PDA

View Full Version : Unarmed Strike debate



Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 03:24 PM
Because horses don't stay dead in Ravenloft.


By RAW, they don't stack. Monk's Belt is worded as "a Monk of 5 levels higher", same as Superior Unarmed Strike so they both are based on your actual Monk-level, which doesn't change making them overlap. But as I said, ask DM.


Stacking only applies to rolls and checks, not to a static effect such as level.


Regardless, they both apply to your base level so while the word "stack" isn't the reason they don't stack in the traditional D&D sense, in the English meaning of the word it's still accurate. They are both worded in a fashion that they are applied to the same number and don't notice each others' existence. It's the same reason you can't stack Monkey Grip & Strongarm Bracers on a Medium creature to wield a Huge weapon with the same handedness as the Medium version.


But it isn't a number. Size category can be measured by a number (one size category larger than your current size category), but your unarmed strike damage can't because it is a variable number (Xd8).

It's like saying Practiced Spellcaster doesn't stack with the Orange Ioun Stone. They are separate sources, they have a similar effect in different values, and they've been accepted as stacking. Same circumstance, different effect. Monk levels measure your Unarmed damage size, caster level determines your Fireball's damage dice.

If SuS and Monk's Belts don't stack, then the same should be applied to the Orange Ioun Stone and Practiced Spellcaster.


Your Monk-level can be measured by a number and it's what's affected. Note how caster level increases just say the CL increases by 1, while Monk's Belt states your effective Monk-level for determining Unarmed Strike Damage is 5 higher (same as SUS).


But that's a double standard. Note that everything that affects CL usually states it doesn't affect your spells/day or spells/known. Its the same thing in a different suit.

SuS says +4 to Monk level, BTW. And Practiced Spellcaster is +4. Does Practiced Spellcaster not stack with Divination Spellpower (Unseen Seer's class feature) if the situation allows it? Why is it that the same type of effect (an increase to effective level for determining an ability) not stack in one case, but does in the other? What makes the two different?


Got a reference for that?

Both of them make your Monk level some number of levels "higher". Not "higher than your base/actual level", just "higher". The default meaning for that in the English language unless context clearly indicates otherwise is "higher than without this", which would make them stack.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-09-21, 03:32 PM
So the argument is if they stack or not?
That's pritty stupid i would say they stack.. why not there both untyped bonuses :)

Eldariel
2009-09-21, 03:32 PM
But that's a double standard. Note that everything that affects CL usually states it doesn't affect your spells/day or spells/known. Its the same thing in a different suit.

SuS says +4 to Monk level, BTW. And Practiced Spellcaster is +4. Does Practiced Spellcaster not stack with Divination Spellpower (Unseen Seer's class feature) if the situation allows it? Why is it that the same type of effect (an increase to effective level for determining an ability) not stack in one case, but does in the other? What makes the two different?

The two core examples for CL increases read as follows:
Beads of Karma: "Wearer casts his spells at +4 caster level. Effect lasts 10 minutes."
Orange Prism Ioun Stone: "+1 caster level"

Practiced Spellcaster is a bit wonky due to the wording: "Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by 4." The wording is still "increases by 4" though rather than "treated as 4 levels higher though" so it IS a real increase rather than a virtual one.

Monk's Belt on the other hand:
"The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher." You are treated as a Monk of 5 levels higher for those purposes; there's the implied "than your level". It doesn't modify your level, it just gives you a bonus based on your level, while those CL boosts quite explicitly actually increase your caster level.


Also, I'm deleting my posts on the matter from the original thread since they're repeated here and the OP wished for the discussion to not happen in that thread.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-21, 03:33 PM
*shrug* Its arguable....but I say, let the monks have it. Its not as if it matters much anyhow.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 03:34 PM
The two core examples for CL increases read as follows:
Beads of Karma: "Wearer casts his spells at +4 caster level. Effect lasts 10 minutes."
Orange Prism Ioun Stone: "+1 caster level"

And those stack, right? Despite being the same bonus, they stack because they are different sources.


Practiced Spellcaster is a bit wonky due to the wording: "Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by 4." The wording is still "increases by 4" though rather than "treated as 4 levels higher though" so it IS a real increase rather than a virtual one.

And yet this "real" increase disappears if your CL ever equals your HD. Whereas the Monk's Belt and SuS do not.


Monk's Belt on the other hand:
"The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher." You are treated as a Monk of 5 levels higher for those purposes; there's the implied "than your level". It doesn't modify your level, it just gives you a bonus based on your level, while those CL boosts quite explicitly actually increase your caster level.

I think you have that inverted. The Candle and the Stone are a bonus to CL, this is an increase to your effective Monk level. But those are the same thing, right? And because the Monk's Belt and SuS are a bonus to the same thing from two different sources (Unarmed damage boosts from a feat and a magic item), they should stack.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-09-21, 03:34 PM
Monk's Belt on the other hand:
"The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher." You are treated as a Monk of 5 levels higher for those purposes; there's the implied "than your level". It doesn't modify your level, it just gives you a bonus based on your level, while those CL boosts quite explicitly actually increase your caster level.

