Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kadeity 03-02-07, 07:19 AM	how does the feat Superior Unarmed Strike (from tome of battle) interact with a monks belt? (the magic item from the DMG)
Zumarai 03-02-07, 07:33 AM	how does the feat Superior Unarmed Strike (from tome of battle) interact with a monks belt? (the magic item from the DMG) I've been wondering that myself – unarmed damage of a monk 9 levels higher?
kadeity 03-02-07, 07:44 AM	I've been wondering that myself – unarmed damage of a monk 9 levels higher? also, What if your NOT a monk and have both?
Merestil Haye 03-02-07, 07:52 AM	Both Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike allow the character to act as if he were a monk of some levels higher for the purposes of determining some aspects of the chartacter's stats. What they do not do, as worded, is increase the Monk's level. Both are acting on the character's actual Monk level. The greater increase will be the one that prevails. If you are not a Monk, determine the unarmed strike damage the feat will give you normally, and the unarmed damage of a 9th level Monk. Use the greater result.
Zumarai 03-02-07, 07:53 AM	also, What if your NOT a monk and have both? The unarmed damage of a 9th level monk and a +1, and Wis bonus to AC?
Hida Reju 03-02-07, 08:59 AM	I know its a moot point for some but I asked the same question to CusServ and they said they do stack since they are from two different sources. One is a feat while the other is an Item. They found no issue with the stacking.
Salad_Tosser 03-02-07, 09:00 AM	I know its a moot point for some but I asked the same question to CusServ and they said they do stack since they are from two different sources. One is a feat while the other is an Item. They found no issue with the stacking. Right on, good to know – thanks!
Merestil Haye 03-02-07, 09:32 AM	If either the feat, or the item, or both, gave bonuses to the Monk level, I'd buy that. As it is, neither actually increase the character's Monk level so they don't have a cumulative effect - unless (ironically) the character is not a monk.
kadeity 03-02-07, 10:02 AM	So if im understanding correctly they interact like this : If you ARE a monk and have both Superior Unarmed Strike and A Monks Belt then the feat providing a +4 effective monk level for unarmed damage and ac bonus is pointless since the item gives a +5 effective monk level for unarmed damage and ac bonus which overlaps the feat. If you ARE NOT a monk and have both Superior Unarmed Strike and A Monks Belt then they DO stack and you have an Effective monk level of 9 for determining unarmed damage, however your AC bonus is still that of a 5th level monk. if this is the case, the combo only works for a non-monk until 12th level, at which point your Damage without the monks belt is now exactly the same as your damage with it. Still, its nice to have the belt on for the AC bonus. At 16th level however the belt will actually REDUCE your damage while you wear it... i think, because while wearing the belt you are treated as a monk for the feat. When you remove it however, the feat reverts to its non-monk function, and your damage increases to 2d6.
Hida Reju 03-02-07, 03:19 PM	What was relayed to me was the following. 1. The feat superior unarmed strike applies only to unarmed damage and will either give you a scaling unarmed damage or give you effective monk lvls for damage if you already have some. 2. The item Monks belt, raises your effective monk lvl for unarmed damage, or lets you count yourself as a virtual lvl 4 monk for AC bonus and damage. The two items would only stack if you have at least 1 monk lvl otherwise you would be following the progression in the feat for non monks. But if you had both and were say a lvl 10 monk then you would hit like a lvl 18monk. Hope that clears it up.
ibayboy 03-02-07, 05:12 PM	wow, confusing. I have a Warblade5/Monk2 and want to take Superior Unarmed Strike. I plan on continuing in Warblade levels. Is my SUS damage now stuck at Monk +4, or can i take the higher level progression from the table in the feat description.
Hida Reju 03-02-07, 09:36 PM	If you have a lvl of monk then you add 4 to it for the effective lvl of your hand to hand strikes from the feat. The belt does the same thing but since both give an unnamed bonus to your effective monk lvl it stacks when you have a lvl of monk. Otherwise since without a lvl of monk you use the feat unarmed progression since it states that you have to have a lvl of monk to count it as 4 lvls higher. I decided that I would let you choose the higher of the two damage progressions. Either for your character lvl for Superior unarmed strike or your total monk lvls.
