Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Unarmed Monks

  1. #1
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3

    Thumbs down Unarmed Monks

    I've been searching the forums looking for a bug report on handwraps not working with Knife in the back. Much to my dismay I've been seeing posts saying its WAI for handwraps, saying "a monk using handwraps, is considered unarmed and not using a weapon so it doesn't apply to them." If this does turn out to be true I am going to be sorely disappointed. If a Monk's fists aren't considered weapons for the sake for that enhancement, then there should be no point to a Monk being unarmed and the feat "unarmed strikes" should be removed because "unarmed strikes" clearly states that the Monks fists are considered "LETHAL WEAPONS." I mean that is straight out of the Player's Handbook. Get your act together devs, you've thoroughly dropped the ball on this one, you're getting further and further away from the D&D basics.

  2. #2
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noxd2533 View Post
    I've been searching the forums looking for a bug report on handwraps not working with Knife in the back. Much to my dismay I've been seeing posts saying its WAI for handwraps, saying "a monk using handwraps, is considered unarmed and not using a weapon so it doesn't apply to them." If this does turn out to be true I am going to be sorely disappointed. If a Monk's fists aren't considered weapons for the sake for that enhancement, then there should be no point to a Monk being unarmed and the feat "unarmed strikes" should be removed because "unarmed strikes" clearly states that the Monks fists are considered "LETHAL WEAPONS." I mean that is straight out of the Player's Handbook. Get your act together devs, you've thoroughly dropped the ball on this one, you're getting further and further away from the D&D basics.
    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...What?

    Lemme see if I get this straight: your issue is that you're angry because the main fighting style of Monks (unarmed strikes) are incompatible with one enhancement from another class, namely the Assassin? In essence, you're angry because you can't add Dexterity instead of Strength to your unarmed strikes? Is...is that it?

    I have no idea why this is disgustingly bad. Sure, I could agree with you in some point; Monks should have options to apply their Dex (and their Wisdom!) to their attack and damage rolls instead of defense; this could be an option with MANY classes, and I find it kinda offensive that it's not part of the Weapon Finesse feat, instead being part of the Assassin enhancement tree.

    That said: your anger is seriously unfounded...dare I say unfocused? Your argument essentially boils to "I can't get my Monks to add their Dex because I built a Dex-based build, so I'll find some excuse for fluff and say that if they don't fulfill the fluff, they shouldn't give Monks their iconic ability to fight unarmed!" ...Yeah, it made as little sense to me as to whomever is reading this as well, but here's the point: it's essentially non-sequitur. One thing does not imply the other. The developers decided that the Monk's damage output with their unarmed strikes are decent enough to disallow applying Dexterity instead of Strength, even though it does apply to kamas (which are light weapons, accessible to Monks, and weaker damage-wise to unarmed strikes, so it opens options instead of restricting them), and thus they made it WAI instead of a potential bug. This feels like a mechanical balance decision; otherwise, people would probably gravitate towards dumping Strength, getting 1 level in Rogue, and never touching any other stance than Wind (unarmed strike, Dex to attack and damage, plus TWF and doublestrike applying = damage overflow), so they denied people that choice. It's mechanically unsound (they could do it, and simply ponder the consequences), but not necessarily anathema to fluff (Monk's unarmed strikes are considered "LETHAL WEAPONS" but aren't weapons per se; are Unarmed Strikes "daggers"? Otherwise, only daggers could apply for this benefit, because the enhancement is called "Dagger in the Back"...), so the argument based on fluff is mostly irrelevant.

    The problem here is that it feels like you're throwing a tantrum for nothing.

    Let's go a bit further: the only way, in tabletop, to apply your Dexterity to damage rolls is if you get a specific feat called Shadow Blade, which requires a Shadow Hand maneuver, which is most definitely NOT in the Core rulebooks or the SRD. A feat, not an enhancement. Enhancements aren't part of the "basic rules" of D&D, and they're a necessary construct for this game; if you agree with that, then why suddenly oppose this? Because it doesn't allow your build to work as effectively as you'd like, considering that you're already getting Sneak Attack, improved chances of fighting with shortswords and kamas (you're a Monk, and it feels like you're aiming for Ninja Spy), and several other bits to damage that mak applying Dex instead of Str to damage somewhat irrelevant, numbers-wise? This is why it feels like a tantrum, and so as long as it feels and sounds like one, it's not gonna be taken seriously.

    And, to finish: I'd love that developers dropped the Remove Disease SLA from the Paladin and added more feats, because the Core game definitely needs that, and the developers are willing to adapt classes for the better. This is stepping away from D&D basics, but for a very good reason. Yet, I am a player, and one who supported them with some money once or twice. I'm not suddenly in a position to force them to do whatever I want (I'm not a WB executive), but I can attempt to convince enough people to make some noise. I definitely won't manage this by doing what's equivalent to a temper tantrum just because I don't get what I want, regardless of what the rest wants (or needs). Perhaps if you cool down, rethink this, repurpose your thread purpose AND work it as a way to open up options, rather than demanding it because it makes sense in fluff, the developers might consider changing their statement.