Would not the second effect see that for the supposes of Unarmed strikes the monks levels are treated as x amount higher. I mean its being treated as higher why would they not stack?

Demons_eye
2009-09-21, 03:35 PM
Raw? No. They said so in the FAQ give me a minute to find it.

Found it: Page 21 Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) right side.

I would say let them stack. Monks need that stuff.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 03:39 PM
Raw? No. They said so in the FAQ give me a minute to find it.

Found it: Page 21 Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) right side.

I would say let them stack. Monks need that stuff.

The FAQ isn't RAW though. Its someone's interpretation of the RAW. Again, I cite the stacking rules:


In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).

SuS and Monk's Belt are untyped bonuses from different sources (even though the stacking rules should not be applicable seeing as they are not a roll or a check but an ability based on your level).

Eldariel
2009-09-21, 03:39 PM
And yet this "real" increase disappears if your CL ever equals your HD. Whereas the Monk's Belt and SuS do not.

No, the real increase is simply capped by your HD. You get an increase equal to the difference between the HD and your CL, as per wording of the ability.


I think you have that inverted. The Candle and the Stone are a bonus to CL, this is an increase to your effective Monk level. But those are the same thing, right? And because the Monk's Belt and SuS are a bonus to the same thing from two different sources (Unarmed damage boosts from a feat and a magic item), they should stack.

As you yourself said, "Stacking only applies to rolls and checks, not to a static effect such as level." This isn't subject to THOSE stacking rules. My argument is that as the wording is "you are treated as a Monk of 5 levels higher for the purposes of determining your unarmed strike damage..." rather than "your Monk-level for the purposes of determining your unarmed strike damage increases by 5...", another similar ability would merely again treat you as X levels higher than your base level since you can't be treated X levels higher than your already "treated" level.


EDIT: For what it's worth, FAQ agrees with me (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a). The relevant entry:

"Does a monk with a monk’s belt and the Superior Unarmed
Strike feat benefit from both, or does just the highest benefit
apply?
In this case, the better benefit will prevail. These effects
technically do not have a bonus, so they would not use the
stacking rules. One effect will end up overshadowing the other."

Douglas
2009-09-21, 03:44 PM
The FAQ writer is correct that they are not technically bonuses. He is not, however, correct that this matters. Both of them specify "higher" with no explicit base. The normal English default for such things is "higher than without this", which quite clearly results in stacking.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-09-21, 03:44 PM
As you yourself said, "Stacking only applies to rolls and checks, not to a static effect such as level." This isn't subject to THOSE stacking rules. My argument is that as the wording is "you are treated as a Monk of 5 levels higher for the purposes of determining your unarmed strike damage..." rather than "your Monk-level for the purposes of determining your unarmed strike damage increases by 5...", another similar ability would merely again treat you as X levels higher than your base level since you can't be treated X levels higher than your already "treated" level.

Why can't you be treated as x levels higher as your "treated" level I mean your monk unarmed strike level is effectively higher seeing as its being treated as such?
I meen the way i look at it its like your effectivly 5 levels higher for the purposes of you unarmed dmg.

douglas:
"The normal English default for such things is "higher than without this", which quite clearly results in stacking."

How do you figure? Then again are you talking proper English or American English?

Godskook
2009-09-21, 03:48 PM
And yet this "real" increase disappears if your CL ever equals your HD. Whereas the Monk's Belt and SuS do not.

And pray tell, give me one example of when a bonus from practiced spell caster 'disappears'?

ericgrau
2009-09-21, 03:48 PM
WotC says no:



Q: Does a monk with a monk’s belt and the Superior Unarmed Strike feat benefit from both, or does just the highest benefit apply?

A: In this case, the better benefit will prevail. These effects technically do not have a bonus, so they would not use the stacking rules. One effect will end up overshadowing the other.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 03:50 PM
And pray tell, give me one example of when a bonus from practiced spell caster 'disappears'?

Wizard 10/Wild Mage 1. Practiced Spellcaster doesn't work with the penalty imposed by Wild Mage to result in a higher CL than you would normally have. You have to have another penalty in there somewhere to make it work right.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-09-21, 03:53 PM
Wizard 10/Wild Mage 1. Practiced Spellcaster doesn't work with the penalty imposed by Wild Mage to result in a higher CL than you would normally have. You have to have another penalty in there somewhere to make it work right.

yes but doesn't it say specifically in there that practiced spell caster doesn't work with it?


I think there more refering to CL stacking like
wizard 5/ fighter 4
with practiced spellcaster
fire burst
bloodline of fire
Ion stone

would have a caster level (for fire spells) of 7.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-21, 03:54 PM
WotC says no:

I think he read it wrong (FAQ guy).
They do have a bonus. Monk level bonus.

ericgrau
2009-09-21, 03:56 PM
Treats you as a monk 5 level higher for the purpose of unarmed strike. It doesn't boost your level nor your "unarmed strike level", if such a thing ever existed. No "bonus" is ever mentioned.

Eldariel
2009-09-21, 03:56 PM
I think he read it wrong (FAQ guy).
They do have a bonus. Monk level bonus.

