Use Parry from a Bo Staff without Proficiency?


Playing the Game

Shadow Lodge

I'm making a L5 Monk who would use Dragon Style for kick attacks and use his hands to hold a Bo Staff for a 1-action Parry (+1 Circumstance bonus to AC).

Am I missing something or do you not need proficiency in a weapon to use its traits like Parry? This would make my monk even more hilarious ("Oh this stick? I just use it to keep things away...I don't even know how to use it. The real weapons are my FEET!")


You are not missing anything, and I love your monk.


If you're a dwarf, the clan dagger only takes up a single hand for the parry. I'm not sure if there is a way for a non-dwarf to find one but it couldn't hurt to look.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fuzzy: Well, let’s give this dragon staff monk a shot in the L5 PFS playtest.

Graystone: humans have the Unconvemtional Weaponry feat...which would make this all the more hilarious if I were so inclined.


Sammy T wrote:
Graystone: humans have the Unconvemtional Weaponry feat...which would make this all the more hilarious if I were so inclined.

Only if your human took the lowest human height and grew a beard too. You could complain about elves too. And maybe always have a stein in your other hand. ;)

Shadow Lodge

graystone wrote:
Sammy T wrote:
Graystone: humans have the Unconvemtional Weaponry feat...which would make this all the more hilarious if I were so inclined.
Only if your human took the lowest human height and grew a beard too. You could complain about elves too. And maybe always have a stein in your other hand. ;)

STOP GIVING ME IDEAS


You could just murder a dwarf and take their Clan Dagger, or have a dwarf party member buy you one. Otherwise, Retrain Unconventional Weaponry after you've bought a few; since the feat's only benefit is access...

Liberty's Edge

I'm really not a fan of being able to use a weapon to parry when you're untrained in it and end up with zero penalty, but by RAW right now, the monk can get away with it.


swordchucks wrote:
I'm really not a fan of being able to use a weapon to parry when you're untrained in it and end up with zero penalty, but by RAW right now, the monk can get away with it.

What are you talking about?

If you don't care about shield block reaction, everyone can offhand a main gause and get the same benefit as a light shield without a) acp and b) spending a feat for shield proficiency


I have to admit, I went back and bought a main gauche or two after reading this thread. It's cheap, light, accessible, may as well buy one for everyone who doesn't want a heavy shield just in case.

This needs to be either fixed, or main gauche needs to be made simple.

Liberty's Edge

shroudb wrote:
swordchucks wrote:
I'm really not a fan of being able to use a weapon to parry when you're untrained in it and end up with zero penalty, but by RAW right now, the monk can get away with it.
What are you talking about?

I don't like the way it works with the main-gauche, either, but many characters doing so would be paying the "cost" of having a hand tied up. Monks can have both hands full and still get their full normal attack damage.


swordchucks wrote:
shroudb wrote:
swordchucks wrote:
I'm really not a fan of being able to use a weapon to parry when you're untrained in it and end up with zero penalty, but by RAW right now, the monk can get away with it.
What are you talking about?
I don't like the way it works with the main-gauche, either, but many characters doing so would be paying the "cost" of having a hand tied up. Monks can have both hands full and still get their full normal attack damage.

Depends on their stance really.

While simple "unarmed" strike can be done with any body part, stance specific attacks require specific hands/feet

Crane requires hands
Dragon kicks
Tiger hands
Wolf hands

Since Bo staff is two handed, "free Bo staff" only applies outside of stance or Dragon stance


The only requirement for entering a stance is that you're unarmored, isn't it? I see that crane wing is the only style that says you need to make crane wing attacks while in the style, while the others say you can make those strikes while in the style.

Tiger and wolf mention your hands, crane and tangled forest mention your arms. I have no idea what you're attacking with in mountain root stance or the wild wind stance. They really aught to put a "hands" column on their style attacks chart, and an unarmed requirement on the stances if needed, to ensure there's no confusion.


ErichAD wrote:

The only requirement for entering a stance is that you're unarmored, isn't it? I see that crane wing is the only style that says you need to make crane wing attacks while in the style, while the others say you can make those strikes while in the style.

Tiger and wolf mention your hands, crane and tangled forest mention your arms. I have no idea what you're attacking with in mountain root stance or the wild wind stance. They really aught to put a "hands" column on their style attacks chart, and an unarmed requirement on the stances if needed, to ensure there's no confusion.

All 4 Base stances mention the type of unarmed attacks they are:

Quote:


You enter the stance of a crane, standing on one leg while folding your arms
in an imitation of a crane’s wings.
You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to AC, but
the only Strikes you can make are crane wing attacks.
Quote:

You enter the stance of a dragon and make powerful leg strikes like a lashing

dragon’s tail. You can make dragon tail attacks.
Quote:

using your hands like claws. You can make tiger

claw attacks
Quote:

You enter the stance of a wolf, low to the ground with your hands held

like fanged teeth. You can make wolf jaw unarmed attacks.

So, while only crane style disallows other forms of attack, the other stances specific attacks are all detailed in if they are hands or feet attacks.

You can make normal "kicks" while in Tiger stance as an example, but those will be generic unarmed attacks, and not the stance's Tiger claw attacks.

So, Bo staff is really only good for dragon (uses legs).


Crane wing doesn't mention attacking with your arms, just that they're folded. I know that kicks are involved in real world crane style, but I don't know what Pathfinder cranestyle looks like. You're probably right.

