Post/Author/DateTime	Post
evesweater 09-02-07, 10:56 PM	Hi all. Just started my first monk. I like the idea of being able to hold items and still fight. It occurred to me that since I'm still a lowbie, it might not be a bad idea to keep a cure light wounds potion in hand during fights. I've yet to need the potion as of yet, but.... DM suggested I'm exploiting this monk ability. I figured I'd take it to the boards. What do you think?
Rymosrac 09-02-07, 11:00 PM	I would say no, you're definetly not exploiting. You are however, commiting a far worse crime: that of being cleverer than your DM wants you to be.
Salla 09-02-07, 11:06 PM	Just wait 'til someone Sunders that potion, however ... you may feel somewhat less clever at that point. :)
TheAngryFish 09-02-07, 11:06 PM	being cleverer than your DM wants you to be. That's not a crime, you get yelled at anyway, though.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-02-07, 11:15 PM	This is no more an exploit than a fighter using his martial weapon proficiency to wield a greatsword rather than a club. I almost wish I had your DM for a one-shot. I'd play a fighter/monk with a longspear, Serpent Strike, Karmic Strike, and Combat Reflexes just to mess with him. (Wielding a two-handed reach weapon to threaten at 10' and still threatening at 5' with unarmed strikes is also quite doable.) :P
imakuni67 09-02-07, 11:41 PM	Actually, an unarmed attack isn't with your fists per se. Head butt, knee thrust, kick, punch, butt bump etc...so you arefair to hold things
Terric 09-02-07, 11:43 PM	Just wait 'til someone Sunders that potion, however ... you may feel somewhat less clever at that point. :) Um... at that point he has a shattered, handle-able glass shard. I think that in such a case he is even more clever. A two-pronged manuever, sundering a potion...
Salla 09-03-07, 12:55 AM	Um... at that point he has a shattered, handle-able glass shard. I think that in such a case he is even more clever. A two-pronged manuever, sundering a potion... Which does less damage than his unarmed strikes already were, and he misses out on 2-9 points of healing. :)
Ecalsneerg 09-03-07, 02:34 AM	Which does less damage than his unarmed strikes already were, and he misses out on 2-9 points of healing. :) He still hits a dragon with a broken bottle. :P
Roog 09-03-07, 03:03 AM	Hi all. Just started my first monk. I like the idea of being able to hold items and still fight. It occurred to me that since I'm still a lowbie, it might not be a bad idea to keep a cure light wounds potion in hand during fights. I've yet to need the potion as of yet, but.... DM suggested I'm exploiting this monk ability. I figured I'd take it to the boards. What do you think? Yes - stop exploiting those opposable thumbs.
Kouk 09-03-07, 03:21 AM	It's still a Standard Action to drink the potion whether it is in your hand or not, so there really should not be a problem. Anyway, is he trying to kill you? He doesn't like people to use healing potions?
war_thog 09-03-07, 03:32 AM	True its a standard to drink. Plus a move to draw. So holding it to start with does prove obviously advantageous. Rules wise you could do the 1 hand potion thing, and people who do Tae Kwon Do often give the impression that you dont need arms to fight, but from a practical PoV, you cant fight unarmed without your hands. Ive tried, its ridiculous. You can kick for sure, but you sure as hell cant block properly. Now sure you can block with an arm thats holding something, but chances are you might accidently smash what your holding. The rules however do not cover this at all. Rules wise its safe. Practically its well..... impractical. Your DM is probably looking more at this second point than the first.
Roog 09-03-07, 03:47 AM	Rules wise its safe. Practically its well..... impractical. Your DM is probably looking more at this second point than the first. If you want to stop characters from doing impractical things (ignoring magic for now), you are going to end up nixing a whole pile of skills, feats, and class features. If something is practical then most of the time you don't need a special ability to do it.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-03-07, 03:51 AM	If you want to stop characters from doing impractical things (ignoring magic for now), you are going to end up nixing a whole pile of skills, feats, and class features. If something is practical then most of the time you don't need a special ability to do it. Agreed. In addition, practically, monks suck. They look neat on paper but they've got M.A.D. issues from hell, lack BAB and hp, and their class features don't work together worth a damn. Nerfing a monk is like kicking a blind paraplegic out of his wheelchair and then spitting on him.
groveborn 09-03-07, 04:36 AM	I think we've all had DM's who for one reason or another just don't understand that just because it's illogical, doesn't mean it's illegal (ruleswise). If he wants to stick to the rules, then show him where it says you CAN do that. If he doesn't give a damn about the rules, then ask him to write down all of his house rules, so that you can better play by them. If he continues to attempt to change rules in the middle of game play, the game is less fun. The rules are there for FUN. So you save a move action, big whoop.
DM Zoc 09-03-07, 04:50 AM	In the Forgotten Realms, there is a common item (1 gp) which holds six potions and allows you to draw one each round as a free action. What you are doing is only very slightly more powerful than that.
Spikes01k 09-03-07, 10:13 AM	Agreed. In addition, practically, monks suck. They look neat on paper but they've got M.A.D. issues from hell, lack BAB and hp, and their class features don't work together worth a damn. Nerfing a monk is like kicking a blind paraplegic out of his wheelchair and then spitting on him. Yeah and shooting his guide dog at the same time. MAN. But to the OP; I have see what your doing before. It IS completely legal, and you are not abusing your abilities.
evesweater 09-03-07, 10:38 AM	Well, I think that sums up the boards' opinion. Thanks for all the input!
Lord Nap 09-03-07, 01:35 PM	I'm a member of the party in which the OP is referring. While I didn't have an opinion on the matter last night, I do think I'll toss in that while it appears that there is no rule prohibiting a monk from carrying a potion while using unarmed strikes - my own personal opinion is that unarmed attacks, whether with the feet or legs, imply that the monk is not carrying anything. Again, I don't think the rules specify that, but it seems like common sense to me. While carrying a potion, I think it would be hard to execute some combat maneuvers, even if the strike is with the feet. I'm not in a position to make a ruling, but if I were, I would probably allow it (since there's not rule prohibiting it) - but I would let the monk know that if he's fighting against intelligent monsters, they would likely try to sunder the potion - knowing how fragile and valuable they are.