Merestil Haye 03-03-07, 04:40 AM	The belt does the same thing but since both give an unnamed bonus to your effective monk lvl it stacks when you have a lvl of monk. Otherwise since without a lvl of monk you use the feat unarmed progression since it states that you have to have a lvl of monk to count it as 4 lvls higher.Neither the belt nor the feat give bonuses to your monk levels. The Belt says The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher.The game uses that formulation when it means "nothing has actually changed but for this particular specific purpose, treat it as something different," Your monk's level is still your monk's level. The feat says you "deal damage as a monk four levels higher". The same basic formulation - your monk level is not changed, only what you are treated as for one specific purpose. Thus a Monk 1 is either treated as dealing damage as a Monk 5 or a Monk 6; not a Monk 10.
northwarden 03-27-08, 07:56 AM	I've been following this thread closely because I've had similiar disagreements about stacking. Everyone else pulls some shady combos, so I want my cheese too :-) Here's my take: First, from Does It Stack(Part Four) by Skip Williams posted 2/10/2004 on Wizards under Rules of the Game Unnamed Bonuses A bonus that doesn't have a name stacks with anything except itself. This is always true, but it's sometimes hard to remember. For example, many feats provide unnamed bonuses, so don't panic when you read a feat description and it provides a bonus without a name. An unnamed bonus from a feat stacks with any other bonus; however you can't stack that unnamed bonus if you take the feat twice. From Player's Handbook bonus: A positive modifier to a die roll. In most cases, multiple bonuses from the same source or of the same type in effect on the same character or object do not stack; only the highest bonus of that type applies. Bonuses that don’t have a specific type always stack with all bonuses. My argument is this. The benefits from these two are unnamed bonuses (if they are bonuses at all according to the definition - see positive modifier to a die roll). None of the books have a bonus of type "level adjustment". Following that, Skip says a bonus that doesn't have a name stacks with anything but itself and an unnamed bonus from a feat stacks with any other bonus; however you can't stack that unnamed bonus if you take the feat twice. This pretty clearly states (to me anyways) that Superior Unarmed Strike and Monk's Belt stack because one is a feat and one is a magic item (ie.an unnamed bonus from a feat stacks with any other bonus). This also follows the ruling provided by Customer Service.
runestar 03-27-08, 08:12 AM	My argument is this. The benefits from these two are unnamed bonuses (if they are bonuses at all according to the definition - see positive modifier to a die roll). None of the books have a bonus of type "level adjustment". Following that, Skip says a bonus that doesn't have a name stacks with anything but itself and an unnamed bonus from a feat stacks with any other bonus; however you can't stack that unnamed bonus if you take the feat twice. Problem is - their wording is odd in that it appears to actually reset your effective monk lv to another higher lv, rather than add a flat bonus. The scenario seems closer to monkey grip interacting with powerful build, then say, multiple sources of caster lv increases stacking with one another. Or it could just be crappy wording...:P
risner 03-27-08, 11:42 AM	Or it could just be crappy wording...:P The real problem is the crappy wording. The RAW doesn't directly address what to do in this situation. So you have two camps of what the RAW says: 1) They stack for +9 Monk levels damage. 2) They don't stack, so take the +5 as it is highest. So it really comes down to "ask your DM", because the issue has been debated to death before now with no winner.
northwarden 03-27-08, 12:02 PM	In most cases I agree about asking the DM because I can never seem to get the Sage to give a definitive answer on most questions. Recently, Customer Service has been good about responding though. My problem is that when Customer Service gives an answer and the DM doesn't like it, you're suggesting that he can just ignore it. I'm fine with that for Home Play, I hate it for LG because I still don't know if the DM will allow it from table to table. I can always ask my homeplay DM and adjust accordingly - that doesn't work with LG. I'd like to know that if I sit at a table with a response from Customer Service about something, the DM will honor that ruling. I certainly would, especially if a player went through the effort to get a ruling in the first place.
risner 03-27-08, 07:11 PM	I'd like to know that if I sit at a table with a response from Customer Service about something, the DM will honor that ruling. I won't honor the ruling and I'll tell you why. If you have a ruling that says you can do something, then the DM can ask the same question (but worded slightly different) and get the exact opposite response from customer service (that you can not do something.) In short, Customer Service responses are not worth anything for any debated issue. FAQ and Errata are all you have to bring to an LG table and expect the judge to agree with the ruling.