I agree that what you're saying is implied in the text, but it's not placed in the mechanical restrictions of the ability. It's a problem that needs fixing.


ErichAD wrote:

Crane wing doesn't mention attacking with your arms, just that they're folded. I know that kicks are involved in real world crane style, but I don't know what Pathfinder cranestyle looks like. You're probably right.

I agree that what you're saying is implied in the text, but it's not placed in the mechanical restrictions of the ability. It's a problem that needs fixing.

They aren't "implied" they literally are the 1st sentences of stance feats:

"You make your arms like X(wings/claws/jaws). You can make X(wings/claws/jaws) attacks that do *this*"

For crane, it says that you make your hands "crane wings" and you make "crane wings attacks"

They are pretty clear.

Saying that you use your (as an example) crane wing attack with your legs is like saying you're using your bite attack from being a goblin with your hand because "bite" modifies unarmed and you can do "unarmed" with your hand.


I agree that the intent is there, but the wording, again... That's what Keywords and Traits are for.
And honestly, he only thing I know about Crane Style is from Karate Kid, and I don't remember Daniel-San fluttering that Kobra Kai dude to the Floor with his Hands ;)


DerNils wrote:

I agree that the intent is there, but the wording, again... That's what Keywords and Traits are for.

And honestly, he only thing I know about Crane Style is from Karate Kid, and I don't remember Daniel-San fluttering that Kobra Kai dude to the Floor with his Hands ;)

But there are no keywords for body parts.

What keyword tells you that "claws" are on your hands and not not on your feet or mouth?

Quote:

DRAGON CLAWS POWER 1

Casting Verbal Casting
Duration 1 minute
Vicious claws grow from your fingers. They are agile, finesse
unarmed attacks, and you’re trained in them. They deal 1d4
slashing damage and 1d4 damage of a type determined by the
dragon in your bloodline

There isn't a keyword, just a description that the claws extend from your fingers, like in monk stances the description is that you use your hands as claws/wings/jaws and make claw/wings/jaws attacks.

In monster entries as well.

Can a dragon tail slap someone with his mouth? Claw him with a headbutt? Bite him with his claws?

P. S.
Karate kid is a terrible source of information :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian_White_Crane

Crane style is a primary hand striking/grappling style.


That's what I meant - if it's important to distinguish, they should have Keywords. Otherwise, I don't care.
I get that it's readable from the fluff information, but as it as a rather interesting Point - how many Hands do I have free is rather poignant for Players - I would prefer for them to use Keywords or Traits. Mixing fluff with rules is not good formatting.
Dragon Claws, by the way, is another good example - ehy shouldn't I be able to grow them from my feet? Claws are on appendages, kicks are valid Strikes, why are they limited to the Hands?

And I hope my ;) made it obvious that my Karate Kid reference was in jest. But in regards to a Fantasy Game, it's every bit as relevant as the real world Crane Style. My wild guess is that more People are familiar with that depiction than with the actual style.


The main difference is that I don't see it as fluff text.

Saying that you grow claws from your fingers, isn't fluff imo, it's a description of the morph.

Saying that you gain powerful dragon kicks, isn't fluff, it's a description of the benefits of the stance.

If a dragon bites, he uses his mouth to do so.

And etc.

While for the most part I agree with the traits, I do believe that they can become cumbersome if we start to apply them to everything.

When a (theoretical) feat says that "you kick your opponents" you don't need a tag to infer that you use your legs.

And I say that for future proofing basically.

If we start tagging every possible extremity one can use for specific attacks, we'll end with more than a dozen new keywords that have really low usability for their bulk. And then a new stance will come out where you knee your opponents, and we'll need to add even more.

And etc.

I find it simpler than when a stance says you punch, you punch, and when it says you kick, you kick. When it says bite, you bite.

For the hands issue, if there comes a stance that requires two hands to punch, I assume it'll say so in the description, but for single attacks, a single extremity sounds fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All it requires is the same "hands" column that shows up in the weapons section. It's not a difficult or cumbersome fix. Most creatures are only going to be concerned with whether or not their hands are tied up, so it's unlikely that we'd need a feet, head, knees entry and so on.

That aside, I'm not sure we should look at Fujian White Crane style as it apparently can include a number of weapon forms.
http://nywhitecranekungfu.com/style.html

Shifu Lorne Bernard wrote:
Weapons are introduced fairly early beginning with White Crane's famed Seven Star Staff (Chi Sing Guen). Along with the spear (Chiang), three-sectional staff (San jie guen), halberd or General Kwan's Broadsword (Kwan Dao), cane (Gwaijian), Horse Cutter Broadsword (Jam Ma Dao), and the tiger fork (Jing Fu Cha), there are several double weapons in Flying Crane. These include: Double iron rods (Swan jien) which are similar to Japanese sai, double broadswords (Bai Her Dao), double daggers (Bi Shou), and southern short swords (Nan Dao). Single weapons include: Single Broadsword (Dao), Straight sword (Dsien) and Fan (San Tse). There are over 80 empty hand forms in the Flying Crane style. Some are very short, others rather long. There are also a great many weapons forms.

Or that's all sales bull, which is possible. I don't really know.

Liberty's Edge

Specifics of hands aside, the bigger issue is that you gain full benefits from a parry weapon without a need for proficiency. Monks have a generally easier time getting around the fact that it eats up one or more hands (since you might as well use the main-gauche if you don't intend to attack with it), but it's a general issue.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / Use Parry from a Bo Staff without Proficiency? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Playing the Game