Shadowhowler 09-03-07, 02:32 PM	I think it's slightly cheesy and meta-gamey... but totaly doable by RAW.
Scion of Coldshard 09-03-07, 02:43 PM	For those advocating sundering the potion go ahead and do it, that is likely an even better option for the monk than being hit! After all, most likely being hit is going to do as much or more damage than the potion was going to heal anyway.. plus the monk could carry a potion in each hand, one a dummy and the other a real potion. 50/50 whether you get the right one the first time.. I have no idea why anyone would dissallow it, it just isnt that big of a deal and it fits right along with the character.
jaelis 09-03-07, 03:01 PM	Actually, any character can fight with a potion in one hand. Just hold your sword in the other. You could even benefit from a light shield or buckler on that arm. So unless you're holding two potions, I don't see where there's any basis for complaint at all. And even two potions is perfectly legal for a monk.
BW0222 09-03-07, 03:06 PM	evesweater, Just started my first monk. I like the idea of being able to hold items and still fight. It occurred to me that since I'm still a lowbie, it might not be a bad idea to keep a cure light wounds potion in hand during fights. I've yet to need the potion as of yet, but.... DM suggested I'm exploiting this monk ability. I figured I'd take it to the boards. What do you think? Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Lots of classes with free hands carry extra items in their hands when expecting combat. A rogue with a potion of cure light wounds, a wizard with a torch, a bard with a wand in an off-hand, or a ranger carrying two alchemists fire to rapid shot at folks, etc. However, carrying items has a number of built-in disadvantages. First, both your hands aren't free. It doesn't matter if all you do is kick something, but... if you need to climb, drag someone to safety, grapple someone, take out a crossbow etc. suddenly you have to drop the potion -- or spend considerable time (and an AoO) putting it away. Second, if you want to take out another potion, you again need to drop the one you are holding, or take the time to put it away. Third, drinking a potion provokes an AoO. Administering it to an unconcious character is a full-round action. The time to take out the potion usually isn't that important. Forth, it can be sundered. If you have it out, it would appear important. Fifth, depending upon the campaign and equipment available to PCs, potion and scroll belts allow a small number of potions to be taken out as a free action anyway.
Nephlite 09-03-07, 03:12 PM	Again, I don't think the rules specify that, but it seems like common sense to me. While carrying a potion, I think it would be hard to execute some combat maneuvers, even if the strike is with the feet. Expect the Monk class specifically says you can; no penalty. First paragraph under Unarm Strike on pg 41, under monk. "This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full".
Tsuul 09-03-07, 05:56 PM	That's nothing. Wait till you get a non PHB race that has claws for hands. Then the monk gets a full unarmed strike attack sequence (with everything except hands/claws) and a full secondary attack sequence. Except thri-kreen, they have a rule exception built in.
deathbane 09-03-07, 06:19 PM	In the Forgotten Realms, there is a common item (1 gp) which holds six potions and allows you to draw one each round as a free action. What you are doing is only very slightly more powerful than that. What book is this item in? I am not asking because I don't believe you. I am asking because I want it for myself.
deathbane 09-03-07, 06:23 PM	I'm a member of the party in which the OP is referring. While I didn't have an opinion on the matter last night, I do think I'll toss in that while it appears that there is no rule prohibiting a monk from carrying a potion while using unarmed strikes - my own personal opinion is that unarmed attacks, whether with the feet or legs, imply that the monk is not carrying anything. Again, I don't think the rules specify that, but it seems like common sense to me. While carrying a potion, I think it would be hard to execute some combat maneuvers, even if the strike is with the feet. I'm not in a position to make a ruling, but if I were, I would probably allow it (since there's not rule prohibiting it) - but I would let the monk know that if he's fighting against intelligent monsters, they would likely try to sunder the potion - knowing how fragile and valuable they are. If someone cover this sorry: It says in the PHB that a monk can use weapons and unarmed strikes together, so I see no reason why he cant hold a potion. Sundering is an attack of opportunity, and if I was that monk I would just use stunning fist every time someone went after my potion.
Kouk 09-03-07, 06:24 PM	Would there still be concern it the item was something other than a potion or expendable item? I can't see a problem with a Monk holding a Kama in one hand, a Wizard holding a staff or wand in one hand, a Ranger using a weapon in both hands...
WombleHunter 09-03-07, 06:45 PM	Pff. Wait until you've taken a few levels of Kensai and made your fists Throwing (and not Returning) weapons. Then drink potions.
StruckingFuggle 09-03-07, 09:25 PM	I think it's slightly cheesy and meta-gamey... but totaly doable by RAW. Meta-gamey? Explain how?
Shadowhowler 09-03-07, 10:34 PM	Meta-gamey? Explain how? The idea is... the player knows taking a potion out of his/her sack costs a move action... and Monk's are moble. If they are not, they are next to useless. So the player wants to have the potion out at all times that it may be used... so as not to waste the move action. Thus, fighting with the potion... which is kinda a silly image when you think about it. I find it to be a meta-game style solution to what the player belives to be a problem of lossing the move action to drink a potion. I don't think it's that bad... it's totaly doable, I would not rule agiast it in any way as a DM, I just think it's a cheesy way to go is all.
Kouk 09-03-07, 10:34 PM	Pff. Wait until you've taken a few levels of Kensai and made your fists Throwing (and not Returning) weapons. Then drink potions. Hmm... that is a great idea! I will have to remember it next time someone wants to enchant a natural weapon :P
StruckingFuggle 09-04-07, 01:45 AM	The idea is... the player knows taking a potion out of his/her sack costs a move action... and Monk's are moble. If they are not, they are next to useless. So the player wants to have the potion out at all times that it may be used... so as not to waste the move action. Thus, fighting with the potion... which is kinda a silly image when you think about it. I find it to be a meta-game style solution to what the player belives to be a problem of lossing the move action to drink a potion. I don't think it's that bad... it's totaly doable, I would not rule agiast it in any way as a DM, I just think it's a cheesy way to go is all. What about rendering it in non-mechanical terms? The monk knows that if he needs something in combat, it's a distraction and it takes extra time to get it out of his pack or off his belt or what-not, so, also knowing that he doesn't need to keep his hands free or on a weapon to be an effective fighter, he puts the things he imagines having the most need for into his hand (taking the risk that he may need something else instead, too) when he goes into combat. Seems like it makes sense to the character, too!