northwarden 03-27-08, 09:07 PM	Then what the heck is the point of Sage Advice or Customer Service anyway? Last I checked, you are supposed to provide the location of the relevant feat, rule, etc. when asking a question. They can read the wording themselves and make up their own minds (it is their job after all). Customer Service at least has a semi-official status when it comes to interpeting rules. Therefore their interpretation should carry some weight. But apparently, only an FAQ statement is satisfactory for some people. I thought there might be insight to be gained by joining this thread, but I don't see anyone presenting a strong counter argument that doesn't involve dissecting RAW statements into minute pieces -at least ones tinier than mine :rolleyes: I presented my case earlier, plus there is a similiar question in the FAQ regarding Practiced Spellcaster and bead of karma stacking. Of course someone will argue that the statements "Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by 4" and "Wearer casts his spells at +4 caster level" (provided in descriptions of bead of karma and Practiced Spellcaster) are in no way comparable to "The wearer's AC and unarmed damage are treated as a monk of five levels higher" and "If you are a monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher" (from monk's belt and Superior Unarmed Strike) but I believe that is an overzealous interpretation. Read the FAQ yourself - notice it also says the bonus from Practiced Spellcaster is applied whenever it would be the most beneficial to the caster. The ruling not only allows the stacking, but allows the player to apply it as he best sees fit. The statement from Customer Service only further bolsters my stance that they do stack. Plus their statement is consistent with at least one previous ruling as shown in the FAQ. It doesn't really matter to me anyways, as the chance I'll get access to Superior Unarmed Strike before LG ends is almost nil. I'm bowing out of this discussion. I'm certain there will be an lot of opinions but what I'd like to see is some official rulings from somewhere to back the opposing view that are similiar in nature to the question at hand. In the meantime I think I'll go find a thread on Healthful Rest and the Vigor spells and see what kind of trouble I can stir up there :D
wraithstrike 03-27-08, 09:14 PM	Problem is - their wording is odd in that it appears to actually reset your effective monk lv to another higher lv, rather than add a flat bonus. The scenario seems closer to monkey grip interacting with powerful build, then say, multiple sources of caster lv increases stacking with one another. Or it could just be crappy wording...:P According to the monkey grip/powerful build example they should not stack, that is how I read it, but customer service says the SUS, and monk's belt fall under the unnamed bonus from different sources area. I guess unnamed bonus takes precedence over any other ruling when rules collide. This unnamed bonus also took precedence in the natural attack plus warforged battlefist debate, which also gives virtual size increases.
northwarden 03-28-08, 08:29 AM	I was gonna bow out, but it's like a train wreck :D The powerful build\monk grip comparison has one other difficulty in that RAW states you cannot wield a weapon two size categories or greater than yourself. Stacking Powerful Build and Monkey Grip would violate this base rule without question. Stacking level adjustments don't have such a direct conflict that I'm aware of. I do appreciate the example though (I forgot it was presented earlier in the thread and apologize for the remark about lack of examples in the last post)
Bloodsoul 03-28-08, 09:49 AM	I had asked a similar question months back, and some posters here (as well as my DM, after asking) agreed to just leave SUS as be instead of going through the whole "you're treated as a monk of yadayadayada", since it seemed silly that my cleric's unarmed strikes would be weaker with the belt than without. It's a houserule, of course, but still...
wraithstrike 03-28-08, 08:53 PM	I was gonna bow out, but it's like a train wreck :D The powerful build\monk grip comparison has one other difficulty in that RAW states you cannot wield a weapon two size categories or greater than yourself. Stacking Powerful Build and Monkey Grip would violate this base rule without question. Stacking level adjustments don't have such a direct conflict that I'm aware of. I do appreciate the example though (I forgot it was presented earlier in the thread and apologize for the remark about lack of examples in the last post) WotC told me size bonuses don't stack, and that is why, such as you can have to effects even from different sources that make you character larger, and while monkey grip, does not make anyone larger it gives the same effect, but for the other two examples they ignore that and go with the unnamed bonus rule. I am not arguing against you, but it just does not make sense to me since neither of the effects actually make you bigger, but all give the same advantage, therefore they should work the same way. Either they should all stack or none of them should stack.