Eh, "being treated as X levels higher" isn't a bonus in the sense the word is used in D&D. It doesn't grant you a bonus to your effective Monk-level. That's my whole point here.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-09-21, 04:01 PM
Eh, "being treated as X levels higher" isn't a bonus in the sense the word is used in D&D. It doesn't grant you a bonus to your effective Monk-level. That's my whole point here.

Agreed its not a bonus.

But i disagree about the effective monk level.. seeing as it's treating it as if you where 5 levels high. To me that sounds like your effective monk level for unarmed dmg is higher.

ericgrau
2009-09-21, 04:05 PM
Well if both apply to your actual monk level then that'd make them overlap, not stack.

"The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher"
Five levels higher than his monk level or 5 levels higher than his AC-and-unarmed-strike monk level. The latter doesn't exist without a large stretch of the imagination. So I'm gonna have to agree that the former is far more likely.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 04:06 PM
Eh, "being treated as X levels higher" isn't a bonus in the sense the word is used in D&D. It doesn't grant you a bonus to your effective Monk-level. That's my whole point here.

Question then: If an effect called for a check or roll in which the modifier for the die roll is your effective Monk level, would they stack for that purpose? I'm being hypothetical here.


The main problem with the way the Stacking rules is how it is worded. RAW, it says specific exceptions will denote if they stack, and then says that stacking only applies to checks and rolls (which, BTW, Caster Level and Monk Level are not, so RAW Practiced Spellcaster and the Candle should never stack unless Dispel Magic is involved). If we, by default, regulate the CL increases to the "exceptions" pile, why can't we also categorize the Monk increases as an exception to the stacking rules as well.


Just so we're clear on this, I know you as a DM allow the effects to stack (most do). I'm just debating this because I disagree about the RAI regarding the stacking.

Paulus
2009-09-21, 04:20 PM
Honestly I don't see how they couldn't. One is a Feat, the other is an item. The Feat is done by your own personal skill, which comparably as a state of reference for stable level increases, correlates to monk level. Simply for giving you an accurate number of increase, the same is applied for the monk, merely a frame of reference as opposed to a set standard of bonus or increase in numeric potency. Or that is to say, one increases your level this much, having the other does nothing to bring that DOWN to bring it UP. The feat gives you a number or says the equivalent of a monk four levels higher upon which you can check the chart. The item gives you a frame of reference and armor abilities of a monk, five levels higher. Higher than what? Well your current monk level. Which is assumed to be nothing if not a monk OR assumed to be a monk.

Since we are not monks it should be assumed as nothing, however, since we have an equivalency range from the feat that makes us mimic a monk, of four levels higher, it merely ADDS to that base assumption of four levels higher to a total of five levels higher than before- equaling ultimately a equivalent monk level that is nine levels higher. MERELY by frame of reference as opposed to any tangible benefit of superimposed monk-dom. So while we may not be monks, the feat states a general state of self improvement in unarmed damage LIKE a monk, and the belt, being an item, SOLELY adds of our preexisting condition of monk or non-monkness. We being influenced by a feat are rather that NEAR-MONKNESS, and therefore next to monkness as opposed to NON-monkness. Therefore, in conclusion, our NEAR monkness qualifies us for benefits of MONKNESS. BUT. only when it related to our unarmed strike damage. as the feat does NOT give us an AC influence, for we have not trained it, therefore it magically grants us that ACness of a monk four levels higher for our assumed and justified monk level of zero while improving our already substantial unarmed near monkness level for which we have trained of four to nine.

At least. That is my argument. Wording, language, I'm none the wiser. But as far as feats and items go for THIS specific and ONLY THIS particular item. This would be my ruling or idea of it all. and I would lovingly like to remind everyone that comparative ruling such as "Well you allowed this, why is this no different." is what really ruins it for situational based argumentative logic and interpretation. The specifics of a case by case basis are far better to equivocate a just and reasonable end, while not relying solely on "but X allowed Y so it should allow Z" because that argument does not judge the singularity fairly, but instead relies on judging a whole. And as we all know, it only takes one bad apple to sour the whole bunch.

But, that's just my opinion. So who can say?

woodenbandman
2009-09-21, 04:27 PM
Regardless, they both apply to your base level so while the word "stack" isn't the reason they don't stack in the traditional D&D sense, in the English meaning of the word it's still accurate. They are both worded in a fashion that they are applied to the same number and don't notice each others' existence. It's the same reason you can't stack Monkey Grip & Strongarm Bracers on a Medium creature to wield a Huge weapon with the same handedness as the Medium version.

Monkey Grip allows you to wield a weapon too large for a creature of your size category with diminished effort. I.E. a medium creature may wield a longsword belonging to a large creature with 1 hand, rather than two. This has no effect on the penalty to attack rolls you take for an oversized weapon.

Strongarm Bracers allows you to wield a weapon that a creature one size category larger than you could wield. You actually do count as one size larger for the purpose of wielding a weapon.

This seems like semantics, but it's not. This isn't an applicable comparison.

As for the question, I say yes they do, mainly because I want desperately to believe that WotC wouldn't put out a feat for something that an item does better, but that's probably wishful thinking.

Demons_eye
2009-09-21, 04:31 PM
Just so we're clear on this, I know you as a DM allow the effects to stack (most do). I'm just debating this because I disagree about the RAI regarding the stacking.

