[Unchained Monk Guide] YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD

[Secret Wizard]

Linkz. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vtxGT6RArwUBqSMTco-ekm9azMXWGox9tTD6Wp3rYTE/edit?usp=sharing)

Enjoy, discuss.

[Florian]

Just writing down some thought while I read your guide.

Class Analysis:
I think you overdo/overrate the Barkskin Qinggong power. Nice spell to have, but not that important.

In regards to attack ratings, I think it is pretty much important to point out that this class potentially has the highest number of attacks based on its highest BAB (4, including the spent KI point). In addition, the old TWF-reduction doesn´t happen anymore.

Race Selection:
You can actually achieve Dex2DMG with an (Un)Monk. Now there´s a funny thing with the "small" races and the "Reduce Person" spell, as you can shrink to tiny for even more to-hit, higher AC and trading damage dice size for more solid static damage boni.

Missing: Tengu and advanced options, especially class dipping. Swordmaster is one of the only few ways right now to have more than one Style feat up (Trance class feature).

Features:
Again, overemphasis on Barkskin.

Feats:
Should notice that Hamatulatsu let´s you shift damage type of IUS from B to P and works well with Fencing Grace. The crit rider is a nice addition, too.

Hammer the Gap: Scaling damage bonus based on number of attacks.

Missing Nightmare Fist feat chain for Drow, Hobgoblin, Tieflings and Void-Kineticist dips.

Equipment:
Hands: Deliquescent Gloves. Corrosive enhancement on all attacks.

Missing: Sword Saint katana. Your end-game high crit flurry weapon. Especially on a Tengu.

Body: Hamatulatsu Robe is a good alternative to a Monk´s Robe and upgrades/works with the mentioned Hamatulatsu feat.

Considerations and Alternatives:
Overlap with Class Analysis section. Strengths/Limitations repeat and could be folded into one section.

Missing Kineticist (Elemental Fist) as alternative and good dipping option

Generally Missing:
Section on VMC, especially Fighter, Cleric, Druid, as hey can have a huge impact on the (Un)Monk. VMC Wizard (Air or Void Elementalist) meshes surprisingly well with the (Un)Monk and fills some holes in performance.

Class Dipping:
There are some rather good options once you have hit (Un)Monk 11 and Flurry ceases to gain bonus attacks.

Tengu - Rogue (Swordmaster) 3: Activate a second Style, disregard prereqs.
Fighter (Varisian Free-Style Fighter) 3: Martial Flexibility and having two Styles active.

Overall:
Nice writing, very nice selection of pics for the entire guide.
Personally, I do not like split documents as I like to use the search function/internal hyperlinks to navigate one document for ease of use.

[Talieth]

Race section : I don't think that tielfing have access to "scion of humanity".

[Ninjaxenomorph]

They do have access to a similar ability, Pass for Human, though.

[Psyren]

Gah, you beat me to it! I'll be reading this with interest.



Personally, I do not like split documents as I like to use the search function/internal hyperlinks to navigate one document for ease of use.

Very much agreed on this. Use one document and have internal links for hopping around.

[Secret Wizard]

I ADDED A FULL TEXT VERSION. CHECK IT OUT AS THE CONDENSED VERSION.

Hope that helps you guys!


Just writing down some thought while I read your guide.

Class Analysis:
I think you overdo/overrate the Barkskin Qinggong power. Nice spell to have, but not that important.

I could not disagree more and harder.

Barkskin is amazing. Costs 1 ki, lasts for ages... and frees up the slot that an Amulet of Natural Armor would take, allowing for an Amulet of Mighty Fists. It's the best investment for the slot.

If you have someone else casting it on you, good. Otherwise, it's great to have.


Race Selection:
You can actually achieve Dex2DMG with an (Un)Monk. Now there´s a funny thing with the "small" races and the "Reduce Person" spell, as you can shrink to tiny for even more to-hit, higher AC and trading damage dice size for more solid static damage boni.

Missing: Tengu and advanced options, especially class dipping. Swordmaster is one of the only few ways right now to have more than one Style feat up (Trance class feature).

1. DEX builds for the Unchained Monk suck. They are always 1 step behind. Reduction effects are terrible, because they drastically punish your unarmed damage dice, you are punishing your CMD massively, and, here's the worst part, you stop threatening. No flanking, no attacks of opportunity, no positional control.
There's also the fact that the best damage options out there are Dragon and Jabbing, and both require STR.
I have yet to see a build that makes it worth it.

2. Tengu's not there simply because I don't deal with dipping or multiclass in the guide yet. It took me ages to finish that section in the Brawler guide and I'm not sure if it's worth it - because the UnMonk grows progressively powerful with levels.


Features:
Again, overemphasis on Barkskin.

This just says to me I haven't emphasized it enough :P


Feats:
Should notice that Hamatulatsu let´s you shift damage type of IUS from B to P and works well with Fencing Grace. The crit rider is a nice addition, too.

Hammer the Gap: Scaling damage bonus based on number of attacks.

Missing Nightmare Fist feat chain for Drow, Hobgoblin, Tieflings and Void-Kineticist dips.

Not sure Hobbos can cast Darkness. But I added Hamatulatsu because extra damage types is good.

Fencing Grace only works with rapiers. Even if it worked with unarmed strikes, I still see no point of DEX builds.


Equipment:
Hands: Deliquescent Gloves. Corrosive enhancement on all attacks.

Missing: Sword Saint katana. Your end-game high crit flurry weapon. Especially on a Tengu.

Body: Hamatulatsu Robe is a good alternative to a Monk´s Robe and upgrades/works with the mentioned Hamatulatsu feat.

Considerations and Alternatives:
Overlap with Class Analysis section. Strengths/Limitations repeat and could be folded into one section.

Added Deliquescent. I meant to add the Katana, I'll put it in.


The STR/LIMITS is for people who read it and are excited but haven't been able to find what they were looking for.

[Florian]

@Secret Wizard:

Don´t get me wrong on the whole "Barkskin" thing. I consider it natural that there are roles and every class has to fulfill its intended role. That´s why I don´t consider it a major boon when a class manages to get a "buff" itself that other could do it for them. That is not akin to the whole "overcharging" some classes can do with their equipment (Magus, Paladin, Occultist), that´s why I´m not overly impressed with that option.

[Secret Wizard]

Well, it's an opportunity cost thing. It costs the Druid a level 2 spell to buff you. A level 2 spell that could be a utility spell to wreck enemies. You losing your 4th level ki power is not that game changing.

I'd make a note that it's less important if you can get buffed.

[Psyren]

1. DEX builds for the Unchained Monk suck. They are always 1 step behind. Reduction effects are terrible, because they drastically punish your unarmed damage dice, you are punishing your CMD massively, and, here's the worst part, you stop threatening. No flanking, no attacks of opportunity, no positional control.
There's also the fact that the best damage options out there are Dragon and Jabbing, and both require STR.
I have yet to see a build that makes it worth it.

I agree with you on size reduction not being worth it but I disagree on everything else. For starters, only Jabbing Master needs (13) Strength, and by the time that rolls around you should be able to get +4 added to your belt, or just skip that feat entirely. For two, you're forgetting several strong damage options for a Dex monk - the Monk of the Mantis archetype for sneak attack, or the Agile property on your weapon/amulet, even Dervish Dance if you get Scimitar as a monk weapon via Crusader's Flurry (which incidentally also gets you a juicy 15-20 crit range - perfect for flurry.) Dex-based monks can also afford more Wisdom, which means more ki, which means more uses of things like Cold Ice Strike (+15d6 extra damage as a swift action.)

Also, in the weapons section - don't forget uMonks are proficient with Blade of the Sword Saint (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/specific-magic-weapons/blade-of-the-sword-saint) from Ultimate Equipment, for another easy 15-20 crit range flurry weapon.

[Secret Wizard]

I have yet to see a DEX build with no cheese or false interpretations that could give a STR build a run for its money.

[Psyren]

I have yet to see a DEX build with no cheese or false interpretations that could give a STR build a run for its money.

