LFR, The MONK, And you!...

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
So playing a monk if I get a bundle that is (yadda yadda) Weapon I can choose MONK UNARMED STRIKE as the weapon?? And if I do can I drop this later if I FIND a better (yadda yadda) Weapon down the road?? The reason I ask is because since its not actually a weapon im not sure if I can “drop” it or have more than one Unarmed attack “weapon”s (this is were the monk gets a little confusing in LFR)
If the weapon enchantment can be applied to the "Unarmed" weapon group, then yes, you could apply it to your fists.
[INDENT]You can make unarmed attacks with much greater
effectiveness than most combatants. When you make
an unarmed attack, you can use the monk unarmed
strike, which is a weapon in the unarmed weapon
group
.[/INDENT]
For example, flaming or lifedrinker would be acceptable, while phasing or resounding are out.
If the weapon enchantment can be applied to the "Unarmed" weapon group, then yes, you could apply it to your fists.
[INDENT]You can make unarmed attacks with much greater
effectiveness than most combatants. When you make
an unarmed attack, you can use the monk unarmed
strike, which is a weapon in the unarmed weapon
group
.[/INDENT]
For example, flaming or lifedrinker would be acceptable, while phasing or resounding are out.

Just trying to get confirmation. Cuz im gonna have my monk run through spellguard and I want to make sure if I can take the quick weapon+1 as a Quick Monk unrarmed attack +1.

Also I can take the Two weapon fighting and two weapon defense if I stay unarmed because I have 2 monk unarmed attacks ??

This is gonna be a tricky class to play in LFR, im excited
You'd have to get a Transfer Enchantment ritual cast each time you want your fists enchanted with a found item.
You'd have to get a Transfer Enchantment ritual cast each time you want your fists enchanted with a found item.

Although I'm sure this will be covered in the next CCG, you would get a disenchantment ritual on your hands, and then could take the bundle as the new enchantment on your hands.
Er...That's not what the rules say, particularly the last bit, since there's nothing that allows you to put a bundle's enchantment on an existing item; instead, you get a new one.
I can't see that they will force monks to expend resources above what other PC's are required to pay to take advantage of their class abilities.
Er...That's not what the rules say, particularly the last bit, since there's nothing that allows you to put a bundle's enchantment on an existing item; instead, you get a new one.

You're saying monks are going to require a new set of hands? Really?

This sort of is starting to get annoying on these forums.
You're saying monks are going to require a new set of hands? Really?

This sort of is starting to get annoying on these forums.

No, he's saying that this is a playtest, with incomplete rules, and as far as the rules say right now, a monk can enchant, disenchant and transfer an enchantment to his hands, but if he's walking around with a +1 vicious monk unarmed strike and finds a +2 flaming weapon in a module, he's going to have to jump through a few hoops in order to make his unarmed strike into a +2 flaming monk unarmed strike, in much the same way that if you have a favorite longsword and want to upgrade it instead of trading it in, you're going to have to go through a few steps.

It's entirely possible that the PH3 will have simplified rules on how this works, but for right now, that's just one of the downsides of playing a playtest class.
I think he means if you chose a bundle weapon as an unarmed monk attack that you lose any previous unarmed monk attack benefits you had. sorta like replaceing the old unarmed monk attack properties with a new one.

so for exampl if a monk has a flaming fist and a frost fist, and said monk completes a mod wich he is awarded a thunder fist, he could chose to take the thunder option but would lose one of the previous ones.

this makes the most sence to me, tho i hope its addressed in LFR CCG coming up because its confusing.

altho one could argue that you have unlimited amount of "unarmed monk attacks" because as stated that an unarmed attack can be from any pert of the body, so theoretically if a monk had frost fist and flame fist and recieved a reward of thunder weapon, he could claim it is his thunder kick. (i susppose) or perhaps a +2 head butt? this issue really needs more clarifiacation for LFR and reward purposes!
No, he's saying that this is a playtest, with incomplete rules, and as far as the rules say right now, a monk can enchant, disenchant and transfer an enchantment to his hands, but if he's walking around with a +1 vicious monk unarmed strike and finds a +2 flaming weapon in a module, he's going to have to jump through a few hoops in order to make his unarmed strike into a +2 flaming monk unarmed strike, in much the same way that if you have a favorite longsword and want to upgrade it instead of trading it in, you're going to have to go through a few steps.