northwarden 03-29-08, 02:40 PM	My point with powerful build\monkey grip is that the PH specifically states you cannot wield a weapon two size categories larger than you are. Since you don't actually change size for monkey grip or powerful build, allowing you to stack both bonuses would violate this rule. A medium size creature should not be able to wield a huge greatsword. Sizes bonuses are tricky things anyways. A magical size bonus will stack with a natural size bonus - magical size bonuses don't stack with each other. I believe this was cleared up in the Rules Compendium and maybe somewhere else ( I am going on memory here, so I could be wrong). I also have had a running disagreement with a friend that Improved Natural Attack doesn't stack with Enlarge Person. I say it does because INA is not a size bonus (it doesn't increase your size or the size of your weapon) He says it's an enlargement bonus - a bonus that refers to the increase in terms of size. I haven't found a single reference that validates his argument or even uses the term "enlargement bonus", but I have not used the combo when he's my DM. However I recently contacted CustServ and they agree that INA is not a size bonus for the same reasons I gave and will stack with Enlarge Person. Note that INA uses the same language as the Shillelagh spell, but Shillelagh increases the weapon damage two size categories instead of one. If Shillelagh was an actual size bonus, you couldn't wield the weapon and the spell would be useless. One of my big issues is that according to Skip Williams in the Does It Stack articles, if a bonus does not specifically state its type, then it is an unnamed bonus. A lot of my disagreement with people comes from them trying to justify calling something a specific type of bonus without its description specifically saying that. Nowhere in the description of INA does it say the feat is a size bonus. Enlarge Person comes right out and says it. INA quantifies the additional damage by explaining in terms of a size increase. The above info is the reason why I don't think powerful build\monkey grip is a valid example to refute the stacking of SUS and monk's belt. The ruling for PB\MG is maintaining consistency with RAW. I don't think there is a core rule that puts a ceiling on level adjusting. If someone knows of one, I'd love to know about it.
dman11235 03-29-08, 02:42 PM	First off, try the search function. This question has been asked about 1/week. Second, they do stack, since they are increasing your effective monk level. And are different sources. And don't increase it from your base monk level. You deal as a monk 5 levels higher. Note the lack of any indication that it references actual monk level. iirc, same with SUS. And a Monk's Tattoo.
northwarden 03-29-08, 05:25 PM	First, the last time I looked at the forums at all was well over a year ago and the search function was disabled. I found this thread via Google and it was recently active so I posted. Second, I did try the search function since you mentioned it and didn't find a definitive conclusion -just the same as this thread has been arguing. If it's there somewhere, I didn't see it. My stance is they stack, and as noted in other threads customer service says they stack, and just like this forum, I often deal with DMs that an answer from Customer Service isn't enough. One of the threads mentioned something about a document or errata that clarified the effective monk level claim. I hope it's true and I'll try again to find it but something like that would resolve this issue for me.
Dheran 03-29-08, 05:46 PM	Second, they do stack, since they are increasing your effective monk level. That's not true; No mention at all is made of "effective Monk level".The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. Grammatically, this statement is called a "null comparative". A standard comparative would be of the form:The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher than their actual Monk level. You deal as a monk 5 levels higher. Note the lack of any indication that it references actual monk level. Note instead the lack of subordinating conjunction referencing anything. An English comparative always needs a referent to make sense. Otherwise we get into the land of advertising lingo: "Our Monks are better!" Better than what? Since the referent isn't explicit, we have to infer the most likely meaning from the various possibilities for the base "level". Standard D&D usage has a short list: class (Monk) level character level caster level Caster level has no contextual relevance and character level is unlikely. So the class level for the stated class (Monk) is the only reasonable option. But while "effective" is used with both "character level" and "caster level" in the game, there is not a single mention of "effective Monk level" in the rules. Contrast this tothe ranger’s effective druid level is one-half his ranger level. Here there's an explicit mention of an effective class level. There's no such precedent for Monk levels. To infer "effective Monk level" as the most likely meaning requires the following assumptions: They decided not to use the standard terms to indicate an additive quantity: either the word "bonus" or the "+" symbol. The concept of "effective Monk level" was deemed too obvious to bother to mention explicitly, in two places -- even though the term never appears in the rules. The stacking consequences of "effective Monk level" are also obvious, and again no mention needs to be made in the rules. Is it possible that the designers meant "effective Monk level" as the unstated referent in both the Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike feat? Yes. Is it likely? No, not at all.
dman11235 03-29-08, 09:32 PM	north: I was talking to the OP. Dheran: That's why these debates never end. There is no proof (actual proof, though there is circumstantial evidence on both sides) that either argument is correct. Thus it lands in the realm of DM's call. I will remark that this is one of a rare occasion in which I agree with the CustServe statements. Odd, huh? However a CustServe response will come sometime that contradicts that one...