A run for its money at what? Straight up DPR? Survivability? Scouting and infiltration? Solving mysteries? Solo, 2-man, or 5-man play?

That's the problem with blanket statements like "Dex builds suck." This game isn't that simple.

[Secret Wizard]

I think that something I broadly documented in the guide is not a blanket statement.

In 20 point buy, I don't think the Dexterity build has a noticeable edge in anything without falling behind in other aspects harshly.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I will say that the dwarf FCB isn't as useless as it appears. I played with a dwarf monk in PFS (notable because the GM can't tailor the scenario to the players) and he used that ability (possibly with something else, not sure on his build) to basically bash his way through walls and doors we couldn't otherwise pass. At 10th level you could easily bash your way through an adamantine door, given time.

[Sayt]

I just recalled: Ascetic Style/Form+Vicious Stomp+Fortuitous (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapon-special-abilities/fortuitous)+Leg Sweep.

Flurry, get a free trip, make three AoOs (one at a -5). You can do this more or less every round.

Also, some GMs are going to allow you to take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist), which I think is at least worth inquiring after.

[Secret Wizard]

Considering Stunning Fist Adept is a feat, I'm guessing Ability Focus isn't valid.

The trip thing is nice, but the Maneuver is limited by low CMB and applicability issues.

I guess the Dwarven FCB ain't that bad.

[Extra Anchovies]

You can actually achieve Dex2DMG with an (Un)Monk.

Care to explain how?

[Sayt]

Considering Stunning Fist Adept is a feat, I'm guessing Ability Focus isn't valid.

The trip thing is nice, but the Maneuver is limited by low CMB and applicability issues.

I guess the Dwarven FCB ain't that bad.

Stunning fist Adept was one of the most disappointing feats I've found in Pathfinder, and IIRC the common consensus is that Ability Focus (Stunning Fist) is a valid choice, as far as I'm aware, providing the GM allows you to take monster feats that you qualify for.

Also, You can Spec to tripping with some judicious magic item selection: A Leveraging weapon, a Thorny Brown Ioun Stone and Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver gives you a 6-12 bonus to trip, depending on your weapons enhancement, on top of full-bab and your ability mod to hit, with a +4 from stunning fist, if it goes through.

[Florian]

Care to explain how?

Chose a style that allows you to switch damage type, like Boar Style, the apply Slashing Grace as normal.

[Larsen]

Chose a style that allows you to switch damage type, like Boar Style, the apply Slashing Grace as normal.

Slashing grace doesn't work with flurry, so I'm not sure it's really good.

[Florian]

Slashing grace doesn't work with flurry, so I'm not sure it's really good.

I´ve my copy of ACG in hand right now and don´t see anything on this. Have I missed some errata there?

[Extra Anchovies]

Chose a style that allows you to switch damage type, like Boar Style, the apply Slashing Grace as normal.

Eh. You may be using Boar Style to deal slashing damage with unarmed strikes, but the unarmed strike in general is a bludgeoning weapon, and thus not a valid slashing grace target. You'd have to use a monk weapon for Slashing Grace, which blocks out a number of unarmed-only options (like Boar Style). Also, the feat explicitly doesn't function during a flurry of blows, which is bad news bears for a monk. The lower base damage, narrower range of options, and inability to flurry would in most cases cut damage more than getting Dex on each hit would increase it.


I´ve my copy of ACG in hand right now and don´t see anything on this. Have I missed some errata there?

Yeah, the ACG errata shut down Slashing Grace for anything that occupies both hands - TWF, FoB, holding a wand, casting a spell, using a shield other than a buckler, etc. Kind of annoying but c'est la Paizo. Here's (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/slashing-grace-combat) an up-to-date version of the feat's text.

[Florian]

Yeah, the ACG errata shut down Slashing Grace for anything that occupies both hands - TWF, FoB, holding a wand, casting a spell, using a shield other than a buckler, etc. Kind of annoying but c'est la Paizo. Here's (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/slashing-grace-combat) an up-to-date version of the feat's text.

For compatibility sake, I´ve got to stick to the same updates/errata our localized version of PF uses. So roughly speaking, that means lagging some good 12 months behind. That update is not official in our version so far, therefore I did´ know it.


Eh. You may be using Boar Style to deal slashing damage with unarmed strikes, but the unarmed strike in general is a bludgeoning weapon, and thus not a valid slashing grace target. You'd have to use a monk weapon for Slashing Grace, which blocks out a number of unarmed-only options (like Boar Style). Also, the feat explicitly doesn't function during a flurry of blows, which is bad news bears for a monk. The lower base damage, narrower range of options, and inability to flurry would in most cases cut damage more than getting Dex on each hit would increase it.

Technically speaking, you just have to fulfill the prerequisites the moment you chose the feat. As is usual, the moment you no longer meet the prerequisites, the feat chain ceases to function until all conditions are cleared up again.
But yeah, with that errata, it´s a mood point then.


2. Tengu's not there simply because I don't deal with dipping or multiclass in the guide yet. It took me ages to finish that section in the Brawler guide and I'm not sure if it's worth it - because the UnMonk grows progressively powerful with levels.

Generally speaking, I´d agree with you there. It´s a shore to go over all possible combinations.

What I find noteworthy, tho, are the real game-changers that work hard on how a class is handled.
The most well-known example of this would be the "Lifelink"-Paladin, either Oracle dip or VMC Oracle, as this showcases how dramatic the shift can be.

I think it is interesting to identify and name those game-changers and put them up as build options.

[Psyren]

For compatibility sake, I´ve got to stick to the same updates/errata our localized version of PF uses. So roughly speaking, that means lagging some good 12 months behind. That update is not official in our version so far, therefore I did´ know it.

As an FYI, all the errata is available online. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/resources)



In 20 point buy, I don't think the Dexterity build has a noticeable edge in anything without falling behind in other aspects harshly.

Wait, what? I can make viable Dex builds in 15 Point Buy, never mind 20.

Str 10, DEX 16, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 7
Str 10, DEX 15, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 7
Str 10, DEX 17, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 7

With 20 I can do even better:

Str 10, DEX 16, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 7
Str 10, DEX 15, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 7
Str 10, DEX 17, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 7



Considering Stunning Fist Adept is a feat, I'm guessing Ability Focus isn't valid.

On what grounds? "There's a better feat, so they must have meant for you to take the crappy one that doesn't stack with Mantis Style?" :smallconfused:

Yeah, my hat goes off to you for the hard work you put in, but I think I'll be making my own guide after all.

[Secret Wizard]

Come at me scrublord I'm ripped

[Secret Wizard]

Again all the builds you posted only have one more CON bonus or one more INT bonus or both, and give up major damage potential and feats to get where you want.

Post a build with the same standards as the sample builds in my guide and we'll talk

[Florian]

@Secred Wizard:

Not a good attitude. The more you manage to turn MAD into SAD, the better, especially on lower PB values.

@Psyren:

It´s a bit more complicated and we can go deeper into this if you want. The way licensing works also alters the way what is to be considered "official" and what affects PFS on a local level. For example, you won´t find any "First printings" at all in localized areas, therefore a heap of updates/errata is not applicable at all and "we" will "meet" back again around full second printings.

[Secret Wizard]

SAD is only better than MAD if it's better a build.

You'd never see me make a DEX Fighter because they are objectively worse than STR Fighters by any build metric.

I'd still make a DEX Swashbuckler and recognise the use of DEX Magus and Mesmerist. Hell, I'll even say vanilla monk is better as SAD DEX.

But UnMonk? SAD is bad unless I see a build prove otherwise, made in the style of the ones I have in the guide.

As I said, 20 point buy makes MAD viable except in corner cases.

People need to get over baseless SAD fetishism. Builds talk, bull**** walks.

[Psyren]

Come at me scrublord I'm ripped

Oh wow :smallbiggrin:


Again all the builds you posted only have one more CON bonus or one more INT bonus or both, and give up major damage potential and feats to get where you want.

Post a build with the same standards as the sample builds in my guide and we'll talk

If you're getting Dex to damage (via several methods), how is having high Dex "giving up damage?" Wouldn't it be the opposite?