I agree with this but when I look at it in RAW? No they dont stack. If you needed a monk level check neither would help for that as they both add to diffrent things. Both add to unarmed strike but only to unarmed strike. Thats like saying your caster level is 5 higher for dispel checks.

Sorry for the spelling but I am at work and they dont have firefox.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-21, 04:34 PM
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).

As the abilities in question are not modifiers to a "given check or roll", but instead alter the way your abilities work, they do not stack.

The verbage used is almost identical to that used in Monkey Grip and Powerful Build ("...treated as if [X levels/sizes] higher."), and those effects do not stack. Why would these?

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 04:40 PM
As the abilities in question are not modifiers to a "given check or roll", but instead alter the way your abilities work, they do not stack.

The verbage used is almost identical to that used in Monkey Grip and Powerful Build ("...treated as if [X levels/sizes] higher."), and those effects do not stack. Why would these?

Then why does a Candle of Invocation stack with the Ioun Stone when there's no caster level check called for?

ericgrau
2009-09-21, 04:42 PM
Then why does a Candle of Invocation stack with the Ioun Stone when there's no caster level check called for?

(on monk's belt + superior unarmed strike)


These effects technically do not have a bonus, so they would not use the stacking rules. One effect will end up overshadowing the other.


This "monk unarmed strike damage level" you speak of is a figment of your imagination. There is no bonus. Are we just gonna go in circles from here? :smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2009-09-21, 04:44 PM
SuS and Monk's Belt are untyped bonuses from different sources
That's not really true. Bonuses are just numbers that add. These aren't bonuses at all; instead, they're specific limited boosts, limited relative to your actual Monk levels. Neither the word "bonus" nor a "+" sign appears in either the Monk's Belt or Superior Unarmed Strike description for their unarmed strike improvement.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-21, 04:45 PM
Then why does a Candle of Invocation stack with the Ioun Stone when there's no caster level check called for?

Because one of those is an explicit bonus ("+1 caster level"), while the other is a "treat as x higher" effect.

Godskook
2009-09-21, 04:53 PM
Wizard 10/Wild Mage 1. Practiced Spellcaster doesn't work with the penalty imposed by Wild Mage to result in a higher CL than you would normally have. You have to have another penalty in there somewhere to make it work right.

1.I don't understand your example...

2.That's not quite what I was saying. I was saying, show me a build of level X, that has a CL of Y and practiced spellcaster gives a bonus of +Z. Then, show me a way of X+1 having a CL < Y or a PS bonus of <+Z. As far as I know, there's no way of doing this, short of retraining class levels.

Eldariel
2009-09-21, 04:59 PM
Question then: If an effect called for a check or roll in which the modifier for the die roll is your effective Monk level, would they stack for that purpose? I'm being hypothetical here.

IMHO no, because neither is an actual bonus, but rather just an ability that changes what your level for X is treated as. If it were a bonus, I'd agree that they stack.


The main problem with the way the Stacking rules is how it is worded. RAW, it says specific exceptions will denote if they stack, and then says that stacking only applies to checks and rolls (which, BTW, Caster Level and Monk Level are not, so RAW Practiced Spellcaster and the Candle should never stack unless Dispel Magic is involved). If we, by default, regulate the CL increases to the "exceptions" pile, why can't we also categorize the Monk increases as an exception to the stacking rules as well.

If Monk actually got the increases, I'd agree with you, but my whole point is that the abilities don't grant you with actual level increases and as such, can't stack.


Just so we're clear on this, I know you as a DM allow the effects to stack (most do). I'm just debating this because I disagree about the RAI regarding the stacking.

Now I'm wondering; I'm discussing RAW here. I have no take on RAI as I'm not the designer nor a mindreader.

quick_comment
2009-09-21, 05:01 PM
I like applying ducktyping logic to DnD bonuses. Ducktyping means that the monk's belt and SUS are both bonuses.

Douglas
2009-09-21, 05:09 PM
Eh, "being treated as X levels higher" isn't a bonus in the sense the word is used in D&D. It doesn't grant you a bonus to your effective Monk-level. That's my whole point here.
Ok, so it doesn't technically grant a bonus. How is this relevant?

Nowhere in either the item or feat description is your actual Monk level referenced. Here, let me quote them for everyone:

The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher.

If you are a monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher.

Note the total lack in both cases of a statement that "higher" is in relation to your actual Monk level rather than what your Monk level would otherwise be treated as for the purpose in question.

A level 5 Monk has Superior Unarmed Strike. He deals unarmed damage as a level 9 Monk. He puts on a Monk's Belt. He now deals unarmed damage as a Monk "five levels higher". Five levels higher than before is as a level 14 Monk.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-21, 05:13 PM
Note the total lack in both cases of a statement that "higher" is in relation to your actual Monk level rather than what your Monk level would otherwise be treated as for the purpose in question.

A level 5 Monk has Superior Unarmed Strike. He deals unarmed damage as a level 9 Monk. He puts on a Monk's Belt. He now deals unarmed damage as a Monk "five levels higher". Five levels higher than before is as a level 14 Monk.