Ace_of_time 03-29-08, 10:45 PM	CustServe says basically that since it doesn't actually say Your monk level that they both stack. :noway: :rant: BS. To me It should work just like powerful build and monkey grip. Common sense says it is talking about your monk level.
northwarden 03-30-08, 09:02 AM	dman - Sorry about that. I misunderstood who your comments were directed to. As for this debate, I did a lot more searching and came to the conclusion that this is not resolvable without an FAQ. It seems to be an even 50\50 split which means that actually taking the feat in LG is a crap shoot. Even though I think the CustServ statement is the tiebreaker, a lot of people discount their opinions as having any weight. It would be ridiculous to take a feat I might only be able to use 50% of the time or less (provided I got access). I appreciate everyone's opinion on this. As a DM, I will personally allow it - not only because of the arguments I presented, but also because I see it as not being an overly powerful combo. Being allowed to stack caster level bumps is much more likely to unbalance a game than moving unarmed strike damage from 2d6 to 2d8 or 2d10. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I will use it myself :(
dman11235 03-30-08, 10:09 PM	That's why I allow it. The monk is hardly an overpowering class, and it could use all the boosts it can get. Because of the stacking, I have been able to pull of really nice builds, comparable to mostly optimized barbarians. And let me tell you, 32d8 per strike is NICE! ( that's an overpowering combo I did, usually it's only around 10d8).
Ace_of_time 03-30-08, 10:52 PM	So you wouldn't let it stack for other classes but since this class is the weakest class ever we should make an exception for this class.
dman11235 03-31-08, 12:46 AM	Wait, what? No other class benefits from this. How can you possibly say that? Unless you are referring to Powerful Build/Monkey Grip, which states that it doesn't stack... As opposed to this which lends little to believe that it doesn't and little that it does, aside from strong circumstantial evidence.
NoldorForce 03-31-08, 12:58 AM	So you wouldn't let it stack for other classes but since this class is the weakest class ever we should make an exception for this class.That's a strawman. As above, without the Sage saying something, we can't get a definitive official answer. The text itself doesn't help us; "five levels higher" than what? Asking Customer Service would be rather fishy, considering that it has been demonstrated on multiple occasions that they will say both Yes and No to the same question depending on how things are worded. So we're left at letting individual DMs interpret it as they feel. Since several folks don't think it's that crazy, they're fine with it. They're not making an exception (which it isn't) for the weakest class in the game (which it isn't); they're judging things on a case-by-case basis and concluding that this simply isn't all that wild. This is not the Dreyfus Affair; this is not the Zimmerman Telegram. It's just another useful trick for unarmed characters to think about.
wraithstrike 03-31-08, 01:01 AM	That's a strawman. As above, without the Sage saying something, we can't get a definitive official answer. The text itself doesn't help us; "five levels higher" than what? Asking Customer Service would be rather fishy, considering that it has been demonstrated on multiple occasions that they will say both Yes and No to the same question depending on how things are worded. So we're left at letting individual DMs interpret it as they feel. Since several folks don't think it's that crazy, they're fine with it. They're not making an exception (which it isn't) for the weakest class in the game (which it isn't); they're judging things on a case-by-case basis and concluding that this simply isn't all that wild. This is not the Dreyfus Affair; this is not the Zimmerman Telegram. It's just another useful trick for unarmed characters to think about. He simply asked does it stack for monks and not other classes. It is a simple yes or no question.
NoldorForce 03-31-08, 01:34 AM	He simply asked does it stack for monks and not other classes. It is a simple yes or no question.There's a bunch more there than just that. For a start, it's not even a question; it's a statement. And it's a statement employed as a rhetorical question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question) at that. There's the strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) reasoning that the targets of the comment are only allowing this to power up the "weak" monk. And finally there's the assumption (yet to be proven for either side) that the technique doesn't work by RAW. Still think that's a simple, straightforward question?
