Creating 'Legendary Fighter', competition, are there prizes?

[snakeman830]

Custom magic items are not RAW; there are no rules for creating them, only guidelines.  That is why they are greatly frowned upon.

The wands are frowned upon because you are trying to force the system to do what you want instead of working with the system to do what you want.  Monks do not cast spells.  Monks do not have UMD as a class skill.  Monks do not have Cha synergy.  These three things combined mean that a Monk will always be worse using Wands and Scrolls than anyone that fulfills one of the three above criteria, even if the spell in question helps them greatly.

Meanwhile, dipping into Sorcerer, for example, gives you Cha synergy (although you just increased your MAD, unless you take Ascetic Mage) as well as the ability to cast spells (so typically, there is no need for UMD on most of those wands).  This is an example of working with the system to do what you want: an unarmored martial artist who buffs himself magically to keep up with his increasingly lethal foes.

[Halinn]

What kind of confuses me is the readiness with which sizing, throwing and ghost touch enhancements are accepted as "cool" and nice for a monk (even though they are not RAW), while monks using either custom items (ring of greater mighty wallop) or wands of enlarge with UMD are not considered "cool" (even though they are RAW).

The enhancements are RAW. Perhaps not explicitly clear, but the rules do provide support for the stance that the monk's entire body can be treated as a manufactured weapon and therefor be subject to enhancements.
As snakeman830 said, custom magic items do not have rules for pricing them, only guidelines. Wands of enlarge are RAW, but the strength of UMD does not prove that the monk is a strong class, especially given that it's a crossclass skill for them. In addition, wands, potions and scrolls have a cost per use, which means that a build using such will be spending money to defeat encounters, and as such a build that can defeat the same encounters without expending permanent resources will be considered better/"cooler".

[ImperatorK]

Well, in this case, since it would default to real-world stuff, it would be me as the human body simply cannot generate enough force to rip off a limb.  At worst, I'd say the Monk dislocated his shoulder/hip, but there is no way he tore it off.

That's the thing - GM can rule that he did. No RAW on that? Default to RL-world stuff. In RL-world it can go both ways. Up to DM to decide.
We can ignore the "Is he strong enough to toss that arm and himself with it several feet?" because it magic, but the "throwing" special ability does not make your limbs un-ripable (is that a real word?).

The GM of any RPG is free to Rule 0 it, but that's true of anything.  Besides, this thread cannot take Rule 0 into account.

I'm saying "Rule 0 it if there's nothing else you can do by RAW".

Besides, he could be trying for a bodyslam, and what are you going to do?  Rip all his limbs off his torso?

This is based on how you interpret Monks unarmed strike. "A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet." It's pretty clear to me with what a monk can attack. I would also add to this his head and maybe even his butt, but nowhere does it state that his whole body is a weapon. So no, in my game a Monk could not do a bodyslam, and that's RAW.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

It's mentioned a couple of other places that the whole body counts.  For example
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050310a

To most people, the monk is simply a fighting character whose whole body serves as a weapon

    * Unarmed Strike: A monk's hands and feet (and the rest of her body, when necessary) are effective weapons when she begins play, and they just keep getting better as she progresses.

[ImperatorK]

It's mentioned a couple of other places that the whole body counts.  For example
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050310a

To most people, the monk is simply a fighting character whose whole body serves as a weapon

    * Unarmed Strike: A monk's hands and feet (and the rest of her body, when necessary) are effective weapons when she begins play, and they just keep getting better as she progresses.

Fluff.

[snakeman830]

It's mentioned a couple of other places that the whole body counts.  For example
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050310a

To most people, the monk is simply a fighting character whose whole body serves as a weapon

    * Unarmed Strike: A monk's hands and feet (and the rest of her body, when necessary) are effective weapons when she begins play, and they just keep getting better as she progresses.

Fluff.

So, I guess "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. "
is fluff too?

The list given is not exhaustive, it's examples.  This is not only implied in the original text, but also supported by the designers themselves and in sevral books.  I would consider a body slam to be an extremely valid unarmed strike option, as would a headbutt, but niether of those are listed in:

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.

Yet you agree that a headbutt is perfectly valid? The list given is not exhaustive, it is merely examples of what can be done, just like the examples in Stone Shape ("While it’s possible to make crude coffers, doors, and so forth with stone shape") are not all that can be done with the spell.

