Shorticus |
I have a question about Bewildering Koan. The full description is here, but I'll bold the relevant bit:
As a swift action, spend 1 point from your ki pool and make a Bluff check by asking a creature one of the impossible questions you ponder when meditating. If the creature fails its check, you choose whether it loses its next action or you gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make against that creature for 1 round.
Let's talk about that damage.
Let's say I am a gnome with a 1 level dip in Elemental Ascetic, so I add 1d6 damage from some sort of energy attack. I have a touch attack spell that deals damage held as a charge. I also have, say, a Flaming Amulet of Mighty Fists.
When I do an unarmed strike, there are now multiple separate damage rolls:
- Unarmed Strike Damage
- 1d6 from Elemental Ascetic
- touch attack damage (discharged as part of an unarmed strike)
- 1d6 fire damage from Flaming enchantment
How many +2 damage amounts do I add to this attack?
Shorticus |
Are you sure? The reason I ask is because:
- the fire damage is separate from the other damage, meeting resistance instead of DR, etc; effectively treated as a separate attack for the purposes of any kind of damage reduction or resistance
- and so is the touch attack spell, which also encounters spell resistance vs. encountering something else
- and the elemental ascetic kineticist damage is separate from those, and,
- the unarmed strike is separate from those.
I could easily see Unarmed Strike and fiery enchantment being rolled together (same weapon and such), but the other two abilities - especially the spell - seem distinct.
Is there an official ruling or FAQ that will tell me if this is only +2 damage, or what a damage roll is in this sort of situation?
Sandslice |
In this case, you'd apply it twice. Once for the flaming+infused punch, and once for the chill touch.
1. The Kinetic Fist works like a flaming weapon enchantment: you're adding 1/3 of your kinetic blast's normal damage to your unarmed strikes.
You surround your body with energy or elemental matter from your kinetic abilities. You can use this form infusion as part of an attack action, a charge action, or a full-attack action to add damage to each of your natural attacks and unarmed strikes until the beginning of your next turn. Since kinetic fist is part of another action, using this wild talent doesn’t provoke any additional attack of opportunity. You deal an additional 1d6 points of damage per 3 dice of your kinetic blast’s damage (minimum 1d6), and this damage is of the same type as your kinetic blast’s damage. This extra damage ignores spell resistance and doesn’t apply any modifiers to your kinetic blast’s damage, such as your Constitution modifier.
When you use Kinetic Fist, you aren't altering or using a kinetic blast. You're altering your fists, causing them to deal additional damage. As such, that's part of the fist attack, just as the flaming enchantment from the Amulet is part of the fist attack.
2. The chill touch, on the other hand, is a charge-held spell. As such, it is a separate source of damage.
So, ultimately, you should deal:
- 1d6+(Lv -> 5)+2 negative damage, plus (save or 1 Str damage) and
- 1d2+Str+2 + {Amulet enh bonus} bludgeoning + {1d6 + 1d6@L11 + 1d6@L17} kinetic-fist + 1d6 fire.
Shorticus |
I hope you realize that (when flurrying) for a swift action and a ki point you could make a bonus attack instead. That's guaranteed to do more damage.
Oh, for sure. +4 damage per attack might come close at higher levels, maybe.
Mostly I just want to have my gnome say weird things and make enemies go "Huh!" Sometimes to deny an action, sometimes to deal extra damage.
Elsewise, yeah, just getting more punches is probably more efficient unless I'm actively trying to 'daze' them via Bewildering Koan.
EDIT: It will also blend nicely with the dragon breath ability my character's archetype gains at way later levels (12th).
Derklord |
Oh, for sure. +4 damage per attack might come close at higher levels, maybe.
Unless fighting enemies with crazy high damage reduction, no. The math just doesn't work out. It would work when not able to flurry, but as an unMonk, thanks to Flying Kick, you can full attack even most non-adjacent targets, and at lower levels (when FK's the range isn't good yet), the ki point would be too precious.
Elsewise, yeah, just getting more punches is probably more efficient unless I'm actively trying to 'daze' them via Bewildering Koan.
That's what everyone else uses the feat for (I honestly didn't even know it had the damage option!), but it's a use that depends heavily on the GM. Bewildering Koan is honestly one of the worst writen feats in the game. For starters, it says you make a BLuff check, but what's the DC? A bluff check should normally be opposed by a Sense Motive Check, but the feat makes no mention of that. ANd that's not even the worst part, because the feat simply say the target looses the "next action". I presume the writer totally forgot about free actions. RAW, if the target actually tries to answer your "impossible question", or if it yells out in pain between that and its next turn, or of course if it tries to talk for any reason, the feat's effect is wasted. The order of actions for e.g. the free action to draw an arrow to make an attack, or to prepare the spell components as part of casting a spell is not clear, my first instinct is to say that drawing an arrow or taking the material or focus for a spell out of the spell component pouch is done before the actual action (of attacking/full attacking, or casting a spell) is actually attempted, and thus anyone attempting such actions would be "immune" against the feat (since they could simply repeat the free aciton).
On the other hand, if free actions don't count, the feat is ridiculously overpowered, as it can almost completely shut down a combatant, for the measly cost of ki (irrelevant at 10th level), and swift actions. For comparison, Martial Arts Handbook basically turned the feat into a ki power, but that one allows a Will save, has a 30ft range, and 'only' confuses the target for one round.
Definitely talk to your GM about the feat!
Matthew Downie |
Bewildering Koan is honestly one of the worst writen feats in the game. For starters, it says you make a BLuff check, but what's the DC? A bluff check should normally be opposed by a Sense Motive Check, but the feat makes no mention of that. ANd that's not even the worst part, because the feat simply say the target looses the "next action". I presume the writer totally forgot about free actions.
The Martial Arts Handbook version also states that it's a mind-affecting language-dependent ability, which the original does not. Ask the GM about that too.
willuwontu |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely talk to your GM about the feat!
There is an SKR clarification of it from back when he was a rules authority.
Blazej wrote:It is somewhat appropriate that I have questions about the Bewildering Koan feat on page 30.
It says, "If the creature fails its check," but I'm not sure what check they have to make. Do they have to make a Bluff check, a Knowledge check, a Sense Motive check, or something else?
It then says that the target creature "loses its next action." Does that mean it loses it's next turn, that it loses a readied action, or that it loses a move or standard action during it's turn to contemplation?Bluff is always an opposed check against the target's Sense Motive check.
If the target fails, it loses its next turn.
Derklord |
That's actually where I got the thing with the opposed check from. The problem with that post is that it is not a clarification; I can see the thing with the Sense Motive check as a clarification, but changing "action" to "turn" is, well, a change; and a forum post just doesn't have the rule power to do that - apart from the actual books, only blog posts and FAQs have that rule power. Forum posts can help you understand the rules, but can't make the rules. Thus, that post does not change the RAW. And RAI the feat is way overpowered.
SKR's statement "I developed the text and felt it was clear enough" explains a lot about why the rules were often so badly written back in those days!