If instead you mean Power Attack, Piranha Strike is a thing. Plus you get higher (touch) AC, initiative, reflex, stealth etc.



You'd never see me make a DEX Fighter because they are objectively worse than STR Fighters by any build metric.


Even if this were true (it's not), Fighters aren't Monks - they can wear armor and shields to survive at low levels, and thus afford to focus on Strength without getting skewered by lizardfolk javelins etc. A monk doesn't have that option, instead they have to be good at dodging. Furthermore, point buy math makes having a decent Wis and Dex at creation more affordable than investing in Wis alone - 14 Wis + 14 Dex costs 10 points, but 10 Dex and 18 Wis costs 17 points despite providing the exact same amount of AC. Since you're investing in Dex to survive anyway, focusing on it instead doesn't cost you much extra.

I'm not saying Strength-based Monks are bad - you can build powerful ones there too. But Dex and even Wis-based are not just viable, but can be built very well also.

[Florian]

SAD is only better than MAD if it's better a build.

Don´t see this as a point against you, see it as a addendum. Turning a class SAD can lead to two things: Overspecialization or broadening of the base class features. The former is all too common in TO discussion, while the later simply can happen and is generally overlooked as an option. That would be, for example, be the case when you free enough PB points to give your Fighter or (Un)Monk a decent INT score to have a good skill base.


People need to get over baseless SAD fetishism. Builds talk, bull**** walks.

Generally agreed upon. Action talk louder than words. But that one is up to you, the creator of the guide. Shall we post some builds and discuss whole builds _here_ so that the outcome can influence the guide? That would be very illuminating but a rather painful process for all involved. Up to you. I´d actually love to provide some builds.

[Secret Wizard]

That is the whole point of this thread! I am literally asking you for builds that will prove to me that giving up STR, and thus Jabbing, Ascetic and Dragon Styles, is good enough a strategy to merit inclusion.

Personally, I could only see it for a Pummeling Charge or Boar Style build, and, in both cases, it would mean giving up damage for too many levels if gotten through agile and otherwise giving up level progression if gotten from Rogue. The benefits, in my view, wouldn't outweigh a STR14/DEX18 Finesse Jabbing build.

[squiggit]

that giving up STR, and thus Jabbing

I don't think it's that hard to swing 13 strength in a dex focused build though. Especially with how late jabbing master comes online.

In fact your own jabbing striker sample build is dex focused. So I don't see how you can argue you can't use jabbing with dex.

[Secret Wizard]

I am specifically addressing the DEX-to-damage builds. Weapon Finesse is fine but niche.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say that it's not a power boost, it's just a means of expressing a different character. It usually takes away from your total power.

[Florian]

I am specifically addressing the DEX-to-damage builds. Weapon Finesse is fine but niche.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say that it's not a power boost, it's just a means of expressing a different character. It usually takes away from your total power.

Well, let´s wait and see. I might have some spare time around next sunday to fool around with some concepts. Somehow, I can´t get that Hobgob Monk out of my head right now...

Any special limitations? Standard PB 20, standard WBL, by-the-book WBL allocation?

[Secret Wizard]

Yep, my only request is to stay away from things that might be frowned upon by GMs, as I try to be uncontroversial and natural in my recommendations.

This means no allying cestus, fortune's favoured half-orcs, or ancestral weapon trait. I try to aim at a PFS public since that's usually the norm in most tables. Though I did have to mention Ascetic Style because it'd be criminal not to, though I noted it was PFS illegal.

[Anlashok]

Those seem like some pretty weirdly arbitrary bans, but also not really game changing anyways unless you're building a weapon monk (in which case there's other traits you can take to cover that).

Also never realized that most people played PFS rules. I thought only PFS tables did that.

[Secret Wizard]

Yeah those people! The ones in the PFS tables :P

[TarkXT]

Paizo is being a huge pain in the butt so I decided to post here.

No talk about feral combat training?

With feral combat training and the way the flurry of blows works you can do a full natural attack sequence and get 4 some odd natural attacks at level 3 on a Tengu at full bab and strength bonus. Later on you can leverage this into really nasty attacks through dragon ferocity.

The only real disadvantages is needing to us unarmed strikes for your style strikes but for raw damage the natural attack sequence looks very healthy for early to mid levels.

Also a note on your builds section.

Tell us more. Tell us how the builds function and how the parts move. What is the ultimate goal and how should they be sued tactically to use them properly.

Lastly just take them up to twenty or at least talk about taking them further on. It's nice you want to appeal to the pfs crowd but there are a lot of people who either despise pfs (like I do) or simply play a lot of AP's all of which go beyond level twelve. Heck you can build an Ascetic Dragon by level 13 and by 15 they can have dazing assault as another trigger for medusa's wrath and still be great for every level down to 1.

[Psyren]

Feral Combat Training is largely a waste of time - the number of attacks in your flurry is capped, and FCT cannot increase that number (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1&sort=4#v5748eaic9ozd) no matter how many natural weapons you have. The only time it's useful for a monk is if there's some special benefit to using your natural weapons instead of unarmed strike - for example, a ghoul monk that wants to combine flurry with its paralyzing claws.

[Secret Wizard]

Paizo is being a huge pain in the butt so I decided to post here.

No talk about feral combat training?

With feral combat training and the way the flurry of blows works you can do a full natural attack sequence and get 4 some odd natural attacks at level 3 on a Tengu at full bab and strength bonus. Later on you can leverage this into really nasty attacks through dragon ferocity.

The only real disadvantages is needing to us unarmed strikes for your style strikes but for raw damage the natural attack sequence looks very healthy for early to mid levels.

Also a note on your builds section.

Tell us more. Tell us how the builds function and how the parts move. What is the ultimate goal and how should they be sued tactically to use them properly.

Lastly just take them up to twenty or at least talk about taking them further on. It's nice you want to appeal to the pfs crowd but there are a lot of people who either despise pfs (like I do) or simply play a lot of AP's all of which go beyond level twelve. Heck you can build an Ascetic Dragon by level 13 and by 15 they can have dazing assault as another trigger for medusa's wrath and still be great for every level down to 1.

I promise to work on expanding the builds and high level options.

[Beowulf DW]

I'm currently playing an UnMonk in a Jade Regent campaign, and I really must thank you all for letting me know that Blade of the Sword Saint and Ascetic style exist.

I'm playing what is currently a somewhat weapon focused UnMonk (two-handed works with Flurry, now, so...) that uses the Monk Spade. My friends have taken to calling me Shovel Monk, cousin of Shovel Knight, because of it. So far, it's awesome.

[Florian]

Feral Combat Training is largely a waste of time - the number of attacks in your flurry is capped, and FCT cannot increase that number (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1&sort=4#v5748eaic9ozd) no matter how many natural weapons you have. The only time it's useful for a monk is if there's some special benefit to using your natural weapons instead of unarmed strike - for example, a ghoul monk that wants to combine flurry with its paralyzing claws.

I don´t know if Flurry really is the highlight here. A decent Ragebred build can achieve a staggering amount of primary natural attacks, vastly outpacing what Flurry can offer in comparison.
(Last time I checked it was like Bite (x1), Gore (x1), Claws (x4), Hooves (x2), Tail (x1)... a very ugly creature more akin to a Genestealer Hybrid). You´re in for the Ki extra attack and Medusa´s Wrath, needing FCT for the riders and possible crit effects.

[TarkXT]

I don´t know if Flurry really is the highlight here. A decent Ragebred build can achieve a staggering amount of primary natural attacks, vastly outpacing what Flurry can offer in comparison.
(Last time I checked it was like Bite (x1), Gore (x1), Claws (x4), Hooves (x2), Tail (x1)... a very ugly creature more akin to a Genestealer Hybrid). You´re in for the Ki extra attack and Medusa´s Wrath, needing FCT for the riders and possible crit effects.

More importantly the FAQ posted is referencing the vanilla monk.

With the wording of the unmonks flurry there's no reason to think that you cannot make a normal series of natural attacks and get the flurry attack.

