Monk Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike

[WhiteDrag0n]

Would Monk Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike stack?

Monk Belt DMG pg 248
"Wearer's AC and unarmed damage as a monk 5 levels higher"

Superior Unarmed Strike "Tome of Battle: Book of 9 swords" pg. 33
simply: if "monk, deal unarmed damage as a monk 4 levels higher"

Tank you!

[Rossebay]

Would Monk Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike stack?

Monk Belt DMG pg 248
"Wearer's AC and unarmed damage as a monk 5 levels higher"

Superior Unarmed Strike "Tome of Battle: Book of 9 swords" pg. 33
simply: if "monk, deal unarmed damage as a monk 4 levels higher"

Tank you!

I'd say no. Monk Belt says "Damage AS a monk 5 levels higher", not "adds 5 to your effective monk level to determine damage."

Since they both say "deal unarmed as a monk x levels higher", you should just use the larger of the two bonuses, per usual.

[faceroll]

They're untyped and different sources; they stack.


[edit]
Oh wait, they're not bonuses. Nvm.

[Douglas]

"as a monk X levels higher"

Higher than what?

My opinion is "higher than without this feat/item", which would make them stack. Many people here will argue that it should be "higher than your actual monk level", which would make them not stack.

RAW is ambiguous between these two positions. You'll have to ask your DM.

[WhiteDrag0n]

Thank you

Pulled my butt out of the fire on that one!

[Fouredged Sword]

You are not a monk, so you would use the Superior Unarmed Strike rules for non monks and ignore that line of the feat, it only applys to monks.

A monk belt would then modify the result, IE you would gain the defense bonus and such and would ether add 5 to your level becuse your DM likes you and takes a loose RAI reading of monks belt, or you would take the more advantagious unarmed strike damage granted by ether the monk belt or Superior Unarmed Strike seperatly (raw if you have stacking copies of a natural weapon you take the better of the two, not both).

[prufock]

Semi-official answer from customer service was "yes" (over on that other forum (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19560102/Superior_Unarmed_Strike_and_A_Monks_Belt)). However, FAQ answer was "no" (page 21). I think the consensus is FAQ trumps custserv.

EDIT: Link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) to the FAQ.

[drakir_nosslin]

Semi-official answer from customer service was "yes" (over on that other forum (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19560102/Superior_Unarmed_Strike_and_A_Monks_Belt). However, FAQ answer was "no" (page 21). I think the consensus is FAQ trumps custserv.

EDIT: Link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) to the FAQ.

I think that the consensus normally is to ignore both FAQ and custserv. None of those are reliable.

[Curmudgeon]

"as a monk X levels higher"

Higher than what?

My opinion is "higher than without this feat/item", which would make them stack. Many people here will argue that it should be "higher than your actual monk level", which would make them not stack.
The usual way of expressing "higher than without this feat/item" in D&D is "+X levels of existing class". The usual way of stating what happens without a feat is with a Normal: clause. (We don't have either of these.) And the usual way of resolving an unexpressed referent in English is with respect to the most recent applicable noun, which would be "Monk", and thus the values would be higher than your actual Monk levels. (You might want to check out Grammar and Inference in Conversation by Michael C. Ewing.)

So yes, there's some ambiguity there and you should ask your DM. But there's not much ambiguity.

[Big Fau]

Semi-official answer from customer service was "yes" (over on that other forum (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19560102/Superior_Unarmed_Strike_and_A_Monks_Belt)). However, FAQ answer was "no" (page 21). I think the consensus is FAQ trumps custserv.

EDIT: Link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) to the FAQ.

Both of those sources are famous for contradicting each other. Hell, CustServ was little more than "Ask some guy at WotC to ask someone else at WotC who actually DMs, and see what their opinion was on this matter".

The FAQ was about the same really.

[Rodimal]

I made the mistake of letting them stack for a half elf monk my wife was playing one time. She had both those, versatile unarmed strike and improved natural attack. While I'm the one that showed her the feats, it kinda broke the game real quick when she was doing the damage of a 20th level large monk at 12th level. It was fun (I was playing a an Elf Duskblade, Swordsage, Eternal Blade with a thing for Evocation spells in the same Co-DM campaign), but we didn't make it past level 15 cause we were one-shotting things that should have slaughtered us. And Gods forbid she did a flurry on anything (her dice loved her, she once one-shotted a Water weird in her own pool).