Roog 09-04-07, 02:18 AM	The idea is... the player knows taking a potion out of his/her sack costs a move action... and Monk's are moble. If they are not, they are next to useless. So the player wants to have the potion out at all times that it may be used... so as not to waste the move action. Thus, fighting with the potion... which is kinda a silly image when you think about it. I find it to be a meta-game style solution to what the player belives to be a problem of lossing the move action to drink a potion. I don't think it's that bad... it's totaly doable, I would not rule agiast it in any way as a DM, I just think it's a cheesy way to go is all. Theres no way thats meta-gaming. It's crazy to think that the monk wont realise that its slower to take something out of sack than to already be holding it. By the same reasoning it's meta-gaming for someone to pull out a weapon before going into a dangerous looking hole in the ground, rather than pulling it out when they want to hit something with it.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-04-07, 02:52 AM	Now now, we're forgetting what's important here. Whenever a PC doesn't act like a complete moron, that's metagaming. When the DM consistently tailor-makes encounters to exploit the PC weaknesses he knows about and the encounters couldn't, and plays even the dumbest enemies as tactical geniuses, that's good roleplay. It's The Right Way™ to play D&D!* :D *The poster of this statement denies all responsibility for damage or injuries related to sarcasm-meters going off like bombs. By reading this statement you agree to hold the poster harmless for all liabilities and waive your right to legal recourse. Additionally, you agree to buy the poster a moped.
Bacon and Eggs 09-04-07, 09:27 AM	Sounds like a drunken master type kung-fu person to me :/
ToastedAmphibian 09-04-07, 05:04 PM	Sounds like a drunken master type kung-fu person to me :/ Heh, yay, sounds like a good prestige class fit for later
Spiritbear 09-04-07, 05:10 PM	Ok here it is. Not only is it legal but if you want to cause your DM to either spazz out, have an eye twitch. or an ulcer you can really drive him insane go for the drunken master prestigue class. and then buy a breaker bottle. Now not only do you have a potion of cure light in your hand but you can use it as a weapon that does the same damage as your unarmed attack and you can use it with flurry of blows. After your DM is free of the straight jacket you can stop laughing. And PS. MONKS ROCK!!! sorry it's my favorite class. any way remember a monk which if I am not mistaken is taken from the chinese Kung Fu temples at least in game michanics faught with much more then fists. as do most martial arts. A Monk may lash out with his shoulder his elbow his knee forearm etc. so no you are not breaking any rull. :monk: :monk: :monk: :monk: :cookie:
tarkin 09-04-07, 05:27 PM	Metagaming is a term that is frequently abused. It refers to playing using the knowledge and goals you have that your character does not. Some good examples would be: 1. Entering a Teleport chamber marked "Disintegration" because when your ally did, he spoke with the DM privately and came back smiling. 2. Choosing to have your Paladin not attack and kill the Vampire because you know the Vampire is an essential part of the plot is giving you. It is NOT choosing to hold a potion in your hands because your character wants to save a move action. That is just plain LOGIC, not meta-gaming.
ScipioX 09-05-07, 01:47 AM	Meta-gaming is when a character acts on player knowledge. In this case, a monk fighting with a potion in his hand is indeed metagaming. Why? Because the monk is only doing so because of the players knowledge of how the combat rules work. The monk does indeed know that holding a potion in hand is faster than having it in a pack. But what the monk doesn't know (but the player does) is that rules wise, holding a potion in hand has no impact on his fighting ability, and there is no chance of dropping or accidentally breaking the potion. It's the same thing if a character showed up for a foot race with a 30 pound pack of gear with tools and weapons hanging off it. While the rules impose no penalty to movement for light loads, no 'real' runner would show up to a race with a pack of gear. Is this "bad?" Maybe, maybe not. Doing odd things that are allowed by the rule can jolt some players out of the immersive game experience. Others kinds of players deal with rules oddities like this without batting an eye. So it really depends on the game group. Since it appears that the DM and at least one of the players think its a bit silly to fight with a potion in hand, the best solution is to compromise. Have the monk get a weighted metal sleeve for the potion. This would protect the potion and also give some added weight to the monk's punches, while keeping the potion handy for emergencies. (Try punching somebody while holding a roll of quarters and you'll see what I mean.) Now, it makes sense for the monk to keep a potion in hand.
StruckingFuggle 09-05-07, 02:03 AM	But what the monk doesn't know (but the player does) is that rules wise, holding a potion in hand has no impact on his fighting ability, and there is no chance of dropping or accidentally breaking the potion. ... and how do you figure that the monk doesn't know what he's capable of? It's the same thing if a character showed up for a foot race with a 30 pound pack of gear with tools and weapons hanging off it. While the rules impose no penalty to movement for light loads, no 'real' runner would show up to a race with a pack of gear. In the real world, no they wouldn't, because it makes a difference; in D&D, it makes no difference, the characters would notice this, and adjust accordingly. Which is to say, they wouldn't gear up for a race, but they wouldn't necessarily shuck everything for a race, either. Now, it makes sense for the monk to keep a potion in hand. ...It already makes sense if you get actually immersive and roleplay from the standpoint of assuming as a given the unrealistic things your character can do, instead of playing him based on inapplicable real-world issues.
Jamwes 09-05-07, 02:37 AM	I don't know about you, but if I could drink something that would heal away the cuts that a sword would give me I would never let it go. I wouldn't want to go searching through my pack for it. I'm a writer. I use my pens a lot. When I'm at school do I keep my pens in my backpack, in my pocket, or behind my ear? It's to slow and clumsy to go searching through my backpack to find a pen, even when it is always in the pen pouch. Since I keep my wallet and keys in my pockets, I don't have much room for a pen. I keep my pen behind my ear because it is quick and easy to get when I need it. I guess this just means that I'm metagaming life because I want to be able to access my pen as a *free action* instead of as a *move action*. As I stated above, if I could drink a potion that would heal me I would keep it in my hands at all times, or at least when ever I'm fighting things that are trying to kill me. I don't want to waste the time looking for the potion when I need to be fighting for my life.
