The Gaming Den

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.

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...

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.

Can't you just give him an amulet that lets him turn into a Dire Tiger?

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.

Koumei wrote:Can't you just give him an amulet that lets him turn into a Dire Tiger?

Is that a reference to something?

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.

I believe there were at least three monks that had a similar amulet in that thread.

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.

That's not fair, sometimes it's just a tiger.

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?

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?

Cause monks cause more family feuds than Richard Dawson.

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.

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...

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...

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.

-Username17

Da'Vane on Nifty wrote:My Monk picked up a Pendant that allows him to Polymorph into a Tiger at will. When the big fights come, I usually leap past all the heavily armed fighters and change into a Tiger in mid air to stomp the spellcaster at the back who's blowing chunks out of the party.

ubernoob wrote:

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.

You are correct on both accounts.

Hey, De'Unnero was one of the few characters in that godawful series I still liked when I finished it. He was badass.

Is that Demonwars or am I thinking of something else?

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.

FrankTrollman wrote:

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?

Cause monks cause more family feuds than Richard Dawson.

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

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.

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.

FrankTrollman wrote:

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...

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.

-Username17

Second edit, since I pulled open the 3.0 FAQ instead.

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.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:

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...

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.

-Username17

Second edit, since I pulled open the 3.0 FAQ instead.

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.

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.

Spoiler alert, FAQs are where designers go to lie about their rules to cover up their failures.

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).

Didn't savage species have a cheaper single target version of AomF that you could enchant with weapon enchantments?

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.

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.

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).

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.

Except that no part of that contradicts the table which lists swords as 1d8s and gauntlets as 1d3.