Okay kids, simple rules question for 4th edition monks, help a brother out

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
Here we go:

#1) Can I use two-weapon fighting to give myself +1 damage with my monk powers? If so, in what cases is this acceptible?

#2) Can I use weapon focus (unarmed strike) to help me deal extra damage with my monk powers?

Thanks guys,
JuiceMasterFlex
Here we go:

#1) Can I use two-weapon fighting to give myself +1 damage with my monk powers? If so, in what cases is this acceptible?

#2) Can I use weapon focus (unarmed strike) to help me deal extra damage with my monk powers?

Thanks guys,
JuiceMasterFlex

1.) Yes
2.) Not by RAW but ask your DM-the builder says yes and most DMs would be jerks if they wanted to say no.

1) Yes, you can.  It is acceptable in all cases as long as you have two weapons.  Note that since it does not say otherwise, your Monk Unarmed Strike is a single weapon.

2) Yes, but I wouldn't recommend it.  Since the Unarmed Strike can't be enchanted, you're pretty screwed after around level 5 or so as far as your attack bonus is concerned.  If you want to use Weapon Focus with your implement powers, you need to use an enchanted weapon.

Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
Let me clarify: The builder says Weapon Focus (Monk Unarmed Strike) would apply if you were attacking with a ki focus. It is wrong by RAW, but a lot of people seem to think that the RAW is pretty nonsensical in this sense. If your DM is okay with the idea that you're using your Ki Focused monk unarmed strike, rather than just your ki focus, to attack, then this is acceptable. Otherwise, it doesn't work.
Let me clarify: The builder says Weapon Focus (Monk Unarmed Strike) would apply if you were attacking with a ki focus. It is wrong by RAW, but a lot of people seem to think that the RAW is pretty nonsensical in this sense. If your DM is okay with the idea that you're using your Ki Focused monk unarmed strike, rather than just your ki focus, to attack, then this is acceptable. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

And to clarify futher, you can use your Monk Unarmed Strike as an implement with your powers, and you can benefit from Weapon Focus when using it as such.  But because it is unenchanted, this is a bad idea after a certain level, at which point you'll likely use a Ki Focus, which obviously is not a weapon and thus can't benefit from weapon focus.

Long story short, all monks attempting to optimize should use a magic weapon as their main implement of choice, and unless you're some quirky hybrid/half-elf/multi-class thing, none of the monk unarmed strike feats are ever worthwhile.
Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
By RAW. Make sure your DM insists on playing by RAW, because there ARE a number of paragon path features and monk powers that specifically improve Monk Unarmed Strike.
In addition, many of the juicier feats require specific weapon groups - things like Scimitar Dance, Polearm Momentum, Spear Push.  Not to mention Monk-specific feats like Crashing Tempest Style or Starblade Flurry.

By RAW, given the current options, most monks will want a weapon in their hands.
If your DM allows you to use a ki focused monk unarmed strike (rather than just the ki focus) for monk powers, you can still benefit from wielding a club even if you don't make the attack with it. A Ki Weapon in one's off-hand is basically a given.
If your DM allows you to use a ki focused monk unarmed strike (rather than just the ki focus) for monk powers

Nothing fills me with more rage of late than hearing about "ki-focused weapons."  This is not at all how it works, nor is it even able to be interpretted from the rules.  The only precedent for this garbage is the Character Builder, which was clearly programmed in the laziest fashion possible to replicate the results of what the Ki Focus does, rather than actually trying to do it right.

If you want to get the benefits of a Ki Focus and a weapon with an implement power, that's how they'll need to change it: by allowing you to use both the mundane properties of a weapon (I guess in this case, it'd be only the weapon's group that matters) and the magical properties of a ki focus with implement powers.

Without completely rewriting the Ki Focus rules to turn it into some kind of meta-implement, there's no such think as a Ki-focused weapon.

Sorry, for the rant, it's nothing personal.

Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
If your DM allows you to use a ki focused monk unarmed strike (rather than just the ki focus) for monk powers

Nothing fills me with more rage of late than hearing about "ki-focused weapons."  This is not at all how it works, nor is it even able to be interpretted from the rules.  The only precedent for this garbage is the Character Builder, which was clearly programmed in the laziest fashion possible to replicate the results of what the Ki Focus does, rather than actually trying to do it right.