Out

[faceroll]

I made the mistake of letting them stack for a half elf monk my wife was playing one time. She had both those, versatile unarmed strike and improved natural attack. While I'm the one that showed her the feats, it kinda broke the game real quick when she was doing the damage of a 20th level large monk at 12th level. It was fun (I was playing a an Elf Duskblade, Swordsage, Eternal Blade with a thing for Evocation spells in the same Co-DM campaign), but we didn't make it past level 15 cause we were one-shotting things that should have slaughtered us. And Gods forbid she did a flurry on anything (her dice loved her, she once one-shotted a Water weird in her own pool).


Out

Yeah, lots of damage is cool. As a DM with players that do 50 to 200 damage a round (more if they remember how their abilities work), I find I have to max HD, add PC levels, optimize monster AC, throw 2x to 3x as many monsters at them per encounter, and stymie their ability to reach enemies to adequately challenge them.

[Karoht]

IF I was allowing Tome of Battle in the campaign, and IF my player went to the effort of getting one, I would probably allow them to stack. But that is purely DM choice. I agree that rules as written, if a DM ruled that they didn't stack and I was playing a Monk, I'd be cool with that, and probably take the feat anyway.
Items are nice, feats typically aren't removable in quite the same manner.

Monks tend to get the short end of the stick, I don't mind giving them this kind of boost. But it would also depend on the campaign. And if I'm allowing Tome of Battle for example, odds are there is more powerful stuff than a Monk with a really high damage punch running around.

[Godskook]

A small damage bump does not break the game, so I'd let them have it. After all, the PA-fighter(or warblade/barbarian) has an additional +20 on his damage rolls that the monk-type can *NEVER* get, since he can't ever benefit from 2-handed power attack, and that's before we factor in that anyone capable of getting 20th level monk damage doesn't have full BAB and is likely spending several feats and magical items to get there.

[JaronK]

CustServ is completely unofficial, but the FAQ is an official rules document. So, I'd go with what it says, unless it's directly contradicting some other official rules document which is as specific.

In this case, that would mean they don't stack... even though I think that's a silly ruling.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

CustServ is completely unofficial, but the FAQ is an official rules document.
We've had this discussion before, but for the uninitiated, the part that's official about the FAQ is the questions they selected to illustrate various rules issues. The FAQ answers are on the same level as Customer Service answers: they have no official rules status, per WotC's statements in their errata documents.

[Loki_42]

It's a monk, let them have it.

[FMArthur]

A small damage bump does not break the game, so I'd let them have it. After all, the PA-fighter(or warblade/barbarian) has an additional +20 on his damage rolls that the monk-type can *NEVER* get, since he can't ever benefit from 2-handed power attack, and that's before we factor in that anyone capable of getting 20th level monk damage doesn't have full BAB and is likely spending several feats and magical items to get there.

+20 to damage is a 20th level character Power Attacking with a one-handed weapon. Monks most certainly can do this.

+40 to damage is a 20th level character Power Attacking with a two-handed weapon. Monks can certainly do this as well; the feat is called Hammer Fist and lets you use both hands to make unarmed attacks and break your pinky fingers.

Battle Dancer is a full BAB class with the Monk's unarmed damage progression. In addition, anyone with Superior Unarmed Strike is dealing unarmed damage equivalent to a Small Monk's. Applying Improved Natural Attack or a size increase to it makes it equal and then surpass a Medium Monk's due to the size increase chart for INA not actually lining up with the difference between a Small and Medium Monk. It takes only a Fanged Ring and the Superior Unarmed Strike feat.

[Drachasor]

I made the mistake of letting them stack for a half elf monk my wife was playing one time. She had both those, versatile unarmed strike and improved natural attack. While I'm the one that showed her the feats, it kinda broke the game real quick when she was doing the damage of a 20th level large monk at 12th level. It was fun (I was playing a an Elf Duskblade, Swordsage, Eternal Blade with a thing for Evocation spells in the same Co-DM campaign), but we didn't make it past level 15 cause we were one-shotting things that should have slaughtered us. And Gods forbid she did a flurry on anything (her dice loved her, she once one-shotted a Water weird in her own pool).