[Florian]

More importantly the FAQ posted is referencing the vanilla monk.

With the wording of the unmonks flurry there's no reason to think that you cannot make a normal series of natural attacks and get the flurry attack.

The wording is actually still quite fine. Check out the (Un)Monk Flurry of Blows class feature. It is still a specialized Full Attack Action and it still states that no additional attacks are possible, except for ones based on trigger-conditions. (And spells like Haste)

[TarkXT]

The wording is actually still quite fine. Check out the (Un)Monk Flurry of Blows class feature. It is still a specialized Full Attack Action and it still states that no additional attacks are possible, except for ones based on trigger-conditions. (And spells like Haste)

If that's the case there's reason to believe that kills twf as well.

[Psyren]

I don´t know if Flurry really is the highlight here. A decent Ragebred build can achieve a staggering amount of primary natural attacks, vastly outpacing what Flurry can offer in comparison.
(Last time I checked it was like Bite (x1), Gore (x1), Claws (x4), Hooves (x2), Tail (x1)... a very ugly creature more akin to a Genestealer Hybrid). You´re in for the Ki extra attack and Medusa´s Wrath, needing FCT for the riders and possible crit effects.


More importantly the FAQ posted is referencing the vanilla monk.

With the wording of the unmonks flurry there's no reason to think that you cannot make a normal series of natural attacks and get the flurry attack.

It specifically applies (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s90q?Unchained-Monk-Natural-Attacks-with-Flurry#6) to the Unchained Monk's flurry too. (And even without that post, unchained vs. chained is irrelevant - for both monks, the ability is called "flurry of blows.")


If that's the case there's reason to believe that kills twf as well.

Yes, it does. This was intended. TWF is a wasted feat chain for both types of monk (unless said monk gives up their flurry for something else.)

[Florian]

If that's the case there's reason to believe that kills twf as well.

That´s exactly the case.

@Psyren:

You misread me there. I meant that under certain conditions, you might not want to flurry, therefore it´s not relevant then.

[TarkXT]

It specifically applies (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s90q?Unchained-Monk-Natural-Attacks-with-Flurry#6) to the Unchained Monk's flurry too. (And even without that post, unchained vs. chained is irrelevant - for both monks, the ability is called "flurry of blows.")



Yes, it does. This was intended. TWF is a wasted feat chain for both types of monk (unless said monk gives up their flurry for something else.)

Whether or not it's intended matters less to me then that it restricts a lot of interesting playstyles.

That's a shame.

[Florian]

Ok, short Build stub No.1: "Talk to the Hand".

This one is based on a plain vanilla Human, WIS > DEX/STR > CON and works on similar principles as a "bad touch"/reach Cleric would do.

Core weapon and tactics: Ki Focus/Ki Intensifying Spear for AoO work, Fists for close punishment.
Styles: Either Mantis Style and Weapon Trick: Stylish Riposte or Snake Style and Stunning Focus.

Feats, (Un)Monk 15, Mantis chain, Human Bonus: Befuddling Strike, Combat Reflexes, Draining Strike, Entangling Strike, Improved Trip, Mantis Style, Mantis Torment, Mantis Wisdom, Medusa´s Wrath, Nature Magic, Strike Back, Vicious Stomp, Vital Strike, Weapon Trick: Stylish Riposte.

Style Strikes: Defensive Spin, Flying Kick, Leg Sweep.

Ki Powers: Not gone thru that at that point.

[Florian]

And short Build stub No. 2: "The 80s called and want their Katana back. You may keep the Trenchcoat"

Note: This one is based on utilizing Crusader´s Flurry to move over to some interesting weapon types. Sadly, no pure ranged weapons. Interestingly enough, dual-purpose weapons work well here and can be utilized with Ki Range.
There´re two ways of entry: One level Cleric dip or VMC Cleric. Pro and Con: The dip provides the needed proficiency for free and allow for early entry, the VMC needs a feat, starts at around level 7th but provides greater flexibility in the long run.

This one uses a Tengu (Hurray for Swordtrained) and a STR > WIS > DEX/CHA/CON setup

Weapon: Ki Intensifying/Ki Channeling Katana
Styles: You have Katana, whatcha want more?
Deity: Shizuku, hurray for swordplay!

Feats, (Un)Monk 15, VMC Cleric: Alignment Channel, Channel Smite, Critical Focus, Crusader´s Flurry, Improved Critical, Medusa´s Wrath, Stunning Critical, Weapon Focus.

[Red Rubber Band]

Come at me scrublord I'm ripped

Can I please sig this? For some reason I laugh everytime I see it.

[Sayt]

Feral Combat Training is largely a waste of time - the number of attacks in your flurry is capped, and FCT cannot increase that number (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1&sort=4#v5748eaic9ozd) no matter how many natural weapons you have. The only time it's useful for a monk is if there's some special benefit to using your natural weapons instead of unarmed strike - for example, a ghoul monk that wants to combine flurry with its paralyzing claws.

Actually, that might have been true with 'chained' Flurry, which laid out a specific BAB/attack progression for flurrying.

Unchained Flurry applies bonuses attacks on a full-attack. So if you make your natural weapon full-attack, flurry kicks in and gives you one or two more unarmed strikes, but with Feral combat training, those are claws/gores/etc.

At least, that's how it makes sense to me.

[Florian]

Actually, that might have been true with 'chained' Flurry, which laid out a specific BAB/attack progression for flurrying.

Unchained Flurry applies bonuses attacks on a full-attack. So if you make your natural weapon full-attack, flurry kicks in and gives you one or two more unarmed strikes, but with Feral combat training, those are claws/gores/etc.

At least, that's how it makes sense to me.

"He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what’s already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects)."

So says the (Un)Monks Flurry of Blows class feature.

[Secret Wizard]

Can I please sig this? For some reason I laugh everytime I see it.

Can't take credit for this. I was quoting Ross from GameGrumps. It makes me laugh every time I think about it too because it's the best answer.

[Aldrakan]

Whether or not it's intended matters less to me then that it restricts a lot of interesting playstyles.

That's a shame.

Yeah it's rather disappointing that being a creature that's a dangerous unarmed opponent has basically no synergy with the class based around being a dangerous unarmed opponent.

[Red Rubber Band]

Can't take credit for this. I was quoting Ross from GameGrumps. It makes me laugh every time I think about it too because it's the best answer.

Imma take that as a yes :smalltongue:

[Secret Wizard]

Added info on new archetypes.

[upho]

Thanks for the guide!

Seems as if this guide is missing quite a few noteworthy options, for example some of the feats mentioned by Florian in the build outlines posted above. I also noted there's no mention of the "unarmed supercharger DPR king" feat Horn of the Criosphinx (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/horn-of-the-criosphinx-combat), which comes online already at 6th (combine with Dragon Style for carefree supercharging). I don't think I even saw it in your Pummeling Charge example build. Really, I think a 6th level feat that gives you 2 x Str to UAS (and thus the x3 "2-handed" Power Attack bonus) on a charge probably belongs in a monk guide, not to mention in a charge DPR focused monk example build.

I also think the following is misleading:

"No CMB bonus means that your ability to use combat maneuvers effectively will fall to the wayside."

You don't need a class bonus in order to make a full BAB build's CMB more than competitive enough. An unmonk build focusing on one or two combat maneuvers is not just perfectly doable, but can also be highly effective, largely because there are many reasonably cheap items which increase CMB, which it seems you don't mention either. Of these, I think the Dueling (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Dueling%20(PSFG) ) (the one from Pathfinder Society Field Guide) weapon ability stands out for all kinds of combat maneuver focused builds, but especially for monks focusing on Dirty Trick. This is because it applies its potentially huge bonus (a +4 dueling AoMF gives a total of +12 to most maneuvers of interest) to all Dirty Tricks made using your weapon - which in the monk's case would typically be "parts of your body", and I believe it's highly unlikely you wouldn't use parts of your body for basically all Dirty Tricks.

