Monks wearing armor ... what penalties ?

[Kraedin]

You must be playing with strict rules lawyers as it's pretty obvious to me that the spirit of the rules is that an unarmed strike is a natural attack.

No, I just enjoy arguing. I don't think even in the "spirit" of the rules that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, though. I'm not going to be giving monks one and a half their Strength modifier to damage anytime soon.

Personally, I just let this issue slide, just like their supernatural running ability, and virtually the entire Perfect Self entry.

Just like I don't strip druids of their spellcasting for attacking with a claw attack.

 

[IceBear]

I think you know what I meant about the spirit of the rules - that a monk who is "specialized in fighting unarmed" wouldn't be considered non-proficient with it. Getting the Improved Unarmed Strike for free kinda implies they are proficient with an unarmed strike to me.

Anyway, please count me out of any further discussion on this as I don't enjoy "just arguing". I'm on these forums to understand the rules better so if someone just wants to argue for the sake of arguing I have better things to do with my time.

IceBear

 

[Brekki]

To get back to the issue ... as a DM or player, to what abilities do you think the monk wearing armor should get the arcane spell failure penalty ?

After some discussion we thought the following:
- wholeness of body
- abundant step
- empty body
- stunning attack
- quivering palm

The other abilities are either the same as others can use without penalty or are purely based on mental and/or physical strength.