If you want to get the benefits of a Ki Focus and a weapon with an implement power, that's how they'll need to change it: by allowing you to use both the mundane properties of a weapon (I guess in this case, it'd be only the weapon's group that matters) and the magical properties of a ki focus with implement powers.

Without completely rewriting the Ki Focus rules to turn it into some kind of meta-implement, there's no such think as a Ki-focused weapon.

Sorry, for the rant, it's nothing personal.


Functionally, I feel that the most internally consistent way of handling Ki Focuses is that a Ki Focus effectively creates a non-magical copy of the weapon in question, and then plants the properties of the ki focus over it. This is not the RAW as it relates to implements. It's basically how the builder handles it-which is, of course, not RAW and supposedly not RAI.

But it's really really silly for one of the major class features of the monk to be rendered completely meaningless, to have an epic feat be rendered completely meaningless, to have a paragon path's features be rendered meaningless... you get the idea.

People should play by what they think makes for the best gameplay. RAI > RAW, but "Best Gameplay as unanimously decided by your group" is a trillion steps ahead.
Here's my beef:

Two-Weapon Fighting: +1 damage with your main weapon when wielding a weapon in each hand"

would this not indicate that the +1 to damage can only be gained when using a "weapon" attack?

As in a "melee weapon" designated power?

And all monk powers are "melee touch" or "melee 1"? This would seem to be counter-intuitive would it not?

JuiceMasterFlex
Furthermore, even if you're using a weapon as an implement, it's still an "implement" attack and not a "weapon" attack, no? So then still, you wouldn't be able to claim a bonus?
Weaponliments are still weapons even when not making weapon attacks.

Weapon Focus is the oldest example.
Here's my beef:

Two-Weapon Fighting: +1 damage with your main weapon when wielding a weapon in each hand"

would this not indicate that the +1 to damage can only be gained when using a "weapon" attack?

As in a "melee weapon" designated power?



Except it doesn't designate any such thing.  If a monk is dual wielding daggers and using the main hand dagger as his implement, he is using the weapon in the attack. 

And all monk powers are "melee touch" or "melee 1"? This would seem to be counter-intuitive would it not?



Why?  Melee is a range.  What does the range have to do with anything?
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Here's my beef:

Two-Weapon Fighting: +1 damage with your main weapon when wielding a weapon in each hand"

would this not indicate that the +1 to damage can only be gained when using a "weapon" attack?

As in a "melee weapon" designated power?



Except it doesn't designate any such thing.  If a monk is dual wielding daggers and using the main hand dagger as his implement, he is using the weapon in the attack. 

And all monk powers are "melee touch" or "melee 1"? This would seem to be counter-intuitive would it not?



Why?  Melee is a range.  What does the range have to do with anything?

Melee is not a range, it's a type of power.

Melee touch means your inherent reach as range. If you're a large sized creature (it can happen) your melee touch is Melee 2.
I'm pimping the proposal that the Monk's Unarmed Strike be re-written as a re-skinned Warlock's Pact Blade. Buying "training" in Unarmed Strike would buy to-hit and damages bonuses exactly like those of the Pact Blade.

Just a thought.
Myopia: lack of foresight or discernment; obtuseness.
A valid alternative, but the real problem is that Ki Focus is such a bad decision in the vast majority of builds. If you can combine Ki Focus with Monk Unarmed Strike effectively, Monk Unarmed Strike doesn't need revision. Besides which, it's not even monk unarmed strike specific-Iron Soul monks as written basically can NOT use ki focuses for their powers.

It's like, why make Ki Focuses in the first place?
Here's my beef:

Two-Weapon Fighting: +1 damage with your main weapon when wielding a weapon in each hand"

would this not indicate that the +1 to damage can only be gained when using a "weapon" attack?

As in a "melee weapon" designated power?



Except it doesn't designate any such thing.  If a monk is dual wielding daggers and using the main hand dagger as his implement, he is using the weapon in the attack. 

And all monk powers are "melee touch" or "melee 1"? This would seem to be counter-intuitive would it not?



