On Monks and Gauntlets
Moderator: Moderators
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Let's say that I'm playing in a mythic pathfinder game as a monk. If I had the option of grabbing two cleric domains, which two would be the best? I can pick whatever I want regardless of alignment, but I will be fighting evil stuff mostly.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
- nockermensch
- Duke
- Posts: 1898
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
- Location: Rio: the Janeiro
Assuming 3.5ish rules, a game that starts around lvl 5 for a campaign based on the Underdark, would a monk with the vampire template be an acceptable choice if I pretend the vampire LA is +0?
I was thinking about DMing again and one of the possible players loves monks, specially grappling monks. He can't into numbers and refuses to understand that that class is horribly weak, so I remembered this...
I was thinking about DMing again and one of the possible players loves monks, specially grappling monks. He can't into numbers and refuses to understand that that class is horribly weak, so I remembered this...
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
The MM Vampire template is a hot mess that's chock full of crazy which no one knows the rules for. Asking if it would help the monk would be like asking if a 3/day Polymorph would help the monk. The answer is yes but your guaranteeing different problems arise.
It's like if your town was infested by pigeons you might import some lizards to eat the pigeons, but then you'd need Chinese needle snakes to eat the lizards, then snake-eating gorillas. It's making a problem to solve a problem.
It's like if your town was infested by pigeons you might import some lizards to eat the pigeons, but then you'd need Chinese needle snakes to eat the lizards, then snake-eating gorillas. It's making a problem to solve a problem.
Last edited by Dean on Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
One of the half-X templates would be better in my opinion. Vampire is a mess of abilities that are too good/complicated for players (Fuck, they have three minion abilities!) and crippling weaknesses.
virgil wrote:Lovecraft didn't later add a love triangle between Dagon, Chtulhu, & the Colour-Out-of-Space; only to have it broken up through cyber-bullying by the King in Yellow.
FrankTrollman wrote:If your enemy is fucking Gravity, are you helping or hindering it by putting things on high shelves? I don't fucking know! That's not even a thing. Your enemy can't be Gravity, because that's stupid.
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Back when 3e first came out, Frank put up analysis of the failings of monks and Da'Vane argued against this because they were playing a monk that was kicking ass because the DM had given them an amulet that let the character turn into a dire tiger.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
I believe there were at least three monks that had a similar amulet in that thread.
virgil wrote:Lovecraft didn't later add a love triangle between Dagon, Chtulhu, & the Colour-Out-of-Space; only to have it broken up through cyber-bullying by the King in Yellow.
FrankTrollman wrote:If your enemy is fucking Gravity, are you helping or hindering it by putting things on high shelves? I don't fucking know! That's not even a thing. Your enemy can't be Gravity, because that's stupid.
Yeah, every single time someone argues that core monks are totally fine because their DM gave them a bullshit pity item, it seems to always be an amulet, and it always seems to turn them into a dire tiger. Apparently that's just the most iconic thing for a monk.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
That's not fair, sometimes it's just a tiger.
virgil wrote:Lovecraft didn't later add a love triangle between Dagon, Chtulhu, & the Colour-Out-of-Space; only to have it broken up through cyber-bullying by the King in Yellow.
FrankTrollman wrote:If your enemy is fucking Gravity, are you helping or hindering it by putting things on high shelves? I don't fucking know! That's not even a thing. Your enemy can't be Gravity, because that's stupid.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Cause monks cause more family feuds than Richard Dawson.Parthenon wrote:I still don't understand that one. Do any class features of the monk improve the dire tiger in any way or could you just replace the monk completely?
People who want to be monks want to be vaguely Asian and kill fools with magic unarmed attacks. The two most common pieces of monk upgrade equipment in actual play are adamantine gauntlets and the amulet of tiger form. The fact that neither of those items are legal by the book has no bearing on that. It's just the items actual monks get. It's like the artifact ax that every barbarian gets. It's a secret class feature that underperforming character classes get.
-Username17
Hilariously, every video game called Neverwinter Nights does the gauntlets thing, providing an array of gloves, gauntlets and fist-wraps that turn your fists into elemental magic weapons or add a few dice of slashing or adamantium bludgeoning damage.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
How are adamantine gauntlets not legal? Other than the fact monks aren't proficient in them and are not able to flurry with them, it seems that would let you get an enhancement to your unarmed damage...
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
They are a weapon, and would not get the benefit of monk unarmed damage. The damage from gauntlets is bullshit small, but it exists. Per the rules, a monk benefits no more from a powerrfist than they do from a powersword. It's just one more melee weapon they aren't proficientwith.Count Arioch the 28th wrote:How are adamantine gauntlets not legal? Other than the fact monks aren't proficient in them and are not able to flurry with them, it seems that would let you get an enhancement to your unarmed damage...
-Username17
-
- Duke
- Posts: 2073
- Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:20 pm
ubernoob wrote:You are correct on both accounts.OgreBattle wrote:Ah, so that's the origin of the "Monks transform into tigers as an unofficial class ability".