wraithstrike 03-31-08, 02:15 AM	There's a bunch more there than just that. For a start, it's not even a question; it's a statement. And it's a statement employed as a rhetorical question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question) at that. There's the strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) reasoning that the targets of the comment are only allowing this to power up the "weak" monk. And finally there's the assumption (yet to be proven for either side) that the technique doesn't work by RAW. Still think that's a simple, straightforward question? Yes. If he says no that the monk is not the exception, that means he is allowing it to work for all classes, and at that point if ACE is implying more than what is actually stated he will have to come out say so. If he does allow it for the monk only then I might have a thread to direct him to that says the monk while more difficult to build effectively than other classes can be built to be effective. It seems simple to me. As for how these two work I think that since there is no more errata coming out, with customer service having varied opinions, and the board not being able to decide each DM will just have to accept the fact that they will have to find their own answer along with other questions that have never been answered. All these nonanswered questions are in a thread somewhere, but they should be stickied as "DM decisions" or something similar since I see these once per month at least when I do a search. On the topic of whether it is broken it depends on how I build the monk. If I build an item sundering monk then this combination along with improved natural attack could be broken, but if I just build a combat support monk then it is not out of control, but I don't want to ban/allow based on the build so for now I am deciding what to do. This thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=982522&page=3&highlight=sunder+monk+mage+killer) is in defense of monks
dman11235 03-31-08, 01:07 PM	Monks are my favorite class...but they are weak and very poorly designed. Anyway, this combo really only works for the monk. No other class. Not because I'm picking which class it works for, but because the monk is the only class with a monk's unarmed strike. Unarmed swordsage follows the same progression and so does Battle Dancer, but neither of those are monks. Thus SUS cannot benefit them in the same way, and neither can the belt. Now, I'd houserule that they do stack because it seems stupid for them not to. So, he was creating a Strawman. Trying to get me to sound like I am only doing this for monks, and hating other classes, or trying to get me to renounce my statement. See how I didn't fall for it?
Ace_of_time 03-31-08, 08:20 PM	Wait, what? No other class benefits from this. How can you possibly say that? Unless you are referring to Powerful Build/Monkey Grip, which states that it doesn't stack... As opposed to this which lends little to believe that it doesn't and little that it does, aside from strong circumstantial evidence.No I was not talking about powerful build and monkey. Those feat/belt combo works with any class not just monks. That is why they say for all others it works like this and for those with Monk levels it works like this. I have asked the same question word very different from the other poster that sent that question to Customer Service. We both got the same answer from the same person. That answer was yes the way they are currently worded they stack but that the DM has final say and is free to say no they don't. I can post the answer it self if I still have it if you want. Still BS. Belt, Monk’s: This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus. Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Wondrous Item, righteous might or transformation; Price 13,000 gp; Weight 1 lb. The belts say "The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher." Clearly it is talking about your current monk level. Because it goes on to say "If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. ". The feat says the same thing almost. My point was that It gets old people saying they are weak so should get extra bonuses that other classes wouldn't get just because they are weaker. People know about the class when taking it. The only reason someone would use that argument and play the monk class is to get a leg up that most classes wouldn't get any way. I am not say one way or the other if they are weaker or not. Just that someone shouldn't be given an ability/feat just on the basis of them being weaker/stronger. Would you take half the wizards feats and spells per day away because most consider it a stronger class, No. Sorry for the rant.
NoldorForce 03-31-08, 09:36 PM	I have asked the same question word very different from the other poster that sent that question to Customer Service. We both got the same answer from the same person. That answer was yes the way they are currently worded they stack but that the DM has final say and is free to say no they don't. I can post the answer it self if I still have it if you want. Still BS. The belts say "The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher." Clearly it is talking about your current monk level. Because it goes on to say "If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. ". The feat says the same thing almost.I'm confused; how does this help the arguments for either side? :confused: My point was that It gets old people saying they are weak so should get extra bonuses that other classes wouldn't get just because they are weaker. People know about the class when taking it. The only reason someone would use that argument and play the monk class is to get a leg up that most classes wouldn't get any way. I am not say one way or the other if they are weaker or not. Just that someone shouldn't be given an ability/feat just on the basis of them being weaker/stronger. Would you take half the wizards feats and spells per day away because most consider it a stronger class, No.And that's the strawman. By now it's been pointed out, but you're still using it. No one's actually made this distorted argument except you, and you're just constructing it to knock it down.