Ecalsneerg 09-05-07, 02:57 AM	But what the monk doesn't know (but the player does) is that rules wise, holding a potion in hand has no impact on his fighting ability, and there is no chance of dropping or accidentally breaking the potion. They are highly trained to use martial arts like kicks. They sorta would know they can kick... Now, it makes sense for the monk to keep a potion in hand. Can we be clear here... holding a potion is metagaming but putting it in a big metal case strapped to your arm is perfectly normal behaviour?
Neutronium_Dragon 09-05-07, 03:23 AM	On the other hand... The potion heals 1d8+1 damage if he drinks it, and it takes an action. Most melee opponents do at least that much damage when they hit you. Therefore, by presenting the potion in his hand as sunder-bait, he's actually lessening the overall damage he takes if they take a swing at it instead of a swing at him, and saving himself the action to drink it into the bargain. Very clever monk that, waving such tantalizing bait under the enemy's nose...
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-05-07, 07:23 AM	On the other hand... The potion heals 1d8+1 damage if he drinks it, and it takes an action. Most melee opponents do at least that much damage when they hit you. Therefore, by presenting the potion in his hand as sunder-bait, he's actually lessening the overall damage he takes if they take a swing at it instead of a swing at him, and saving himself the action to drink it into the bargain. Very clever monk that, waving such tantalizing bait under the enemy's nose... Bonus points if the vial is labeled "Cure Serious Wounds" but it's actually full of water... or something explosive, once you've got Evasion. :plotting:
Nephlite 09-05-07, 09:07 AM	Bonus points if the vial is labeled "Cure Serious Wounds" but it's actually full of water... or something explosive, once you've got Evasion. :plotting: Granted, if you ever can afford a cure serious potion: buy a Belt of Healing: same effect (can be). But that would be funny: Sunder, ka-boom. Monk's un-damaged.
war_thog 09-06-07, 12:50 AM	Its true that you can just spend your whole day kicking. But it isnt effective. What do you do in close quarters? Bust out those punches and elbows and knees and head butts. Im not saying you cant fight with crap in your hands. But if a monk wanted to do that hed have to face an inherent risk that hed break it purely on accident, even if it wasnt sundered. Elbowing someone with a potion in your hand.......... your muscles develop a lot of force as you impact. This could break the potion. Moreso for punching with it. Same goes for blocking a strike while holding it. Then it could just accidentally get bumped. More resilient objects dont have this problem. You dont worry if your torch gets smacked. Fragile glass objects are different. The same I think would go for a fighter holding a potion in his hand while using a light shield. Basically Its up to the DM I think an interesting way to play that risk would be that if you crit miss your attack you break your potion. This is founded on the Drunken Master idea. Their **** breaks on 1's too. Theres nothing in the rules saying this, purely just fluff. However everyone saying that you can just fight with your legs, it doesnt work. Even people who do Tae Kwon Do punch sometimes. And for people who train to use all their body. When you restrict one bit you still want to use it. It would be quite easy in the heat of battle to forget you are holding a potion and hammer fist someone with it. Only to find you accidentally glassed them with your cure potion. EDIT: I thought Id elaborate that point...... It really is very easy to forget stuff while youre fighting. The adrenaline alters your perception. Recently I mangled my wrist, causing a tear in the cartilage that sits on the head of the ulna. I was training a student in some sparring drills and was fighting with my injured hand behind my back. However when he threw a punch to the right side of my head my reaction was to still block with my injured hand as that was the closest to the incoming danger. You train your body rigorously to overcome your natural reflexes and replace them with effective ones. It would be difficult to force this to be ignored suddenly on the spot while holding a potion. A monk even more so. They rigorously train every day. Its very difficult to cognitively suppress such heavily trained reactions. Again I think that crit failing stuff would be one way of representing this chance of error *I imagine it would be quite small for DnD monks as they are uber cool! 5% is good seeing as they get the crit miss botchiness anyway. If they arent immune to that, then why be immune to this?* Just on the potion thing though....... Inspired by whoever said use the bomb idea... SIDE NOTE: Would breaking a potion of cure over an undead creatures head hurt it? It has a positive energy effect after all. Or do you have to actually drink it *or pour it down the baddies throat* for it to work? Not that this is an effective strategy at all, I was just curious.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-06-07, 12:53 AM	I'll allow it!:D I think you'd actually need it to be holy water to get that effect, rather than a cure light wounds potion, by RAW. I don't think it'd be too powerful though, it's in a similar spirit to using holy water as a weapon, and it'd be neat. So yeah, I'd rule to let it happen, myself.