I think RA Salvatore also had a monk transform into a tiger in one of his novels.
Last edited by radthemad4 on Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hey, De'Unnero was one of the few characters in that godawful series I still liked when I finished it. He was badass.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
Yeah, it was Demon Wars. Monk was a badass in a fight by himself (admittedly because authorial control and all) and his favorite bit of magic was a gemstone that'd turn your arm into a tiger's leg for clawing. Except he turned out to be really suited for it and got the point where he could go full-on tiger.
But I'll give him a pass there because he actually won fights without going all furry on fools, even after that change.
But I'll give him a pass there because he actually won fights without going all furry on fools, even after that change.
Last edited by Maxus on Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Oh, I know it happens. I was just wondering if the tiger form and monk class help each other in any way, or if it is complete bullshit in every way.FrankTrollman wrote:Cause monks cause more family feuds than Richard Dawson.Parthenon wrote:I still don't understand that one. Do any class features of the monk improve the dire tiger in any way or could you just replace the monk completely?
People who want to be monks want to be vaguely Asian and kill fools with magic unarmed attacks. The two most common pieces of monk upgrade equipment in actual play are adamantine gauntlets and the amulet of tiger form. The fact that neither of those items are legal by the book has no bearing on that. It's just the items actual monks get. It's like the artifact ax that every barbarian gets. It's a secret class feature that underperforming character classes get.
-Username17
Although I wouldn't mind if you had a shapeshifting monk class that has various animal styles and you can change back and forth, while getting various abilities like invisibility improving to phasing when using phase spider style kung fu.
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Second edit, since I pulled open the 3.0 FAQ instead.FrankTrollman wrote:They are a weapon, and would not get the benefit of monk unarmed damage. The damage from gauntlets is bullshit small, but it exists. Per the rules, a monk benefits no more from a powerrfist than they do from a powersword. It's just one more melee weapon they aren't proficientwith.Count Arioch the 28th wrote:How are adamantine gauntlets not legal? Other than the fact monks aren't proficient in them and are not able to flurry with them, it seems that would let you get an enhancement to your unarmed damage...
-Username17
This is what the 3.5 FAQ says about monks and gauntlets:
"Can a monk use a +5 gauntlet in an unarmed attack,
gaining all of her class benefits as well as the +5 bonus on
attack rolls and damage rolls from the gauntlet?
Gauntlets are indeed a weapon. If a monk uses any weapon
not listed as a special monk weapon, she does not gain her
better attack rate. She would, however, gain the increased
damage for unarmed attacks."
It seems to me that they meant for you to use your superior unarmed damage when using gauntlets if I'm reading that correctly.
Last edited by Count Arioch the 28th on Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
And the Pathfinder FAQ tells you that when you cast that surge spell you make one choice that applies to all future castings for the day.Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Second edit, since I pulled open the 3.0 FAQ instead.FrankTrollman wrote:They are a weapon, and would not get the benefit of monk unarmed damage. The damage from gauntlets is bullshit small, but it exists. Per the rules, a monk benefits no more from a powerrfist than they do from a powersword. It's just one more melee weapon they aren't proficientwith.Count Arioch the 28th wrote:How are adamantine gauntlets not legal? Other than the fact monks aren't proficient in them and are not able to flurry with them, it seems that would let you get an enhancement to your unarmed damage...
-Username17
This is what the 3.5 FAQ says about monks and gauntlets:
"Can a monk use a +5 gauntlet in an unarmed attack,
gaining all of her class benefits as well as the +5 bonus on
attack rolls and damage rolls from the gauntlet?
Gauntlets are indeed a weapon. If a monk uses any weapon
not listed as a special monk weapon, she does not gain her
better attack rate. She would, however, gain the increased
damage for unarmed attacks."
It seems to me that they meant for you to use your superior unarmed damage when using gauntlets if I'm reading that correctly.
Spoiler alert, FAQs are where designers go to lie about their rules to cover up their failures.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Arms and Equipment Guide supported putting armour enchantments on Bracers of Armour, so there's really no reason that you couldn't put weapon enchantments on Amulets of the Mighty Fist (aside from stingy DMs).
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Didn't savage species have a cheaper single target version of AomF that you could enchant with weapon enchantments?
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
Except that no part of that contradicts the table which lists swords as 1d8s and gauntlets as 1d3.erik wrote:In this case the FAQ makes sense. Both in 3.0 and 3.5 the weapon descriptions totally support gauntlets using your unarmed damage whatever that may be.
Gauntlet 3.0 wrote:Gauntlet: These metal gloves protect the hands and let character's deal normal damage with unarmed strikes rather than subdual damage. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet.Either edition it is just turning your unarmed damage from subdual to lethal and is otherwise considered and unarmed attack. A monk using monk unarmed damage with gauntlets should be beyond reproach (as long as they use hands to hit).Gauntlet 3.5 wrote: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. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.
I think the questionable aspect of the FAQ is whether otherwise being treated as an unarmed attack for improved attack progression, and surprise-surprise they pissed in the monk's face there.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.