The Monk's Hit Dice Should Be a d8! [Rant]

[Carnifex]

Storm Raven - you are missing the point og why he emphasised the once per round limitation. That indicates that, were that limitation not explicitly stated, the monk could use it more than once per round - ie, he could use multiple attacks and make all of them stunning attacks.

Also, here's something else to consider - Gauntlets. They count in all ways as unarmed attacks except they deal normal damage rather than subdual, otherwise using all the qualities of the characters unarmed attacks, so the monk's special rules fully apply (unless this has been errata'd somewhere). They can also be enchanted, so you can have +5 defender gauntlets of speed.

High level monks are, of course, terrors, as I proved with my spring-attacking dwarven monk/arcanopath against numerous spellcasters and even fighters

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven - you are missing the point og why he emphasised the once per round limitation. That indicates that, were that limitation not explicitly stated, the monk could use it more than once per round - ie, he could use multiple attacks and make all of them stunning attacks.

Not necessarily. I regard it as clarification: reminding you in the text that you can only use it once per round just like all other supernatural abilities. Since the highlighted text doesn't contradict the rules regarding the use of supernatural abilities, and indeed supports them, quoting it as support for the position that it somehow means that those rules don't apply is nonsensical.

Also, here's something else to consider - Gauntlets. They count in all ways as unarmed attacks except they deal normal damage rather than subdual, otherwise using all the qualities of the characters unarmed attacks, so the monk's special rules fully apply (unless this has been errata'd somewhere). They can also be enchanted, so you can have +5 defender gauntlets of speed.

For what it is worth, the Sage has opined that the use of gauntlets interferes with the monk's ability to use their unarmed attack bonuses. This is in the D&D FAQ, page 22.

 

[Carnifex]

For what it is worth, the Sage has opined that the use of gauntlets interferes with the monk's ability to use their unarmed attack bonuses. This is in the D&D FAQ, page 22.

Okay, thanks I thought it had probably be e'd somewhere. I've only ever used the tactic once myself anyway, and that was in a friends campaign that was totally over-the-top in power levels - one of the players was a half-dragon half-celestial paladin so checking whether or not any rulings had been made that would disallow my defender gauntlets +4 was not at the top of my priorities list

 

[Hakkenshi]

No, it's been stated over and over that feats are in fact extraordinary abilities. If the monk's ability is a supernatural one (which I agree with), it remains a virtual feat, which would supersede the standard action for a supernatural ability. Why the heck would the non-monk version of the ability be better, when all other virtual feats the monk gets are better???

Carnifex, you were right, that *was* the reason for the emphasis I added.

And Storm Raven: I believe the Sage said that BLADED gauntlets interfered with unarmed combat. Are you telling me that a monk can't wear Gloves of Dexterity because it would impede his abilities? What about his kicks, his feet aren't gloved! And for that matter, do Boots of Striding and Springing impede a monk's kicks? Come on, just think about it for a second.

Even if that were the case, there's still the fact that you could make an amulet of Greater Magic Fang, useable 3/day, for a trivial amount at higher levels. That's despite the fact that there are much simpler solutions, like not being unfair to the monk by not giving him magical monk weapons.

 

[ForceUser]

I'm going to have to back up Storm Raven. The text explicitly states that 1) stunning blow is a supernatural ability, 2) supernatural abilities require a standard action to activate unless specifically cited otherwise, and 3) stunning blow does not specifically cite otherwise.

My monk's player has emailed the Sage for clarification on this debate. If we get a response, I'll post it here to settle the issue once and for all.

 

[Storm Raven]

No, it's been stated over and over that feats are in fact extraordinary abilities. If the monk's ability is a supernatural one (which I agree with), it remains a virtual feat, which would supersede the standard action for a supernatural ability. Why the heck would the non-monk version of the ability be better, when all other virtual feats the monk gets are better???

It states it is a supernatural ability. That makes it a supernatural ability. Do you really need this to be explained to you?

In addition, if a feat gives you a supernatural or spelllike ability, you follow the rules for supernatural or spell like abilities. Access to the feat remains extraordinary, but access to supernatural or spell like powers granted by the feat is limited by the rules for supernatural or spell like abilities.

For example: Innate Spell allows you to cast a spell as a spell like ability. Do you think it would make sense that using this would be treated as an extraordinary ability? Or a spell like ability?

And Storm Raven: I believe the Sage said that BLADED gauntlets interfered with unarmed combat. Are you telling me that a monk can't wear Gloves of Dexterity because it would impede his abilities? What about his kicks, his feet aren't gloved! And for that matter, do Boots of Striding and Springing impede a monk's kicks? Come on, just think about it for a second.