Nope. Powerful Build and Monkey Grip say the same thing, and they don't stack so why would these?

Douglas
2009-09-21, 05:17 PM
Nope. Powerful Build and Monkey Grip say the same thing, and they don't stack so why would these?
Incorrect.


You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are...

Fax Celestis
2009-09-21, 05:19 PM
Incorrect.

-_- The words aren't EXACTLY THE SAME but the way they're used IS.

Douglas
2009-09-21, 05:20 PM
One of them contains an explicit reference to your actual <relevant statistic>. The other does not. This is an important difference.

Godskook
2009-09-21, 05:24 PM
The verbage used is almost identical to that used in Monkey Grip and Powerful Build ("...treated as if [X levels/sizes] higher."), and those effects do not stack. Why would these?

Where does it say that those don't stack?

Fax Celestis
2009-09-21, 05:25 PM
One of them contains an explicit reference to your actual <relevant statistic>. The other does not. This is an important difference.

It doesn't NEED to. It says "as...four/five levels higher". A 10th level monk treated as four levels higher is treated as a 14th, but is still actually tenth.

Douglas
2009-09-21, 05:27 PM
It's inferred from the fact that both allow you to use weapons of a size category equal to your actual size plus 1 rather than one size larger than would otherwise be possible. Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike go the other way.

quick_comment
2009-09-21, 05:30 PM
It doesn't NEED to. It says "as...four/five levels higher". A 10th level monk treated as four levels higher is treated as a 14th, but is still actually tenth.

Four or five higher levels than what though? Your monk level or effective monk level? Are you going to argue that a monk/monk prc cannot actually loses unarmed damage from SUS, because instead of being treated as a monk 10/monk prc 10 for unarmed damage, he is now a monk 15 for unarmed damage?

Douglas
2009-09-21, 05:34 PM
It doesn't NEED to. It says "as...four/five levels higher". A 10th level monk treated as four levels higher is treated as a 14th, but is still actually tenth.
Yes, he is still actually tenth. Why does this matter? The Monk's Belt does not state "five levels higher than his actual level", it states "five levels higher". Period. Full stop. There is no reference to actual level whatsoever, in that sentence or any other. The relevant base for "higher" to be relative to is left to be inferred, and unless I am greatly mistaken the default for such things in English grammar is "whatever it would be without this but including everything else".

Godskook
2009-09-21, 05:34 PM
It's inferred from the fact that both allow you to use weapons of a size category equal to your actual size plus 1 rather than one size larger than would otherwise be possible. Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike go the other way.

Actually, they don't do the same thing.

Powerful build:

"A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty."

Monkey Grip:

"You can use melee weapons one size category
larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll."

Monkey grip references your original size, but powerful build does not. Powerful build makes no mention of it being based 'on your size' according to the SRD. Powerful build also explicitly says it stacks with abilities that make you larger. Sure, the RAW on the stacking clause is vague, but the RAI seems to be that powerful build was meant to stack with everything.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-21, 05:34 PM
Four or five higher levels than what though? Your monk level or effective monk level? Are you going to argue that a monk/monk prc cannot actually loses unarmed damage from SUS, because instead of being treated as a monk 10/monk prc 10 for unarmed damage, he is now a monk 15 for unarmed damage?

Nooo, because monk PrCs that advance unarmed strike damage explicitly state that they stack.


Monk Abilities

A Psionic Fist’s class levels stack with his monk levels for the purpose of determining his unarmed damage and bonuses to Armor Class and unarmored speed. His class levels do not apply to other monk abilities such as flurry of blows, slow fall, and so on.

The feat does not include "stacking" language: it uses "as higher" language. A monk 10/psifist 4 with SUS would be treated as a monk 14/psifist4 for determining damage.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-21, 06:12 PM
Yes, he is still actually tenth. Why does this matter? The Monk's Belt does not state "five levels higher than his actual level", it states "five levels higher". Period. Full stop. There is no reference to actual level whatsoever, in that sentence or any other. The relevant base for "higher" to be relative to is left to be inferred, and unless I am greatly mistaken the default for such things in English grammar is "whatever it would be without this but including everything else".

Wait, I got it a Non-Monk can stack them, but a Monk can't be RAW. Because a non-Monk gets a actual bonus, but a Monk gets two as if bonuses.

Curmudgeon
2009-09-21, 06:35 PM
In every case in the rules where effective class level is meant, that exact term is used. The Druid's effective level is used to determine the type of animal companion they're allowed, and the Ranger's effective Druid level is used for their animal companion. The Paladin uses their effective Cleric level against undead. UMD's Emulate a Class Feature provides an effective class level to activate magic devices.

I have to believe that if they meant effective Monk level, that word would have been used. In its absence that cannot be the default assumption, and thus the actual Monk levels are what's being referenced.

Douglas
2009-09-21, 07:04 PM
Let's see:
Druid: The word "effective" is used only to reference it after it has already been established that the effective level is different from the actual level. No corresponding reference is present in either the Monk's Belt or Superior Unarmed Strike, so this example is not relevant.

Ranger: A potentially valid example, but only one. Also note that the text containing "effective" is defining rather than modifying the effective level.