Why?  Melee is a range.  What does the range have to do with anything?

Melee is not a range, it's a type of power.

Melee touch means your inherent reach as range. If you're a large sized creature (it can happen) your melee touch is Melee 2.



I just have to do this because I think a similar correction like this is funny...

Melee is not a type of power, it's a type of attack.

Attack and utility are types of powers.
If you can combine Ki Focus with Monk Unarmed Strike effectively, Monk Unarmed Strike doesn't need revision.

I've been wondering recently why they didn't make all the Monk attacks weapon keyword attacks, keep the current Ki Focus rules for Ki-Focusizing weapon keyword attacks, and just have them be fixed die size attacks instead of using [W].  Instead of going with implement keyword for Monk attacks.

I guess they got stuck in a rut and couldn't break the mental association of [W] = weapon keyword and fixed die = implement keyword.
I guess they got stuck in a rut and couldn't break the mental association of [W] = weapon keyword and fixed die = implement keyword.



Attacking NADs also makes sense for Monks.  They could have made them Weapon attacks that deal fixed die damage, target NADs, and do not receive a proficiency bonus to the attack roll.
Here's my beef:

Two-Weapon Fighting: +1 damage with your main weapon when wielding a weapon in each hand"

would this not indicate that the +1 to damage can only be gained when using a "weapon" attack?

As in a "melee weapon" designated power?



Except it doesn't designate any such thing.  If a monk is dual wielding daggers and using the main hand dagger as his implement, he is using the weapon in the attack. 

And all monk powers are "melee touch" or "melee 1"? This would seem to be counter-intuitive would it not?



Why?  Melee is a range.  What does the range have to do with anything?

Melee is not a range, it's a type of power.

Melee touch means your inherent reach as range. If you're a large sized creature (it can happen) your melee touch is Melee 2.



I just have to do this because I think a similar correction like this is funny...

Melee is not a type of power, it's a type of attack.

Attack and utility are types of powers.

Incorrect. Melee Touch is also applied for utility powers.

That being said, Melee isn't a type of power persay either. It's a type of targeting category I suppose.

Incorrect. Melee Touch is also applied for utility powers.

That being said, Melee isn't a type of power persay either. It's a type of targeting category I suppose.



Ah, but what I said was that Melee is not a type of power, which is correct. And that melee is a type of attack, which is also correct.

I would have been incorrect if I had said that melee was ONLY a type of attack and nothing else.

Incorrect. Melee Touch is also applied for utility powers.

That being said, Melee isn't a type of power persay either. It's a type of targeting category I suppose.



Ah, but what I said was that Melee is not a type of power, which is correct. And that melee is a type of attack, which is also correct.

I would have been incorrect if I had said that melee was ONLY a type of attack and nothing else.


Fair enough.

I could make a decent point that "type" is not mechanically defined in a consistent way though, but if that's true, I shouldn't be using that language to begin with. YOU WIN THIS ROUND YOU SHARKY BASSINET!
Yeah, but if we had a nickel for every thing that wasn't used consistently we'd have about tree fitty.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf

I've proposed over in the Strikers forum that we use the energy and knowledge that we've used arguing about how the Monk doesn't work, and putting it into a thread that outlines an errata proposal for how it should work. There's an awful lot of experience (playtest and final-rules) that the posters in these forums have with the rules, and it seems likely that we could come up with a good solution.

I've proposed using the Warlock + Pact Blade as a template for how the Monk might work, and I encourage people who might be interested in this process to find specific Monk rules and propose replacements. (Using existing rules as templates seems most likely to win approval, but I don't think it's a requirement.)

Anyone interested?

Myopia: lack of foresight or discernment; obtuseness.

I've proposed over in the Strikers forum that we use the energy and knowledge that we've used arguing about how the Monk doesn't work, and putting it into a thread that outlines an errata proposal for how it should work. There's an awful lot of experience (playtest and final-rules) that the posters in these forums have with the rules, and it seems likely that we could come up with a good solution.

I've proposed using the Warlock + Pact Blade as a template for how the Monk might work, and I encourage people who might be interested in this process to find specific Monk rules and propose replacements. (Using existing rules as templates seems most likely to win approval, but I don't think it's a requirement.)