[ImperatorK]

So, I guess "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. "
is fluff too?

No. That's in SRD. I'm talking about what TML linked.

Yet you agree that a headbutt is perfectly valid?  I'm sorry, that's just fluff.

Again, no. I'm talking about me making an exception in my game. It's not RAW, but I would allow it.

Too bad.  The list given is not exhaustive, it is merely examples of what can be done.

Prove? Because nothing stops me from taking it quite literal, word by word. Or does fluff all of a sudden have impact on rules? Fighters are great warriors, unmatchable weapon masters and can be guards, etc. Yet it isn't true.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

An unarmed attack is defined in the glossary as "A melee attack made with no weapon in hand."
Although "Typical unarmed attacks include punches, kicks, and head butts. " that is by no means an exhaustive list.  If you are making a melee attack, and you don't have a weapon, it's an unarmed attack.

An unarmed strike

A successful blow, typically for for subdual damage, from a character attacking without weapons. Most Medium-size characters deal 1d3 points of subdual damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack.

Oh, look, there's a blank check "other type of attack" there.

[ImperatorK]

Finally! Was that so hard? I was waiting for someone with an undeniable argument. I was getting tired of playing Devil's Advocate.
Thanks for proving me wrong. Now I can have "flying" Monks and Unarmed Swordsages in my games.

Minor nitpick: It says in "Throwing" abilities desciption that you have to throw the weapon. How do you throw yourself? Yes, I know you can "throw yourself", but that's just a figure of speech. It means jumping and there are rules for jumping.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

It's like flying, but you don't miss the ground.

[snakeman830]

It's like flying, but you don't miss the ground.

Matter of fact, you're aiming for the ground

At least to move around, anyway.

[Shiki]

@ImperatorK: To respond to your earlier question. Actually playing the game and defining what's possible within the rules are two different things, though one technically depends on the other NORMALLY. At a table, Rule 0/DM fiat is the final say on everything that happens. That's what House Rules are for. In a rule debate, the only thing that matters is the RAW. I do get that wordings and interpretations can be iffy or downright ridiculous at times, but innovation bends conventions at times.

[ImperatorK]

So in rule debate we should always assume that the hypothetical DM will always rule in our favor?

[snakeman830]

No.  In a rules debate, the DM is a non-factor.  It is discussing what is written, not what is decreed.

[ImperatorK]

And when something isn't written? You don't discuss it?

[snakeman830]

And when something isn't written? You don't discuss it?

We look to real-world, like the books say to do.

Seriously, we've only been over this sevral times already.

[ImperatorK]

But in real-world it can go both ways. See our "joints rip/joints don't rip" discussion earlier.
Real-world stuff can be interpreted differently by different people. Who decides what interpretation is correct? Science? Not everyone is physics major or mathematician. You won't have time to do the necessary calculations to be absolutely certain. and even if, would you use real-world science in D&D? Really? I was under the illusion that RL-world physics/logic kills catgirls.
Either way, you will have to decide one way or the other. Who decides?
I understand what you're saying. Seriously. But even in rules debates there will can be a moment when someone will have to decide. Most of the time one side of discussion gives an irrefutable argument (like you guys in our earlier discussion), but that's not always the case. You remember that big discussion about dragonwrought kobolds? Did they come to an answer?

[Nachofan99]

The monk either "throws" his limbs a la Dhalsim, or he attacks with the fury of his strikes, instantaneously, through Ki.  Ki is magic enough for me to accept.  Granted, the unarmed strike ability is the part where he gets the ability to enchant his body as a weapon - but then you're bringing back magic.  Again there's that word magic.  Magic.

It's magic. 

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Also, if you're able to throw your arm hard enough for it to detach, you damn well better be able to punch the limbs off other people.

[Lycanthromancer]

The monk either "throws" his limbs a la Dhalsim, or he attacks with the fury of his strikes, instantaneously, through Ki.  Ki is magic enough for me to accept.  Granted, the unarmed strike ability is the part where he gets the ability to enchant his body as a weapon - but then you're bringing back magic.  Again there's that word magic.  Magic.

It's magic.  

Isn't that what the Ring the Golden Bell feat is for?

I think that's the one, anyway. Lets you punch people in the face from across the room.

Also, it wouldn't work that way because you don't have Returning on it. Thus you throw your unarmed strike and don't get it back? Although it's still attached to you, technically.

wut