Paladin: The word "effective" is not present anywhere in the entire class description. The wording for Turn Undead is "as a cleric of three levels lower". If this example is relevant, it is for the opposite of what you are trying to argue.

I'm not seeing this overwhelming consistency you say is there.

Gralamin
2009-09-21, 07:29 PM
Logically speaking:

The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher
Does not raise either Monk levels, or "give" you Effective monk levels. For these purposes, you are treated as though you had a monk level of five higher. Since you are treated as such, you do not not have any sort of bonus to the monk level.

If you are a monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher.
This also does not raise your monk level, instead your unarmed damage is set to that of a monk four levels higher. However, your level does not change. So if you have both, you have your unarmed damage set to "Monk of four levels higher" and "Monk of Five levels higher". Since your monk level is unchanged, the second one overlaps the first, and you only have damage as if you were a monk of five levels higher.

Similarly, if an Ioun stone said "You were treated as though your caster level is one level higher" then it would not stack with other items to raise your Caster level. Instead, it explicitly states you have a bonus to your Caster Level, and thus follows normal bonus rules.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-21, 07:32 PM
Logically speaking:

Does not raise either Monk levels, or "give" you Effective monk levels. For these purposes, you are treated as though you had a monk level of five higher. Since you are treated as such, you do not not have any sort of bonus to the monk level.

This also does not raise your monk level, instead your unarmed damage is set to that of a monk four levels higher. However, your level does not change. So if you have both, you have your unarmed damage set to "Monk of four levels higher" and "Monk of Five levels higher". Since your monk level is unchanged, the second one overlaps the first, and you only have damage as if you were a monk of five levels higher.

Similarly, if an Ioun stone said "You were treated as though your caster level is one level higher" then it would not stack with other items to raise your Caster level. Instead, it explicitly states you have a bonus to your Caster Level, and thus follows normal bonus rules.

Exactly, but a 10th level non-monk with a Monk's Belt gets unarmed damage +5 levels higher and SuS says unarmed 1d8. So Monk chart says if 1d8 becomes 2d6. So you do 2d6.
Monks can't get this benefit.

olentu
2009-09-21, 07:38 PM
Exactly, but a 10th level non-monk with a Monk's Belt gets unarmed damage +5 levels higher and SuS says unarmed 1d8. So Monk chart says if 1d8 becomes 2d6. So you do 2d6.
Monks can't get this benefit.

Non-monks get unarmed damage of a 5th level monk not as a monk 5 levels higher then their 0 levels of monk.

Douglas
2009-09-21, 08:02 PM
Logically speaking:

Does not raise either Monk levels, or "give" you Effective monk levels. For these purposes, you are treated as though you had a monk level of five higher. Since you are treated as such, you do not not have any sort of bonus to the monk level.

This also does not raise your monk level, instead your unarmed damage is set to that of a monk four levels higher. However, your level does not change. So if you have both, you have your unarmed damage set to "Monk of four levels higher" and "Monk of Five levels higher". Since your monk level is unchanged, the second one overlaps the first, and you only have damage as if you were a monk of five levels higher.

Similarly, if an Ioun stone said "You were treated as though your caster level is one level higher" then it would not stack with other items to raise your Caster level. Instead, it explicitly states you have a bonus to your Caster Level, and thus follows normal bonus rules.
How many times am I going to have to repeat this? "Higher" by itself does not in any way automatically imply "higher than your actual level".

Tell me, where is the logical flaw in this:
1) I have 5 Monk levels.
2) I have Superior Unarmed Strike. My unarmed damage is treated as a Monk of 4 levels higher than would otherwise be the case, so Monk 9 unarmed damage.
3) I put on a Monk's Belt. My unarmed damage is treated as a Monk of 5 levels higher than would otherwise be the case. Without the Monk's belt, by unarmed damage is as a 9th level Monk. 5 levels higher than that is Monk 14. My unarmed damage is, therefore, that of a 14th level Monk.

If your quibble is with "than would otherwise be the case", provide a reason with reference for your dispute.

Every single poster in this entire thread that I have seen saying they do not stack has been assuming that "higher" means "higher than your actual level" without providing any solid basis for this assumption.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-21, 08:05 PM
Non-monks get unarmed damage of a 5th level monk not as a monk 5 levels higher then their 0 levels of monk.

Yes, but Non-Monks add SuS (unarmed 1d8) first then add the 5 levels of Monk. No Overlap. You aren't a monk even while wearing a Monk's belt.

Monks get +4 and +5. These can be considered an overlap.

Demons_eye
2009-09-21, 08:13 PM
Yes, but Non-Monks add SuS (unarmed 1d8) first then add the 5 levels of Monk. No Overlap. You aren't a monk even while wearing a Monk's belt.

Monks get +4 and +5. These can be considered an overlap.

Thats the problem.

Are you a monk?
Monk belt: Yes
SuS: Yes

Good you gain more unarmed damage.

Are you a monk?
Monk belt:No, So now you gain unarmed Damage of a 5th level monk
SuS:No, You gain damage according to level.