If that's what he was saying that's actually a lot better then I thought.

The impression I got from the post was that if you want to take a magic weapon as a bundle at all, you'll need to use transfer enchantment because its a found item and you can't find a pair of hands for you to use. And that just seems to be aimed at screwing over monks simply for the sake of screwing over monks.
What if the module says that the NPC's make you any weapon of +3 quality like one or two off the top of my head do. Or +2 for a 4-7 I'm thinking of. Would the monk then need to take an item and transfer it or would that cover the rules of the item being crafted for the player as a reward etc.
Blah blah blah
If that's what he was saying that's actually a lot better then I thought.

The impression I got from the post was that if you want to take a magic weapon as a bundle at all, you'll need to use transfer enchantment because its a found item and you can't find a pair of hands for you to use. And that just seems to be aimed at screwing over monks simply for the sake of screwing over monks.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. It's what the rules say. If there were a mod that specified that an NPC would craft an item for you, I'd say the DM has the discretion to allow not requiring a transfer enchantment ritual.
The rules say you can enchant a monk's natural weapon.

In LFR you find magic items.

I can't see any way under the current rules that the rules allow any other system than for a monk to find a particular magic weapon, then transfer the enchantment from that to their natural weapon.

Of course, the new CCG might address this issue.

Running D&D Adventurers League events in Sheffield, UK from August. Contact me for more details.

The rules say you can enchant a monk's natural weapon.

In LFR you find magic items.

I can't see any way under the current rules that the rules allow any other system than for a monk to find a particular magic weapon, then transfer the enchantment from that to their natural weapon.

Of course, the new CCG might address this issue.

even tho i understand the "oddness" of finding "fists" i think until the ccg states other wise, a bundle "weapon" can be any weapon of choice to the player that fits the enchantment stated, and since monk unarmed attack is a weapon I dont see anything wrong with taking a "monk attack" as a found item. the article states that the monk attack "Can" be enchanted however it doesnt need to be any more than a found sword needs to have the magic transfered to it. in the same sence that a magic sword needs to be enchanted to be magical yet it can be found. so it makes perfect sence to me to be able to have a monk weapon as a bundle.

with that however, brings up the question, can we "replace" a magical monk weapon with a new bundle? meaning we lose all the benefits of the first weapon? since im assuming we cant sell the monk weappon like we can a normal weapon to replace it with a new bundle. tho it might be worth it to take a monk weapon and transfer the enchantment to the unarmed weapon so that you retain the original benefits and add the new found benefits (+2 flaming quick fist anyone?)

I am expecting them to address this isseus in next ccg but im concerned with what to do until then, as i am running a monk through sceptertower and need to decide on my bundles. what if i take said bundle and then ccg comes out and tells me otherwise. what then? cant take back my bundles.
You could always just play a Warforged monk and have several sets of modular hands with different enchantments on them. :D (ok, I know, not really... but it conjures an amusing image in my mind of a Warforged rummaging around in a backpack with only one hand on going "I know I packed my other flaming fist in here! Where the hell is it?!")
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
You could always just play a Warforged monk and have several sets of modular hands with different enchantments on them. :D (ok, I know, not really... but it conjures an amusing image in my mind of a Warforged rummaging around in a backpack with only one hand on going "I know I packed my other flaming fist in here! Where the hell is it?!")

I like what happens if a Monk multiclasses into Barbarian for Arcing Throw - lets you throw a melee weapon which then returns to your hand...
The rules say you can enchant a monk's natural weapon.

In LFR you find magic items.

I can't see any way under the current rules that the rules allow any other system than for a monk to find a particular magic weapon, then transfer the enchantment from that to their natural weapon.

Of course, the new CCG might address this issue.

If someone has newer rules than the playtest article I would appreciate a link. The article explicitly and exclusively allows the Enchant Magic Item ritual to work on monk unarmed strike. Transfer Enchantment and Disenchant -should- work much as with a battlefist (Selfforged PP) but per the RAW they do not. (Hopefully the playtest inbox has already been flooded with comments on this.)

At this point for playing a monk I would recommend taking Staff Fighting to trade +1 att for +1 AC and go quarterstaff; there will be no doubts whatsoever as to finding quarterstaffs, selling them in the future, etc. Later, when things are more clear you can hopefully Transfer Enchantment onto your fists and be good to go.
At this point for playing a monk I would recommend taking Staff Fighting to trade +1 att for +1 AC and go quarterstaff; there will be no doubts whatsoever as to finding quarterstaffs, selling them in the future, etc. Later, when things are more clear you can hopefully Transfer Enchantment onto your fists and be good to go.

