|
2 years ago ::
Oct 26, 2011 - 10:03PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
|
The Piercing Palm feat does not allow Monk Unarmed Strike to be used with rogue powers, meaning that a rogue who took the feat would only be able to use it with melee basic attacks. Another sentence like "In addition, you can use your monk unarmed strike with rogue powers that require a light blade and are not ranged or area powers." would be helpful.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 26, 2011 - 11:33PM
#2
|
|
|
Alternately, as has been suggested on the several other occasions when this same error of printing a rule which let a rogue deal sneak attack damage with a weapon they could not use for their powers was made, the "Requirement:You must use this power with a light blade, hand crossbow..." entries could all be standardized to "Requirement:You must use this power with a weapon with which you can sneak attack."
The feat Internalize the Basic Kata is not clear as to whether it is intended to allow you to use your flurry of blows more than once per round. If it is, a sentence should be added explaining such. If it is not, a sentence should be added explaining such.
The feat Internalize the Basic Kata currently does not function on granted MBAs, keeping the Monks unlike virtually every other striker in the game, who receives the benefit of their striker feature on these off-turn attacks. This has long been one of the class's larger liabilities, and should be corrected while we have the opportunity. The text "In addition, your flurry of blows power can be triggered when you hit with an opportunity attack made with your monk unarmed strike." should be altered to "In addition, your flurry of blows power can be triggered when you use your monk unarmed strike to hit with a melee basic attack even when it is not your turn."
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 27, 2011 - 5:45AM
#3
|
|
|
The Piercing Palm feat is currently woefully underpowered. There are no special enchantments, no feat support, no anything anywhere in the rules that makes playing a Rogue with unarmed strike in any way preferable to a rogue with, say, a rapier. And the rogue is already paying one feat in order to have proficiency in unarmed strike at all. Currently, it is entirely a flavor option, and why should a character be charged a feat for that?
To prevent this feat from solely being a unreasonable tax on characters who wish to have the flavor of an unarmed Rogue, I suggest it additionally make Monk Unarmed Strike into a high-crit weapon, in accordance with the flavor of the feat.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 27, 2011 - 6:25PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
One other drawback of Piercing Palm is that it doesn't work with Scoundrel Weapon Talent or Thief Weapon Talent.
Perhaps a better way to phrase the feat would be: "Your monk unarmed strike is also considered to be a dagger for the purposes of rogue powers and rogue class features."
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 29, 2011 - 5:20AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
I wonder... would it break anything to just say that your unarmed strike counts as a light blade?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 29, 2011 - 6:14AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Light Blades get ludicrous damage support, so yes, it probably would (and would make the MC absolutely delicious for basically anyone who like 1hws and high damage).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 30, 2011 - 12:23AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
To be clear, I'm talking of changing the text of Piercing Palm to "Benefit: Your monk unarmed strike counts as a light blade". And, while that looks like a cool feat that people would use, I can't find it opening any unbalanced combination. Support for the unarmed weapon group is almost non-existant. A monk wouldn't get much out of the feat beyond what it can already do using a dagger as an implement, except for perhaps better basic attacks (which it needs). And a rogue would have a reskinned rapier which doesn't really do much that a rapier can't do.
Or am I missing the degenerate combo here?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 30, 2011 - 1:44AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Depends who has access to Piercing Palm. If it's prereqs are rogue and monk, it's probably OK. But if it's just Rogue or just Monk, then you're giving either of those classes, and potentially anyone who MCs Monk, access to a d10 off-hand light blade. And that's a pretty big thing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 30, 2011 - 4:52AM
#9
|
|
|
A monk wouldn't get much out of the feat
That's an understatement.
It does nothing for them at all. A monk does not, cannot use their unarmed strike as an implement because it cannot be enchanted and therefore provides no enhancement bonus to their attacks.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 03, 2011 - 6:40AM
#10
|
|
|
A monk wouldn't get much out of the feat
That's an understatement.
It does nothing for them at all. A monk does not, cannot use their unarmed strike as an implement because it cannot be enchanted and therefore provides no enhancement bonus to their attacks.
Monks can use their Ki Focuses' enhancements when they use their unarmed strike.
Furthermore, feat and power connectivity. If a feat says "with light blades" or a power says "must be weilding a light blade" the unarmed strike counts.
A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe
|
|
|