Gralamin
2009-09-21, 08:15 PM
How many times am I going to have to repeat this? "Higher" by itself does not in any way automatically imply "higher than your actual level".

Tell me, where is the logical flaw in this:
1) I have 5 Monk levels.
2) I have Superior Unarmed Strike. My unarmed damage is treated as a Monk of 4 levels higher than would otherwise be the case, so Monk 9 unarmed damage.
3) I put on a Monk's Belt. My unarmed damage is treated as a Monk of 5 levels higher than would otherwise be the case. Without the Monk's belt, by unarmed damage is as a 9th level Monk. 5 levels higher than that is Monk 14. My unarmed damage is, therefore, that of a 14th level Monk.

The problem is right here in #3. You have damage as a monk 9, but you don't effectively have more levels or anything. Even if you do 1d10 damage as a level 5 monk (as from the Superior Unarmed Strike), a Monk of 5 levels higher then level 5 does damage as a level 10 monk: 1d10. By adding the amounts together (5+4 = 9), you are effectively saying that you have a higher level of monk then you do for those effects. The abilities do not give a bonus to levels. It simply adjusts the chart by a given offset from your base value, and the offsets do not add.

If you want RAW related information:

Modifiers
A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty.
Your monk level is not a die roll (Caster level can be: See Dispelling Magic, Overcoming SR). So you cannot use any of the modifier rules.

This leaves us with no rules to adjudicate this case: There is no place in RAW that "X levels higher" is addressed. We are left with logic, or not being able to use it.

Douglas
2009-09-21, 08:26 PM
It simply adjusts the chart by a given offset from your base value, and the offsets do not add.
Why not? What reason can you give for "higher than would otherwise be the case" not being the correct interpretation?


This leaves us with no rules to adjudicate this case: There is no place in RAW that "X levels higher" is addressed. We are left with logic, or not being able to use it.
We are left with logic and the conventions of the English language. I have stated many times that "higher than would otherwise be the case" is the normal English default. I have yet to see anyone address this.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-21, 08:28 PM
Every single poster in this entire thread that I have seen saying they do not stack has been assuming that "higher" means "higher than your actual level" without providing any solid basis for this assumption.

And what else could it possibly mean?

Douglas
2009-09-21, 08:35 PM
And what else could it possibly mean?
Uh, didn't I just say that, multiple times? "Higher than would otherwise be the case."

Fax Celestis
2009-09-21, 09:02 PM
Uh, didn't I just say that, multiple times? "Higher than would otherwise be the case."

...those words. They fit together into a sentence, but I have no idea what it means different than what I stated above.

Gralamin
2009-09-21, 09:08 PM
Why not? What reason can you give for "higher than would otherwise be the case" not being the correct interpretation?

As far as I can tell, we are using the exact same interpretation, in very different ways. I default to the base case (IE: Monk level), you default to the current case (IE: Monk Level +4). I think That defaulting to the base case is more logically valid (In a Philosphical sense. I don't think I can write this arguement out in logical format and prove it :smallwink:), since as soon as you have the other modifier, the bit about "otherwise be the case" no longer applies. It, at the very least, seems a lot more intuitive to me.

DragoonWraith
2009-09-21, 09:13 PM
The FAQ writer is correct that they are not technically bonuses. He is not, however, correct that this matters. Both of them specify "higher" with no explicit base. The normal English default for such things is "higher than without this", which quite clearly results in stacking.
This is my feeling on the matter.

Douglas
2009-09-21, 09:52 PM
...those words. They fit together into a sentence, but I have no idea what it means different than what I stated above.
Take a Monk 5 with Superior Unarmed Strike and add a Monk's Belt.

"Higher than your actual Monk level": Your actual Monk level is 5. You have unarmed damage as a Monk 5 levels higher than that, so Monk 10 unarmed damage.
"Higher than would otherwise be the case": Without the Monk's Belt, you have the unarmed damage of a 9th level Monk. You now have unarmed damage as a Monk 5 levels higher than that, so Monk 14 unarmed damage.


As far as I can tell, we are using the exact same interpretation, in very different ways. I default to the base case (IE: Monk level), you default to the current case (IE: Monk Level +4). I think That defaulting to the base case is more logically valid (In a Philosphical sense. I don't think I can write this arguement out in logical format and prove it :smallwink:), since as soon as you have the other modifier, the bit about "otherwise be the case" no longer applies. It, at the very least, seems a lot more intuitive to me.
How does having another modifier negate a clause about what would otherwise be the case? All that's needed for such a clause to be valid and fully apply is that you can figure out what would happen without the single effect you're considering. Without a Monk's Belt, a Monk 5 with SUS has the unarmed damage of a Monk 9. That is a perfectly valid state for "what would otherwise be the case".

Gralamin
2009-09-21, 10:27 PM
How does having another modifier
Not a modifier :smalltongue:


negate a clause about what would otherwise be the case? All that's needed for such a clause to be valid and fully apply is that you can figure out what would happen without the single effect you're considering. Without a Monk's Belt, a Monk 5 with SUS has the unarmed damage of a Monk 9. That is a perfectly valid state for "what would otherwise be the case".