Staff Fighting? Greatspear(Reach 2, +3 to hit, d10 damage) or Urgrosh(d12 and +1 AC) are much better. Though double weapons might be hit with errata soon...
Staff Fighting? Greatspear(Reach 2, +3 to hit, d10 damage) or Urgrosh(d12 and +1 AC) are much better. Though double weapons might be hit with errata soon...

Well, sure if you don't want to be able to use your powers since those aren't Monk weapons.
The impression I got from the post was that if you want to take a magic weapon as a bundle at all, you'll need to use transfer enchantment because its a found item and you can't find a pair of hands for you to use. And that just seems to be aimed at screwing over monks simply for the sake of screwing over monks.

I get that you don't like this, but don't assume malice as the reason for a (conjectured) rule that inconveniences you.
Well, sure if you don't want to be able to use your powers since those aren't Monk weapons.

The following weapons count as monk weapons: unarmed attacks, clubs, daggers, quarterstaffs, and spears.

They're monk weapons.
You could always just play a Warforged monk and have several sets of modular hands with different enchantments on them. :D (ok, I know, not really... but it conjures an amusing image in my mind of a Warforged rummaging around in a backpack with only one hand on going "I know I packed my other flaming fist in here! Where the hell is it?!")

i decided it would be fun (in a purely role-playing aspect, no rules benefits or penalties) for my warforged to have detachable legs. he tried to show off this feature once, and needed a good bit of help to get them back on. since then, he's decided to keep his legs on unless absolutely otherwise necessary.

i like the idea of detachable fists. like you, i don't know that it'd fly rules-wise in lfr, but it's a fun idea, and i'd absolutely let it happen in a home game!

as a dm, i wouldn't have any problem letting a monk choose a "monk unarmed strike" as his found item bundle. it gets a little stickier when it gets to talking about replacing an already enchanted "monk unarmed strike," but i'm sure it will get worked out. it certainly takes some suspension of disbelief, but then again so does a magical flaming sword. [shrug]
I like what happens if a Monk multiclasses into Barbarian for Arcing Throw - lets you throw a melee weapon which then returns to your hand...

TRANZOR Z!!!!!!!!!
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
TRANZOR Z!!!!!!!!!

now if we could only get a feat letting five warforged druids combine into one huge warforged monk/ barbarian... maybe in the eberron player's guide...
Only if they all Wild shape into lions... :D
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
They're monk weapons.

Every other weapon in that list is a specific weapon (they even list Quarterstaff and not Staff). Why would you assume they mean "spear (weapon group)" instead of "spear (specific item)"? It is the same list as their proficiencies except for the addition of 'unarmed attack'. Are you proposing they are proficient in Greatspear by default?
At the very least it's a case of Expect Table Variation.

(As another bug in the playtest, I cannot find anything that actually says you are proficient in Monk Unarmed Strike, nor that it is a monk weapon. But I doubt anyone will ever deny you that one.)
TRANZOR Z!!!!!!!!!

I so want a rocket punch now...

"Shut up before I punch you from over here."

"What? How are yo-OW! OW. YOU PUNCHED ME. FROM OVER THERE."



-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
I so want a rocket punch now...

"Shut up before I punch you from over here."

"What? How are yo-OW! OW. YOU PUNCHED ME. FROM OVER THERE."



-karma

would that be an unarmed range attack? i always see unarmed range basic attacks on character sheets but yet to figure out how that works LOL one theory is if you kick water at someone but that was proven to make the water the weapon and not the attack LOL
Long stretchy arms.

Ayup.





-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
Reed Richards. Monk extraordinaire.
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
Reed Richards. Monk extraordinaire.

I may have to make that character to join my friends "Avengers" team =P Though maybe I'll make a drow monk and call him "spiderman"
Blah blah blah
That's pretty much what I'm saying. It's what the rules say. If there were a mod that specified that an NPC would craft an item for you, I'd say the DM has the discretion to allow not requiring a transfer enchantment ritual.

So I was right. In which case my original point stands. I'm getting sick of this **** retentive that isn't focused on common sense or making the game more enjoyable, but strictly following RAW because people here worship it.