Hmm, that's an average of 11 more damage per attack, right? 2d6 (avg 7) -> 2d10 -> 4d8 (avg 18)? Doesn't sound exactly game-breaking when all is said and done. I mean, that's essentially 3 feats and a magic item, so each one was just giving an average of 2.75 more damage per hit. Not exactly impressive given the investment.

Just reminds me of how depressing most combat feats actually are.



Yeah, lots of damage is cool. As a DM with players that do 50 to 200 damage a round (more if they remember how their abilities work), I find I have to max HD, add PC levels, optimize monster AC, throw 2x to 3x as many monsters at them per encounter, and stymie their ability to reach enemies to adequately challenge them.

Hmm, or you could borrow the minion rules from 4th.

Player: BAM BOOM KAPOW! 194 damage!

DM: He takes 1 point and dies.

I agree though, lots of damage is good even if you have to adjust the monsters a bit. Better than a bunch of save or die spells.

[JaronK]

We've had this discussion before, but for the uninitiated, the part that's official about the FAQ is the questions they selected to illustrate various rules issues. The FAQ answers are on the same level as Customer Service answers: they have no official rules status, per WotC's statements in their errata documents.

Yes, we know you believe that the FAQ, unlike EVERY OTHER PUBLISHED WOTC DOCUMENT is only half official (the part that does nothing) and half unofficial (the part with actual rulings) despite the complete lack of any reasonable evidence to back this concept up. What was your logic, it says it's frequently asked questions, therefor everything that's not questions is unofficial?

So I suppose you must think that every feat in Complete Arcane that doesn't require arcane casting is unofficial? Because that's where that logic leads. And hey, tons of stuff in Dragon Magic isn't official either... most of it is about dragons, or magic, but not all that much is actually both, and everything not in the title is unofficial.

But most folks would accept the fact that it's found under "Official D&D Game Rule FAQ" as evidence that it's an official rules document.

JaronK

[Curmudgeon]

The part that makes it not a rules source is what's relevant. Here's the official word from WotC on this matter, and then I'm done on this topic.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. The FAQ is not an official errata file, nor is it in any other way empowered to override official rules. The FAQ, Customer Service e-mails, and online "Rules of the Game" articles are all the personal opinions of people on the WotC payroll ─ nothing more.

[Drachasor]

Quite. A FAQ answer at best is right, at middling is a good house rule suggestion, and at worst just plain wrong and misguided.

[enderlord99]

The part that makes it not a rules source is what's relevant. Here's the official word from WotC on this matter, and then I'm done on this topic.
The FAQ is not an official errata file, nor is it in any other way empowered to override official rules. The FAQ, Customer Service e-mails, and online "Rules of the Game" articles are all the personal opinions of people on the WotC payroll ─ nothing more.

Thank you!:smallsigh:

[ericgrau]

Doesn't make em wrong either. And when one of the book authors writes it, I tend to consider it a rather strong opinion at minimum.

Anyway one grants 5 levels higher than your actual level for unarmed strikes and the other 4 levels higher than your actual level for unarmed strikes, leaving you at 5 levels higher than your actual level. Neither has any way to bump you up to 9 levels higher than your actual level since they don't work off of eachother nor is it some stat you can add up.

[Drachasor]

Doesn't make em wrong either. And when one of the book authors writes it, I tend to consider it a rather strong opinion at minimum.

Anyway one grants 5 levels higher than your actual level for unarmed strikes and the other 4 levels higher than your actual level for unarmed strikes, leaving you at 5 levels higher than your actual level. Neither has any way to bump you up to 9 levels higher than your actual level since they don't work off of eachother nor is it some stat you can add up.

It's not remotely unbalanced if you let them stack, for what it is worth.

Hmm, SRD monk's belt has "as a monk 5 levels higher" no "actual level" there.

[ericgrau]

It's the same meaning. It means 5 levels higher than your actual monk level. Not, say, 5 levels higher than the number of stories in the empire state building or as Joe the monk down the street but 5 levels higher. It's your monk level.

Ya, people are free to allow 9 levels from both and it might not make a difference depending on the level of optimization in the gaming group, but the DM should at least look it over first especially if his group is different. A warning, though, there are other similarly worded items where it gets very ridiculous very fast and you need to consider each such item case-by-case. For example clerics could auto-end any undead encounter in round 1 almost regardless of his roll with properly tuned turning that way.

