense, and is incredibly valid. Thank you.
A counter argument could be that it's a piece of equipment that's described as altering an attack, and is considered a weapon for the purpose of enhancements and the like. I think this interpretation is inline with all the explicitly stated rules.
A second point is that my description of it as "equipment" was mere clarification, and would not override RAW.
By RAW, a gauntlet is a weapon (that when armed with, one is yet unarmed) that often comes with armor (yet when worn, one is yet unarmored), and that enhances unarmed strikes.
But by the updated RAI, gauntlets were not intended to allow monks to enhance their unarmed flurry of blows. That's valid too.
My counter to that is that the RAI needs to be reconsidered, as the stated rationale doesn't seem to be more well-thought out than "we didn't intend that when we created the item." Additionally, it doesn't make immediate sense, as any rational reader of the rules would have to accept my interpretation as a valid interpretation of what's written.
--As a matter of etiquette, I think the issue should be addressed in a FAQ, and the reasons for the ruling (that gauntlet strikes are not considered unarmed strikes for the monk) should be stated as game-balance, rather than "what makes sense." Paizo can claim superiority in the rules, but best they avoid claiming superiority in reason, if only for the sake of diplomacy.
|
The design team has said for some 5 years now that gauntlets, cestus, and similar weapons are weapons, despite the unfortunately confusing references to unarmed attacks. In that same thread there's even a post that had multiple FAQ request clicks explaining why they are weapons and don't work with the monk's US marked "no response required".
There's also ancillary evidence of intent, like them removing the bit in the brass knuckles entry referencing unarmed attacks when they released Ultimate Equipment, or James Jacobs commenting on how gauntlets are pointless for a monk, the fact that gauntlets were considered a weapon and not viable for monk class features even back in 3.5 (though to be fair, that precedent did allow you to use your unarmed strike damage with them, so the PF team's stance is a bit of a change from that era), Jason Buhlman, Paizo's lead designer stating that they're not going to offer an option for monk unarmed strikes that's as cheap as other weapons, or the fact that they errata'd gauntlets on the equipment table to move them away from the "unarmed attacks" category and into the "light weapons" category.
Obviously you can do what you want in your own game, but expect the least beneficial interpretation to be enforced in organized play or similar environments (no flurry, no monk US damage, etc.).
|
|
You know, not only is there gods who have the Gauntlet as their favored weapon, but it is listed in the Close Fighter Weapon Group, along with the unarmed strike.
Why would they need to list both, if they were the same thing?
Why wouldn't said god just have the unarmed strike as a favored weapon?
Really, you should just consider making a rules thread.
Really, you should just consider making a rules thread.
I'm considering it.
Here's the thing, though. I think the rules are pretty clear, and yet can be interpreted in the opposite ways. If you consider the design-team comments that haven't yet been turned into a FAQ, then that clearly states that gauntlets are armed attacks. Yet the description of gauntlets, and I think ancillary evidence(discussed below), does not reflect that. If I were to go to a PFS game with core rule book in tow, what conflict-resolution mechanic is there that whoever was in charge could deny my claim? The rules are the rules, and there's no faq.As far as the rules are concerned, it's all a matter of butting stubborn heads, and so the best I can hope for is people talking past each other. That's not quite what I want.
Whatever you guys say or don't say won't affect my games. I just want conversation. I want to discuss what the rule should be, more so than what the rule is. I think this is a case where the two don't line up.
Actually, why don't you go to the Rules Forum, and start a thread?
Put "Do attacks made with Gauntlets count as unarmed strikes?" in your first post.
Hit the FAQ button next to that post. Hope you get your explicit FAQ.
Discuss with others, about the rules, in the rules forum.
What do you say?
Agreed with Ssalarn, on all accounts (and implying that I don't feel there's much to gain from a rules thread). And in a "general discussion" thread, I think it's appropriate to discuss the history of the ruling, and its appropriateness, which is something I take issue with. Of course I get to do whatever I want in my own games, but here I want to discuss it.
The first issue is that RAI and RAW disagree. That could and should be easily fixed, and confirmed with a FAQ, which Paizo refuses to do. So currently, not all the rules are written. For example, is what Sean K Reynolds stated in the thread a rule? If it is, then it is and should be errata'd in, or put in a faq. But if he's saying "there's no need to state this rule, because it's obvious and makes sense," then I think he's purposely giving himself and the team wiggle room.
And with their wiggle room, they've changed something, but not others. They've fixed the Brass Knuckles rules, but not the gauntlet rules (as far as I know), and if they did change the gauntlet rules, then it seems they'd remove any key difference between a brass knuckle and a gauntlet. I.e. you're armed with brass knuckles, and you provoke, vs. you're unarmed with gauntlets, and you don't provoke. So I think it makes sense that the gauntlet description is left as is, because it has to be, else the brass knuckle would be identical, yet objectively worse. Furthermore, they'd be powering up the gauntlet to be able to do armed attacks.
Is it true that there's no response required? That's one thing we could discuss here.
Ultimately, I'd feel a lot better about this if I read the team wanted to give monks higher unarmed damage at the expense of not being able to apply special properties to those attacks until later levels in the game. And all they'd have to do, officially, is state that "monks can't do unarmed damage with gauntlets." Otherwise I feel there's genuine confusion, and unnecessary reasons for players to butt heads.
Gauntlet...is listed in the Close Fighter Weapon Group, along with the unarmed strike...Why would they need to list both, if they were the same thing?
There are many items that are different, and are yet treated as the same thing, or used as the same thing, or with the same proficiency.
I.e. Shortbows and Composite shortbows? So features that apply to a shortbow user wouldn't apply to a composite shortbow user?
Or consider any weapon Y that is "treated as weapon X, unless a user is proficient with it, in which case they can also use it as Y." They're two different weapons, X and Y, and yet one can use Y as X.