wraithstrike 03-31-08, 09:56 PM	No I was not talking about powerful build and monkey. Those feat/belt combo works with any class not just monks. That is why they say for all others it works like this and for those with Monk levels it works like this. I have asked the same question word very different from the other poster that sent that question to Customer Service. We both got the same answer from the same person. That answer was yes the way they are currently worded they stack but that the DM has final say and is free to say no they don't. I can post the answer it self if I still have it if you want. Still BS. The belts say "The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher." Clearly it is talking about your current monk level. Because it goes on to say "If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. ". The feat says the same thing almost. My point was that It gets old people saying they are weak so should get extra bonuses that other classes wouldn't get just because they are weaker. People know about the class when taking it. The only reason someone would use that argument and play the monk class is to get a leg up that most classes wouldn't get any way. I am not say one way or the other if they are weaker or not. Just that someone shouldn't be given an ability/feat just on the basis of them being weaker/stronger. Would you take half the wizards feats and spells per day away because most consider it a stronger class, No. Sorry for the rant. I agree, even though the words "monk levels" are not surrounded in neon lights it is obvious what it is talking about. I don't care either way if they monks gets it or not, but I don't understand how they can't see that monk levels are being referred to.
Ace_of_time 03-31-08, 11:21 PM	That's why I allow it. The monk is hardly an overpowering class, and it could use all the boosts it can get. Because of the stacking, I have been able to pull of really nice builds, comparable to mostly optimized barbarians. And let me tell you, 32d8 per strike is NICE! ( that's an overpowering combo I did, usually it's only around 10d8). Ok first I have no idea what "strawman" is. I took this to mean he would allow it because it was a weaker class. I could have read more into it and if so I'm sorry. Although those types of comments are made on these same threads types all the time. The point needed made anyway.
Ace_of_time 03-31-08, 11:29 PM	Monks are my favorite class...but they are weak and very poorly designed. Anyway, this combo really only works for the monk. No other class. Not because I'm picking which class it works for, but because the monk is the only class with a monk's unarmed strike. Unarmed swordsage follows the same progression and so does Battle Dancer, but neither of those are monks. Thus SUS cannot benefit them in the same way, and neither can the belt. Now, I'd houserule that they do stack because it seems stupid for them not to. So, he was creating a Strawman. Trying to get me to sound like I am only doing this for monks, and hating other classes, or trying to get me to renounce my statement. See how I didn't fall for it? No I was trying to get you to clear up the statement which seemed as though you were saying that it is ok to give a helping hand to weaker classes but not others. I was wanting to know if you would let every class uses the combo or if you were just allowing it because the monk was considered a weaker class?
NoldorForce 03-31-08, 11:48 PM	I'd already posted a link to the definition of a strawman:There's the strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) reasoning that the targets of the comment are only allowing this to power up the "weak" monk.Essentially, a strawman is a distortion of someone else's argument constructed such that you can easily knock it down with your own argument. The problem with employing it is that you haven't actually countered that other person's true argument; you've just wasted space in the debate. And here's the context behind the quote you chose. Note how even dman's argument is focused at least as much on the fact that it's just not that bad (agreeing with northwarden) as it gives a boost to the monk (arguably on the weak end of the power spectrum). Your argument employed a strawman by assuming that this second assertion was the crux of dman's argument, which it wasn't.dman - Sorry about that. I misunderstood who your comments were directed to. As for this debate, I did a lot more searching and came to the conclusion that this is not resolvable without an FAQ. It seems to be an even 50\50 split which means that actually taking the feat in LG is a crap shoot. Even though I think the CustServ statement is the tiebreaker, a lot of people discount their opinions as having any weight. It would be ridiculous to take a feat I might only be able to use 50% of the time or less (provided I got access). I appreciate everyone's opinion on this. As a DM, I will personally allow it - not only because of the arguments I presented, but also because I see it as not being an overly powerful combo. Being allowed to stack caster level bumps is much more likely to unbalance a game than moving unarmed strike damage from 2d6 to 2d8 or 2d10. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I will use it myself :(That's why I allow it. The monk is hardly an overpowering class, and it could use all the boosts it can get. Because of the stacking, I have been able to pull of really nice builds, comparable to mostly optimized barbarians. And let me tell you, 32d8 per strike is NICE! ( that's an overpowering combo I did, usually it's only around 10d8).Essentially, dman seems to be saying, "I agree with northwarden for the reasons he gave [greater assertion]. Besides [lesser assertion], the monk could use a power boost."
