D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Monk: Monk weapon damage

Tar-Edhel · Jul 13, 2003

I was reading the 3.5 monk on Gaming Report

Read it here

and I can't find a passage stating that you use monk's weapon damage instead of unarmed damage when a monk uses a kama or quarterstaff for example.

Have I simply overlooked that passage or does it mean that a monk flurrying will use the unarmed damage output even if using monk weapons?

The Little Raven · Jul 13, 2003

No.

Damage from a weapon is the weapon's damage, not your unarmed damage. This makes flurry without weapons much more attractive for higher level monks.

Mort · Jul 13, 2003

Let’s see, the relevant text says: “She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably, as desired.”

Then goes on to provide examples. Seems pretty clear that a monk attacking with monk weapons can use the weapon damage (and bonus of the weapon) OR her unarmed damage and unarmed bonus (which will likely be lower if she has magic weapons, but may penetrate different DR).

Tellerve · Jul 13, 2003

That would be very nice, as I always hated having a high level monk that used a 1d6/20x2 weapon when their fists were considerable better.

Tellerve

Tar-Edhel · Jul 13, 2003

Mourn said:
No.

Damage from a weapon is the weapon's damage, not your unarmed damage. This makes flurry without weapons much more attractive for higher level monks.

I understand the logic... Had I not played 3rd edition, I would never have asked that question.

But they stated so explicitely that you used monk weapon base damage in 3e that the absence of such passage in 3.5 led me to think that you could indeed apply 'unarmed' damage when using monk weapon.

As Tellerve mentionned, it's kinda conterintuitive to have a 16th level monk doing 2d8 damage with his bare hands but 1d4 with his special 'monk' weapons.

And again, it is counterintuitive to have an 'armed' monk, one using weapons, use an unarmed damage chart.

Last but not least, I don't think it would be overpowered. In fact, such a change might redeem monks AFAIC.

Darklone · Jul 13, 2003

Mort said:
Let’s see, the relevant text says: “She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably, as desired.”

Then goes on to provide examples. Seems pretty clear that a monk attacking with monk weapons can use the weapon damage (and bonus of the weapon) OR her unarmed damage and unarmed bonus (which will likely be lower if she has magic weapons, but may penetrate different DR).

They don't write either that the monk may cast spells. Seems pretty clear then that he casts spells as a sorcerer

Tellerve · Jul 13, 2003

Man, now your just being mean Darklone

Tellerve

drnuncheon · Jul 13, 2003

Tar-Edhel said:
I can't find a passage stating that you use monk's weapon damage instead of unarmed damage when a monk uses a kama or quarterstaff for example.

How about:

"A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would" - since this is the only reference to the unarmed damage table, it seems pretty clear to me that you don't get to use that table when the monk is armed.

J

Staffan · Jul 13, 2003

Tellerve said:
That would be very nice, as I always hated having a high level monk that used a 1d6/20x2 weapon when their fists were considerable better.

Except they're not considerably better than the kind of magical weaponry you'll be able to have at those levels - at least using 3.0 unarmed damage. Each +1 to damage has the same average effect as increasing one die size (except for the d12->d20 jump), and the additional attack bonus pushes the weapon to be more effective than unarmed attacks.

Mort · Jul 14, 2003

Darklone said:
They don't write either that the monk may cast spells. Seems pretty clear then that he casts spells as a sorcerer

Huh?

Sorry, but what does that pithy remark (which I see as saying "if they didn't say it, why are you reading into it?") have to do with the quote?

The text simply states that when a monk attacks they can use a monk weapon they are holding or use an unarmed attack.