Just to give you an idea of the numbers, an enlarged Str-based human unmonk can easily have a trip CMB of at least +55 (12 str, 20 bab, 4 trip feats, 4 enhancement AoMF, 8 luck dueling weapon, 2 dusty rose prism in wayfinder, 2 gauntlets of the skilled maneuver, 2 thorny brown ioun, 1 size). Note that this doesn't even require spending much resources on stuff which exclusively help with making trips - in this case only two feats, an 8k ioun and a pair of 4k gauntlets. The same monk would also be able to get the CMB numbers for say DT just as high. As a comparison, a typical CR 20 opponent such as a balor has a CMD of 54. So it's perfectly possible for an unmonk to have at least a 50% chance of landing a DT on the tarrasque (CR 25, CMD 66). I wouldn't exactly call that "falling to the wayside"...

Related to CMB, I would probably rate Wolf Style (with Wolf Trip) higher, or rather give it a split rating, because it's a pretty damn awesome melee control/defender tool in the right combos. Especially fun with a friendly controller caster able to provide you with nasty longer duration area effects to throw your poor prone opponents into (RAW, enemies don't even get a save to avoid being "Wolf Trip-dumped" into spiked pits or walls of fire). Combined with Combat Reflexes, Greater Trip, Vicious Stomp, size and reach increases and a phase locking reach weapon, you can threaten a decent area and ensure it's highly likely anyone/-thing you attack - or provokes an AoO - which can be tripped will end up flat on its belly in a very bad position, while also getting pounded with at least two accurate AoOs and getting robbed of nearly all means of escape (having no movement speed or working teleportation magic). It's also worth noting that Wolf Trip is a necessity to make Vicious Stomp trigger when tripping a non-adjacent enemy (using a reach weapon or while enlarged). AFAIK, this combo is one of the few, if not the only, existing ways to make a viable tank/defender in PF using only Paizo options, and it fits well with a monk build also prioritizing defenses and general durability.

I'm definitely no monk expert, but it seems like good work otherwise. Keep it up!

[Straybow]

Urgh, my pet peeve has been activated: individual blow descriptions in "Style Strikes." A combatant can't plan an elbow smash, spin kick, etc. Situations arise in the movements and reactions of combat that make one strike effective and another not. This is not a blow-by-blow simulator, this is a tactical game.

Back when PF was being developed I argued against all feats, features, and abilities that operated at this level, which included things like monkey grip.

Meh.

[Florian]

Urgh, my pet peeve has been activated: individual blow descriptions in "Style Strikes." A combatant can't plan an elbow smash, spin kick, etc. Situations arise in the movements and reactions of combat that make one strike effective and another not. This is not a blow-by-blow simulator, this is a tactical game.

Back when PF was being developed I argued against all feats, features, and abilities that operated at this level, which included things like monkey grip.

Meh.

Oh, I don´t think that was the actual intention behind style strikes. As it seems, that level of detail rather governs how the style strike should interact with regular builds. So, no "hand or fist" for a greatspear-wieldings AoO-fisher, things like that.

[upho]

Urgh, my pet peeve has been activated: individual blow descriptions in "Style Strikes." A combatant can't plan an elbow smash, spin kick, etc. Situations arise in the movements and reactions of combat that make one strike effective and another not. This is not a blow-by-blow simulator, this is a tactical game.

Back when PF was being developed I argued against all feats, features, and abilities that operated at this level, which included things like monkey grip.

Meh.Like Florian said, the descriptions of the Style Strikes basically only limit in which ways and the number of effects/round that Style Strikes can be used to deliver. It does mean that for example the mentioned spear wielder would have to use his UAS stats rather than his spear stats for that particular attack, but having a full attack comprised of different types of individual attacks is very much the standard, even for very basic creatures such as animals with more than one type of natural attack. Though it's worth noting this in virtually all cases mostly affects build considerations rather than tactical decisions in combat. Meaning in practice, the real decision for Style Strikes lies in whether to use one particular Style Strike rather than another in a Flurry, not in deciding which individual attack should deliver the Style Strike (which is pretty much a given and will typically be the same in every Flurry involving the same combo of Style Strike and other abilities).

But out of curiosity, what exactly is your pet peeve? Having attacks with different mechanics/numbers in the same full attack? That a "special attack" can vary from one full attack (or Flurry) to another, according to the wishes of the player (rather than all such special attacks simply being lumped together into one added generalized effect that happen on all full attacks)? Or is it the fluff descriptions of the Style Strikes?

Seems to me the melee combat mechanics, at their very core, do operate at a blow-by-blow level, in terms of everything from basic stuff such as iterative bab, damage, DR penetration and crits, all the way things like potentially having special effects, resource expenditures and long chains of free actions and AoOs tied to specific individual attacks made as part of a full attack. I've had characters in my game who sometimes had more than 8 individual events triggered from each single attack in their full attack, the events potentially varying quite a bit between both the individual attacks and different full attacks, all depending on the situation and which limited-use special abilities and specific weapons the players chose to involve. As long as the player has done the homework, this doesn't slow down combat much more than lumping the effects together would IME, and it certainly doesn't mean combat is won or lost at the decision resolution of individual attacks. In short, the blow-by-blow mechanics doesn't make the game any less tactical IME.

[Psyren]

It's feat-intensive, but Ascetic Form (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/ascetic-form-combat) will let you use style strikes with your weapons, should the body part thing prove particularly annoying.

[Florian]

But out of curiosity, what exactly is your pet peeve?

I think it is a case of generic vs. specific and breaking immersion along the way.
Stuff that simply gives a number of (bonus) attacks can simply be fluffed according to the actual situation.
Anything that has a fully fleshed-out "narrative" attached to it might either look silly if you try to envision it or would make no sense at all if you work in conditional modifiers based on the tactical situation.

[upho]

I think it is a case of generic vs. specific and breaking immersion along the way.
Stuff that simply gives a number of (bonus) attacks can simply be fluffed according to the actual situation.
Anything that has a fully fleshed-out "narrative" attached to it might either look silly if you try to envision it or would make no sense at all if you work in conditional modifiers based on the tactical situation.Ah, I think I understand what Straybow dislikes now. Thanks. And I think there's a related potentially much more serious issue with the Style Strikes. For example, it's entirely plausible a lamia monk wouldn't be able to use Flying Kick or Foot Stomp as written, since a lamia has no feet or legs. The same lamia monk would however be able to use Vicious Stomp, since despite the name, that doesn't say "must attack with a kick to use this".

If I'm correct in thinking that Straybow was also referring to this issue, I wholeheartedly agree with him. And not just because of the often seemingly arbitrary limitations, but also because those limitations aren't even proper game terms. What constitutes a "kick" isn't properly defined anywhere, and it strikes me as odd that for example said lamia monk wouldn't be able to use "Flying Slap" or "Tail Pin" instead, since such a creature per RAW is otherwise perfectly capable of both making UAS using its tail and jumping just as well as a humanoid.

IMO, the Style Strikes which currently say "must attack with a kick to use this" should instead say something along the lines of:

"must not attack with a hand to use this"

And those which currently say "must attack with a fist to use this" should instead say:

"must attack with a free hand to use this"

This, combined with the already included general limitation to UAS and the (somewhat) properly defined term "free hand", would make the limitations play more nice with the rest of the rules, more reasonable, and less murky.

(I have a kinda related issue with the "humanoid creatures without two free hands"-part of the grapple rules - why in the Nine Hells would an aasimar or tiefling be, per default, considerably better at one-handed grappling than say a human or an elf?)

[Psyren]

If I'm correct in thinking that Straybow was also referring to this issue, I wholeheartedly agree with him. And not just because of the often seemingly arbitrary limitations, but also because those limitations aren't even proper game terms. What constitutes a "kick" isn't properly defined anywhere, and it strikes me as odd that for example said lamia monk wouldn't be able to use "Flying Slap" or "Tail Pin" instead, since such a creature per RAW is otherwise perfectly capable of both making UAS using its tail and jumping just as well as a humanoid.

IMO, the Style Strikes which currently say "must attack with a kick to use this" should instead say something along the lines of:

"must not attack with a hand to use this"

And those which currently say "must attack with a fist to use this" should instead say:

"must attack with a free hand to use this"

If you think about it, it does say that. For example, Flying Kick says you need a kick - not a "foot." For a creature like a Lamia or a Merfolk, a tail slap would be their "kick."



