Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Balancing question about monks unarmed attacks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 239776" data-attributes="member: 1008"><p>Corwin is right - the PHB description is hard to understand. To try and help clarify things, I'll run through the example given in the PHB step by step.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is the only direct reference to a primary attack bonus in the entire example: +10.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>NB: although this phrase is specifically talking about only the iterative attack, it gives the full attack bonus on the row from which is was derived (+10/+5) - this becomes important later.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This phrase is also talking specifically about iterative attacks: "<em>the <strong>two additional</strong> unarmed attacks</em>" ... "<em>+4 and +1</em>.</p><p></p><p>Although it then goes on to list the +7/+4/+1, the context and the NB above make it clear (after you stop to think about it) that the section in brackets is merely there to refer you to the table and row from which the information is derived.</p><p></p><p>The section <strong>should</strong> then have gone on to point out bluntly that the monk in question may attack unarmed at +10/+5 OR +10/+4/+1. Had it done so, all this pain could have been averted. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> </p><p></p><p>The quote in my original post, together with those in this one, should put the question beyond doubt, from a rules-lawyer's perspective anyway.</p><p></p><p>BTW, thanks for confirming the FAQ status for me Lela. That's what I thought (as soon as I saw the Sage listed in the credits on p1, I guessed I was in the right <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />).</p><p></p><p>EDIT: Great. While I'm busy typing, everyone posts to make this redundant. That's what you get for trying to help out grumble grumble grumble....<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SableWyvern, post: 239776, member: 1008"] Corwin is right - the PHB description is hard to understand. To try and help clarify things, I'll run through the example given in the PHB step by step. This is the only direct reference to a primary attack bonus in the entire example: +10. NB: although this phrase is specifically talking about only the iterative attack, it gives the full attack bonus on the row from which is was derived (+10/+5) - this becomes important later. This phrase is also talking specifically about iterative attacks: "[i]the [b]two additional[/b] unarmed attacks[/i]" ... "[i]+4 and +1[/i]. Although it then goes on to list the +7/+4/+1, the context and the NB above make it clear (after you stop to think about it) that the section in brackets is merely there to refer you to the table and row from which the information is derived. The section [b]should[/b] then have gone on to point out bluntly that the monk in question may attack unarmed at +10/+5 OR +10/+4/+1. Had it done so, all this pain could have been averted. :cool: The quote in my original post, together with those in this one, should put the question beyond doubt, from a rules-lawyer's perspective anyway. BTW, thanks for confirming the FAQ status for me Lela. That's what I thought (as soon as I saw the Sage listed in the credits on p1, I guessed I was in the right :D). EDIT: Great. While I'm busy typing, everyone posts to make this redundant. That's what you get for trying to help out grumble grumble grumble....:p [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Balancing question about monks unarmed attacks
Top