northwarden 04-01-08, 07:34 AM	Let me chime in a bit. The relative weakness\strength of the monk class has little to do with why I'd allow this combo. Nor does the fact that I play a monk (if you believe that :D ). I really think as a DM, our primary goal is to let players have fun. So when rules are vague or the general interpretation of them is divided, I tend to fall on the side of benefitting the player. We all agree that a definitive statement on this would be ideal, but it's highly unlikely. Use of this combo would not cause me great issue as a DM. I just feel that denying something like this to a player would set a bad tone for the entire mod. Note that I didn't say I'll allow a player to BREAK rules, but for something where there is sufficient collaborating documentation on both sides, I'd be biased towards the player. Since I mostly DM LG, access limits a lot more of these potential questionable combos anyway. I got on this thread to find out whether the combo was generally acceptable. Because there is such a divided interpretation, I've pretty much given up even considering it for my monk.
Ace_of_time 04-01-08, 01:02 PM	I wasn't arguing with him or anyone in that statement. So you wouldn't let it stack for other classes but since this class is the weakest class ever we should make an exception for this class. Never said he was right or wrong. I just asking him to clarify his statement as that was what it appeared to be saying. I have already posted my view which is again that Wotc says it does stack the way it is worded but that I think that that state by them is BS. Giving a leg up to one class just because they are a considered a weaker class is playing favorites. Giving a bonus to one class over the others. His statement was as you have posted already that, "That's why I allow it. The monk is hardly an overpowering class, and it could use all the boosts it can get." Which to me means he would allow it for no other reason then the monk class considered a weaker class then most. Now if we look back we see that that question still has not been answered. That post of my did not state any argument one way or the other. He ether is allowing it because it would because monks are considered a weaker class or because he thinks it should according to RAW, maybe both. Does asking it change whether it should or shouldn't stack, NO. Any class can use this combo as long as they have the feats to back it up. It only requires imp unarmed strike to let any class use it. Monks just would get a higher boost then the rest.
northwarden 04-01-08, 01:57 PM	I see what you're referring to. With the FAQ stating that non monk characters can get the wisdom bonus to AC of a monk as long as they're unarmored while wearing the belt, there could easily be non monks with this combo. And yes, I'd allow it for any class. I primarily referenced the monk because the potential damage output was higher just as you said. Non monks would have what - a 1d10 unarmed strike (9th level monk). You're talking medium longsword damage without the ability to add most weapon enhancements (barring the odd ring or spell effect - no flaming, shocking, holy, etc.). I'd almost consider it more for flavor than a major damage combo, especially since non monks don't gain flurry. FYI, it never really entered my mind that I seemed to be arguing for monks only. I think the combo is reasonable for anyone cause it costs decent gold and requires two feats to be spent. Monks just happen to be designed such that it is a natural progression for them.
dman11235 04-01-08, 05:04 PM	Let me clarify a bit: any class can use the combo, but only monks benefit from it. If a non-monk uses the combo, (s)he gains a level 9 monk's unarmed strike. At any level. Without the belt the damage goes up to 2d6 by the end, which is greater than monk 9 damage. So it's a bane to have the combo. Monks, on the other hand, can get monk 20 damage at level 11 with this combo (ironically a good break off point for the class) which is higher than just SUS and no monk levels. So, the combo works for all, but only the monk benefits. And the fact that Battle Dancer, Chaos Monk, and Unarmed Swordsage (and that class from the BoEF) all have monk unarmed progression leads me to believe that it should work for them too.
Ace_of_time 04-01-08, 06:52 PM	Imp NW feat would increase the non monk damage. (2d8) Also a non monk could also get stunning fist and pick up some other helpful unarmed bonuses. Most of the feats people consider monk only feat can also be taken by anyone that meets the feat requirements. I think fighter would be a good one. Also a caster using hold the charge could increase the effectiveness of unarmed strike. Rogue could get sneak attack added on to it.
wraithstrike 04-01-08, 07:14 PM	Imp NW feat would increase the non monk damage. (2d8) Also a non monk could also get stunning fist and pick up some other helpful unarmed bonuses. Most of the feats people consider monk only feat can also be taken by anyone that meets the feat requirements. I think fighter would be a good one. Also a caster using hold the charge could increase the effectiveness of unarmed strike. Rogue could get sneak attack added on to it. I agree that I could take a few levels of fighter, and make a good unarmed combatant. I might have to multiclass, but I beleive I could do it. I think I will try it but, it might take a week.