(I have a kinda related issue with the "humanoid creatures without two free hands"-part of the grapple rules - why in the Nine Hells would an aasimar or tiefling be, per default, considerably better at one-handed grappling than say a human or an elf?)

You're being too literal; the word "humanoid" doesn't always refer strictly to the creature type. Sometimes it's a shorthand for something shaped like a humanoid (bipedal, two arms, 1 head etc.) For example, the Bestiary says things like:


Technically, the word “angel” refers to several types of humanoid angels—solars, planetars, and devas (of which the astral deva is the most common; other types exist as well)—though many mortals use the term loosely and apply it to any celestial, whether an angel, one of the guardian archons, fey-like azatas, beast-like agathions, or any other creature of the good planes.


Wind Form (Su): A bralani can shift between its humanoid body and a body made of wind and mist as a standard action. In humanoid form, it cannot fly or use its whirlwind blast.


Gaze (Su): In humanoid form, a ghaele’s gaze attack slays evil creatures of 5 HD or less (range 60 feet, Will DC 18 negates, shaken for 2d10 rounds on a successful save).

Then there's this rule:


Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are typically presented as 1st-level warriors, which means they have average combat ability and poor saving throws.

Which is pretty standard, but if you apply a literalist readng, it means that other creature types don't get to do this. So why aren't Aasimar and Tieflings running around with 1 Outsider hit die? Why don't Gathlain have 1 Fey die? Why don't Ghoran have 1 Plant die? etc.

[frost890]

I do not have time to look through all of your guide but the main thing I see ranged weapons. Daggers are often overlooked. When you finish off everyone around you and can throw a dagger or two it comes in handy. also when you have the money replace the sling stones with thunder stones (for use around casters) and stones with exploding runes.

[upho]

If you think about it, it does say that. For example, Flying Kick says you need a kick - not a "foot." For a creature like a Lamia or a Merfolk, a tail slap would be their "kick."I think that's simply what you read into it, probably largely because you have a lot of PF experience and a level system mastery such that you only rarely even need to playtest a new option in order to correctly conclude how it should work in order to be reasonable. Very few players or DMs, even experienced ones, actually have that ability (though they might think so). Of course that's also how I would rule this, but it would nevertheless actually be a houserule. Since "kick" isn't a defined game term, one would have to use the RL definition of the noun "kick" (https://www.google.se/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=kick%20dictionary%20definition), just as for other words not being explicitly defined game terms. And the relevant RL definition of the noun (or verb) certainly tells its a thing inherently impossible for creatures to make unless they have at least one foot (or maybe paw/hoof/talon) which they can "strike or propel forcibly". You won't see a snake kicking in RL. Ever. Same goes for the deadly Chuck Norris cobras with humanoid upper bodies, the armored kung-fu snails making lightning fast eye tentacle strikes, and even the karate killer whales practicing fin-jutsu, along with all the other kinds of feet-less unarmed combat masters out there, should people ever become aware of their RL existence... :smalltongue:

And if you think about it, how do you think you would interpret the following descriptions, coupled with the "must attack with a kick"-limitation, if you had been a rookie player or DM:

"The monk leaps through the air to strike a foe with a kick."

"The monk stomps on a foe's foot, preventing the opponent from escaping."

"The monk attempts to knock his foe back with a powerful kick."

Do you actually think you would say the above is clearly something a lamia or merfolk is able to do, and that this is the most obvious intent of the rules? I certainly wouldn't, and I even hesitate to assume the actual designer would say so. (Though I'd be surprised if s/he actually considered non-humanoid shaped creatures when writing the above.)

But really, what annoys me the most in this case is that it would've been so easy to simply use the well-established game terms/standard wording, instead of using unique wording that makes the mechanics a lot more fuzzy and potentially a lot more limiting than what was/should be the actual intent.


You're being too literal; the word "humanoid" doesn't always refer strictly to the creature type. Sometimes it's a shorthand for something shaped like a humanoid (bipedal, two arms, 1 head etc.) For example, the Bestiary says things like:Oh, don't take me too seriously on that one. It's not actually bad RAW like the "kick" Style Strikes, just needlessly confusing. And besides not actually saying "humanoid creature type", like you showed there are a lot of examples elsewhere in the rules when the words "humanoid creature" refer to something broader than the creature type game term. My annoyance has mostly to do with the unnecessity of the potentially confusing wording. Probably just an aesthetics thing that rubs some "perfectionist writing" set of neural connections in my brain the wrong way. And again, it likely won't put the wrong idea into the heads of those with the most rules-fu, and in this case also probably not of those with the least either (since they are typically unlikely to even make the false creature type connection). Those in between though... Let's just say I've seen posts of people actually believing aasimars and tieflings are better grapplers for this very reason.

[Psyren]

I think that's simply what you read into it, probably largely because you have a lot of PF experience and a level system mastery such that you only rarely even need to playtest a new option in order to correctly conclude how it should work in order to be reasonable. Very few players or DMs, even experienced ones, actually have that ability (though they might think so). Of course that's also how I would rule this, but it would nevertheless actually be a houserule. Since "kick" isn't a defined game term, one would have to use the RL definition of the noun "kick" (https://www.google.se/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=kick%20dictionary%20definition), just as for other words not being explicitly defined game terms.

That argument cuts both ways. Here's the dictionary on "foot:"


1. (in vertebrates) the terminal part of the leg, below the ankle joint, on which the body stands and moves.
2. (in invertebrates) any part similar in position or function.
3. such a part considered as the organ of locomotion.

So any part terminating your leg can be considered a foot. And here's the dictionary on "leg:"


1.each of the limbs on which a person or animal walks and stands.

So if you start trying to bring the dictionary into this, yes, you absolutely can make a case for kicking Merfolk. If you'll permit a pun, they have a leg to stand on here.



Oh, don't take me too seriously on that one. It's not actually bad RAW like the "kick" Style Strikes, just needlessly confusing. And besides not actually saying "humanoid creature type", like you showed there are a lot of examples elsewhere in the rules when the words "humanoid creature" refer to something broader than the creature type game term. My annoyance has mostly to do with the unnecessity of the potentially confusing wording. Probably just an aesthetics thing that rubs some "perfectionist writing" set of neural connections in my brain the wrong way. And again, it likely won't put the wrong idea into the heads of those with the most rules-fu, and in this case also probably not of those with the least either (since they are typically unlikely to even make the false creature type connection). Those in between though... Let's just say I've seen posts of people actually believing aasimars and tieflings are better grapplers for this very reason.

Those of us who get "rules-fu"do so precisely because of parsing out discussions like these. If your GM is attempting a wrongheaded (and frankly, asinine) ruling that outsiders get to ignore the grappling rules that mention humanoids, it's your responsibility as a player to call them on it, as politely but firmly as you can. GMs shouldn't be rigid robots, and if you find yourself unable to convince one of an unjust ruling that detracts from the fun of everyone at the table, the choice facing you becomes pretty clear.

[upho]

Let's try and test a snake with the definitions of "foot" and "leg" you posted:

"1. (in vertebrates) the terminal part of the leg, below the ankle joint, on which the body stands and moves." A snake is a vertebrate lacking both legs (see below) and ankles, so not applicable.

"2. (in invertebrates) any part similar in position or function." Not applicable.

3. such a part considered as the organ of locomotion. So, in the case of a snake, it would be correct to call its ribs, scales and a large majority of its muscles for "feet", and that is what people commonly call those parts of a snake? More importantly, dictionaries typically list all possible typical definitions. I spot fallacy: just because A ("organ of locomotion") equals B ("foot") in some cases does not mean A equals B in all cases.