Anyone interested?


Monk Unarmed Strike isn't broken-Ki Focuses are broken. The monk gets all this benefit from using such and such weapons, and the big thing about the monk is that they're the only non-DDI exclusive class to get ki focuses. But then Ki Focuses for implement powers, as written, aren't weapliments!

Ki Focus is an existing architecture of "You're wielding the weapon but it's not the same magic item" and it seems to me that the architecture suggests "It's not really the same weapon." The simplest and most universal fix is to just have Ki Focuses make a non-magical duplicate of a weapon and then apply the ki focus bonuses on top of it. When you use a Ki Focused weapon, you're attacking with both the weapon and the ki focus.

The only issue where you might find prroblems then is Superior implement weapons with Superior Implement Ki Foci.
Anyone interested?

Sure.  My proposal:

The Monk Unarmed Strike does not exist.  It is gone completely.  The monk no longer has a weapon.

The monk gains a class feature.  Call it whatever you like.  Even call it Monk Unarmed Strike.  I don't really care.  It is an at-will, standard action, implement, melee touch, Dex vs. Reflex attack that deals 1d8+Dex modifier damage on a hit and counts as a melee basic attack.  The feat that previously increased the damage of the MUS weapon instead raises the damage of the MUS feature.

Then, Implements in general get a large amount of support.  At the very least, there needs to be an Implement Focus feat that adds +1 damage/tier just like Weapon Focus.  There should also be non-power source/class specific feats for each individual implement group.  I'm talking about things that would be equivalent to Hammer Rhythm or Spear Push.  Ideally, there would also be feats similar to weapon style or domain feats for each power source as well.

Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
Anyone interested?

Sure.  My proposal:

The Monk Unarmed Strike does not exist.  It is gone completely.  The monk no longer has a weapon.

The monk gains a class feature.  Call it whatever you like.  Even call it Monk Unarmed Strike.  I don't really care.  It is an at-will, standard action, implement, melee touch, Dex vs. Reflex attack that deals 1d8+Dex modifier damage on a hit and counts as a melee basic attack.  The feat that previously increased the damage of the MUS weapon instead raises the damage of the MUS feature.

Then, Implements in general get a large amount of support.  At the very least, there needs to be an Implement Focus feat that adds +1 damage/tier just like Weapon Focus.  There should also be non-power source/class specific feats for each individual implement group.  I'm talking about things that would be equivalent to Hammer Rhythm or Spear Push.  Ideally, there would also be feats similar to weapon style or domain feats for each power source as well.


A complete redo of Weapliments may be in order. But we're not talking aboutt that. We're dealing with the monk specifically. And to make the monk make sense, the real issue is with ki focuses-there's no existing reason to ever actually use a ki focus as an implement. Monk Unarmed Strike would function just fine if Ki Focuses could be used to augment weapons, and then use them as weapliments.
 A complete redo of Weapliments may be in order. But we're not talking aboutt that. We're dealing with the monk specifically. And to make the monk make sense, the real issue is with ki focuses-there's no existing reason to ever actually use a ki focus as an implement. Monk Unarmed Strike would function just fine if Ki Focuses could be used to augment weapons, and then use them as weapliments.

But the monk's specific problems are due to both:

1) the existence of a trap weapon that does nothing but confuse people and fuel unfair silly builds like that Hyperflurry nonsense.

2) the inherenet divide between weapliments and pure implements

If you fix the Ki Focus by making it a meta-implement, all it does is band-aid that particular implement with needless complication.  It still leaves every other implement in the same sorry state.  Why create a complicated fix for a single game element when you could create a fix for every similar game element all at once?
Heroes Don't Need Special Gear to Be Heroic - A guide to removing magic item dependency and smoothing out advancement. Reinventing the Workday: A Shift Towards Encounter-Based Resources - A guide to abandoning daily resources
Because we were asked to fix the monk unarmed strike, or the monk in general, not Weapliments. Also, I disagree with your suggested fix on other grounds.

It's EASY to fix Ki Focuses, and it has the EFFECT of fixing Monk Unarmed Strike. It is not easy to fix Weapliments.