Roog 09-06-07, 02:11 AM	Its true that you can just spend your whole day kicking. But it isnt effective. What do you do in close quarters? Bust out those punches and elbows and knees and head butts. Im not saying you cant fight with crap in your hands. But if a monk wanted to do that hed have to face an inherent risk that hed break it purely on accident, even if it wasnt sundered. Elbowing someone with a potion in your hand.......... your muscles develop a lot of force as you impact. This could break the potion. Moreso for punching with it. Same goes for blocking a strike while holding it. Then it could just accidentally get bumped. More resilient objects dont have this problem. You dont worry if your torch gets smacked. Fragile glass objects are different. The same I think would go for a fighter holding a potion in his hand while using a light shield. Basically Its up to the DM I think an interesting way to play that risk would be that if you crit miss your attack you break your potion. This is founded on the Drunken Master idea. Their **** breaks on 1's too. Theres nothing in the rules saying this, purely just fluff. However everyone saying that you can just fight with your legs, it doesnt work. Even people who do Tae Kwon Do punch sometimes. And for people who train to use all their body. When you restrict one bit you still want to use it. It would be quite easy in the heat of battle to forget you are holding a potion and hammer fist someone with it. Only to find you accidentally glassed them with your cure potion. EDIT: I thought Id elaborate that point...... It really is very easy to forget stuff while youre fighting. The adrenaline alters your perception. Recently I mangled my wrist, causing a tear in the cartilage that sits on the head of the ulna. I was training a student in some sparring drills and was fighting with my injured hand behind my back. However when he threw a punch to the right side of my head my reaction was to still block with my injured hand as that was the closest to the incoming danger. You train your body rigorously to overcome your natural reflexes and replace them with effective ones. It would be difficult to force this to be ignored suddenly on the spot while holding a potion. A monk even more so. They rigorously train every day. Its very difficult to cognitively suppress such heavily trained reactions. Again I think that crit failing stuff would be one way of representing this chance of error *I imagine it would be quite small for DnD monks as they are uber cool! 5% is good seeing as they get the crit miss botchiness anyway. If they arent immune to that, then why be immune to this?* Just on the potion thing though....... Inspired by whoever said use the bomb idea... You may have Improved Unarmed Strike, but you are probably not a Monk with a Monk's class features. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. This is D&D, where characters can do amazing things. Like this... Tongue of the Sun and Moon (Ex): A monk of 17th level or higher can speak with any living creature. Note that that is (Ex) not (Su). If it's an exploit for a monk to "make unarmed strikes with her hands full", then it's just as much of an exploit for a monk to use this to talk with an animal. I don't expect your Tae Kwon Do training to cover this either.
Bopple 09-06-07, 02:54 AM	What book is this item in? I am not asking because I don't believe you. I am asking because I want it for myself. Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
war_thog 09-06-07, 08:31 AM	Ha I don't do Tae Kwon Do. Was merely using it as an "IRL" example. And what good is posting the rules at me? Did you fail to read the bit where I said its rules fine? I know that. Genius work to go and quote me the bit I already know. What I was suggesting was hypothetical concept of "realismifying" it. If you want to play straight rules go ahead. If you want to discuss the concept of the practicality of this then come up with a reply. So far you have added nothing to this except to say "its D&D! Theyre special!" which has alreayd been pointed out.
Scion of Coldshard 09-06-07, 12:47 PM	If you want to play straight rules go ahead. If you want to discuss the concept of the practicality of this then come up with a reply. So far you have added nothing to this except to say "its D&D! Theyre special!" which has alreayd been pointed out. In reality people can hold something in a hand and use strikes.. I know because I have training in something similar. Yes, muscles can and do tighten through exertion, but you can also train yourself to not tighten certain muscles for various activities. When a person is very good at it they are able to perform incredible stunts of precision and mastery with their bodies.. generally without anyone having any idea where the next strike will come from. With practice it isnt all that difficult to set your mind to certain physical tasks to be performed without much/any conscious thought. Place the potion in your hand, get the grip you want on it, and then tell your body to not tighten or loosen that hand. As long as you do not change that command for some reason (such as trying to pick up another item, using that hand to deflect an arrow, pulling a lever, having someone use a non-d&d called shot to that hand, etc) there shouldnt be a problem. At the very worst, if I was so inclined to make it a real penalty, it would be a break check with circumstance modifiers (+2 for mentioning that you were being careful about it ahead of time, Xgp for a special potion vial with a higher break DC that also gave a penalty to the sleight of hand trick mentioned earlier with X likely being the bonus and penalty, +5 to the DC if you have improved unarmed strike, add wisdom to the DC, some penalty based on the action forcing the check, and possibly others as well). This would put the monk in question at a starting DC of around 19+ with penalties varying on the situation. Plus, the potions in d&d land can be made of ceramic and only hold a single ounce of liquid. The container is further described as 'no more than 1" wide and 2" high'. Make it a little narrower and made of ceramic and in a normal grip you would be 'very' hard pressed to be able to break it accidentally. It would, of course, be fairly trivial to break 'on purpose' but in the grip I am talking about it would be exceedingly difficult to do so. I am not really sure why drinking a potion takes a standard action though, to me it looks like something akin to drawing a weapon.. something that could be done as a move action or as part of a move with +1 BAB or higher. I could even see a slieght of hand and/or improved unarmed strike special note about doing it faster and/or automatically avoiding the aoo. I also really like the idea of a 'decoy potion' to try and draw out sunder attempts. Anything that destroys a cheap, useless item while at the same time saving me damage is a good time to me ;)
war_thog 09-06-07, 07:38 PM	Well yes thats true. But thats wondering off down a tangent. Now we have to train specifically as "a potion wielder" to teach our body to do it. Now youre right, this can be done. Once your body learns what to do, it does it. A drunken master I think would have good experience with the feel of the bottle in his hand :P However that means we now need special training..... In DnD would that be a skill? A feat? A "standard monk" wouldnt be able to do that. Or would they pick it up at X level? True DnD potions can be made differently. So far the general assumption has been you have your stock standard glass bottle though. Just on the cool decoy idea.... Better would be something that looked more valuable or important but really wasnt.... Just from my PoV I probably wouldnt try to sunder what he had...... id *****slap him and take it from him. LOL.... funny thought........ sucks to be you if they disarm you of your potion :P And then suckit to them if it was a decoy.
The_Shaman 09-06-07, 08:01 PM	What book is this item in? I am not asking because I don't believe you. I am asking because I want it for myself. It was in the FR Campaign Setting, the 3.0 introduction book. There were also organizers for scrolls and the like, but I think they only stopped the rummaging. Anyway, imo if a monk can fight in close range with shurikens in their hands, they can do it with potions. Sure, it can be sundered, but imo you can do it. Heck, you could do it if you were a fighter with a longsword and a buckler, carrying a potion in your shield-hand. The DM might get P.O.'d and have it sundered for free, though. But then again, that's one of the few things the Drunken Master PrC is good for. Sunder anything I hold in my arms, will you :D
Schmendrick 09-06-07, 08:01 PM	Meta-gaming is when a character acts on player knowledge. In this case, a monk fighting with a potion in his hand is indeed metagaming. Why? Because the monk is only doing so because of the players knowledge of how the combat rules work. The monk does indeed know that holding a potion in hand is faster than having it in a pack. But what the monk doesn't know (but the player does) is that rules wise, holding a potion in hand has no impact on his fighting ability, and there is no chance of dropping or accidentally breaking the potion. The way to solve this is with a DM on-the-fly houserule. Because, "realistically" (yeah, yeah, I know, D&D and magic and guano and shut up) the rigors of combat would entail a risk of dropping, or at the least inadvertently crushing, the potion. Throw a reasonably trivial Concentration check (DC 8) on that sucker and call it a day. Monks even get Concentration as a class skill (though they frequently don't take it due to its underutilization for noncasters), so you're not even pulling much of a nerf.