"1. each of the limbs on which a person or animal walks and stands." Not applicable. A snake has no limbs. Hence it also belongs to a group of animals known as limbless vertebrates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbless_vertebrate). Your dictionary definitions obviously refer to animals having limbs. I believe it would be very difficult to find a zoologist or even a dictionary writer claiming all creatures which are capable of ground locomotion have legs and feet. I'd say this part of your argument falls flat on its belly. (You started it!) :smallwink:


So if you start trying to bring the dictionary into this, yes, you absolutely can make a case for kicking Merfolk. If you'll permit a pun, they have a leg to stand on here.Haha! Yes, I totally permit puns that make me laugh! :smallbiggrin: Regarding the definitions of feet and legs, it would appear you're actually claiming you, as well as the majority of PF players, think for example animals of the snake or legless lizard families have both legs and feet? If that's the case, I think quite a few people, from kindergarten kids to professors of zoology would firmly disagree with you. I'd even go as far as to say the snakes and legless lizards themselves would disagree, if they had the ability to communicate their opinion on the matter.


Those of us who get "rules-fu"do so precisely because of parsing out discussions like these. If your GM is attempting a wrongheaded (and frankly, asinine) ruling that outsiders get to ignore the grappling rules that mention humanoids, it's your responsibility as a player to call them on it, as politely but firmly as you can. GMs shouldn't be rigid robots, and if you find yourself unable to convince one of an unjust ruling that detracts from the fun of everyone at the table, the choice facing you becomes pretty clear.No protest here. (Although I think the posts I've seen have been players trying to convince their DMs. Or even taking their interpretation for granted on some weird basis of "because the physiology of outsiders is different".)

And speaking of parsing out discussions like these, I'm thoroughly enjoying this one (and hope you do as well)!

[Psyren]

So, in the case of a snake, it would be correct to call its ribs, scales and a large majority of its muscles for "feet", and that is what people commonly call those parts of a snake?

No - those would be its "leg." The "foot" is the part terminating all of that, i.e. the tip of its tail, as per the definitions I posted. So if a snake (or rather, a snakelike creature, like a lamia or merfolk monk) "kicked" you, it would be using the tip of its tail to do so.


More importantly, dictionaries typically list all possible typical definitions. I spot fallacy: just because A ("organ of locomotion") equals B ("foot") in some cases does not mean A equals B in all cases.

This is exactly right - and is the reason that this game has an entity known as a "dungeon master" who job it is to choose which definition wins in the case of an abiguity.



Haha! Yes, I totally permit puns that make me laugh! :smallbiggrin: Regarding the definitions of feet and legs, it would appear you're actually claiming you, as well as the majority of PF players, think for example animals of the snake or legless lizard families have both legs and feet? If that's the case, I think quite a few people, from kindergarten kids to professors of zoology would firmly disagree with you. I'd even go as far as to say the snakes and legless lizards themselves would disagree, if they had the ability to communicate their opinion on the matter.

I would wager professors of zoology would also disagree with the concept of kung fu merfolk, yet the game allows them all the same. Fantasy is funny like that :smalltongue:

[upho]

3. such a part considered as the organ of locomotion. So, in the case of a snake, it would be correct to call its ribs, scales and a large majority of its muscles for "feet", and that is what people commonly call those parts of a snake?

No - those would be its "leg." The "foot" is the part terminating all of that, i.e. the tip of its tail, as per the definitions I posted. So if a snake (or rather, a snakelike creature, like a lamia or merfolk monk) "kicked" you, it would be using the tip of its tail to do so.No, that would be a tail slap/whip/similar. Definitely not a kick per any generally accepted definition of the word. Ever.

According to the definition you posted, a snake's (or lamia's) ribs, scales and a large majority of its muscles could potentially be called "feet", since those are the closest it comes to an "organ of locomotion". None of the other definitions of "foot" you posted come even remotely close to being applicable since a snake per definition has no limbs, and a leg per definition is a limb. But regardless of whether those parts of the snake could be called "feet", it doesn't help the snake with kicking since it lacks any organs with which to "strike or propel forcibly" those feet (a.k.a. "kick"). A lamia obviously has arms, but legs are just as impossible to find on a lamia as it is on a snake. Note that this "leglessness" is even recognized in the mechanics for the lamia through its immunity to trips, and this also goes for any other creature having a snake-like body without legs. If "leg" had instead been defined as "organ of locomotion" and if snakes hadn't been limbless vertebrates, you might have had at least a tiny shred of a case, but alas...


This is exactly right - and is the reason that this game has an entity known as a "dungeon master" who job it is to choose which definition wins in the case of an abiguity.So you actually do agree that "must attack with a kick" is bad RAW, just not because the RAW makes it flat out impossible for lamias and merfolk to use those Style Strikes, but because it's ambiguous? Do you also agree that a non-ambiguous and just about as short wording is possible?


I would wager professors of zoology would also disagree with the concept of kung fu merfolk, yet the game allows them all the same. Fantasy is funny like that :smalltongue:I sure hope so, but how is this relevant? I assume you agree that a RL snake, a snake from the bestiary (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/snake/snake-constrictor) and a lamia share the physiology relevant to the issue of making kicks.

But I think you missed my most important point and question:
And if you think about it, how do you think you would interpret the following descriptions, coupled with the "must attack with a kick"-limitation, if you had been a rookie player or DM:

"The monk leaps through the air to strike a foe with a kick."

"The monk stomps on a foe's foot, preventing the opponent from escaping."

"The monk attempts to knock his foe back with a powerful kick."

Do you actually think you would say the above is clearly something a lamia or merfolk is able to do, and that this is the most obvious intent of the rules? I certainly wouldn't, and I even hesitate to assume the actual designer would say so. (Though I'd be surprised if s/he actually considered non-humanoid shaped creatures when writing the above.)Just to make sure I wasn't making things up (and because I love asking stupid questions), I actually just did a little survey on this during my group's session today. I asked the five players (of which two are RPG developers and, along with two others, very experienced D&D/PF players, and one is in contrast very new to not just PF but to RPGs and gaming in general) the following questions:

1. Would you say a lamia monk is able to attack with a kick?

2. If an option said that if a creature are to gain the benefits, the creature must attack with a kick, would you say a lamia monk would be able to gain the benefits per RAW?

3A. If you replied "yes" to either of the above, why?

3B. If you replied "no" to #2, would you assume the choice of words was intentional to exclude certain creatures?

Their responses were strikingly similar, all of them replying No to #1 and #2; and all the experienced players replying with some version of "Probably not" to 3B, while the player new to PF replied (translated from Swedish): "I think so. I mean all the other rules I've read so far use such an exact wording, so of course I would assume this one was intentional as well."

Are we all just nuts?

[Psyren]

No, that would be a tail slap/whip/similar. Definitely not a kick per any generally accepted definition of the word. Ever.

Then it seems we're at an impasse and further debate is pointless.



I sure hope so, but how is this relevant? I assume you agree that a RL snake, a snake from the bestiary (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/animals/snake/snake-constrictor) and a lamia share the physiology relevant to the issue of making kicks.

Snakes from the bestiary can't be monks so citing them is moot.


Just to make sure I wasn't making things up (and because I love asking stupid questions), I actually just did a little survey on this during my group's session today.
...
Are we all just nuts?

However scientific the survey of your playgroup was, I fail to see how their mental state is relevant to anything.

[Anlashok]

Lamia have four legs. Why would they not be able to kick?

[Psyren]

That's my bad - I might have been thinking Naga there.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Lamia matriarchs are the ones that have the snake tail. Lamia are weird.

[martixy]

Ok, so. Bringing my obscure knowledge to bear.

Naga are the Hindu snake-humanoids.
In D&D they're the weird snake-with-humanoid-head creatures.
In general popular consciousness they're the classic human-top, snake-bottom.

Lamia is the, in a sense, niche term for that class of creatures, the human-top, snake-bottom.
It is a common term around the art circles, e.g. furry or anime fandom.
There is a greek mythological figure that is somewhat unrelated.
Although just now am I realizing why so much lamia art features vore (devouring things, including living creatures - i.e. swallow whole) - lamia supposedly could have been derived from the ancient greek word for "gullet".

[squiggit]

Naga are the Hindu snake-humanoids.
In D&D they're the weird snake-with-humanoid-head creatures.
Except for the OA nagas, which are human top snake bottom. Makes it kind of confusing.