[JaronK]

The part that makes it not a rules source is what's relevant. Here's the official word from WotC on this matter, and then I'm done on this topic.

And then you quote something that doesn't even mention the FAQ... totally irrelevant.


The FAQ is not an official errata file, nor is it in any other way empowered to override official rules. The FAQ, Customer Service e-mails, and online "Rules of the Game" articles are all the personal opinions of people on the WotC payroll ─ nothing more.

Please show where this has ever been said anywhere.

And don't forget, that particular out of context and irrelevant bit you just quoted was about primary vs secondary source rules... NOT about specific vs general. Since specific vs general always overrides even the primary source rules, and since the FAQ is always answering very specific questions, the FAQ is indeed able to provide rules. This is the same as how Complete Warrior can add new standard classes (specifically naming them) even though the PHB and DMG both say there's only 11 such classes (this is more general).

Once again, I actually have this quote to back me up:

"Official D&D Game Rule FAQ"

That makes it official. Now, let's see your official quote that actually mentions the FAQ in any way, or says that specific vs general doesn't apply for some reason. Try not to prove that all base classes outside the PHB don't exist in the process (if your logic would also show that, it's clearly false).

JaronK

[Drachasor]

It's the same meaning. It means 5 levels higher than your actual monk level. Not, say, 5 levels higher than the number of stories in the empire state building.

Ya, people are free to allow 9 levels from both and it might not make a difference depending on the level of optimization in the gaming group, but the DM should at least look it over first especially if his group is different.

It doesn't matter at ANY level of optimization. Improved Natural Weapon was doing the plurality of the work in the "problem" example someone posted.

And if it is the same as saying "5 levels higher than your actual monk level" a +5 bonus to hit is saying "5 higher than your actual to-hit bonus". It's the exact same sort of thing. Now one can argue there are no stacking rules for a bonus like this, and that's technically true, so it is up to the DM. That said, it won't throw any game out of whack to allow it.


Once again, I actually have this quote to back me up:

"Official D&D Game Rule FAQ"

That makes it official. Now, let's see your official quote that actually mentions the FAQ in any way, or says that specific vs general doesn't apply for some reason. Try not to prove that all base classes outside the PHB don't exist in the process (if your logic would also show that, it's clearly false).

That's as official as their official customer service hotline. Like it has been said, it doesn't fit into any of the confirmed sources of accurate information. Considering the FAQ has several examples of outright contradicting Errata, RAW, and RAI, one has to take it with a grain of salt. If they intended real changes, they'd be in the errata after all.

[ericgrau]

There's a difference to a +5 bonus to attack rolls and 5 higher than your BAB. The second is usually much lower than the first. One is a stackable number the other is a reference to a specific number and saying to go 5 higher than that. Granting 5 higher than 10 and granting 4 higher than 10 are 15 and 14, there's no way to get 19 out of that without injecting new meaning that isn't there.

[Drachasor]

There's a difference to a +5 bonus to attack rolls and 5 higher than your BAB. The second is usually much lower than the first. One is a stackable number the other is a reference to a specific number and saying to go 5 higher than that. Granting 5 higher than 10 and granting 4 higher than 10 are 15 and 14, there's no way to get 19 out of that.

Here's the precise wording:

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

That's not "five levels higher than your monk level", it just says "five levels higher."

You are right about my example, it would be different. I was wrong about what the text says though.

[MeeposFire]

I follow the FAQ as long as the reasoning given actually fits the rules and does not contradict anything. In this case the reason given is actually correct as they state it. While I could see why you would want to show it as a bonus it is never stated to be one and the rules don't officially handle it. Their explanation fits and does not contradict the rules though it does our desires.

[JaronK]

That's as official as their official customer service hotline.

Really? I wasn't aware CustServ was stated to be a source of official rules. Where is it stated that?

JaronK

[Drachasor]

Really? I wasn't aware CustServ was stated to be a source of official rules. Where is it stated that?

That's the point, the FAQ isn't either. It's an official collection of responses to questions, but that doesn't make the FAQ a collection of official rules. That's why their instructions for determining how to handle rule problems doesn't include the FAQ.