Scion of Coldshard 09-06-07, 09:56 PM	However that means we now need special training..... Not really. As I stated earlier, basically 'any' training at all will teach you how to use your body properly. So, the training you need is 'playing a d&d character'. I suppose if you really wanted you could declare that characters with only npc classes could not do it because they suck.. but hey, your call. It sounds like you are asking, 'which skill is it that we use to walk again?'.
sijigs 09-06-07, 10:50 PM	So the player wants to have the potion out at all times that it may be used... so as not to waste the move action. Thus, fighting with the potion... which is kinda a silly image when you think about it. Hey.. as long as the potion-weilding monk doesn't shake it too much. Otherwise he might go blind.
wolf_man007 09-07-07, 12:39 PM	What you need to do is fix a whole mess of cure potions all over your body, excluding the parts with which you intend to strike, and run around just asking people to hit you. "Oh, what's that, Mr. DM? I take four points of bludgeoning damage? And how big was that club? Ok, it hits five of my potions. I heal a zillion mans, bwehehehe!" I DARE any of you to come up with a more solid plan. Double dare, not a hair on your chest.
war_thog 09-07-07, 09:34 PM	Re: Scion... Yes training will teach you. However in D's training outside the square costs feats/skills. Not the same as considering which skill is walking. Walking is inside the square. Bottle fighting isn't. Suggesting that "a dnd character" can do it doesnt reflect what you were saying. Following your logic a monk at lvl 1 who had never seen a potion in his life would be equally as good as an epic drunk master at this skill. Everyone can learn. Not everyone does. A fighter can learn to do what a monk does. Doesnt mean he does. A monk could learn to be a "bottle master" Doesnt mean he has.
Nephlite 09-07-07, 09:46 PM	What you need to do is fix a whole mess of cure potions all over your body, excluding the parts with which you intend to strike, and run around just asking people to hit you. "Oh, what's that, Mr. DM? I take four points of bludgeoning damage? And how big was that club? Ok, it hits five of my potions. I heal a zillion mans, bwehehehe!" I DARE any of you to come up with a more solid plan. Double dare, not a hair on your chest. That might work, but you need them to be Oils of Cure Light Wound instead of Potion (oils need to be on what you use it on, but potions need to be drunken.)
Scion of Coldshard 09-07-07, 10:04 PM	Yes training will teach you. Any training in how to use your body will, if done well, teach you how to use your body. Just about any class could come up with a justification of how they can do it, much like people can come up with a justification to be able to fight defensively or knowing how to withdraw properly. However in D's training outside the square costs feats/skills. Not the same as considering which skill is walking. Walking is inside the square. Bottle fighting isn't. What 'square' are you talking about? Following your logic a monk at lvl 1 who had never seen a potion in his life would be equally as good as an epic drunk master at this skill. At drinking a potion? or holding a potion? Some things in d&d are not terribly level dependent.. I will again point to things like fighting defensively and withdraw. Everyone can learn. True, but some things in d&d are assumed to be so basic that they dont have to worry about them. Such as walking, or eating, or knowing some very basic combat techniques. Simply holding an object without destroying it, especially one such as this, is right up there as well. It would be too much book keeping to try to do it otherwise. Which characters can hold what, do stronger characters crush things easier, do you use the break DC or do you do unarmed damage, what actions will cause the check/damage and how do you adjucate which does what and to which degree, etc etc etc etc. Or, people can hold something in their hand without worrying about it too much. Some things in the game are pretty abstract. Figure out what happens and then describe something reasonable to fit those circumstances. Worrying about whether or not a guy can hold a potion in his hand is about as useful as wondering how a guy can fall 100' and be barely injured or just how deep a cut to the forehead 4 points of damage is and whether or not blood getting in the guys eyes should count as being dazzled.
locustechpriest 09-07-07, 10:07 PM	Monks have a variety of supernatural abilities later on. I think it is safe to say that they have discovered a martial art that allows them to maintain their equilibrium while holding objects. Realize also that a potion is 1 ounce. That is palm sized, not some huge vial that you hold by the neck. Sundering one would practically require you to cut the monk's hand clean off!
StruckingFuggle 09-07-07, 10:08 PM	What you need to do is fix a whole mess of cure potions all over your body, excluding the parts with which you intend to strike, and run around just asking people to hit you. "Oh, what's that, Mr. DM? I take four points of bludgeoning damage? And how big was that club? Ok, it hits five of my potions. I heal a zillion mans, bwehehehe!" I DARE any of you to come up with a more solid plan. Double dare, not a hair on your chest. That might work, but you need them to be Oils of Cure Light Wound instead of Potion (oils need to be on what you use it on, but potions need to be drunken.) It wouldn't work, because it takes an action to apply an oil. I guess it needs to be spread over a good surface and rubbed in, instead of just sprinkled over you.
ToastedAmphibian 09-07-07, 10:16 PM	Monks have a variety of supernatural abilities later on. I think it is safe to say that they have discovered a martial art that allows them to maintain their equilibrium while holding objects. Realize also that a potion is 1 ounce. That is palm sized, not some huge vial that you hold by the neck. Sundering one would practically require you to cut the monk's hand clean off! It wouldn't work, because it takes an action to apply an oil. I guess it needs to be spread over a good surface and rubbed in, instead of just sprinkled over you. ??????