At this point for playing a monk I would recommend taking Staff Fighting to trade +1 att for +1 AC and go quarterstaff; there will be no doubts whatsoever as to finding quarterstaffs, selling them in the future, etc. Later, when things are more clear you can hopefully Transfer Enchantment onto your fists and be good to go.

I'd recommend not playing with ****-retentive DMs. Chances are if they're going to be nitpicking over your enchanted fists, then they'll be looking to screw you over in other ways too.

but don't assume malice as the reason for a (conjectured) rule that inconveniences you.

It doesn't inconvenience me. I've got a 24 built characters that I haven't played even once. I also avoid playtest classes as I find their lack of options too limiting. The sort of logic applied on this forum is simply not only baffling, but downright annoying.

Its getting to the stage where posting on these forums is much more of a chore then the enjoyment it once was. Everyone I know who plays LFR is a lot more relaxed and concentrate on people enjoying the game rather then hating it. Those who aren't have since stopped playing LFR.

I don't understand how jerking around monks simply because you can makes for a more entertaining game.
I may have to make that character to join my friends "Avengers" team =P Though maybe I'll make a drow monk and call him "spiderman"

aw, man, there's another avengers team? we've got ultimate dick anger, though. i bet they don't got ultimate dick anger.
You could always just play a Warforged monk and have several sets of modular hands with different enchantments on them. :D (ok, I know, not really... but it conjures an amusing image in my mind of a Warforged rummaging around in a backpack with only one hand on going "I know I packed my other flaming fist in here! Where the hell is it?!")

And my name, sir, is ... Kryten.

Smeh ... smeh ... smeh ...

Where did I leave my other head?
So I was right. In which case my original point stands. I'm getting sick of this **** retentive that isn't focused on common sense or making the game more enjoyable, but strictly following RAW because people here worship it.

I'd recommend not playing with ****-retentive DMs. Chances are if they're going to be nitpicking over your enchanted fists, then they'll be looking to screw you over in other ways too.

It doesn't inconvenience me. I've got a 24 built characters that I haven't played even once. I also avoid playtest classes as I find their lack of options too limiting. The sort of logic applied on this forum is simply not only baffling, but downright annoying.

Its getting to the stage where posting on these forums is much more of a chore then the enjoyment it once was. Everyone I know who plays LFR is a lot more relaxed and concentrate on people enjoying the game rather then hating it. Those who aren't have since stopped playing LFR.

I don't understand how jerking around monks simply because you can makes for a more entertaining game.

Basically the problem is that the rules as written for the monk are incomplete and flawed. It doesn't even state anywhere that you are proficient in monk unarmed strike, nor that it is a monk weapon. That is a clear and blatant oversight that I think will be overlooked by most on accident, and by the rest intentionally. But it should be pointed out so that it is cleared up in editing for PHB3. Regarding enchanting your fists: DMs in general are not authorized to over-ride the rules in how you accumulate permanent magic items that carry over from module to module. They can't give a wink and a nod and tell the shaman that the +2 vicious weapon is really a +2 magic totem, or tell the level 1 bard to go ahead and take the level 8 diadem of acuity and immediately sell it to buy a +1 songblade. The rules are the rules and in this case they are clearly broken rules that need to be fixed. I am confident they will be fixed in a way that works well for monks, just as they will be fixed in a way that works well for totem-users over time. At level 1-5 you really can get away with no magic weapon/implement just fine.

If you want to ask a DM to break the rules in the interest of fairness, the official campaign forums are probably not a good place to ask for validation that your DM should be breaking rules. I think our answer here is that the rules need to be fixed. In this case it is both the Monk class in PHB3 and the CCG that both need fixing; the Monk should have proficiency with his Monk Unarmed Strike, he should have it clearly listed as a Monk Weapon (which also needs a clarification as to whether spear (item) or spear (weapon group) is intended), it should be made clear whether you have 2 Monk Unarmed Strikes or if it is one which can be wielded seperately in each hand, and it should be subject to all three enchanting rituals (much like Battlefist). But also Monk Unarmed Strike enchantments should be selectable as a bundle according to CCG.

It is my position that the rules are what they are currently, that it is different than what they should be, and that they can be changed (and since it's a combination of a playtest class and a CCG change, there's a fair likelihood at least some of it will be corrected). But I don't think publically advocating playing fast and loose with the rules on the official LFR forums is the right idea. For one thing there's less pressure for the devs/admins to change things that need fixing if we just work around the bad rules ourselves.