Lamia is the, in a sense, niche term for that class of creatures, the human-top, snake-bottom.
It is a common term around the art circles, e.g. furry or anime fandom.
Which I think is used interchangeable with Naga in that medium, as far as I can tell.


lamia supposedly could have been derived from the ancient greek word for "gullet".
The mythical Lamia ate children. So, makes sense.

[Secret Wizard]

Thanks for the guide!

Seems as if this guide is missing quite a few noteworthy options, for example some of the feats mentioned by Florian in the build outlines posted above. I also noted there's no mention of the "unarmed supercharger DPR king" feat Horn of the Criosphinx (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/horn-of-the-criosphinx-combat), which comes online already at 6th (combine with Dragon Style for carefree supercharging). I don't think I even saw it in your Pummeling Charge example build. Really, I think a 6th level feat that gives you 2 x Str to UAS (and thus the x3 "2-handed" Power Attack bonus) on a charge probably belongs in a monk guide, not to mention in a charge DPR focused monk example build.

I also think the following is misleading:

"No CMB bonus means that your ability to use combat maneuvers effectively will fall to the wayside."

You don't need a class bonus in order to make a full BAB build's CMB more than competitive enough. An unmonk build focusing on one or two combat maneuvers is not just perfectly doable, but can also be highly effective, largely because there are many reasonably cheap items which increase CMB, which it seems you don't mention either. Of these, I think the Dueling (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/MagicWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Dueling%20(PSFG) ) (the one from Pathfinder Society Field Guide) weapon ability stands out for all kinds of combat maneuver focused builds, but especially for monks focusing on Dirty Trick. This is because it applies its potentially huge bonus (a +4 dueling AoMF gives a total of +12 to most maneuvers of interest) to all Dirty Tricks made using your weapon - which in the monk's case would typically be "parts of your body", and I believe it's highly unlikely you wouldn't use parts of your body for basically all Dirty Tricks.

Just to give you an idea of the numbers, an enlarged Str-based human unmonk can easily have a trip CMB of at least +55 (12 str, 20 bab, 4 trip feats, 4 enhancement AoMF, 8 luck dueling weapon, 2 dusty rose prism in wayfinder, 2 gauntlets of the skilled maneuver, 2 thorny brown ioun, 1 size). Note that this doesn't even require spending much resources on stuff which exclusively help with making trips - in this case only two feats, an 8k ioun and a pair of 4k gauntlets. The same monk would also be able to get the CMB numbers for say DT just as high. As a comparison, a typical CR 20 opponent such as a balor has a CMD of 54. So it's perfectly possible for an unmonk to have at least a 50% chance of landing a DT on the tarrasque (CR 25, CMD 66). I wouldn't exactly call that "falling to the wayside"...

Related to CMB, I would probably rate Wolf Style (with Wolf Trip) higher, or rather give it a split rating, because it's a pretty damn awesome melee control/defender tool in the right combos. Especially fun with a friendly controller caster able to provide you with nasty longer duration area effects to throw your poor prone opponents into (RAW, enemies don't even get a save to avoid being "Wolf Trip-dumped" into spiked pits or walls of fire). Combined with Combat Reflexes, Greater Trip, Vicious Stomp, size and reach increases and a phase locking reach weapon, you can threaten a decent area and ensure it's highly likely anyone/-thing you attack - or provokes an AoO - which can be tripped will end up flat on its belly in a very bad position, while also getting pounded with at least two accurate AoOs and getting robbed of nearly all means of escape (having no movement speed or working teleportation magic). It's also worth noting that Wolf Trip is a necessity to make Vicious Stomp trigger when tripping a non-adjacent enemy (using a reach weapon or while enlarged). AFAIK, this combo is one of the few, if not the only, existing ways to make a viable tank/defender in PF using only Paizo options, and it fits well with a monk build also prioritizing defenses and general durability.

I'm definitely no monk expert, but it seems like good work otherwise. Keep it up!

The problem with this type of approach is that it clashes with the lack of versatility of maneuver-specific builds themselves.

Grappling or Dirty Tricks are universally applicable, so I'd probably gush out more about those.

I'm sure you can build a fitting tripper without base class bonuses (you forgot to add the Ring of Ki that grants you +2 to CMB), but building a tripper itself is not a terribly exciting choice.

[Secret Wizard]

Guide updated with the Perfect Scholar archetype from Inner Sea Intrigue, which is actually quite good!

[Aundrue]

Can't you do unchain rogue 3/ unchain monk. Too get dex to damage

[Florian]

Can't you do unchain rogue 3/ unchain monk. Too get dex to damage

You can. By why would you? Dex2Dmg is pretty much overrated.

[Secret Wizard]

Can't you do unchain rogue 3/ unchain monk. Too get dex to damage

You don't get more damage or AC this way, so there's no point to do this unless you deliberately want to underpower your character.

Or if your GM wants to use 15pt. buy, but that just says to me your GM needs to be taught he shouldn't run 15pt.

[Florian]

Or if your GM wants to use 15pt. buy, but that just says to me your GM needs to be taught he shouldn't run 15pt.

As a side-note: PB15 is a pretty good Lackmustest for builds. If a build can´t work under this conditions, it´ll mostly turn out to be over-engineered and worth nothing in actual play.

[Secret Wizard]

As a side-note: PB15 is a pretty good Lackmustest for builds. If a build can´t work under this conditions, it´ll mostly turn out to be over-engineered and worth nothing in actual play.

Not really. Monks will do amazing with 16/15/14/12/10/7, but become very risky with 16/14/12/12/10/7 to spread around.

15 pt. buy is just a mathematically flawed attempt to create 4d6 drop 1. 20 pt. buy is the right calculation.

[upho]

You can. By why would you? Dex2Dmg is pretty much overrated.This. At least if you otherwise would've liked to skip the rogue levels.

If you really want Dex to damage (and don't play PFS), I'd recommend you talk to your DM to let you grab the Deadly Agility (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/feats#TOC-Deadly-Agility-Combat-) feat from Path of War instead. It's not OP in any way, but could at least make the return on the investments decent for a monk.

[Seliven]

Thank you for making me take a closer look at the unchained monk!

I was only able to look at parts of the guide so far and I mostly focused on your critical ascetic sample build.

What I'd recommend is taking improved critical(unarmed strike) at level 9 instead of improved critical(urumi). That way you will have access to it with all weapons in the monk group(which probably won't be relevant but if you lose your weapon you still have it for your unarmed attacks). This works for Weapon Focus aswell but your style would only come online for all weapons at level 5.

Furthermore you could use a wayfinder and cracked opalescent white pyramid ioun stone to get weapon focus for 2000 gp. Though that probably only works if you start at level 3 or later. Buying the normal version of the ioun stone and you would save the feat for exotic weapon proficiency(urumi) aswell but it costs 8500gp more. This obviously only works if the DM allows feats granted by items to count for requirements but it would open up the critical ascetic for more races besides Humans, Half-elves and Tengu.

I will try to look at the other sample builds soon.

Edit: You still have scion of humanity listed for tieflings in your condensed version

[Secret Wizard]

Changed the Scion of Humanity flub!

Also, don't worry too much about the extra feat. You can still make a Critical Ascetic using a Temple Sword rather than an Urumi - the damage difference is not that steep.

The point of the guide was to make people worry less about min/maxing and just getting their basics in order while making the character. You can totally make a Dwarf Ascetic with Sansetsukuon and it won't be an iota worse than a Human one. It'd have its own advantages for sure.

[Secret Wizard]

Added the Scaled Fist archetype and updated some sections.

[CrimsonRaven]

Hey man. I am replying to notify you that acces to Part 6 of your guide "Style Feats, Feats and Traits" is being denied to me and possibly all visitors, by google drive, on the grounds that it violates their terms of service.
I am not sure as to why this happens, or if you have already been notified or not. I just thought I should point it out, just in case.

[Secret Wizard]

Added the Windstep Master archetype and updated some sections.


If someone has problems with the layout, please post screenshots!