If anything though, Implements-ALL implements-should be weapons, and qualify as such.

But if you REALLY want to fix the game, then do a Nuke and Pave and call it Dungeons and Dragons 4.5 or something.
I think it would be better to change all Monk powers to weapon keyword powers instead of implement keyword powers and eliminate proficiency bonuses to their attack rolls for monk powers.

I'm sure I'm missing some unintended consequences for such a change though. 
I'd personally have monk powers have a flat -2 to hit built in instead of that, except for those powers INTENDED to be high accuracy (like the Rogue's "Piercing Strike")

But generally, Weapon powers deal [W] damage. Not designated dice of damage. And I don't want my monk powers to deal 3d4 damage-I'm not a DPR king as is!
I know they generally deal [W], but the whole point for a monk is they don't have to.  Just because we make them weapon keyword doesn't mean they have to have a [W].

At least, pretty sure they don't.  IIRC, [W] indicates the use of a weapon, not the other way around.  I'd have to go back to my PHB and check it out though.  I remember there being some stuff about the relationship between [W], weapon and implement when I was arguing that weaplements shouldn't get bonuses from weapon category based powers when 4e first came out.

-2 to hit but including proficiency bonuses might be a better idea than just dropping the prof bonus though.  At least that way proficiency is meaninful.
I definitely concede that in the long run, Weapons and Implements should be totally 100% interchangable with eachother. But I still think the simplest solution is not to rewrite every single existing monk power to have different keywords and then give Monk powers a universal caveat somewhere "ALL MONK POWERS HAVE YET ANOTHER UNIQUE AND COMPLICATING FEATURE" but to just change how Ki Focuses work. I mean, does anyone deny that my Ki Focus solution would handily address all of the problems that Monks have with their implements?
I've proposed over in the Strikers forum that we use the energy and knowledge that we've used arguing about how the Monk doesn't work, and putting it into a thread that outlines an errata proposal for how it should work.



Except it currently works the way it should work.  I think you mean proposing an update to make it work the way people want it to work.  A subtle but significant difference.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
If your definition of "should" is "as intended by certain specific game developers but probably not the entire cast of everyone responsible for creating the rules" you are correct.

However, if the game currently works as it "should" then Iron Soul monks "should" never use a ki focus.

I don't know about you, but that certainly bugs the !@#$ out of me.
Are there other non-Monk "weapliments" besides the Warlock's Pact Blade?

My question is, "Is this the core problem of the Monk?":

The Monk class has the weapliment effect (a weapon with which the Monk is proficient becomes an implement for the Monk). As a result, there are times when the Monk may be, in effect, wielding two implements (e.g., ki focus + weapliment). There are also times when the Monk has a feat designed to enhance a weapon.

If the rules say, "this feat enhances a weapon", then the interpretation is, "this feat cannot be used with Monk powers, because the Monk is wielding an implement."

If that is the core problem of the Monk, then perhaps we can focus on the wording of that section of the Monk's class description in order to make it more clear, or function in a mechanically consistent way.

Using "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" as a model, can we write a sentence like "all implements are weapons, but not all weapons are implements?" Only powers with implement keywords benefit from implements and implement-related feats? 
Myopia: lack of foresight or discernment; obtuseness.
Except it currently works the way it should work.  I think you mean proposing an update to make it work the way people want it to work.  A subtle but significant difference.



Sorry to double-post, but I just saw your post, Dragon9. I agree with you, with the caveat that the way it works seems to be confusing enough that it leads to long, involved debates. Finding a way of wording it to make it clear how it works, doesn't necessarily have to change it.

I'm suspicious that the bit people have problems with is the function of the Monk class that makes weapons and implements interchangeable. It appears that this leads to debate about how weapon- or implement-related feats interact with mutable items.

It may also be that there isn't an elegant way to make this interchangeabiltity function using previous rules as templates, which leads to more complication in the rules (thus more room for debate.)

Myopia: lack of foresight or discernment; obtuseness.
The core problem is Ki Focuses, to the extent that Ki Focuses are intended to be used with implement powers. Period.

If you want to just eliminate ki focuses from the mix, sure-but to the extent that Monks are the ki focus using class, and monk powers are implement powers, Ki Focuses have no purpose to the game. They are always a suboptimal choice. The only exceptions are basically rangers, who multiclass monk so they don't have to buy two weapons-and even then it's a suboptimal choice compared to two weapon fighting. The other single alternative that makes Ki Foci useful that I'm aware of is a Blurred Strike Ki Focus, which is only functional with powers that allow you to make two attacks.

Not attack two targets-Five Storms is still one attack-but rather two seperate attacks.

The problem isn't Monk Unarmed Strike. The problem is Ki Focuses. Monks just highlight the problem, because they're the ones who use Ki Focuses as implements.
@TheyCallMeTomuReborn: So, is your concern with ki foci mechanical or flavor-related?
Myopia: lack of foresight or discernment; obtuseness.
If your definition of "should" is "as intended by certain specific game developers but probably not the entire cast of everyone responsible for creating the rules" you are correct.

However, if the game currently works as it "should" then Iron Soul monks "should" never use a ki focus.

I don't know about you, but that certainly bugs the !@#$ out of me.



I'm not sure why.  Monks use either a Ki Focus or a weapon as an implement.  Iron Souls, being primarily weapon users, should be focusing more on using a weapon as implement.  So I'm not seeing the disconnect about not using a Ki Focus.

Are there other non-Monk "weapliments" besides the Warlock's Pact Blade?



Oh yes, plenty.  Several for bards (songblades, etc.), sorcerers use daggers and staves (quarterstaff), wizards can use quarterstaffs, Druids can use a quarterstaff, Swordmages use nothing but weapliments, etc.  They're all over the place.

My question is, "Is this the core problem of the Monk?"

If the rules say, "this feat enhances a weapon", then the interpretation is, "this feat cannot be used with Monk powers, because the Monk is wielding an implement."

If that is the core problem of the Monk, then perhaps we can focus on the wording of that section of the Monk's class description in order to make it more clear, or function in a mechanically consistent way.



I think maybe you aren't catching the gist of the debate.  If a class (any class) is using a weapon as implement, any weapon related feats (such as Weapon Focus, TWF, etc.) apply when using the weapon as implement.  Unless the feat specifically says it only applys on weapon attacks.

This isn't in question.  What gets debated is that the Ki Focus has a special rule that allows you to use its enhancement bonus when making a weapon attack with a weapon. (this shows up in the CB as a "Ki-Focused [insert weapon here]."  So say you have a +5 Magic Ki Focus and a +1 Magic Longsword, you make a weapon attack so any W damage is a d8, you can wield it 2-handed for +1 damage (versatile) but you can use the +5 bonus from the +5 Magic Ki Focus instead of the +1 enchantment from the longsword.

BUT (and you knew there was a but coming), there is no such rule for implement usage.  So when a Monk (or an Assassin) makes an implement attack he uses either his Ki Focus as his implement, or his weapon.  If he uses his weapon, any weapon related feats apply.  If he uses his Ki Focus, there isn't any feat support for it like weapons have (or any straight impelment for that matter) so it can fall behind int he DPR department.  Usually it's not a lot, but there's definitely more feat support for weapons than implements.

This is really where the heart of the matter lies.  That and the Monk is a pure implement class and is fluffed to still be punching and kicking, so people are tryign to reconcile the mechanics with the fluff, especially because of the MUS.  This is where the confusion lies in that people think that you can use a weapon as an implement and use the enchanment from the Ki Focus like you can do with weapon attacks.  The fact that the CB allows it to be done just adds fuel to that fire.

So when you hear people say a Monk is better off using a weapliment, it's because there's more feat support and you can squeeze out a little more damage that way.  When you hear people lament the MUS it's because it's an iconic monk feature, but as a straight class monk it's pretty much useless outside of Melee Basic Attacks (in which case you could enhance it with your ki focus)  or for Multiclass or Hybrid weapon attacks, since it can't be enchanted.

I would point out that this particular issue never arose with the Assassin which uses Ki Foci and weapons proficient as implements in the exact same way (which may be more of an issue with the Assassin being DDi exclusive vs. the monk being openly available).  It's more an issue with fluff vs. mechanics vs. class features with the Monk.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Sign In to post comments