(Also, I'm sorry if I seem ****. Debating rules 'facts' and such online is a very different thing from DMing or playing in a game. At the table I'm more open to being flexible because my responsibility there is to see that everyone has a good time if possible. If the rules get in the way of that, we can and do find ways to work around them.)
Basically the problem is that the rules as written for the monk are incomplete and flawed. It doesn't even state anywhere that you are proficient in monk unarmed strike, nor that it is a monk weapon.

Right on the first count, but it does say that unarmed attacks are monk weapons. An attack using a monk unarmed strike as a weapon is an unarmed attack.

Some of your powers might require you to attack with a monk weapon. The following weapons count as monk weapons: unarmed attacks, clubs, daggers, quarterstaffs, and spears.

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
Right on the first count, but it does say that unarmed attacks are monk weapons. An attack using a monk unarmed strike as a weapon is an unarmed attack.

Unarmed attack is a specific improvised weapon in the unarmed group.

Unarmed attack

Improvised one-handedmelee weapon
Cost: — gp
Damage: 1d4
Weight: — lb.
Group:
Unarmed (When you punch, kick, elbow, knee, or even head butt an opponent, you’re making an unarmed strike. A simple unarmed attack is treated as an improvised weapon. Creatures that have natural weapons such as claws or bite attacks are proficient with those natural weapons.).

UNARMED COMBATANT
You can make unarmed attacks with much greater effectiveness than most combatants. When you make an unarmed attack, you can use the monk unarmed strike, which is a weapon in the unarmed weapon group. This weapon has the off-hand weapon property, a reach of 1, and a +3 proficiency bonus, and it deals 1d8 damage. You must have a hand free to use your monk unarmed strike, even if you’re kicking, kneeing, elbowing, or head-butting a target.
The Enchant Magic Item ritual can be used to turn your monk unarmed strike into a magic weapon. For example, through that ritual, you could have a +1 flaming monk unarmed strike.

Monk unarmed strike is a different specific weapon in the unarmed group.

I don't disagree that Monk unarmed strike is intended to be a monk weapon, but the list of monk weapons is exactly 5 weapons long.
I think you're makign it more complicated than it is. It explains that you attack using unarmed strikes, but that you use an improved version they call a monk unarmed strike. It's all unarmed attacks which they can use as a monk weapon. i have seen this topic elsewhere and everyone says they know they are a monk weapon, but then proceed to say that it actually isn't.

I do agree it could be made more obvious, but everyone seems to pick up on it being a monk weapon. And i agree on them not listing unarmed attacks as something they are proficient in. (although the CB is properly programmed in that respect at least).
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 it's not a monk weapon, the monk can't use it with any of their powers, which makes it a truly wasted class feature. So I think there's no doubt it's meant to be one. And the +3 proficiency is just a cruel joke if they have to spend a feat to be proficient with it. Slavishly following the RAW in this case makes it even less of a class feature than Swordbond, when it's pretty clear it's meant to be a pretty central class feature. They meant for the majority of monk PCs to be punching and kicking everything in sight. They just weren't careful enough with the wording and overlooked some obvious important details. But then, that's why we have playtest articles, right? So the DDi subscribers can point out things they may have missed?
I think you're makign it more complicated than it is. .... It's all unarmed attacks which they can use as a monk weapon.

Your fix is what requires complication though:

Some of your powers might require you to attack with a monk weapon. The following weapons count as monk weapons: unarmed attacks, clubs, daggers, quarterstaffs, and spears.

It is pretty clearly called out as a list of weapons. And contains the names of five specific weapons. You can ignore the fact it is specifically called out as a list of weapons to claim 'spear' is the weapon group, but it clearly says it is a list of weapons. What you are asking to do is claim "unarmed attacks" in the list of weapons as not being the weapon named "unarmed attack" (pluralised like every entry in the list) but instead be a conceptual grouping of weapons that are conceptually "unarmed attacks" which is the same group as the "unarmed" weapon group but called by a different term (that happens to be the same as the name of one weapon in that group). By that logic, Parrying Dagger should be included because it is part of the conceptual group "daggers". While this wouldn't be an unreasonable change for a home group, that isn't what the rule actually says.
The rule is quite simple, unambiguous, and wrong.
Sign In to post comments