Nope, the statement in the FAQ applies to plain old gauntlets. Explicitly. Like I said: the D&D FAQ, Page 22. It is available on the Wizards.com website. You could have checked this in about thirty seconds. Instead you chose to guess and you guessed wrongly. Why don't you actually go and read the sources you are discussing before opining on them?

 

[Hakkenshi]

You know, I would have checked, but the fact is that I can't open ZIP files at work. So I couldn't. And I can't. So if you want to prove something, you're going to have to post, because otherwise, your word is as unsubstantiated as mine.

If the Sage did say that about gauntlets(I have no way of checking), he messed up. WITHOUT QUOTING HIM SPECIFICALLY, can you tell me why Gloves of Dex, or Gloves or Missile Snaring, would impede a monk's attack? If it's only gauntlets, then you could make gloves that help the monk's attack, or bracers. It doesn't matter. On the same note, do boots hinder a monk's ability?

Explain to me again why the non-monk version of the Stunning Attack would be better than the monk version, because you didn't the first time. You're not actually justifying anything by comparing to metamagic feats or Innate Spell, which explicitly states that it makes a spell (which cannot BE extraordinary) a spell-like ability (which is not supernatural).

And you said yourself that a supernatural ability CAN be used differently than as a standard action. Since Stunning Blow is a virtual feat, it follows the feat's example, for which we HAVE a precedent, instead of the standard supernatural ability's. You're guessing as much as I am there.

 

[Storm Raven]

You know, I would have checked, but the fact is that I can't open ZIP files at work. So I couldn't. And I can't. So if you want to prove something, you're going to have to post, because otherwise, your word is as unsubstantiated as mine.

Ah. "I can't check the source so I will talk anyway". How cute.

If the Sage did say that about gauntlets(I have no way of checking), he messed up. WITHOUT QUOTING HIM SPECIFICALLY, can you tell me why Gloves of Dex, or Gloves or Missile Snaring, would impede a monk's attack? If it's only gauntlets, then you could make gloves that help the monk's attack, or bracers. It doesn't matter. On the same note, do boots hinder a monk's ability?

Why would I have to do it without quoting him directly? From the FAQ:

Question: Are gauntlets and spiked gauntlets considered weapons? Could a monk wearing a pair of gauntlets attack and still apply her unarmed attack bonus and unarmed damage? Could the monk use her class abilities that require successful unarmed strikes, such as her stun ability, while wearing gauntlets? How much damage would a monk wearing a pair of gauntlets deal? If the gauntlets had an enhancement bonus (such as a +2 enhancement bonus) or a special ability (such as flaming burst), would a monk wearing these gauntlets gain any benefit? Can gauntlets even have weapon enhancement bonuses or weapon special abilities?
Answer: Both gauntlets and spiked gauntlets are weapons (that' why they are both listed on Table 7Œ4 in the Player's Handbook). A pair of gauntlets or spiked gauntlets can be magically
enhanced, just as any other weapon can. Although a nonmonk wearing a pair of gauntlets is still considered unarmed (see the next two questions), a monk wearing gauntlets is using a weapon. A monk cannot use any of her special unarmed attack abilities (unarmed damage, stunning attack, and so on) when using a weapon. A monk can use her unarmed attack rate with a special monk weapon, but gauntlets are not a special monk weapon. A monk wearing gauntlets does not provoke attacks of opportunity when striking an armed foe with gauntlets. The monk deals the same damage as any other character of her size (1d3 points of damage for a Medium-size character). The monk would get the benefits of any magical properties the gauntlets might have.

Explain to me again why the non-monk version of the Stunning Attack would be better than the monk version, because you didn't the first time. You're not actually justifying anything by comparing to metamagic feats or Innate Spell, which explicitly states that it makes a spell (which cannot BE extraordinary) a spell-like ability (which is not supernatural).

So, the fact that the text of the monk's ability says that it is a supernatural ability isn't enough? Perhaps you need to rethink your position. The monk's stunning blow ability is a supernatural ability. This is plain and simple as the black and white text of the PHB. That you can't figure this out tells me that you are having trouble reading.

And you said yourself that a supernatural ability CAN be used differently than as a standard action.

No. I didn't. Stop making things up as you go. It doesn't help you.

Since Stunning Blow is a virtual feat, it follows the feat's example, for which we HAVE a precedent, instead of the standard supernatural ability's. You're guessing as much as I am there.

No. The monk's ability follows the text of the ability. Perhaps learning to read more closely would help you out here?

 

[Hakkenshi]

Alright, now you're just being rude. Obviously the concept that a company network might block certain downloads is beyond you.