ToastedAmphibian 09-07-07, 10:25 PM	Yes, he is absolutley positivly exploiting his abilites. There is nothing wrong with that, thats why he has abilities, to exploit them. If you cant exploit it, its not really an ability, making it either a non-ability or a disability. www.m-w.com Main Entry: 2ex·ploit Pronunciation: ik-'sploit, 'ek-" Function: transitive verb 1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness> 2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers> NOW DIE THREAD! DIEEEEEEEE
Xanaphia_Undomiel 09-07-07, 10:43 PM	Rules wise you could do the 1 hand potion thing, and people who do Tae Kwon Do often give the impression that you dont need arms to fight, but from a practical PoV, you cant fight unarmed without your hands. Ive tried, its ridiculous. You can kick for sure, but you sure as hell cant block properly. Now sure you can block with an arm thats holding something, but chances are you might accidently smash what your holding. The rules however do not cover this at all. Rules wise its safe. Practically its well..... impractical. Your DM is probably looking more at this second point than the first. I do Tae Kwon Do. As well as your hands blocking, they also give you SO much balance. I'd rule that without your hands free you get -2 AC. Then again, you could also argue that you cannot POSSIBLY defend yourself versus greatswords etc without a weapon. They'll slice your hands off.
wolf_man007 09-07-07, 11:08 PM	That might work, but you need them to be Oils of Cure Light Wound instead of Potion (oils need to be on what you use it on, but potions need to be drunken.) Yes, yes. Oils. Yes. Do it. Yes.
guru7892 09-07-07, 11:40 PM	I like the idea of being able to hold items and still fight. It occurred to me that since I'm still a lowbie, it might not be a bad idea to keep a cure light wounds potion in hand during fights. I've yet to need the potion as of yet, but... ok I just got the image of a 'drunken' hermit of amazing martial prowess that drinks a magical potion to heal mimself while he fights. acually thats kinda cool... and from charictar development thats even more amazing, as he starts to feel he must depend on the potion to fight. I'd totaly role with that Ji.
StruckingFuggle 09-07-07, 11:50 PM	Regarding my last post, oops. I knew I should have quoted what I was replying to (thought it'd be the next post right under it, and then didn't check) ... it should be fixed now. Basically, was saying that "strapping oils to yourself and having the vials break when hit" wouldn't do much ... except waste a lot of gp.
ToastedAmphibian 09-07-07, 11:54 PM	Ya i know. But following the post it followed... well it made me laugh far to much for me to not point it out.
InkBlot 09-08-07, 02:19 AM	That might work, but you need them to be Oils of Cure Light Wound instead of Potion (oils need to be on what you use it on, but potions need to be drunken.) In an Eberron game a while back, in the party was a warforged barbarian who carried vials of Oil Of Repair Light Damage by strapping them to himself. One day he rolled a natural 1 on a reflex save against a spell and one of the vials broke, since they were the only things he was wearing. After being shattered, the vial was promptly repaired by the oil.
war_thog 09-08-07, 04:49 AM	Hehehe hilarious. Re: Scion.... ------ I don't understand why you feel the need to re-iterate that people can learn stuff when I've agreed with you. It's pointless. ----- What do you mean what square? Its not a real thing, just a ways of saying outside of the "ordinary" You know...... think outside the square you live in? -------- What do you mean at what? Think in context to what weve discussing. Were talking about fighting with a potion in hand, this is obviously what im referring to. ----- Simple things are assumed yes. Holding objects without destroying them does fit that bill. Hell you can do that from birth. Thats not what we were discussing. The topic was the potential danger to the potion from FIGHTING while wielding it, which is a realistic risk. Following the above example..... If a potion can be smashed while you're wearing it because you fell on it, then it can be smashed while holding it when youre fighting. Im fully aware some things dont need to be overcomplicated and. Im not suggesting that. I originally said an interesting side rule would be a crit miss = break. That doesnt need a massive amount of book keeping. Hell its 3 words and an = sign. Just because its abstract doesnt mean it shouldnt be considered or discussed. Its interesting to see what people have to say on the topic. If you think its useless then just ignore it.
KrisTheGreat 09-08-07, 02:58 PM	I would suggest using a potion belt (forgotten realms campaign setting) it allows you to draw a potion as a swift action. Then you get the same effect and your dm cant complain
Shadowhowler 09-09-07, 03:30 AM	Or just get a string or small rope and ware the damn thing around your friggin neck.
war_thog 09-09-07, 09:25 PM	Haha. I like the bottle on a rope idea. Reminds me of cruel intentions with the chick who has the snuff in her necklace. Get a metal vial thing like that and your sweet! *or do the same with drugs!!!!*
KmartKommando 09-11-07, 02:43 AM	Wait until the DM thinks of hitting you with a stunning fist, or mindflayer's psionic blast, etc. Just when you need that potion, oops, you dropped it...
Anguish2 09-11-07, 02:46 PM	In response to everyone who's brought up sundering... if I could convince my DM to put me up against monsters stupid enough to waste their attacks on sundering 50gp potions, I'd be thrilled. An extra round to flurry at the monster, for 50gp? Sold. Not that the attacker knows what you're thinking about chugging, but if it sees you go a few rounds attacking instead of chugging, it should get a clue that the potion isn't important. In response to anyone giving the monk a hard time mechanically, there's no grounds for it. The RAW are clear that a monk can mix weapon and unarmed strike attacks freely, and can attack with limbs other than arms. There's no reason a monk has to have their hands empty to pull off an Unarmed Strike. That all being said, from a roleplay standpoint I wouldn't have a monk of mine fighting with a potion bottle in-hand. It's just unsafe. You'd have to worry about accidental breakage. You'd have to worry about suddenly needing your hand for something like climbing, and you don't want to drop the potion. You'd have to worry about being grappled or magic that makes you drop things. Leave the thing safely packed where it belongs. You're paying for that safety with a move to draw it. I think the item mentioned is either a potion belt, FRCS96 or a bandoleer, also FRCR96. I'm away from books.
locustechpriest 09-11-07, 11:40 PM	I'd like to point out one more time, that a potion is 1 oz. Those bottles are not paper thin glass, they are probably safe to carry, heck, they may be half inch thick glass without being more bulky than a small paperweight. But, I will encourage you to roleplay what makes sense to you.
