D&D 3E/3.5 Question on D&D 3.5 Monk

[Sojigo]

I just went with the quarterstaff last time I played a monk. You get all of the power attack and str bonuses of a 2 handed weapon and all the extra attacks of a monk weapon, and you have two heads to ehnahce for varity.

I'm doing this as part of my character design. I want to have him go up to someone and when he goes to knee his opponent in the side, his leg should come up engulfed in flame. Plus a monk does more damage unarmed than with any of their monk weapons anyway. It's kind if why I find this whole "a monk has 3 natural weapons because some completely unrelated item costs 3x as much as a normal weapon" thing a little odd... it doesn't matter which part of thier body a monk attacks with, it's the same damage. It's not like a claw vs a bite attack. This is a character aesthetic thing.

 

[Sarellion]

AU has a feat that allows you to enchant your hands as weapons at normal prices. Your unarmed attacks are considered to be one weapon.

 

[James McMurray]

I'm doing this as part of my character design. I want to have him go up to someone and when he goes to knee his opponent in the side, his leg should come up engulfed in flame. Plus a monk does more damage unarmed than with any of their monk weapons anyway. It's kind if why I find this whole "a monk has 3 natural weapons because some completely unrelated item costs 3x as much as a normal weapon" thing a little odd... it doesn't matter which part of thier body a monk attacks with, it's the same damage. It's not like a claw vs a bite attack. This is a character aesthetic thing.

Well, you could always rule that a onk has a near infinite number of body parts that have to be enchnted seperately.

Or you could rule that it is only one weapon (or 2, or 4, or ny other arbitrary number).

Or you could extrapolate the price from the only 3.5 item that enhances unarmed attacks.

That last one makes the most sense to me, and extrapolation is the method the DMG recommends when creating a new item.

If its just for asthetics, getting an item that creates the illusion of fire around your knee should be much cheaper than getting an item that creates real fire around your knee. It'll have the same visual effect.

 

[jester47]

The monk has one natural weapon: body part.

the description for monks reads:

Reading from Unarmed Strike in the monk description.

A monks attacks may be with either fist interchangably or even elbows knees and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full.

No matter if a monk uses elbows, knees, feet, fists its the same kind of natural attacks.

HOWEVER the cost of the amulet is 3 xs the enhancement bonus. Why is this? Who knows. Its not really important when you are considering the monk because it only has one kind of natural attack.

From looking at the spell descriptions of Magic Fang, Greater and Magic Fang It looks like the reason the amulet is priced x3 is because there are many different types of natural weapon, and I suspect it is because few monsters have more than 3 natural weapons.

But that is just a guess and makes more sense the the "precedent" for the monk having 3 natural attacks... (?!... whatever...)

 

[James McMurray]

You could also take the Kensai suggestion. They are actually a very nice class for a monk (evasion plus concentration as a class skill means almost never taking damage from a fireball again, since they get to make concentration checks in place of reflex saves). The other class abilities are also nothing to sneeze at.

 

[James McMurray]

But that is just a guess and makes more sense the the "precedent" for the monk having 3 natural attacks... (?!... whatever...)

Both hands could count as one, both feat as another, and the rest of the body as the third. But it really doesn't matter what the rationale is, the equivilent item already exists. DMs are of course free to rule that monks get amulets of mighty fists for less than the book value, but if you're looking for 3.5 rules on enhancing unarmed strikes, the DMG s the only place you can go right now.

Why would an item that is equivilent in power to a listed item (flaming amulet +1 (+2 total enhancement) versus amulet +2) cost less than the amulet +2? Just because it belongs to a monk and a player doesn't want to have to pay a lot for it? (?!... whatever...)

 

[Sojigo]

Well since the PHB describes the Monk as being able to use all their attacks interchangably I'm going to just go with having a wonderous item enchanted to enhance my unarmed attacks. Maybe I'll have it be some kind of funky looking mask. I think most people would agree that when the PHB says the attacks are interchangable, an item in the DMG--that doesn't mention monk at all--can't override that.

Oh, and when I meant that I was doing this for aesthetics I did NOT mean that I didn't care if it didn't do extra damage. When I roll to attack I'm not always going to say what extremely complex Bruce Lee manuver I'm going to do, but it'll be assumed.

 

[jester47]

Both hands could count as one, both feat as another, and the rest of the body as the third. But it really doesn't matter what the rationale is, the equivilent item already exists. DMs are of course free to rule that monks get amulets of mighty fists for less than the book value, but if you're looking for 3.5 rules on enhancing unarmed strikes, the DMG s the only place you can go right now.

Well thought!

Why would an item that is equivilent in power to a listed item (flaming amulet +1 (+2 total enhancement) versus amulet +2) cost less than the amulet +2? Just because it belongs to a monk and a player doesn't want to have to pay a lot for it? (?!... whatever...)

whatevers aside...

Why would it cost less? I'm confused. I am not saying it should be cheaper for the monk. I am saying that the reason for the x3 cost its to compensate for the fact that you can take it from a monk (1 natural weapon type) and give it to a lizardfolk (2 natural weapon types), or an adult dragon (5 natural weapon types). Using the x3 pricing scheme to balance a Lizardfolk with one of these amulets, a flaming +1 amulet and a regular +2 Amulet should cost the same... didn't meanto imply otherwise.

But I still think the monk having 3 natural attack types is funny.

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

Well since the PHB describes the Monk as being able to use all their attacks interchangably I'm going to just go with having a wonderous item enchanted to enhance my unarmed attacks. Maybe I'll have it be some kind of funky looking mask. I think most people would agree that when the PHB says the attacks are interchangable, an item in the DMG--that doesn't mention monk at all--can't override that.

Oh, and when I meant that I was doing this for aesthetics I did NOT mean that I didn't care if it didn't do extra damage. When I roll to attack I'm not always going to say what extremely complex Bruce Lee manuver I'm going to do, but it'll be assumed.

I think the mechanic is that somthing that gives a bonus to natural weapons/unarmed attacks is that it should be 3Xs the cost. Mainly because said item on a creature with multiple natural attacks (like anadult red dragon) is more dangerous than said item on your monk. Since magic items are based on the spell system, and magic fang is the only way to go, I would suggest that you have the cost be x3 for the enhancement. However, that is not because the monk has three types of natural attacks.

Aaron.

 

[Coredump]

Well, here is my chance to live vicariously through you...


I think you should play a Monk11/Kensai 5 with VoP

From just Kensai and VoP:

fists are +3 and can have 5 'pluses' of effects (ghost touch, speed, flaming, etc.)
+6/4/2 on three ability scores
+11 AC
+3 saves
damage reduction,
energy resistance


Plus all the goodies from Monk (5 attacks, d10 dmg, etc.)

Have fun.