Look a few posts above, you posted this:

You were misusing the stunning blow ability. The monk's stunning blow is a supernatural ability, and unless noted otherwise, supernatural abilities require a standard action to use.

The emphasis is, admittedly, added by me, but you can't deny that you wrote this. And yet you just did.

So, based on this, my reasoning is that:

a) The monk's Stunning Blow is a supernatural ability (I already admitted to this earlier, if you'll notice; why attack my ability to read if you miss obvious statements like that?).
b) As you said, a supernatural ability usually requires a standard action.
c) However, since the feat which the supernatural ability emulates does not, in fact, require a standard action since it is an extraordinary ability (the feat's text states nowhere that it is supernatural), neither does the virtual feat that is the monk's ability.

You may disagree, but hey, I've stated my arguments, and yours, so far, are based on your own interpretation, just like mine are.

As for your point about the gauntlet, I agree (isn't that fantastic?) insofar as the WEAPON that is a gauntlet cannot be used adequately by a monk. I had always argued that the wondrous item gauntlets and gloves were not subject to this, although for some reason you felt necessary to correct me! My question to you (which you still haven't answered, by the way), was why wondrous items would impede the monk's abilities. I never said bladed gauntlets or the weapon-version of gauntlets should be useable by monks--but Gauntlets of Ogre Power should.

I really don't see why you're being so condescending. Is this your way of proving your point?

And just because I'm not one to leave you hanging with unanswered questions, the reason I asked you to tell me without quoting the Sage was to see the logical reasoning behind your argument; from what I've seen, so far you have only relied on another's judgement.

Common sense dictates that (if only for balance reasons) monks should not be hindered by common magic items like gloves and boots, but apparently this is unsatisfactory for you.

And if you must insist that I'm lying about not being able to look up the FAQ myself, well, I hope it's a comforting thought for you.

 

[Storm Raven]

So, based on this, my reasoning is that:

a) The monk's Stunning Blow is a supernatural ability (I already admitted to this earlier, if you'll notice; why attack my ability to read if you miss obvious statements like that?).
b) As you said, a supernatural ability usually requires a standard action.
c) However, since the feat which the supernatural ability emulates does not, in fact, require a standard action since it is an extraordinary ability (the feat's text states nowhere that it is supernatural), neither does the virtual feat that is the monk's ability.

Of course, the monk's text does state that it is a supernatural ability, and doesn't state that it is used differently from normal supernatural abilities.

So your logic train derails right there. Your argument makes no sense.

You may disagree, but hey, I've stated my arguments, and yours, so far, are based on your own interpretation, just like mine are.

Since your arguments have no actual basis in the text of the rules, we can safely discard them as being uninformed and irrelevant.

As for your point about the gauntlet, I agree (isn't that fantastic?) insofar as the WEAPON that is a gauntlet cannot be used adequately by a monk. I had always argued that the wondrous item gauntlets and gloves were not subject to this, although for some reason you felt necessary to correct me! My question to you (which you still haven't answered, by the way), was why wondrous items would impede the monk's abilities.

Because they are weapons. This is not a hard concept to get. And yet you seem to think it is.

I never said bladed gauntlets or the weapon-version of gauntlets should be useable by monks--but Gauntlets of Ogre Power should.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power are gauntlets, just like any other set. Weapons, just like the ones listed in the PHB.

I really don't see why you're being so condescending. Is this your way of proving your point?

I'm being condescending because you are acting like a three year old. You don't read the books. You don't know the rules. Yet you keep saying that your completely incorrect application of them is actually correct. Someone acting that foolish deserves condescension.

And just because I'm not one to leave you hanging with unanswered questions, the reason I asked you to tell me without quoting the Sage was to see the logical reasoning behind your argument; from what I've seen, so far you have only relied on another's judgement.

Someone asked a rules related question. One that doesn't require judgment, just a reading of the rules. I referred to the primary source of clarification of the rules. That is what one usually does when confronted by people asking rules questions: one consluts the books and text. One does not, as you like to do, make stuff up as you go.

Common sense dictates that (if only for balance reasons) monks should not be hindered by common magic items like gloves and boots, but apparently this is unsatisfactory for you.

Gloves are not weapons. Boots are not weapons. Gauntlets are. Perhaps you need to actually read the books before you try to form arguments.

And if you must insist that I'm lying about not being able to look up the FAQ myself, well, I hope it's a comforting thought for you.

I didn't say that. I said that the fact that you didn't (whether or not your couldn't) check your facts before you decided to opine and then decided to make uninformed statements was worthy of derision.

You should have waited until you could check your facts before trying to talk on the subject. You would look far less silly.