And it's ok for gauntlets and unarmed strikes to not be the same thing. A monk who's not proficient in gauntlets would nonetheless be proficient in unarmed strikes, and so could perform unarmed strikes while wearing gauntlet, even without the benefit of the gauntlet (which he does not need, since he can already do lethal damage if he wishes anyway). He would not be able to apply any enchantment bonuses of the gauntlet, because he's not proficient with it, is how I'd rule. Add proficiency (by feat or class-dip), and that changes.
The example above could be repeated for any character not proficient in gauntlets. Or consider a sorcerer wearing an amulet of mighty fists, and striking with a gauntlet.
Thanks. I've posted there. But there are still some issues which may be discussed here, rather than a rules thread. I've gathered some comments from other threads.
I kind of want to get more behind the design intent of monks, as well as looking at the power curve. Do monks really get better damage, movement, and AC than, say, fighters? And thus more means of empowering them would be overkill? I imagine there are awesome things about the monk that I'm just not seeing, and that's being taken into considerations when it comes to FoB rulings.
In my mind, I figured monks do more damage with their unarmed strikes, and used their weapons for combat maneuvers, or hitting at range.
Well I did ask the team to explain why knuckles aren't to be considered unarmed strikes but you have to use a unarmed strike to use them, your performing a punch.Mechanically, because they don't want monks to feel like they have to use Brass Knuckles to be effective.
Also, the developers may have wanted to avoid a situation where a monk, whose unarmed strikes do not have to be with his hands, somehow would benefit from a weapon held in his hands.Except in that case the devs would have to be braindead, because as is the Monk already works best when holding a weapon in his hands.
This is because he gets to use a single weapon to flurry with half the cost to apply magic enhancement to which can be masterwork in the early game, with better crit ranges, with similar damage for the first like 8 levels etc. The sad thing is that most of the best Monks are the ones which don't use their fists as weapons, aka Sohei, Zen Archer, Tetori, who get to not have to use the big old barrel of suck that is the AoMF.
This is fair and frankly if the Bodywraps they did release weren't even worse for a Monk than the Amulet I'd be okay with that but it really does feel like every change to the Monk has be a hatred induced nerf-batting in the back alley. It really makes you wonder why they bothered including the Monk in the game.Backward compatibility, plus the monk IS a difficult class: defensively, monks ARE quite strong. Not quite as strong as paladins, but very strong. Give them strong offence as well and they are unstoppable. A sizable minority still thinks monks are fine, because you can build a monk that is nigh-on un-hittable. Unfortunately the game mechanics reward offence over defence, and the builds for the monk that work this way are hard to achieve.
@Callum: See description of gauntlet, where it influences attacks done with unarmed strikes. Gauntlet strikes are, in fact, unarmed strikes. They are described as such, and are also described as NOT being the opposite, as in, they are not armed attacks. That's RAW.
Sure, I'm not disputing that gauntlets let you deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes - that's what it says in the gauntlet description. However, I don't see that as directly relevant to the flurry of blows text that I quoted.
More specifically, a guantlet is a piece of equipment, and less so a weapon in and of itself.
Well, given that the gauntlet appears in the "Weapons" section of the rules, and in "Table: Weapons" under the heading "Simple Weapons", I'm going to have to disagree with you there. You even said this yourself, earlier: "To the extent that "gauntlets are weapons," well, so are unarmed strikes, and unarmed strikes aren't listed with the "monk" property in the weapons table, either."
The onus now is to state, explicitly, that gauntlets are not compatible with Flurry of Blows, because by default (being unarmed strikes), they are.
That's exactly what it does say in the flurry of blows description, which I quoted earlier:
A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.
- Is a gauntlet a weapon? Yes.
- Is a gauntlet an unarmed strike? No. (It is an unarmed attack, but "unarmed strike" has its own entry in the weapons table.)
- Is a gauntlet a special monk weapon? No.
Therefore, a gauntlet cannot be used as part of a flurry of blows.
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
So an attack with a gauntlet is considered an 'unarmed attack'. The only qualification for this is that it's not for the purpose of dealing nonlethal damage. Is an 'unarmed attack' the same thing as an 'unarmed strike'? (note that flurry uses both 'unarmed strike' and 'unarmed attack' in different sections)
If yes, then gauntlet = unarmed strike for everything that is not dealing nonlethal damage. Flurry is not dealing nonlethal damage.
Therefore, gauntlet is unarmed strike for the purpose of flurry.
You can argue yourselves blue in the head, but this is what the rules for gauntlets actually say.
Is an 'unarmed attack' the same thing as an 'unarmed strike'? (note that flurry uses both 'unarmed strike' and 'unarmed attack' in different sections)
No, they are not the same thing - the "Unarmed Attacks" section in the Weapons Table makes this clear. An unarmed strike is a type of unarmed attack (which is why it's not surprising or contradictory that the flurry of blows section uses "unarmed attacks" once, when talking about replacing attacks with combat maneuvers). The Unarmed Attacks section of the Combat rules also uses the two terms in this distinct way.
So, to be clear: anyone (even a monk) wearing a gauntlet can use it to deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. (Of course, a monk can already deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes, so it's redundant in that aspect.) However, using a gauntlet in this way doesn't count as an "armed" attack - you will still provoke attacks of opportunity, and won't be able to take them yourself. Conversely, a monk (or anyone else with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) does count as "armed", and won't provoke attacks of opportunity with unarmed attacks (and can make attacks of opportunity themselves).
However, a monk can't use a gauntlet as part of a flurry of blows, since it is not itself an unarmed strike, nor is it a special monk weapon (and, as noted above, a gauntlet's much-quoted ability to turn nonlethal unarmed strike damage into lethal damage is redundant for a monk, anyway).