Sunic_Flames 09-12-07, 09:31 AM	On the other hand... The potion heals 1d8+1 damage if he drinks it, and it takes an action. Most melee opponents do at least that much damage when they hit you. Therefore, by presenting the potion in his hand as sunder-bait, he's actually lessening the overall damage he takes if they take a swing at it instead of a swing at him, and saving himself the action to drink it into the bargain. Very clever monk that, waving such tantalizing bait under the enemy's nose... And further proof that sundering is not only a useless tactic, it is counterproductive and improving it is worse than no feat at all. :D
perdera 09-12-07, 12:16 PM	Seems pretty clear from the SRD: Unarmed Strike At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes. Note that this is a special circumstance that applies to Monks only, a Fighter taking Improved Unarmed Strike does not receive this benefit. The ability for Monks to do other things with their empty hands is a very specific and explicit benefit provided to the class. The meta-game talk sounds like nonsense to me. DM: You enter a creepy room and hear creepy noises. Fighter: I draw my weapon in case something attacks us. Cleric: I get my cure wand out in case something attacks us. Monk: I get a potion out in case something attacks us. That just makes sense. Monk's ARE a fairly weak class, one of the big benefits they have are their empty hands, that strong point should be encouraged, not kaiboshed. I impose Tumble check penalties on people for items in their hands, depending on the size of the items. This is another way I strengthen the (usually) empty-handed strength of the Monk. In this case he could have a potion out, or even two, but he'd suffer Tumble penalties for it--but, per RAW, no attack/defense penalties.
Reyemile 09-12-07, 01:28 PM	I guess this is the SKills and Feats board, not CharOp, but I'm surprised no one has taken him to task for having Potions of CLW. Seriously, they cost something like 5 times as much as the equivalent healing from a wand of CLW, and that's not withstanding the possibility of an Eternal Wand, a Belt of Healing, or a Wand of Lesser Vigor.
war_thog 09-12-07, 05:46 PM	I'd like to point out one more time, that a potion is 1 oz. Those bottles are not paper thin glass, they are probably safe to carry, heck, they may be half inch thick glass without being more bulky than a small paperweight. But, I will encourage you to roleplay what makes sense to you. Wait why would 1oz be a half inch thick of glass? Its only 30 grams. Thats bugger all. Itd be a small flimsy thing. If it were 1lb on the other hand, now we have something sturdy.
Scion of Coldshard 09-12-07, 07:26 PM	A potion vial is 'usually no more than 1" wide and 2" high' and the liquid inside weighs about 1 ounce (it cannot be 1 ounce of volume since 1 ounce of volume is 1.804 cubic inches while a 1" wide, 2" cylinder is only 1.571 cubic inches). We know nothing about the density so we could easily say that it is a very dense liquid, like mercury, and so its volume is very small which would mean that most of the volume taken up by the vial could be the vial itself.
war_thog 09-13-07, 09:28 AM	Fair to say that it is unlikely to be a solid unbreakable brick of a thing.
perdera 09-13-07, 10:44 AM	Fair to say that it is unlikely to be a solid unbreakable brick of a thing. Potions are for suckers, my Monk wears a camelbak full of curative goodness.
Scion of Coldshard 09-13-07, 11:06 AM	Fair to say that it is unlikely to be a solid unbreakable brick of a thing. Unbreakable? No. Tough enough to be shoved around in a pack and pulled out quickly in an emergency without a problem? Seems that way. If they were as fragile as you seem to be trying to imply then they would each need their own special carrying case. Carefully wrapped, shock absorbing container, and likely take several rounds at least to get to and use.
locustechpriest 09-14-07, 06:38 PM	I've handled test tubes before, and find them to be a handy comparison. If you are holding it in your hand, the force you apply is on the arc of the circle. This is the best direction to apply force, as it is dissipated throughout the arc, making crushing one in your hand (by accident) unlikely.
war_thog 09-15-07, 06:51 AM	Yes. Holding it and trying to crush it. I agree. Now get that test tube and hold it as tight as you can. Then punch something repeatedly. Report back with condition of test tube. The point wasnt necessarily that youd break it, but that it is feasible that it could be broken by accident, in some way or another.
war_thog 09-15-07, 06:57 AM	Yes. Holding it and trying to crush it. I agree. Now get that test tube and hold it as tight as you can. Then punch something repeatedly. Report back with condition of test tube. The point wasnt necessarily that youd break it, but that it is feasible that it could be broken by accident, in some way or another. And just in general...... I've also handled test tubes quite a bit. They are reasonably strong but a decent knock can shatter one no problems.
Scion of Coldshard 09-15-07, 11:33 AM	The point wasnt necessarily that youd break it, but that it is feasible that it could be broken by accident, in some way or another. The same is true for armor, shields, weapons, and so many other things in d&d. What mechanic do you used to keep track of when these are broken?
locustechpriest 09-15-07, 12:14 PM	Now get that test tube and hold it as tight as you can. Then punch something repeatedly. Please remind me why we are punching. The entire point of this thread is that we are dealing with a monk, who will be delivering kicks, knees and elbows (etc.). The fact that his hand is full is pretty much irrelivant, because he isn't using the hand. I would not assign any penalties. Consider a monk holding a Kama in either hand attacking unarmed. Why would it be more difficult to do so with a potion in hand? As someone else stated, these potions are meant for the battlefield, they won't shatter on sight. The same is true for armor, shields, weapons, and so many other things in d&d. What mechanic do you used to keep track of when these are broken? Hit points and hardness. The question is why would you do it? If there is a viable reason, then it's a viable solution. I don't personally see why the potion would be at risk to begin with, though. If I were to deliver a punch with a potion in hand, I would just assign the unarmed damage to the potion as well. Does that kill it? I don't know, I'm not looking at he hardness of glass at the moment, but it might. Of course, it sounds like an awful failure in logic for any fighter to punch someone with a breakable glass object in hand, so I would always assume some other action, if applicable (for example: kicking for a monk).
Scion of Coldshard 09-15-07, 04:33 PM	Hit points and hardness. As he is already bypassing those for his current claim then they are not really there to be used as an argument point, however. The vials have hardness and hp as well after all. I don't personally see why the potion would be at risk to begin with, though. Pretty much. Seems unreasonable given the context of the rest of the game.