incarnum blade + monk language..

[animewatcha]

A full BAB class that everyone looks down on ( I can certainly see why ). This question is regarding the 'weapon improvement' class feature of the class and monk's language for unarmed strike ( namely whole body ). Incarnum blade has hardness improve by 5, 'hit points' by 5, and saving throw bonus by 1 per level of IB in the invested weapon.

If one were to have the monk unarmed strike language 'through whatever means', could the player invest the IB's class feature into that specificly languaged unarmed strike to manifest the following benefits?:

Hardness improved by up to 25 resulting in damage reduction/- and damage bonus of + 25 on each said unarmed strike.
Your max hitpoints improved by 25 ( aside from the d10 hitdie from the class ).
All three of your saving throws go up by 5.

If yes to above, would that make IB worth taking the full 5 levels of IB for a meleer?

[Snowbluff]

By that logic Magic Fang makes you a magic weapon, and therefore gives hardness.

[ThiagoMartell]

Incarnum Blade is actually not that bad. The defensive bonus are cool, but most optimizers tend to focus a lot on dealing damage/ending encounters and don't give much thought to defensive capabilities, specially on melee characters (for spellcasters you just have to cast a spell, after all).
If you get offense from somewhere else, IB helps cover some weakspots. It's no Hellreaver, but it's not bad in that regard.

[Psyren]

I like the idea, but the defensive numbers are altogether too weak to be worth anything. The one ability worth mentioning to me is granted by Waist, and you can mimic that with a spell or item.

If the blademeld chakras could be used normally, even in some limited capacity, the class would be much better. At the very least give it a soulmeld or two.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Incarnum Blade is actually not that bad. The defensive bonus are cool, but most optimizers tend to focus a lot on dealing damage/ending encounters and don't give much thought to defensive capabilities, specially on melee characters (for spellcasters you just have to cast a spell, after all).
If you get offense from somewhere else, IB helps cover some weakspots. It's no Hellreaver, but it's not bad in that regard.

No. The Incarnum class with defensive ability is Ironsoul Forgemaster. Energy Resistance (all of them), additional DR... yea. If you want defensive abilities, go IF. Incarnum Blade really is that bad. It doesn't give you any features you can't buy with cash.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No. The Incarnum class with defensive ability is Ironsoul Forgemaster. Energy Resistance (all of them), additional DR... yea. If you want defensive abilities, go IF. Incarnum Blade really is that bad. It doesn't give you any features you can't buy with cash.

This comment isn't directed at you personally, shneeky, you're just the most recent person to make a comment like this.

I'm getting kind of tired of seeing this comment, "you can buy the same benefits without sinking class levels into it."

This is 3E D&D. If you throw enough money at it, you can do anything any class can do. Every spell on the sorc/wiz list can be bought via scroll and cast via umd, you don't have to be a wizard; a fact that trumps most class features all by itself.

Can we please stop pretending that defensive class features are worthless because the same or similar defenses can be bought? If you get them via class feature you can spend that money on something else instead of on those defenses. This is, or damn well should be, a non-trivial fact.

Also, how is it that when we're talking offense item dependence is border-line unacceptable but it's the go-to answer for defense?

Both offensive and defensive capabilities can come from either wealth or class, and the game assumes you'll get both, so why do people pretend that the wealth solution is only acceptable for one and not the other?

Sorry for the mini-rant.

[Rejakor]

Because it's vastly cheaper and easier to set up a decent defense with magic items than it is to do so with offensive items.

And most classes that grant defensive boosts, other than the ones where people optimize it (stat to AC, stat to saves), grant defensive boosts much much worse than items.

[Big Fau]

Can we please stop pretending that defensive class features are worthless because the same or similar defenses can be bought? If you get them via class feature you can spend that money on something else instead of on those defenses. This is, or damn well should be, a non-trivial fact.

Hold up, when did Shneeky say defensively class features were worthless? He said:


The Incarnum class with defensive ability is Ironsoul Forgemaster. Energy Resistance (all of them), additional DR... yea. If you want defensive abilities, go IF.

Ironsoul Forgemaster is actually a good class, and has class features that focus on your defenses. Incarnum Blade is a terrible class with terrible class features that provide bonuses comparable to the +2/+2 feats.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Hold up, when did Shneeky say defensively class features were worthless? He said:



Ironsoul Forgemaster is actually a good class, and has class features that focus on your defenses. Incarnum Blade is a terrible class with terrible class features that provide bonuses comparable to the +2/+2 feats.

As I said in the preface of that little rant, I wasn't really addressing shneeky directly there. For that matter, I wasn't even talking about Incarnum Blade or ISFM, or even incarnum in general.

It's just a pattern that I've noticed and it bugs me. Come to think of it, it's not even limited to just offense V defense.

The soulknife is derided because its primary class feature (the mindblade) can be outdone by a purchased weapon. That doesn't change the fact that the 127000gp that a level 20 soulknife didn't spend on his mindblade could be put to use in some other capacity.

The monk's class features are generally replicable with magic items and the total cost of replacing all of them is assuredly non-trivial, but he still catches flak for it. (That's not his only problem but it's still one that gets frequently highlighted.)

It just rubs the wrong way when classes get derided for being item dependent in one breath and then derided for all their abilities being purchaseable in the next.

[animewatcha]

Enough with the rant, please. Take that elsewhere. Can I get a yes, no, maybe so on interpretation of above if you use a monk's unarmed strike language.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Enough with the rant, please. Take that elsewhere. Can I get a yes, no, maybe so on interpretation of above if you use a monk's unarmed strike language.

You might be able to slip it past some DM's but I'd say no.

If that interaction worked that way then the necklace of natural attacks and the kensai's signature weapon would both do much the same thing.

The problem lies in the assumption that a monk's whole body is a weapon. This isn't RAW it's a logical extension of RAW. "A monk can deliver an unarmed strike with any part of his body" isn't the same as "a monk's body is an unarmed strike and by extension a natural and manufactured weapon."

There's a logical argument to be made, but it'd have to stand on its own by logic, the RAW doesn't explicitly support or deny the interpretation, but "the rules don't deny it" isn't an argument that holds much water.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

This comment isn't directed at you personally, shneeky, you're just the most recent person to make a comment like this.

I'm getting kind of tired of seeing this comment, "you can buy the same benefits without sinking class levels into it."

This is 3E D&D. If you throw enough money at it, you can do anything any class can do. Every spell on the sorc/wiz list can be bought via scroll and cast via umd, you don't have to be a wizard; a fact that trumps most class features all by itself.

Can we please stop pretending that defensive class features are worthless because the same or similar defenses can be bought? If you get them via class feature you can spend that money on something else instead of on those defenses. This is, or damn well should be, a non-trivial fact.

Also, how is it that when we're talking offense item dependence is border-line unacceptable but it's the go-to answer for defense?

Both offensive and defensive capabilities can come from either wealth or class, and the game assumes you'll get both, so why do people pretend that the wealth solution is only acceptable for one and not the other?

Sorry for the mini-rant.

I wasn't referring to simply defensive, and we're not talking about a lot of cash either. Allow me to break down the Incarnum Blade, as I did in my Incarnum reference, and demonstrate the worthlessness of the class.

First off, Blademelds are kind of the worst of both worlds, in that they block other meldshaping, but are bound to your weapon, of which you have precisely one (even if you TWF or have a bunch of claws, you only have ONE Blademeld).

Just shaping a Blademeld nets you the ability to bypass DR/Magic. A Monk has picked this up LONG before he qualified for the class. Net sum zero. Worthless.

Crown chakra nets you an elimination of the attack bonus for being flanked, but you still get sneak attacked, which is the whole point in the first place. So it is removing a VERY situational +2 bonus from your enemy. Oh, and bonuses to avoid Disarm, Sunder, and Sense Motive to avoid being Feinted. Because those come up ALL the time.

Feet Chakra is the only point to this class, since it is a (static) bonus to Initiative. However, being an Insight bonus, it does have some stacking issues with things like Nerveskitter and a few other things. The other thing it lets you do is make AoO while flat footed. That might be handy for a Gatling Tripper, but not for most builds. But hey... it's a one-level dip for this, so if this is something you want, it's an easy snatch and grab.

Hand chakra gives you a static +1 to damage. Oh my... that's really going to turn the tide of combat. A single point of damage. Whoa...

Arms chakra just gives you a +4 to confirm crits. Yea, because that's ALWAYS a concern

Brow Chakra. Just get the Blind Feat already if this is what you want, because they don't stack.

Shoulder Chakra. Light Fortification, but ONLY for crits, not for sneak attacks. So a +1 Equivalent does BETTER. Pass.

Throat Chakra. If it works with Imperious Command, then it might be worth it for spammable lockdown. Unfortunately, 1) Lots of things are immune, and 2) the DC is pathetic.

Waist Chakra. Uncanny Dodge + a lot of bonuses that you'll almost never need.

Heart Chakra. Bonus hit points that can kill you if they go away. Pass.

Soul Chakra. An extra +1d6 HIGHLY situational damage output. Big deal.

So yea... not a whole lot here, and none of it defensive.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Crown, shoulder, waist, and heart are all purely defensive.

The heart chakra's extra HP are actually a decent boost for a tank. They go away when the soulmeld is unshaped, but that only happens if the weapon is sundered (not going to happen to an unarmed strike, period) if the soulmeld is suppressed or dispelled, or if the IB wills it so and takes an hour of meditation after resting to do so.

The bonus to crit confirmation is nice if you're a crit-fisher, especially since insight bonuses to critical confirmation aren't exactly common.

I'm not saying the class is fantastic. It's mediocre at best when compared to some of the alternatives, but at the same time it's virtually a free PrC. The prereq's are +5 Bab, an alignment that's not TN, and 2 ranks in concentration. It'd be decent filler if nothing else.

Like I said before though, my little aside there wasn't about this class in particular. Let's not derail this any further, eh?

[tyckspoon]

So yea... not a whole lot here, and none of it defensive.

You seem to have an unusual and strict definition of defensive. Having better AC when flanked, resisting combat maneuvers, extra HP, fortification against crits.. those are defensive properties. They're not any *good* and don't justify taking this class against other options, but they're defensive. (Also the Soul bind also aligns your strikes so they can break one variety of DR/Alignment, for what it's worth.)

[ThiagoMartell]

So yea... not a whole lot here, and none of it defensive.

Fortification, bonus hit points, uncanny dodge, miscellaneous bonus vs special attacks. I mean, you mentioned it in the same post. :smallconfused:
You're also using the same argument Kelb mentioned as bad to counter Kelb's proposition that it was bad. :smallconfused:
I understand you don't like the class, but I'm not seeing a lot of reason on your points here.

[Rejakor]

You only get one of those things. At a time.

And most of them are rather terrible. For example, taking levels in rogue offers more defensive options than that list (2 levels in rogue gives you evasion, 5 levels gives uncanny dodge and evasion, not to mention ACFs that make it even MORE defensive, like Shield of Blades) by far. So it's not so much, I think, that people saying classes with defensive bonuses are a bad idea cause magic items - but rather that defensive bonuses from classes, with a few rare exceptions, are generally rather terrible. Poor in execution and weak. And most of the ones that have decent defensive bonuses (hexblade, rogue) tend to be married to a class that is good only as a dip, or has significant offensive options as well.

Combine that with the fact that defensive magic items are more common and cheaper for their effect than offensive magic items, and it's clear why people give that advice.

[Medic!]

Going by the general precedent when it comes to enhancing either manufactured or natural weapons, you would have to choose which "unarmed strike" got the enhancements.

Therefore one fist would, theoretically, have the additional hardness, hp, etc. Handy if someone tried to sunder your fist for stealing, I suppose...dirty Chaotic Monks... :smallamused:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Fortification, bonus hit points, uncanny dodge, miscellaneous bonus vs special attacks. I mean, you mentioned it in the same post. :smallconfused:
You're also using the same argument Kelb mentioned as bad to counter Kelb's proposition that it was bad. :smallconfused:
I understand you don't like the class, but I'm not seeing a lot of reason on your points here.

Pardon, I should have said 'none of the worthwhile options are defensive'.

Worse-than-light-fortification is pathetic, and a +1 enhancement bonus is cheap if you really want it.

Uncanny Dodge is the only possible defensive option, and even that is fairly sub-par when compared to a boost in initiative.

Bonus hit points are a huge honkin' trap, and also not worth as much as initiative.

As has been mentioned, you get to pick ONE. Two if you hit the capstone, but that requires taking all five levels, which is bad.

One level dip for initiative boost is okay, but it's about the only thing this class is good for. If you want solid defensive options, go ISFM, not this piece of garbage.

As far as it working with monk unarmed attacks... yes and no.

Yes, you can shape and bind it to a monk unarmed attack, since they are treated as a weapon or a natural attack. However, no the monk does not get any of the bonuses, because the monk is not a weapon, it is wielding the unarmed attacks that are treated as weapons. The only time the extra bonuses would come into play would be if someone were trying to sunder or specifically target your unarmed attacks.

[Rejakor]

ISFM? Do you mean Initiate of the SevenFold Veil?

I can't actually think of a class that abbreviates to ISFM.

[Rubik]

ISFM? Do you mean Initiate of the SevenFold Veil?

I can't actually think of a class that abbreviates to ISFM.IronSoul Forge Master.

[mattie_p]

Enough with the rant, please. Take that elsewhere. Can I get a yes, no, maybe so on interpretation of above if you use a monk's unarmed strike language.

If this question were asked in the Simple RAW Q/A thread, I woud say No, you can't even blademeld unarmed strike, much less the other stuff.

Why?
Shape Blademeld (Su): At 1st level, you gain the ability to create a special soulmeld called a blademeld by wrapping incarnum into a melee weapon of your choice.

Melee weapon is defined in the 3.5 glossary as "A handheld weapon designed for close combat." You cannot hold your body in your hands. Is this splitting hairs? Certainly. I got knocked points off in a recent IC for using this exact interpretation.

That aside, a monk can almost certainly blademeld your unarmed strike (I'd allow it at my table), but the monk does not gain hardness, hp, etc. The only time I'd allow that to fly is one of those "anything goes, permissive rule readings, all the cheese" games that occasionally pop up.

[Rubik]

If this question were asked in the Simple RAW Q/A thread, I woud say No, you can't even blademeld unarmed strike, much less the other stuff.

Why?

Melee weapon is defined in the 3.5 glossary as "A handheld weapon designed for close combat." You cannot hold your body in your hands. Is this splitting hairs? Certainly. I got knocked points off in a recent IC for using this exact interpretation.

That aside, a monk can almost certainly blademeld your unarmed strike (I'd allow it at my table), but the monk does not gain hardness, hp, etc. The only time I'd allow that to fly is one of those "anything goes, permissive rule readings, all the cheese" games that occasionally pop up.Can you hold one hand with your other hand? I can. How about your foot? I can. How about your forehead? I can.

[mattie_p]

Can you hold one hand with your other hand? I can. How about your foot? I can. How about your forehead? I can.

So you can hold, say, your left foot or forehead with your right hand, and then smack someone with it? Amazing! This I have to see. Pics or it didn't happen.[/sarcasm]

By RAW, parts of the body are not melee weapons. Monks probably get around this due to the manufactured weapons clause. And I already said I'd allow UAS as a blademeld, but without the shenanigans of hardness and hp.

[Big Fau]

So you can hold, say, your left foot or forehead with your right hand, and then smack someone with it? Amazing! This I have to see. Pics or it didn't happen.[/sarcasm]

By RAW, parts of the body are not melee weapons. Monks probably get around this due to the manufactured weapons clause. And I already said I'd allow UAS as a blademeld, but without the shenanigans of hardness and hp.

And by RAW, Monks aren't proficient with their unarmed strike.

Seriously splitting hairs that far is absurd, even more-so when it's argued as intent. That said I don't support the idea of using Incarnum Blade on a Monk simply because I don't support using the Incarnum Blade at all.

[Psyren]

As far as the OP's question, it's ambiguous. Within two pages, the PHB both considers then does not consider unarmed strike to be a " "melee weapon." So it's up to your DM.



This is 3E D&D. If you throw enough money at it, you can do anything any class can do. Every spell on the sorc/wiz list can be bought via scroll and cast via umd, you don't have to be a wizard; a fact that trumps most class features all by itself.

I can see where you're coming from, but the problem is that duplicating the IB's abilities really doesn't take that much money. Turning a Fighter into a Wizard is very expensive, even moreso if you want to make him a good Wizard. But decking a Fighter out with all of the IB's benefits is a lot cheaper, because the numerical value of those benefits is so small. In addition, almost all the bonuses are typed (insight) so there are items and buffs they won't stack with.

The most I can say for the class is that it's better than going Fighter 20, since it has actual class features and makes your weapons tougher. If we're only comparing it to base Fighter that's fine. But once other PrCs enter the picture, or even other base classes, it falls very short.

[eggs]

On the OP's questions, I'm not aware of anything either specifically equating or denying a character's unarmed strike stats as the stats of the character itself, so it looks like legality comes down to a GM call, and those bonuses seem like a pretty serious stretch.

In a Monk's case, the ability is one that improves the Monk's unarmed strikes, so even if "melee weapon" is being treated as jargon rather than a colloquial term (something the rules themselves don't even do), there shouldn't be any debate that unarmed strikes are a valid subject (even if there is room for debate as to what that means).

Going to the combination itself, I'm all for making the most of a bad class, but I'm having a hard time seeing anything particularly useful coming out of it.

The best case I'm seeing is:
Goliath Ex-Monk 2/Trapkiller Wolf Totem Goliath Barbarian 3/Fist of the Forest 1/Incarnum Blade 5/Dungeoncrasher Fighter 4/Frostrager 5
Str>Con>Int/Dex/Wis>Cha
Feats: Great Fortitude, (1), Combat Reflexes (2), Power Attack (3), Improved Trip (4), Extra Rage (6), Intimidating Rage (9), Knockdown, Improved Bull Rush (12), Knockback, Frozen Berserker (15), Shock Trooper (18)

Offense:
With the default monk damage boosters (Necklace of Natural Attacks and Greater Magic Fang/Greater Mighty Wallop effects from somewhere or other - buy a staff to give to your friendly neighborhood casting buddy or whatever) and charge around for decent damage and some rider effects like trip and knockback+dungeoncrasher/domino rush.

The Throat bind fear effect would be useful for a while in the level 9-13ish range, combined with Never Outnumbered+Intimidating Rage, but would need to be shuffled out for one of the other bonuses before too long (the stagnant DC is a problem).

Defense:
When not Shock Troopering, AC is actually pretty good through Fist of the Forest and Frostrager, Ex-Monk 2 gives Invisible fist and nice saves, Incarnum blade has a pile of HP and with this guy's strength and the waist bind, monster attacks/grapples/counter-trips shouldn't be much of an issue.

Incarnum blade isn't carrying much weight outside the level range where the fear effect is relevant, but at least it has some abilitieis like the HP boost that could come up fairly often (as long as the player's not enough of an idiot to kill himself with that ability).

EDIT: If Ex-Monk 2 is too cheesy, Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/FotF 1... isn't much different.

[nyarlathotep]

Incarnum Blade is actually not that bad. The defensive bonus are cool, but most optimizers tend to focus a lot on dealing damage/ending encounters and don't give much thought to defensive capabilities, specially on melee characters (for spellcasters you just have to cast a spell, after all).
If you get offense from somewhere else, IB helps cover some weakspots. It's no Hellreaver, but it's not bad in that regard.

Yeah as said earlier the problem with incarnum blade is that ironsoul forgemaster was also printed in the same book and is better both offensively and defensively.