Well, my natural thinking process goes toward code, because I'm in CompSci. My inclination is to code it like this:

void Monk::setMonkDamage(int x)
if (Monk::MonkDamage < Monk::getMonkDamage(Level +x))
MonkDamage = getMonkDamage(Level + x);

Explaining it as, intuitively, they don't add. But I somehow doubt that won't be enough for you.

Yes, a Monk 5 with SUS has unarmed damage of a Monk of level 9. This does not mean they aren't a monk of level 5. A monk with a monks Belt has unarmed damage of a Monk of Level 10. This does not mean they aren't a monk of level 5. So, we have:
Case 1: Monk with SUS - Damage of Level 9
Case 2: Monk with Monk Belt- Damage of Level 10
We want to figure out what happens in Case 3:
Case 3: Monk with SUS and Monk Belt - Damage of Level ??
You argue: SUS increases the level by 4. Monk Belt increases it by 5. 4+5 = 9 -> 5+9 = 14.
I argue: SUS sets your damage to 9, Monk belt sets it to 10. 10 > 9.

The only key words we have to figure it out is "Treated as if a monk of 5 levels higher". Since the only thing that matters here is the Monk level (Not how much damage your unarmed strike does), I'd argue that mine is a more valid reading of the rules.

You argue that since the monk is treated as 5 levels higher, and 4 levels higher, the higher implies stacking, and thus they stack. Does that sound right?

If so, then what happens to the monk levels that the bonus is based off of? Where does it go? Mathematically: (Monk Level +5) + (Monk Level + 4) = 2 Monk Level + 9. As far as I can tell, mathematically, a "Monk Level" Variable is vanishing from your equation. Edit: This makes no sense. Too Sleepy / distracted.

Also, you are asking for a lot of "Prove me wrong", without even trying to "Prove us wrong", as far as I can see :smallwink:.

taltamir
2009-09-21, 11:02 PM
where can i find "Superior Unarmed Strike"?
from what you are saying, it sounds like a feat...
I think it really depends on what sort of ability it is. A feat that grants a bonus via non magical means should stack with magical increases. Just like if it was a feat to give skill focus, or improved crit range, or extra daily turning, etc etc...

Improved critical is a feat, it increases your crit range, it explicitly stacks with keen weapon enchantment. Why?
Because the feat denotes that you have taken the time to study and practice to do something better. no different than having gained it via leveling. While the enchantment is to make your sword sharper. This is why enchantments don't work with each other.

Now if it was a class ability to use your chi to magically sharpen your sword that is something else. This is why it matters if it is Su, Ex, etc..

Anyways, where is this feat from? A feat that gives you damage like a character 4 levels higher sounds broken as hell.. why not make a feat that gives all wizards +4 CL on their spells or fighters +4 BAB while you are at it?
Consider that "weapon focus: unarmed strike" only gives a +1 to attack, and that "improved critical: unarmed strike" just increases your crit from 20/x2 to 19-20/x2

if the DM already allowed such a feat and doesn't wanna retcon, just rule that monks belt gives someone that feat instead of a +5. That way a feat cannot stack with itself.

tyckspoon
2009-09-21, 11:12 PM
Superior Unarmed Strike is in Tome of Battle. Keen *doesn't* stack with Improved Critical as of edition 3.5. And you've got a really horrible analogy going on there- giving a caster +4 CL or a martial character +4 to hit (it's even bigger if you actually put it to BAB, since that will give them their next iterative attack early) is nowhere near the same thing as increasing a monk's level for purposes of Unarmed Strike damage. If you step a Monk into his next damage bracket, his average damage increases by 1 (the exception is when you change from 1dx to 2dx, when it increases by 2.) That makes SUS/wearing a Monk's Belt worth less, damage-wise, than taking Weapon Specialization.

taltamir
2009-09-21, 11:28 PM
Keen *doesn't* stack with Improved Critical as of edition 3.5.
Well that is a stupid change.


And you've got a really horrible analogy going on there- giving a caster +4 CL or a martial character +4 to hit (it's even bigger if you actually put it to BAB, since that will give them their next iterative attack early) is nowhere near the same thing as increasing a monk's level for purposes of Unarmed Strike damage. If you step a Monk into his next damage bracket, his average damage increases by 1 (the exception is when you change from 1dx to 2dx, when it increases by 2.) That makes SUS/wearing a Monk's Belt worth less, damage-wise, than taking Weapon Specialization.

You are correct. Not only did I go too far with my analogy, I also thought weapon specialization was a +1 to damage, not +2.

A monk starts off gaining +1 damage (on average) with this item. Ends up getting more. If mixed up with enlarge spell it can give even more...
Although. I wonder how it interacts with epic? getting an epic monk strike at level 12 seems a bit ridiculous.

tyckspoon
2009-09-21, 11:33 PM
I wonder how it interacts with epic? getting an epic monk strike at level 12 seems a bit ridiculous.

It.. doesn't. Epic Monk does not further advance Unarmed damage (Epic Monk is *really really lame.*)

taltamir
2009-09-21, 11:34 PM
It.. doesn't. Epic Monk does not further advance Unarmed damage (Epic Monk is *really really lame.*)

I feel sad for the monk than. Casters all become pun pun upon reaching epic.