  3. #3
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TGOskar View Post
    ...
    Lemme see if I get this straight: your issue is that you're angry because the main fighting style of Monks (unarmed strikes) are incompatible with one enhancement from another class, namely the Assassin? In essence, you're angry because you can't add Dexterity instead of Strength to your unarmed strikes? Is...is that it?
    ninja spy also has a similiar enhancement, yet it doesnt work with handwraps because they arent a 'weapon', granted, it Used to work with the ivy wraps since they dealt piercing damage but that was since 'fixed', its a monk enhancement so it should atleast include the most basic of monks weapons, which are their fists.

    as for the assassing knife in the back, that has the clause: If you possess the Weapon Finesse feat, this also applies to melee weapons with which you can use your Dexterity modifier to hit. which should include every 'weapon' that is listed under the weapon finesse feat and as the OP mentioned monks unarmed strikes is supposed to make the bare fists of a monk lethal 'weapons', so even without handwraps monk's bare fists on their own SHOULD be considered weapons akin to daggers and everything else listed in the 'weapon' finesse feat, and thus should be allowed to qualify for the dex to damage. Just because its from another classes tree doesnt mean much, there are plenty of enhancements that work with other classes, thats one of the reasons behind the enhancement trees to build multiclass characters with many different enhancement trees.

    and while monks maybe the main users of handwraps, they can be used by anyone, including rogues. so to disqualify them merely because the enhancement is from another classes tree is rather moot.

  4. #4
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Well, on the one hand, a monk's unarmed strikes are special; in addition to the increased damage, their unarmed strikes are also considered to be manufactured weapons and natural weapons for the purposes of enhancing effects and spells. So you could use Magic Fang or Magic Weapon on a monk, for example. Furthermore, an unarmed strike is always considered light, and therefore, can be finessed. On the other hand, unarmed strikes are considered Bludgeoning damage. A handwrap is not a weapon in itself, it just adds effects to the base rules for unarmed strikes.

    While Ivy Wraps allow the monk to bypass slash DR, it doesn't change the basic rules of the strikes - they are considered melee and bludgeoning for weapon effects. Sireth, Spear of the Sky has a similar niche issue -it is a quarterstaff, but deals slashing and piercing instead of bludgeoning. Despite its altered damage type, it uses Improved Critical: Bludgeoning, since that's the default rules for quarterstaves.
    Anything can be explained by drunken wizards.

    "Hey! I got a piece of the +1 Butter Knife of Victory! Ah-oh, wait, wait. It's just a crummy, normal +1 dagger of ghostbane..."

  5. #5
    The Hatchery stoerm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noxd2533 View Post
    "unarmed strikes" clearly states that the Monks fists are considered "LETHAL WEAPONS."
    No it does not state that. You added "considered" making it sound like it's about game mechanics. It's clearly fluff text and those fists and feet are weapons only metaphorically.

    While centered (unarmored, unencumbered, and wielding monk weapons), your fists and feet are lethal weapons.
    Taking this feat makes them "lethal weapons" because of the added damage and faster attack animation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noxd2533 View Post
    If a Monk's fists aren't considered weapons for the sake for that enhancement, then there should be no point to a Monk being unarmed and the feat "unarmed strikes" should be removed
    Ah, so because monk unarmed combat bonuses don't work with a certain rogue enhancement, they should remove it altogether. Makes a lot of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Worldcrafter View Post
    their unarmed strikes are also considered to be manufactured weapons and natural weapons for the purposes of enhancing effects and spells. So you could use Magic Fang or Magic Weapon on a monk, for example.
    I would think magic fang applies to wraps, not fists. Try casting it when you have empty hand slots and see what happens.
    Last edited by stoerm; 10-16-2013 at 02:41 AM.
    Praise the Dark Six and pass the heals to pure melees.
    Full feat tree; Cannith; change; merger; evil; win; minmaxing; FotM; deja vu; Kobolds.
    Dungeons and Dragons Online ~ Nude Song and Gnarled Onions

  6. #6
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stoerm View Post
    No it does not state that. You added "considered" making it sound like it's about game mechanics. It's clearly fluff text and those fists and feet are weapons only metaphorically.



    Taking this feat makes them "lethal weapons" because of the added damage and faster attack animation.



    Ah, so because monk unarmed combat bonuses don't work with a certain rogue enhancement, they should remove it altogether. Makes a lot of sense.



    I would think magic fang applies to wraps, not fists. Try casting it when you have empty hand slots and see what happens.
    Even though I disagree with the OP, he's actually correct, monk fists as per D&D 3.5 rules are that they are both a natural attack and a manufactured weapon, typically whichever is more beneficial at the time.

  7. #7
    Community Member Zachski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,695

    Default

    When it says "Monks fists are now considered lethal weapons", it means that instead of dealing non-lethal damage (like you normally would in 3.5 with bare fists), you can deal lethal damage.

    That being said, a Monk's fists are not knives, nor are they short swords. A ninja or assassin learns how to use his dexterity to be able to stick a dagger or short sword further into an enemy using skill instead of muscle.

    There is no such effect for bludgeoning weapons, especially fists. You cannot punch with "finesse" to actually deal more damage, you need muscle behind that fist to deal more damage - even if it's a one-inch punch.

    And no, you are not Kenshiro, you do not get to make claims about "pressure points". That's what sneak attacks are for.
    Once I get my moods under control, I might actually get a character past level 7... ooh, shiny!

    Paladins got some love! Now for Warpriests...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload