Is the increased damage for Monk unarmed strikes a trap?

[Aquillion]

By 'trap', I mean that is, it's a functionally nearly-worthless ability that looks good on paper and therefore lures people into building around it without noticing that it barely does anything. If you're a new player looking at the Monk for the first time, that damage bonus looks awesome -- you can eventually roll bigger dice with your bare hands than people do with weapons!

The problem is that dice do less to increase your averages, which is what really matters. Here is how Monk unarmed strike compares to a typical (1d8) weapon with no enchantments and no other modifiers as they advance:

Level 1: -1
Level 4: +0
Level 8: +1
Level 12: +2.5
Level 16: +4
Level 20: +5.5

At level 20, it increases your average damage by an average of 5.5 (or 6.5 if you consider the absolute bonus rather than comparison to a 1d8 weapon.) Until level 20, it increases your average damage by 4 or 5 at most. If you compare it to Power Attack bonuses or Rogue sneak attack damage or anything along those lines, its damage is a joke -- it's worth less than a typical +5 weapon, since the weapon also adds to your accuracy.

I know a lot of people were aware of this, I just saw other discussions about unarmed strikes and realized that people were treating the bonuses as if they were a big deal. They're not; they're mostly flavor. Like Flurry of Blows, they usually don't even make up for what you're sacrificing by going unarmed.

(A Large Monk does a bit better -- averaging +9 damage for levels 16-19 and +13.5 at level 20 -- but it's still one of those things that isn't nearly as good as it looks on paper.)

[Snowbluff]

I'd say yes in that sense, but their are a lot of options increase its effective size (Battle Fist + Mighty Arms, Fang Ring, Might Wallop, etc). The abnormally large die synergize well with size increases.

[OldTrees1]

Level
Medium
Large
Huge
Gargantuan


1
1d6(3.5)
1d8(4.5)
2d6(7)
3d6(10.5)


4
1d8(4.5)
2d6(7)
3d6(10.5)
4d6(14)


8
1d10(5.5)
2d8(9)
3d8(13.5)
4d8(18)


12
2d6(7)
3d6(10.5)
4d6(14)
6d6(21)


16
2d8(9)
3d8(13.5)
4d8(18)
6d8(27)



+5.5
+9
+11
+15.5



Yeah, it does seem like a trap.

[ArqArturo]

It's not a trap, it's a poorly-written apology.

[Sith_Happens]

On its own, yeah, it's a trap. As a base to work off of, on the other hand, it's one of the best ways to roll absurdly large numbers of damage dice at things.

[Psyren]

Like Flurry of Blows, they usually don't even make up for what you're sacrificing by going unarmed.

And what about the myriad benefits to going unarmed? You can't be disarmed/greased, can't be sundered, your hands are free to grapple or steal or deflect arrows or cast spells, you can twf with only one weapon etc. And if you have any natural weapons, unarmed strike gives you significant economies of scale when it comes to enhancing them all.

Monk's unarmed damage die is intended to be icing, not cake.

[Snowbluff]

You can get disarmed, but you just get... disarmed.

Costs of enhancing multiple natural weapons in 3.5 can suck if you don't know what you are doing. PF's necklace is cheaper.

[Thetad]

Monk's unarmed damage die is intended to be icing, not cake.

That seems to be the inherent problem with the monk, doesn't it? The class is all icing and no cake.

[Sith_Happens]

That seems to be the inherent problem with the monk, doesn't it? The class is all icing and no cake.

But the icing is the best part of the cake.:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

That seems to be the inherent problem with the monk, doesn't it? The class is all icing and no cake.

It could certainly use a lot more cake - but there is some, particularly in Pathfinder.

[Vogonjeltz]

By 'trap', I mean that is, it's a functionally nearly-worthless ability that looks good on paper and therefore lures people into building around it without noticing that it barely does anything. If you're a new player looking at the Monk for the first time, that damage bonus looks awesome -- you can eventually roll bigger dice with your bare hands than people do with weapons!

The problem is that dice do less to increase your averages, which is what really matters. Here is how Monk unarmed strike compares to a typical (1d8) weapon with no enchantments and no other modifiers as they advance:

Level 1: -1
Level 4: +0
Level 8: +1
Level 12: +2.5
Level 16: +4
Level 20: +5.5

At level 20, it increases your average damage by an average of 5.5 (or 6.5 if you consider the absolute bonus rather than comparison to a 1d8 weapon.) Until level 20, it increases your average damage by 4 or 5 at most. If you compare it to Power Attack bonuses or Rogue sneak attack damage or anything along those lines, its damage is a joke -- it's worth less than a typical +5 weapon, since the weapon also adds to your accuracy.

I know a lot of people were aware of this, I just saw other discussions about unarmed strikes and realized that people were treating the bonuses as if they were a big deal. They're not; they're mostly flavor. Like Flurry of Blows, they usually don't even make up for what you're sacrificing by going unarmed.

(A Large Monk does a bit better -- averaging +9 damage for levels 16-19 and +13.5 at level 20 -- but it's still one of those things that isn't nearly as good as it looks on paper.)

Did it look way better on paper? I mean, it's more damage than any other weapon in the PHB, how much better should it be for something that's a freebie?

[Haluesen]

That seems to be the inherent problem with the monk, doesn't it? The class is all icing and no cake.

Yeah, but then shouldn't the answer be to make some cake for the monk, so that the icing is worthwhile? I can see why a lot of people would pick the monk's unarmed fighting, it's an appealing concept. It's cool, it's stylish, it naturally lends itself to awesome scenes and options in combat. Just statistically it isn't all there, because like you said there is no cake to the monk. It's kinda why I am glad that there are so many monk fixes and rewrites around here, the idea deserves some love. :smallsmile:

As for on topic...ehh, depends on the campaign. Generally yeah the monk unarmed damage is a trap, but I tend to run games where the damage is just fine, the issue is more improving the fists as one would improve weapons magically, and there are ways to do that still. Not the most optimal choice, but depending on the game you are in it isn't too bad as far as damage goes.

[emeraldstreak]

{Scrubbed}

[Fax Celestis]

The easiest means to make it less of a trap is to make melee special monk weapons (since the class already defines those) use unarmed strike damage. This means a monk can still easily benefit from weapon enhancements without shenanigans, can overcome metal-based DR, and still fills the "I don't really need weapons if it comes down to it" niche. If you do this, though, you should probably make it a direct override rather than based on size categories, since it means the monk gains the ability to do any of the fighter's typical Red Cloud of Death style attacks, particularly with the existence of the Unorthodox Flurry feat.

I specify melee weapons because I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't be too happy with 12d6 shuriken at their table.

[Snowbluff]

I specify melee weapons because I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't be too happy with 12d6 shuriken at their table.

Which is good, because those are already the strongest weapon in the game.

[emeraldstreak]

The easiest means to make it less of a trap is to make melee special monk weapons (since the class already defines those) use unarmed strike damage. This means a monk can still easily benefit from weapon enhancements without shenanigans, can overcome metal-based DR, and still fills the "I don't really need weapons if it comes down to it" niche. If you do this, though, you should probably make it a direct override rather than based on size categories, since it means the monk gains the ability to do any of the fighter's typical Red Cloud of Death style attacks, particularly with the existence of the Unorthodox Flurry feat.
.

The scorpion kama tries to be such a weapon.

There really isn't much to be said for the damage of unarmed strike; progress as fast as possible to 2d10 and stack as many size increases as possible.

Enchanting unarmed strike for +5 and other goodies is more troublesome compared to enchanting weapons, but it can be done too.

[Diachronos]

The only real downside of monk's unarmed strike vs <popular martial weapon> is that it's a bit harder to get cost-effective enhancements to unarmed damage outside of Magic Fang. Other than that it's mostly better: immune to most negative effects that target weapons, can't be taken away, automatically bypasses some DR at certain levels, the weapon itself is free and never needs to be replaced...

Plus, let's be honest: the guy who kills a dragon with a kick to the face is more boss than the guy who did it with a sword.

[holywhippet]

It can make more difference if the monk has access to the wraithstrike spell. With it active just about all of their attacks are going to hit which means the extra attacks from their flurry will actually do damage.

[DarkSonic1337]

The biggest downside of unarmed strikes for me is...no 2 handed power attack.

[Rubik]

The biggest downside of unarmed strikes for me is...no 2 handed power attack.You can make a two-handed battlefist, according to Savage Species (p42), and it costs nothing extra so long as the weapon in question is masterwork.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15495757&postcount=6

And according to the MIC, you can add magic weapon qualities from one weapon onto another, so if you enhance a claw or slam attack with the scorpion kama's ability, then use Bestial Strike to add your claw or slam attack's damage to your unarmed strike's damage...

[DarkSonic1337]

Isn't a battlefist a light weapon? Even making it usable with two hands, you still wouldn't be able to get the doubled power attack bonus because of this line

"Special

If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls."

As far as the scorpion claw+beast strike thing. The net result of that would be (unarmed strike+claw/slam)x2 on all of your attacks right?

[bekeleven]

And according to the MIC, you can add magic weapon qualities from one weapon onto another, so if you enhance a claw or slam attack with the scorpion kama's ability, then use Bestial Strike to add your claw or slam attack's damage to your unarmed strike's damage...
What page can I find this?

[Extra Anchovies]

Plus, let's be honest: the guy who kills a dragon with a kick to the face is more boss than the guy who did it with a sword.

This is pretty much entirely why monks still often win the coolness contest vs other martial characters despite their inability to do anything other than not die. Into my signature you go!

[Sir Garanok]

Unarmed strike has benefits for specific circumstances.

Many have been discussed,i will add one more example when playing in rare/almost none magic setting where magic weapons are hard to find.

It is a trap to those who imagine brawling the dragon with one hand while squeezing the frost giant's balls with the other
and kicking the flanking beholder in the eye and all of them ending up dead in a full attack.

If you know what you are doing its great.

[Eldan]

Did it look way better on paper? I mean, it's more damage than any other weapon in the PHB, how much better should it be for something that's a freebie?

It certainly does. I remember when I had just started with 3.0. Our group had a monk, a sorcerer and a wizard and the monk was routinely the most useful player, especially in combat.

I started running the numbers on those dice. And I came to exactly that conclusion: the monk deals about 5 more damage than a 1d8 longsword at level 20.

Only, to an unexperienced player, that doesn't look bad. I had never played above level 5 by point. So, what was my basis for comparision? What was my conclusion?

"The monk basically gets a +5 weapon for free at high level! And it can't even be stolen or disarmed! That's damn overpowered, most fighters would probably never even find one!""

It made sense to someone who thought that Weapon Specialization's +2 damage was significant.

[Gemini476]

Just for reference, let's take that 1d8 sword, put it in the hands of a Fighter, and have him Power Attack down to the Monk's BAB.

Level 1: 5,5 damage
Level 5: 6,5 damage
Level 9: 7,5 damage
Level 13: 8,5 damage
Level 17: 9,5 damage

Or, compared to a Monk of equivalent level:

Level 1: +2
Level 4: +1
Level 5: +2
Level 8: +1
Level 9: +2
Level 12: +0,5
Level 13: +1,5
Level 16: -0,5
Level 17: +0,5
Level 20: -1,5

As can be seen, a Monk kind of needs Flurry for those extra attacks to keep up. He should still go for effective size increases and things that boost Effective Monk Level, though.

(Let's just be glad that the Fighter didn't take Weapon Specialization(Longsword). Or a Greatsword. Or EWP(Bastard Sword).)

[emeraldstreak]

It is a trap to those who imagine brawling the dragon with one hand while squeezing the frost giant's balls with the other
and kicking the flanking beholder in the eye and all of them ending up dead in a full attack.


umm...why would a monk with 100s of damage dice and wraithstrike fail to kill these three?

[emeraldstreak]

Just for reference, let's take that 1d8 sword, put it in the hands of a Fighter, and have him Power Attack down to the Monk's BAB.

Level 1: 5,5 damage
Level 5: 6,5 damage
Level 9: 7,5 damage
Level 13: 8,5 damage
Level 17: 9,5 damage

Or, compared to a Monk of equivalent level:

Level 1: +2
Level 4: +1
Level 5: +2
Level 8: +1
Level 9: +2
Level 12: +0,5
Level 13: +1,5
Level 16: -0,5
Level 17: +0,5
Level 20: -1,5

As can be seen, a Monk kind of needs Flurry for those extra attacks to keep up. He should still go for effective size increases and things that boost Effective Monk Level, though.

(Let's just be glad that the Fighter didn't take Weapon Specialization(Longsword). Or a Greatsword. Or EWP(Bastard Sword).)



the monk takes Imp natural attack, he's now +8,5 at 20, which is about double the damage and more attacks at the same effective BAB.

[emeraldstreak]

Only, to an unexperienced player, that doesn't look bad. I had never played above level 5 by point. So, what was my basis for comparision? What was my conclusion?

"The monk basically gets a +5 weapon for free at high level! And it can't even be stolen or disarmed! That's damn overpowered, most fighters would probably never even find one!""

.

Meanwhile, the experienced players recognized:

1) the 2d10 is the highest dmg die in the system and a sweet spot for optimization

2) casual players wont be able to recognize this, because it is an outlier to the typical martial optimization path in the system, and will forever be unable to play monk

[Gemini476]

umm...why would a monk with 100s of damage dice and wraithstrike fail to kill these three?

Because he only gets so many attacks and each deals a maximum of (IIRC) 12d8 (average 54) (plus various enhancements and miscellaneous modifiers)?
You're only getting maybe eight attacks for 96d8+Str+Misc total, and those three monsters weigh in at 93hp(beholder), 133hp(frost giant) and... well, since we're talking cold areas I guess a mature adult white dragon (CR 12, so close to the CR 9 giant and CR 13 beholder) might work? It clocks in at 241hp.

So you'll need to split up eight attacks of 54+misc damage total into three pools of 93, 133, and 241hp. The Beholder takes two hits, the Frost Giant two-three, leaving three-two for the dragon... which is 162+3*misc vs. 241hp. Let's say that you have enchantments that give +9d6 per hit (a +10 unarmed strike, I suppose) - that means it's 85,5+misc damage/hit, so the Beholder takes... let's say one hit, the frost giant takes two, and then three hits should be enough to kill the dragon. You'll need +7,5 damage in miscellanious modifiers, but that's doable.

Congratulations! You're a Monk 20 with a +10 collossal unarmed strike and managed to kill three CR <14 opponents solo in a single turn while they didn't do anything like, for instance, look at you with their central antimagic eye or fly in the air strafing dragonbreath or whatever.
Oh yeah, and you're also using GTWF+FoB+Wraithstrike.

[emeraldstreak]

As I said, 12d8 is the minimum. Many of the increases are not actual size increased, like INA, and stack above. And there's plenty more to the damage too. If you had read Rubik's and my links you'd know each of the monsters would be one-shotted.

[Sir Garanok]

umm...why would a monk with 100s of damage dice and wraithstrike fail to kill these three?

My point is not if a monk can deal damage.

My point is that many people use unarmed strike because it seems cool.(and it is cool)

You have many benefits from it but damage-wise its not the best option.

You should use it if you want those benefits.

[Pan151]

The biggest downside of unarmed strikes for me is...no 2 handed power attack.

Afaik there's nothing stopping you from also attacking with a two-handed weapon on top of your unarmed attacks...

[Rubik]

What page can I find this?Page 233. It talks about adding existing item properties to new items. You can remove special properties from one item and add it to another, with few to no restrictions.

[Fax Celestis]

Afaik there's nothing stopping you from also attacking with a two-handed weapon on top of your unarmed attacks...

Other than TWF penalties, sure.

[Rubik]

Other than TWF penalties, sure.Or just use a unarmed strike in lieu of a TWF attack (or vice versa), but the only reason for that is special qualities you may have placed on your unarmed strike that you need to toss in there, instead of direct damage. That, or you're fighting a rust monster or something.

[Fax Celestis]

Or just use a unarmed strike in lieu of a TWF attack (or vice versa), but the only reason for that is special qualities you may have placed on your unarmed strike that you need to toss in there, instead of direct damage. That, or you're fighting a rust monster or something.

Not everyone agrees with me that the TWF penalties only come from gaining extra attacks, even though I feel the verbiage on the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack are pretty clear.


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:

[Seerow]

The easiest means to make it less of a trap is to make melee special monk weapons (since the class already defines those) use unarmed strike damage. This means a monk can still easily benefit from weapon enhancements without shenanigans, can overcome metal-based DR, and still fills the "I don't really need weapons if it comes down to it" niche. If you do this, though, you should probably make it a direct override rather than based on size categories, since it means the monk gains the ability to do any of the fighter's typical Red Cloud of Death style attacks, particularly with the existence of the Unorthodox Flurry feat.

I specify melee weapons because I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't be too happy with 12d6 shuriken at their table.

I think Pathfinder's brawler did this, letting Close Monk weapons borrow their unarmed strike damage one step lower.

Personally I think it would be awesome to have a 12d6 shuriken. But I'm probably not in the majority on that. (And even if you let Shuriken get full Monk unarmed damage, that'd be pretty hard to attain without the +4 size increases from Greater Mighty Whallop. There is no Slashing or Piercing equivalent that I am aware of)

[Fax Celestis]

I think Pathfinder's brawler did this, letting Close Monk weapons borrow their unarmed strike damage one step lower.

Personally I think it would be awesome to have a 12d6 shuriken. But I'm probably not in the majority on that. (And even if you let Shuriken get full Monk unarmed damage, that'd be pretty hard to attain without the +4 size increases from Greater Mighty Whallop. There is no Slashing or Piercing equivalent that I am aware of)

Would adaptive shurikens +1 do it?

[Rubik]

Not everyone agrees with me that the TWF penalties only come from gaining extra attacks, even though I feel the verbiage on the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack are pretty clear.You only take penalties when you take extra attacks. People who argue otherwise don't have a RAW leg to stand on.

[Fax Celestis]

You only take penalties when you take extra attacks. People who argue otherwise don't have a RAW leg to stand on.

Agreed. Doesn't mean I've still had an argument over it multiple times.

[ericgrau]

It is always worse than level appropriate weapons & related optimization. It is really only for stunning fist and grappling, both of which are bonus feats at 1st level btw.

Shocktrooper heedless charge never counts because it is always better than other melee tactics for damage. It's just an author oversight.

D&D needs a karate focused class so that people who want to play a Final Fantasy brawler can shtap leaping headfirst into traps. There is not a PHB class for that. I imagine even an unarmed swordsage is using manuevers not punching for damage-only attacks all day.

[Flickerdart]

Did it look way better on paper? I mean, it's more damage than any other weapon in the PHB, how much better should it be for something that's a freebie?
It's not a freebie, it's a class feature.

[Rubik]

It's not a freebie, it's a class feature.You definitely pay for it. It's just worth far less than what you give up.

[bekeleven]

the monk takes Imp natural attack, he's now +8,5 at 20, which is about double the damage and more attacks at the same effective BAB.

The fighter holds his longsword in both hands, and is getting 1.5x strength on all of his hits, giving him +2 to +5 bonuses on all of these rolls as well as +1 at level 1, +2 at level 5, +3 at level 9, +4 at level 13 and +5 at level 17 from the power attack. They're about even again, with the fighter still ahead, with these two bonuses.

I've said this in other threads, but a monk with +3 strength at level 1 deals more with a quarterstaff than an unarmed strike. Assuming he gets his strength to +4 by level 4, it's 1D8+4 to 1D6+6, still higher until level 8, and even until level 12. Without power attack, which applies twice as hard to the staff. If the quarterstaff is magical or he increases his strength past 18 by level 12, it stays the best for longer, and avoids penalties to disarm, etc.

I'm always a fan of the quarterstaff as the only starting-proficiency two-handed monk weapon. If any is worth a feat above the quarterstaff it would be the monk's spade, and even those benefits are slight (D6 to D8, one side deals slashing and has a higher crit multiplier).


Page 233. It talks about adding existing item properties to new items. You can remove special properties from one item and add it to another, with few to no restrictions.

It doesn't say anything about removing special properties from an item, it doesn't say anything about adding unique weapon abilities (only explicit WSAs), or pricing unique weapon abilities. The only part where it discusses adding magical effects wholesale does so in the context of body slots, which weapons don't have.

So I guess that's one of the restrictions.

[Rubik]

It doesn't say anything about removing special properties from an item, it doesn't say anything about adding unique weapon abilities (only explicit WSAs), or pricing unique weapon abilities. The only part where it discusses adding magical effects wholesale does so in the context of body slots, which weapons don't have.

So I guess that's one of the restrictions.Necklace of natural attacks has a body slot: the throat. Just turn the necklace into a scorpion kama necklace that affects slam attacks, and everything's groovy.

[bekeleven]

Necklace of natural attacks has a body slot: the throat. Just turn the necklace into a scorpion kama necklace that affects slam attacks, and everything's groovy.

OK, just as soon as


A book says the price of the scorpion kama's US-duplication ability
A book allows you to apply specific weapon abilities to other items (I wonder why they're called "specific weapons"?)
You can explain why this unique item power should go into the throat slot, and at what price multiplier. And yes, it is a unique item power, and not a stock weapon property.

[emeraldstreak]

The fighter holds his longsword in both hands, and is getting 1.5x strength on all of his hits, giving him +2 to +5 bonuses on all of these rolls as well as +1 at level 1, +2 at level 5, +3 at level 9, +4 at level 13 and +5 at level 17 from the power attack. They're about even again, with the fighter still ahead, with these two bonuses.


Yup, against a single size increase for the monk.

The thing is, damage from power attack and Strength increases linearly. The next point of BAB that goes to power attack yields as much as any of the previous. The next +1 Str mod yields as much as the previous ones.

Size increases (and "as if size increases") increase damage exponentially. The next always gives more than the previous. There's only that long that power attack/Str mods can keep up before being outpaced.

[Rubik]

OK, just as soon as

1. A book says the price of the scorpion kama's US-duplication abilityScorpion kama minus +1 weapon equals 4,000 gp.


2. A book allows you to apply specific weapon abilities to other items (I wonder why they're called "specific weapons"?)MIC page 233. We went over this.


3. You can explain why this unique item power should go into the throat slot, and at what price multiplier. And yes, it is a unique item power, and not a stock weapon property.Necklace of natural attacks, an official item, is on the throat slot already.

Well, that was easy.

[Aquillion]

Yup, against a single size increase for the monk.

The thing is, damage from power attack and Strength increases linearly. The next point of BAB that goes to power attack yields as much as any of the previous. The next +1 Str mod yields as much as the previous ones.

Size increases (and "as if size increases") increase damage exponentially. The next always gives more than the previous. There's only that long that power attack/Str mods can keep up before being outpaced.If you're going to optimize for size for the Monk, then the Fighter gets to optimize his Power Attack, too; and Power Attack-boosting feats stack multiplicatively, so you're still going to lose. No number of size boosts are going to let you outdamage an Ubercharger.

I mean, I don't think it's fair to compare Str or BAB bonuses to size boosts. Obviously size boosts are better, but that's not really Monk-specific -- a reach-oriented Fighter is going to use size boosts better than a Monk anyway, in most situations. It's trickier to do a direct comparison because at that point the Fighter isn't optimizing for damage, but I think it's clear which is more useful.

[Vogonjeltz]

It certainly does. I remember when I had just started with 3.0. Our group had a monk, a sorcerer and a wizard and the monk was routinely the most useful player, especially in combat.

I started running the numbers on those dice. And I came to exactly that conclusion: the monk deals about 5 more damage than a 1d8 longsword at level 20.

Only, to an unexperienced player, that doesn't look bad. I had never played above level 5 by point. So, what was my basis for comparision? What was my conclusion?

"The monk basically gets a +5 weapon for free at high level! And it can't even be stolen or disarmed! That's damn overpowered, most fighters would probably never even find one!""

It made sense to someone who thought that Weapon Specialization's +2 damage was significant.

Ok, I can see how you'd consider the ability significant when your game experiences had the monk as being the most useful (in combat I gather?) player. It's not quite a +5 weapon though, that would also grant +5 to hit, which is actually more valuable to your average damage per round and increases your critical hit chance.

Weapon Specialization's +2 is significant, it provides a higher baseline damage for regular hits and crits. In effect of damage dealing it is like using a weapon 2 damage categories ahead: 1d4 = 1d8, 1d6 = 1d10, 1d8 = 1d12, 2d4 = 2d6, 1d10 = not on the chart. The ability isn't beloved, but its actual effect on damage outcomes.


It's not a freebie, it's a class feature.

I meant you get it for free with the monk class, not that there's no opportunity cost between class choices (not that that doesn't cut both ways). Of course, technically there's no cost at all for taking a class level (unless there's a level cap I was not made previously aware of).

[bekeleven]

Scorpion kama minus +1 weapon equals 4,000 gp.Really? Because I was statting the value at a +1 bonus, with an item cost reduction for being locked to an exotic weapon.

Or as a 2000 GP bonus with a double-price slotless modifier.

Turns out there's no RAW way to reconcile the literally infinite ways to get a price out of the scorpion kama, because it is (a) a magic item, (b) slotless and (c) a weapon, all of which have permutations of their pricing structures.


MIC page 233. We went over this.

Necklace of natural attacks, an official item, is on the throat slot already.That text only allows you to combine the prices of whole items in the same slot, not frankenstein an item in one area and take bits and pieces of it to items in other areas. Even if you knew the price of the ability, which you don't.

Necklace of Natural Weapons allows you to pay the price of a weapon special quality to apply it to a natural weapon. Unfortunately, if you managed to clear every other issue I've mentioned, the scorpion kama's magical power is not a weapon special quality.


Yup, against a single size increase for the monk.

Yes, against putting his left hand on the handle for the fighter. Are you saying that's a larger investment? :smallconfused:

[emeraldstreak]

If you're going to optimize for size for the Monk, then the Fighter gets to optimize his Power Attack, too; and Power Attack-boosting feats stack multiplicatively, so you're still going to lose. No number of size boosts are going to let you outdamage an Ubercharger.

I mean, I don't think it's fair to compare Str or BAB bonuses to size boosts. Obviously size boosts are better, but that's not really Monk-specific -- a reach-oriented Fighter is going to use size boosts better than a Monk anyway, in most situations. It's trickier to do a direct comparison because at that point the Fighter isn't optimizing for damage, but I think it's clear which is more useful.

1. Ubercharger? Please provide a link or post a build. I provided a link for 256d8 worth of size increases; Rubik also provided a link; the fighter side has provided nothing so far

2. The fighter cannot use size increases as well because he starts at 2d6 at best

3. The monk does a respectable reach build as well

[Rubik]

Really? Because I was statting the value at a +1 bonus, with an item cost reduction for being locked to an exotic weapon.

Or as a 2000 GP bonus with a double-price slotless modifier.Weapon special qualities don't work like that. Every single case in all of 3.0 and 3.5, for every single weapon, it's either a +1/+2/+3/etc modifier, or it's a +X gp modifier. Every. Single. One. And since the +1 scorpion kama in the weapon entry isn't priced as a +2 weapon, and there's no notation anywhere stating that it's priced strangely, it must be a +1 weapon with a +4,000 gp weapon ability attached.


Turns out there's no RAW way to reconcile the literally infinite ways to get a price out of the scorpion kama,Infinite does not equal one, and it never has. There's one way to price it, and one way only. That's a +1 kama with a +4,000 gp special weapon quality.


because it is (a) a magic item, (b) slotless and (c) a weapon, all of which have permutations of their pricing structures.It's a magic weapon. It's not even remotely difficult.


That text only allows you to combine the prices of whole items in the same slot, not frankenstein an item in one area and take bits and pieces of it to items in other areas. Even if you knew the price of the ability, which you don't.It does give the rules (along with those in the DMG) for adding weapon special abilities to other weapon special abilities. The only question is how much it costs, which is ridiculously simple to figure out.


Necklace of Natural Weapons allows you to pay the price of a weapon special quality to apply it to a natural weapon. Unfortunately, if you managed to clear every other issue I've mentioned, the scorpion kama's magical power is not a weapon special quality.Except it's a special quality of a magic weapon. So yes. Yes, it is. It's right there in the item entry.

[emeraldstreak]

Yes, against putting his left hand on the handle for the fighter. Are you saying that's a larger investment? :smallconfused:

Losing your shield is.

[Aquillion]

1. Ubercharger? Please provide a link or post a build. I provided a link for 256d8 worth of size increases; Rubik also provided a link; the fighter side has provided nothing so far

2. The fighter cannot use size increases as well because he starts at 2d6 at best

3. The monk does a respectable reach build as wellThere are countless Ubercharger builds (you can Google for a few of them), but one example is here (http://web.archive.org/web/20070804111542/http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=401662).

That's not the best one. The mounted versions require exponential notation to express their damage.

More explanation here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-324044.html).

Obviously that build is fairly extreme, but there's gradients that are all usable. The basics are a one-level dip in Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian (for Pounce), plus Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper.

(Also, rereading Greater Mighty Wallop, I'm not sure it works with Monk damage the way you want it to. It explicitly says "Once the weapon has been adjusted to an effective size of Medium, or if it was already a Medium or larger weapon, refer to Table 2-2: Increasing Damage by Weapon Size." In other words, once you start making your weapons bigger with that spell, you're not allowed to use Monk Unarmed Damage anymore -- you do as much damage with it as anyone else, because it overrides your Monk unarmed dice with the defaults.)


Losing your shield is.Shields are not really very valuable; the AC bonus just isn't going to help you much, especially not when the Ubercharger is tanking their AC to fuel Power Attack via Shock Trooper anyway.

[bekeleven]

Weapon special qualities don't work like that. Every single case in all of 3.0 and 3.5, for every single weapon, it's either a +1/+2/+3/etc modifier, or it's a +X gp modifier. Every. Single. One.I agree. That is true for weapon special qualities. It is not, however, necessarily true for the ability to (Ex) reroll any die or cast Wish (Luck Blade), deal two negative levels per hit (Life Drinker), become intelligent if you take a feat (Axe of Ancestral Virtue), gain temp HP when dropping people that scales based on other magical items (Death Spike), or the ability to gain immunity to selected spells and 1/day punch people down (The Fist).

Similarly, a +5 competence bonus on spot checks, casting of Eagle's Splendor, and sprouting literal wings while wild shaped are not Armor Properties despite the fact that Hawkfeather Armor exists. However, those might be easier to price given that they take up a body slot. Of course, in (nearly) your words: "It's magic armor. It's not even remotely difficult."

If you think that things called "Specific weapons" present magical powers with the exact same rules as the section with "Weapon Properties" before it in every book, then why are there two sections? Why not present everything as weapon properties? What, in your mind, were the designers intending when they made the immunity to heat metal and chill metal part of a specific weapon? Was it "Players can still use this whenever they want, we're just making them do more math" and a mustache twirl?

Not to mention the issue with pricing multiple such abilities (like The Fist's 1/day power and its spell immunity power) - how do you price those two out, since we can apparently chop these things up? Or how about something like the Explosive Sling, which is a +1 Sling with extra powers for 36,300? Are its extra powers worth 34000, or are they worth a +3 bonus for one power and a 4000 GP bonus for the second? How about the Forceful Skylance, which is worth either a +1 power or 6000 GP?

And since the +1 scorpion kama in the weapon entry isn't priced as a +2 weapon, and there's no notation anywhere stating that it's priced strangely, it must be a +1 weapon with a +4,000 gp weapon ability attached.
There's no notation that the scorpion Kama is priced as an anything weapon except for a scorpion kama weapon. That's because it's a specific weapon, and not a pile of priced weapon properties.

Body slot magical items do exactly what is listed in their descriptions, and nothing more. I mean, I guess boots of striding and springing give you bonuses vs. caltrops, but there are few-to-no relevant rules presented with just "wearing boots" vs "wearing an anklet." For that reason, you can glue an anklet of translocation to boots of striding and springing, or glue the boots to the anklet - You're using the entirety of both of their rules effects, and there are rules in place for that (see: MIC 233). If you glued weapons together the same way, you'd end up with starforged weapons (http://noobproguide.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/starforge-screenshots-from-steam-store-page.jpg) and I can't tell you how hard it would be to wield that in combat.

[emeraldstreak]

There are countless Ubercharger builds (you can Google for a few of them), but one example is here (http://web.archive.org/web/20070804111542/http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=401662).

That's not the best one. The mounted versions require exponential notation to express their damage.

More explanation here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-324044.html).

Obviously that build is fairly extreme, but there's gradients that are all usable. The basics are a one-level dip in Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian (for Pounce), plus Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper.


I'm aware of the ubercharger builds. I wanted you to link one to highlight two points:

- the proper way to have a discussion

- the fact that, as expected, you cannot post a fighter but a multiclass who of course features frenzied berserker, lion totem, and many buffs from Battle Jump to Girallion's Blessing that are just as usable by a damage die optimization build.

So, when I remove what's unusable for a fighter and what's usable for both a fighter and a 2d10 class, there's not enough left to sway my argument.

[Aquillion]

I'm aware of the ubercharger builds. I wanted you to link one to highlight two points:

- the proper way to have a discussion

- the fact that, as expected, you cannot post a fighter but a multiclass who of course features frenzied berserker, lion totem, and many buffs from Battle Jump to Girallion's Blessing that are just as usable by a damage die optimization build.

So, when I remove what's unusable for a fighter and what's usable for both a fighter and a 2d10 class, there's not enough left to sway my argument.My point in bringing up the Ubercharger is that once you start saying "well, the Monk's unarmed strikes can be useful, if you optimize them by relying on a dubious and unlikely hand-wave interpretation of an obscure buff from one particular supplement", you open the door to comparing the Monk's unarmed strikes to other, equally theoretical optimizations.

You were claiming "dice pool optimizations beat Power Attack", but you were comparing unoptimized power attack to your own interpretation of Greater Mighty Wallop. That's not a meaningful comparison. It doesn't say anything; obviously anything can be optimized.

[emeraldstreak]

My point in bringing up the Ubercharger is that once you start saying "well, the Monk's unarmed strikes can be useful, if you optimize them by relying on a dubious and unlikely hand-wave interpretation of an obscure buff from one particular supplement", you open the door to comparing the Monk's unarmed strikes to other, equally theoretical optimizations.

You were claiming "dice pool optimizations beat Power Attack", but you were comparing unoptimized power attack to your own interpretation of Greater Mighty Wallop. That's not a meaningful comparison. It doesn't say anything; obviously anything can be optimized.

Nonsense. It's not my interpretation, it's the commonly accepted interpretation of CharOp. Meanwhile, your own link admits to dubious interpretations in the ubercharger.

Moreover, Greater Mighty Wallop is only one of the many buffs to die size available, and it doesn't stack with things like racial size and augmented Expansion, making it dispensable if need be.

In fact, using custom magic items and Colossal+ size as the build you linked is exactly what 2d10 optimization needs to get to 5-digit DPR.

[Rubik]

I agree. That is true for weapon special qualities. It is not, however, necessarily true for the ability to (Ex) reroll any die or cast Wish (Luck Blade),Which is another weapon quality, since it's a magical quality of a magical weapon. So yes. Yes, it is.


deal two negative levels per hit (Life Drinker),Yep. Magical weapon quality.


become intelligent if you take a feat (Axe of Ancestral Virtue),If you add the magical weapon quality to your unarmed strike, yes.


gain temp HP when dropping people that scales based on other magical items (Death Spike),Yes, if you add the magical weapon quality to your unarmed strike.


or the ability to gain immunity to selected spells and 1/day punch people down (The Fist).Yep. Magical weapon quality.


Similarly, a +5 competence bonus on spot checks, casting of Eagle's Splendor, and sprouting literal wings while wild shaped are not Armor Properties despite the fact that Hawkfeather Armor exists. However, those might be easier to price given that they take up a body slot. Of course, in (nearly) your words: "It's magic armor. It's not even remotely difficult."Not a magical weapon property. That's armor.


If you think that things called "Specific weapons" present magical powers with the exact same rules as the section with "Weapon Properties" before it in every book, then why are there two sections? Why not present everything as weapon properties?Because weapon qualities are priced differently than non-weapon qualities. We're 14 years into 3rd Edition. You should know this by now.


What, in your mind, were the designers intending when they made the immunity to heat metal and chill metal part of a specific weapon? Was it "Players can still use this whenever they want, we're just making them do more math" and a mustache twirl?They intended for the weapon to be immune to Heat Metal and Chill Metal. That's quite probably the most obvious question you've asked so far, and it seems more than a little ridiculous of a question to ask.


Not to mention the issue with pricing multiple such abilities (like The Fist's 1/day power and its spell immunity power) - how do you price those two out, since we can apparently chop these things up?You'll have to take the price of the +X weapon off, then consider them a single weapon quality, since that's what it is.


Or how about something like the Explosive Sling, which is a +1 Sling with extra powers for 36,300? Are its extra powers worth 34000, or are they worth a +3 bonus for one power and a 4000 GP bonus for the second? How about the Forceful Skylance, which is worth either a +1 power or 6000 GP?Ask your DM.


There's no notation that the scorpion Kama is priced as an anything weapon except for a scorpion kama weapon. That's because it's a specific weapon, and not a pile of priced weapon properties.It's a +1 weapon with the scorpion magical weapon property. Like all such properties, it can be transferred to another weapon.


Body slot magical items do exactly what is listed in their descriptions, and nothing more.Except when they do more than they explicitly state. Any item that boosts your speed, for instance, grants a bonus on Jump checks, because it's implicit in the rules for the Jump skill. Horseshoes of the zephyr make you immune to the acid damage from standing "on" a pool of acid, and the damage from caltrops, and so on.


I mean, I guess boots of striding and springing give you bonuses vs. caltrops, but there are few-to-no relevant rules presented with just "wearing boots" vs "wearing an anklet." For that reason, you can glue an anklet of translocation to boots of striding and springing, or glue the boots to the anklet - You're using the entirety of both of their rules effects, and there are rules in place for that (see: MIC 233). If you glued weapons together the same way, you'd end up with starforged weapons (http://noobproguide.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/starforge-screenshots-from-steam-store-page.jpg) and I can't tell you how hard it would be to wield that in combat.You don't "glue" them together. You take the properties from one and add it to another. That's how magic item properties work. See the MIC for details.

[bekeleven]

Because weapon qualities are priced differently than non-weapon qualities. We're 14 years into 3rd Edition. You should know this by now.So the reason that "Scorpion" is not in the "Weapon Properties" section is because weapon qualities are priced differently than non-weapon qualities. I don't understand your reasoning here.


They intended for the weapon to be immune to Heat Metal and Chill Metal. That's quite probably the most obvious question you've asked so far, and it seems more than a little ridiculous of a question to ask.But your claim - which I disagree with - is that they also intended for arbitrary other weapons to be immune to heat metal and chill metal. So I'll ask again: Why is it under "specific weapons" and not under "weapon properties?"


You'll have to take the price of the +X weapon off, then consider them a single weapon quality, since that's what it is.Well, I'm glad that I at least know how this clearly-stated-in-book rule works.


Ask your DM.So... what you're saying is that there's a perfectly logical universal formula: subtracting the base weapon's +X price, and what remains is an extrapolated weapon special property (EWSP, the special was included because EWP is already a thing). Then when applied to things besides a scorpion kama, the formula starts failing.

Here's Similar issues: Can I add 2310 GP to any item and make it function as a battleaxe (Bladed Crossbow), or is that restricted to... just heavy crossbows? Just crossbows? Ranged weapons? Light weapons? Can I make a Ghost Net into a Ghost Spear, which deals damage - and can the EWSP entangle a foe or is that a property of the net, meaning a Ghost Spear would be unable? Does Ghost Net include the price of Ghost Touch, meaning it costs more to upgrade, or is it a flat cost to never miss ghosts?

Oh hey, since "any magical quality of a magical weapon" is a transferrable weapon property, that means I can bake weapon properties into my weapons using other means as well. A smart magewright can cast Hardening for 480 GP, so I'll throw that onto my next weapon. Actually, monk unarmed strikes are manufactured weapons, and a CL20 Greater Magic Fang can be permanencied for a total cost of 8650 (600+550+7500), that means all masterwork weapons can be permanently +5 for that price and it doesn't scale based on other weapon properties. What suckers we were, paying 2000 GP for only +1! /sarcasm

These are issues because you made the formula up to use the scorpion kama, and retrofitted it to other weapons claiming it to be a universal fact of the edition. Had you started with the forceful skylance and worked backwards, you could easily have ended up with a completely different formula for how to make EWSPs. In other words, the formula is not universal; at best, it is subjective. This is because the closest thing you can find to arbitrating rules are a rule stating that you can add properties to weapons, and a big book header labeled "weapon properties" that doesn't include any of the things we're discussing.

Since using it in its clearly intended way results in "ask your DM", the rule looks to me like homebrew. But if not, it's a dysfunctional rule and you can post it in that thread.


Except when they do more than they explicitly state. Any item that boosts your speed, for instance, grants a bonus on Jump checks, because it's implicit in the rules for the Jump skill. Horseshoes of the zephyr make you immune to the acid damage from standing "on" a pool of acid, and the damage from caltrops, and so on.My point is that boots of striding and springing don't cost "2000 GP + the price of masterwork boots" or whatever to make, because boots are an implicit game object. Weapons are explicit game objects, with rules on their encumbrance, use, maneuvering, and damage. If you disagree, point to a 3.5 source saying how much boots for halflings weigh, or any source saying what action it takes to put them on.

Because something like an anklet or the boots of striding and springing are essentially a magical effect on an ephemeral, non-rigorous frame, the MIC explains how you can put them together: The only things that matter about them are the magical effects, so you combine those. In the end it's conventional that your result look like the boots, since you generally place the cheaper effect on the more expensive item, but there's no rule stating that it must be so. You could make an amulet of striding and springing by RAW. The MIC doesn't define that part. Because the physical function of the objects was never rigorous to start.

I don't know why you're bringing up move speed increases and other magical properties doing things to disprove me stating that an amulet of striding and springing is the same as boots of striding and springing, but thanks for proving my point I guess? Yes, I agree, the magical abilities of magical items do things. But since you brought up horseshoes of the zephyr, once again the only game effects of horseshoes of the zephyr are its magical abilities, which are stated in its stat block. Same with the anklet, although boots have one exception in that one item somewhere explicitly mentions "wearing boots" giving immunity. Nowhere in the game, unless it's some obscure splat, are there any game effects listed for wearing normal horseshoes or anklets. So that you don't miss the point again, this is the exact opposite of magical weapons, which start as "weapons, except..." because weapons are a rigorously defined system.

If your argument against this is that move speed increases grant bonuses to jump checks, which disproves me because reasons, I'd get a new one. That's a consequence of the magic, not the chassis. If you wanted to fluff your anklet/boots combo as wearing boots with inlaid anklets, you could do that, because the chassis for those things has no rigorous definition. Not so for weapons. A scorpion kama is a kama, and it's a specific weapon. It's a move action to take out, a full-round action to lock into a gauntlet, and weighs 1 lb for a halfling. It's a package with both magical and physical properties.

To reiterate my conclusion: Nothing says that anything a weapon can possibly do counts as a Weapon Special Quality for the purposes of, for instance, amulet of natural attacks.

[Fax Celestis]

I swear there's a backwards extrapolation clause in the specific item rules somewhere, but I'm AFB.

[shaikujin]

If the contention is whether one can enchant the Scorpion Kama's WSA to another item, the alternate way would be to add Morphing(and preferably sizing) WSA to the Scorpion Kama.

Then morph it into a gauntlet. Or Battlefist. Or even a Lance.

Now make the same ubercharger with the same damage multipliers, except get the unarmed damage progression to 12d8, and apply that as the base damage of the Lance.

[Aquillion]

I swear there's a backwards extrapolation clause in the specific item rules somewhere, but I'm AFB.There obviously wouldn't be. Magic weapon prices in D&D are intended to scale (each new ability you add is more expensive than the last, because they tend to stack multiplicatively and because high-level weapons are intended to only be available to high-level characters, which requires that cost growth be exponential and not linear to match the way WBL grows.)

While there are a few oddball ways to improve weapons for a flat price, a generic way of doing so would break the game wide open, as the above cheat to get a +5 weapon for a fraction of the price shows. Obviously, regardless of what the RAW is, the RAI could never allow you to do something like "subtract the cost of the +1, use whatever is left as the flat cost to add whatever is left to any weapon", because that would be hilariously, obviously broken. Therefore, even if you find a collection of rules you can cobble together and then squint at to interpret that way, I can't believe you'd ever find a deliberate statement allowing it.

(I mean... granted, D&D has some ridiculous stuff in it. But a general-purpose rule that produces weapon enhancements with flat costs rather than assigning them a +X value is obviously gamebreaking; I don't think even most D&D writers could make that mistake.)

[Extra Anchovies]

(I mean... granted, D&D has some ridiculous stuff in it. But a general-purpose rule that produces weapon enhancements with flat costs rather than assigning them a +X value is obviously gamebreaking; I don't think even most D&D writers could make that mistake.)

Exactly. Nowhere in RAW is there a magic weapon enhancement that adds a flat GP value to the price. Only armor enhancements can do that. ETA: Nope, there are a few in MIC. I should really get around to reading that book in its entirety, but I can't be asked :smalltongue:

[Rubik]

Exactly. Nowhere in RAW is there a magic weapon enhancement that adds a flat GP value to the price. Only armor enhancements can do that.Huh. And here I thought everbright (+2,000 gp) and spellblade (+6,000 gp) were things.

My mistake.

[Snowbluff]

Exactly. Nowhere in RAW is there a magic weapon enhancement that adds a flat GP value to the price. Only armor enhancements can do that.

Well, you're empirically wrong.

MIC, page 38. Other examples exist, but this one is the easiest to reference, and it's not 3.0.

Additionally, weapon modifier costs are bad. They are not meant to scale well. Not to mention that the classes that rely on them are not well off. That's why we optimize them.

EDIT: Rubik, if you can put an ruling that cites the text, I'll happily support it. I'm not seeing it, but I want to believe! :smalltongue:

[Extra Anchovies]

Well, you're empirically wrong.

MIC, page 38. Other examples exist, but this one is the easiest to reference, and it's not 3.0.

Additionally, weapon modifier costs are bad. They are not meant to scale well. Not to mention that the classes that rely on them are not well off. That's why we optimize them.

EDIT: Rubik, if you can put an ruling that cites the text, I'll happily support it. I'm not seeing it, but I want to believe! :smalltongue:

It seems you are right. My apologies. I'll edit the post.

Regardless, they're not very common.

[Necroticplague]

All this talk about weapon enchantments brings up an interesting question to mind: why do armor and weapon +x enchantments scale in price exponentially, while providing benefits linearly? Actually, thanks to basic diminishing returns, each+x is actually worth LESS than the previous one (+1->+2 doubles the bonus to accuracy and damage the weapon gives, while +4->+5 only increases it by 25%), but the way its priced makes it actually cost far MORE. And even other weapon enchantments tend to be similarly linear. So, due to the pricing, it seems like the only weapons that should logically exist are +1 (useful property), where the Useful Property synergizes with your build well (Necrotic Focus for a Soul Eater, someone with something that activates using a certain weapon has an aptitude version of a better weapon, Marrowfeeding for someone who makes a lot of attacks, ect.), because all others have very low benefits:cost ratio. Simply +damage, like Flaming and similar aren't worth it.

[Rubik]

All this talk about weapon enchantments brings up an interesting question to mind: why do armor and weapon +x enchantments scale in price exponentially, while providing benefits linearly? Actually, thanks to basic diminishing returns, each+x is actually worth LESS than the previous one (+1->+2 doubles the bonus to accuracy and damage the weapon gives, while +4->+5 only increases it by 25%), but the way its priced makes it actually cost far MORE. And even other weapon enchantments tend to be similarly linear. So, due to the pricing, it seems like the only weapons that should logically exist are +1 (useful property), where the Useful Property synergizes with your build well (Necrotic Focus for a Soul Eater, someone with something that activates using a certain weapon has an aptitude version of a better weapon, Marrowfeeding for someone who makes a lot of attacks, ect.), because all others have very low benefits:cost ratio. Simply +damage, like Flaming and similar aren't worth it.This is what Greater Magic Weapon, the tooth of Leraje, and weapon crystals are for.

+2 to +5 enhancement bonuses and +1d6 energy damage effects just aren't worth what you pay for them.

[Necroticplague]

This is what Greater Magic Weapon, the tooth of Leraje, and weapon crystals are for.

+2 to +5 enhancement bonuses and +1d6 energy damage effects just aren't worth what you pay for them.

Even for better enchantments, it seems like a wierdness that cost is exponential. I mean, say, Marrowcrushing provides the same benefits whether you slap it on a +1 kukri or a +1 aptitude kukri. However, adding it to the latter would cost 48k (I think, AFB, but marrowcrushing is +3, right?), while it only costs 30k to slap on the former. So what is the actual value? Why does the cost of one con damage on a hit become more costly if it can also benefit from your Weapon Focus? It seems to run completely backwards to any law of utility (i.e., the more crap it already does, the less important it is that it does even more crap).

[Gemini476]

+X weapons are pretty weird, to be honest. For example, take a +1 longsword and compare it to a masterwork bastard sword. The only difference between them is that one of the bypasses DR/Magic and the other one has more random damage. Oh, and one takes EWP to use one-handed.

The cost difference, meanwhile, does not quite reflect that.

...Also, a +1 weapon is cheaper than a +2 Strength item. Despite mostly doing the same thing.

[Fax Celestis]

Even for better enchantments, it seems like a wierdness that cost is exponential. I mean, say, Marrowcrushing provides the same benefits whether you slap it on a +1 kukri or a +1 aptitude kukri. However, adding it to the latter would cost 48k (I think, AFB, but marrowcrushing is +3, right?), while it only costs 30k to slap on the former. So what is the actual value? Why does the cost of one con damage on a hit become more costly if it can also benefit from your Weapon Focus? It seems to run completely backwards to any law of utility (i.e., the more crap it already does, the less important it is that it does even more crap).

Would weapon enhancements as they stand now make more sense if they scaled with the weapon's natural enhancement bonus (ie: without greater magic weapon)? Like...


Flaming
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage per point of enhancement bonus on the weapon (1d6 for +1, 2d6 for +2, 3d6 for +3, 4d6 for +4, and 5d6 for +5). Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.

Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.

Flaming Burst
A flaming burst weapon explodes with flame upon striking a successful critical hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. In addition to the extra fire damage from the flaming ability (see above), a flaming burst weapon deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage per point of enhancement bonus on the weapon on a successful critical hit (1d10 for +1, 2d10 for +2, 3d10 for +3, 4d10 for +4, and 5d10 for +5). If the weapon’s critical multiplier is ×3, add an extra 2d10 points of fire damage for each point of enhancement bonus instead, and if the multiplier is ×4, add an extra 3d10 points of fire damage for each point of enhancement bonus instead. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.

Even if the flaming ability is not active, the weapon still deals its extra fire damage on a successful critical hit.

Strong evocation; CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball, weapon must already be enchanted with flaming; Price +1 bonus.

[Seerow]

Would weapon enhancements as they stand now make more sense if they scaled with the weapon's natural enhancement bonus (ie: without greater magic weapon)? Like...

Yes and no.

Yes, that is better. But even then, you're paying more to add more additive enhancements (ie adding Flaming to the +5 sword costs less than adding Shocking to the +5 Flaming Sword), such that you're stuck paying more for the same effect.

That said, I like the idea. It even managed to make the Burst properties sound good (a 15d10 flaming burst crit sounds pretty decent). There might be a problem though that most weapon properties don't really have a benefit that scales so easily as the elemental damage properties. I mean, what do you do with the Morphing property on a +5 weapon? Brilliant Energy?

[Fax Celestis]

Yes and no.

Yes, that is better. But even then, you're paying more to add more additive enhancements (ie adding Flaming to the +5 sword costs less than adding Shocking to the +5 Flaming Sword), such that you're stuck paying more for the same effect.

That said, I like the idea. It even managed to make the Burst properties sound good (a 15d10 flaming burst crit sounds pretty decent). There might be a problem though that most weapon properties don't really have a benefit that scales so easily as the elemental damage properties. I mean, what do you do with the Morphing property on a +5 weapon? Brilliant Energy?

Well, nonscalable ones would probably have to move to a fixed-cost value.

[Vortenger]

If you're going to optimize for size for the Monk, then the Fighter gets to optimize his Power Attack, too; and Power Attack-boosting feats stack multiplicatively, so you're still going to lose. No number of size boosts are going to let you outdamage an Ubercharger.

I mean, I don't think it's fair to compare Str or BAB bonuses to size boosts. Obviously size boosts are better, but that's not really Monk-specific -- a reach-oriented Fighter is going to use size boosts better than a Monk anyway, in most situations. It's trickier to do a direct comparison because at that point the Fighter isn't optimizing for damage, but I think it's clear which is more useful.

A monk specialized into ubercharging can be the best at both.

Using Soro_Lost's Matrix Monk (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11530.msg195532#msg195532) theory, we can have a monk that does 64d8 per punch (It can be done, though not quite as simply as he makes it seem), with a weapon equivalent of +30 or better (using an Amulet of Might Fists with a combined Amulet of Natural Attacks, Ward Cestus, Gauntlets, scorpion kama, and Permance-ied GMF CL 20. All with +5 equivalents and some with room to grow further.)

Assuming only a valorous weapon enchant on any of the above items, that means each hit on a charge does a minimum of 128d8 per swing (avg 576). That does not factor for the rest of the ubercharging arsenal, which just puts the monk further and further apart from his fighter counterpart, or the additional +20 in weapon enchants over and above what the fighter is capable of. If SorO's interpretation of Mantis Leap is correct, then pounce becomes superfluous as once you can make more than 20 attacks as part of a charge at 128d8 each, even frenzied berserkers will feel small in the fallopian tubes.

[Gemini476]

Using Soro_Lost's Matrix Monk (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11530.msg195532#msg195532) theory, we can have a monk that does 64d8 per punch (It can be done, though not quite as simply as he makes it seem)
I'd be very interested in knowing how, since size categories beyond Collossal don't exist unless you're talking about 3rd Party or the natural weapons of epic dragons.
12d8 is the largest you can get your base Unarmed Strike dice, in other words. You need to find a lot of damage enchantments to get near that +234 damage that the lost 52d8 did. (That's a bit less than 67d6 damage, by the way.)

Ubercharging is still a valid way to play a Monk, of course.

[Extra Anchovies]

I'd be very interested in knowing how, since size categories beyond Collossal don't exist unless you're talking about 3rd Party or the natural weapons of epic dragons.
12d8 is the largest you can get your base Unarmed Strike dice, in other words. You need to find a lot of damage enchantments to get near that +234 damage that the lost 52d8 did. (That's a bit less than 67d6 damage, by the way.)

Ubercharging is still a valid way to play a Monk, of course.

They don't actually get bigger than Colossal. I think it runs on either things that multiply unarmed strike damage, or things that increase effective size, like how Greater Mighty Wallop increases the effective size of the unarmed strike, but doesn't actually make you bigger.

[georgie_leech]

They don't actually get bigger than Colossal. I think it runs on either things that multiply unarmed strike damage, or things that increase effective size, like how Greater Mighty Wallop increases the effective size of the unarmed strike, but doesn't actually make you bigger.

The objection is that once you hit effective Colossal size, there's nothing bigger to enhance your unarmed strike damage too. A bit like how in video game RPG's, there's nothing you can do to increase damage once you hit the cap, even if you could put in one more point of strength that, at any other point, would have increased your damage by X.

In other words, although the pattern for increasing damage via size is easily deducible, it's not actually a RAW thing that you can extend it beyond the table. In short: Ask Your DM.

[emeraldstreak]

I'd be very interested in knowing how, since size categories beyond Collossal don't exist unless you're talking about 3rd Party or the natural weapons of epic dragons.
12d8 is the largest you can get your base Unarmed Strike dice, in other words. You need to find a lot of damage enchantments to get near that +234 damage that the lost 52d8 did. (That's a bit less than 67d6 damage, by the way.)

Ubercharging is still a valid way to play a Monk, of course.


About unarmed attacks size:

Obviously they begin at Colossal or Colossal + (which btw was used in the Ubercharger build linked by the pro-fighter crowd).

After that, you have to differentiate between RAW that says "increases size" from RAW that says "as if a size increase". The latter uses the math progression of size increases but it's not in itself a size increase. The most obvious example is Improved Natural Attack which increases the damage of the largest size of monsters further; it does the same for monks and there are other effects worded like that.

The most commonly accepted RAW is the one I linked, capping at 192d8 for Colossal and 256d8 for Colossal+. I've seen posters claiming over 1,000 d8 in epic games, but I cannot confirm their interpretations.

[Vortenger]

The above is correct. The difference is indeed as if increasing in size. A high level Greater Mighty Wallop sets the damage at colossal, then INA and Ectoplasmic Fists both grab a as if gaining a size category after. Since the chart for damage increases does not care about actual or virtual upgrades in size, the numbers continue to grow. Twice.

Edit: Colossal+ remains in 3.5. As mentioned above it seems only dragons inherited the rule, but the precedent exists. Since colossal is not the limit, and the dragons that possess Colossal+ sure got a damage upgrade along with their other size modifiers, the same should be applicable to anything else that qualifies.

[georgie_leech]

The above is correct. The difference is indeed as if increasing in size. A high level Greater Mighty Wallop sets the damage at colossal, then INA and Ectoplasmic Fists both grab a as if gaining a size category after. Since the chart for damage increases does not care about actual or virtual upgrades in size, the numbers continue to grow. Twice.

Edit: Colossal+ remains in 3.5. As mentioned above it seems only dragons inherited the rule, but the precedent exists. Since colossal is not the limit, and the dragons that possess Colossal+ sure got a damage upgrade along with their other size modifiers, the same should be applicable to anything else that qualifies.

Increasing the damage as if increasing size (but not actually increasing size or effective size) would indeed get around such a cap anyway. I withdraw any objection.