Pathfinder, did the designers realize they never made Monk text clear?

[Starbuck_II]

Apparently, on Pathfinder forum Monks were nerfed.

But strangely, this nerf was supposed to be always present and not new. Some on those boards are crying Retcon (they reference thast every stat block of a monk didn't follow the new interpretation).

Basically, Flurry = TWFing now (you effectively get TWF and ITWF). Before it just was similar.
The implications:
1) You can't flurry with one weapon by itself (unarmed strike is exception) thus you need 2 weapons unless you are using 1 weapon and unarmed strike.
a. So you have a +4 Kama, sadly you have to alternate between it and your unarmed strike (hope you got the amulet of Mighty Fists).
b. You have 2 +2 Kama, you can freely switch between them.
2) Zen Archer archetype is unusuable as it uses a bow (it can't use Unarmed strike and you can't really TWF with a bow, barring Thri-keen or something)
3) You can't use a reach weapon either in a flurry (Since you'd need two wield 2 as few are one handed)
a. Reach weapons are rarely one handed and you need two weapons to TWF.
b. I guess you could reach weapon and attack unarmed strike vs a guy in your face, ally, or the ground (wasting an attack).
4) Monk should be able to qualify for TWFing feats now for Flurry. Since designers said it is TWFing.

[MagnusExultatio]

{[scrubbed}}

[tyckspoon]

Probable results:
1: Pathfinder board members point this out to them. Everybody gets banned, the 'clarification' stays, Monks go back in the trash heap (except maybe Qui-gong archetypes desperately pretending to be casters.)
2: One of the more sensible designers realizes how dumb this is and reverts it back to how it was/prevents the 'clarification' from going into a live printing/SRD update at all.
3: They realize how dumb it is, but in the name of 'unifying mechanics' or something keep the clarification.. and then add 2 pages worth of exceptions and errata to explain how it *doesn't* work like TWF, ending up with something that works basically like we all thought Flurry does now (amazing how we were all wrong!) only much, much harder to parse.

(If we're impossibly lucky, we get 2 + a realization that they really should explain how this Flurry thing does or does not interact with the actual TWF feats, which is probably the impetus for this asinine 'clarification' in the first place.)

[Coidzor]

Heh, probably heard of people using Flurry and TWF at the same time and thought people were making monks brokenly overpowered. :smallamused:

In all seriousness though, that's just derp-tastic. I suppose it does provide evidence you can TWF with unarmed strikes though, as whatever little bit of silver lining that is.

[Keneth]

They should just delete monks and make them a fighter archetype or something since it clearly isn't working out.

[Snowbluff]

Uhh... wow. Wait until I tell my friend about this. He was convinced that PF Monk was better than Tahsalatora PSW, too. XD

[Coidzor]

So anyone got a handy link?

[JadePhoenix]

This is old news.

Also, the Zen Archer is possibly Pathfinder's top ranged attacked.

[mikau013]

So anyone got a handy link?

could be this one:

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5ld7y&page=6?Ultimate-Equipment-Whats-Missing#283

[Porkslope]

At this point, I'm pretty much ignoring what the devs say about errata, especially that terrible stuff about the monk. In my opinion, monks in PF need all the help they can get. So help is what I gave them!

I've houseruled in my own game that monks can use more than amulets of mighty fists to get bonuses: they can use their higher unarmed damage with brass knuckles, cestus, gauntlets, greaves, and even wear enchanted hand and foot wrappings to gain bonuses and weapon enchantment abilities. I also houseruled they can use their Wisdom score for bonus HP instead of Constitution.

[Starbuck_II]

This is old news.

Also, the Zen Archer is possibly Pathfinder's top ranged attacked.

Are you saying that is why the designers made it non-functioning/working?

[Porkslope]

Are you saying that is why the designers made it non-functioning/working?

Would it really be that far-fetched, given the decisions the PF devs have made in the past?

[JadePhoenix]

Are you saying that is why the designers made it non-functioning/working?

No, I'm saying it's not as bad as the OP tries to make it seem.
For starters, when it comes to flurry, Monks get full BAB before penalties in PF. That's already a buff. The text is actually clearer than 3.5 Monk text, because it specifies you can't use TWF with it. Most 'restrictions' the OP got is from overanalyzing. It's very clear - you get an extra attack and you can't use TWF with it.
Also, it fails to mention all the other stuff pathfinder has for monks (such as the archetypes, ki, style feats and the like).
Basically, this smells heavily of not really knowing much about Pathfinder.

[Tvtyrant]

...Claiming that it is still better than the worst class printed in 3.5s PHB does not make it acceptable. I hardly see how bringing up 3.5 alters discussions of good and bad decisions in Pathfinder.

[Akal Saris]

Honestly, maybe the PF designers should just stop posting in forums at all. It always seems to upset people when they learn that the designers are quite capable of making poor, off-the-cuff design decisions when posting on a thread that they probably spent 30 seconds thinking about.

[Coidzor]

^: Isn't the main problem that they don't take off their poobah hats to do so, so everything they say has to come in their authoritative voice?


...Claiming that it is still better than the worst class printed in 3.5s PHB does not make it acceptable. I hardly see how bringing up 3.5 alters discussions of good and bad decisions in Pathfinder.

Well, one thing it does is highlight that the body of people who have been professionally involved with the d20 era Monk have had plenty of opportunities to look at Monks and see what was wrong with them and get them right.

3.0 PHB. Errata for 3.0 PHB. 3.5 PHB. Errata for 3.5 PHB. Could even throw in Rules Compendium, I suppose.

Then Pathfinder Beta. Then Pathfinder proper with its Core Rule Book. Then Errata and FAQ. Then the various archetypes. Then Errata and FAQ for those.

:smallsigh: All that over the course of what, going on 12 years now? Just past 12 years?

It hasn't always been the same group of people, especially in conversion from 3.X to Pathfinder, but there's still a 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon thing going on, from what I've gathered from looking into the matter, and the vast majority of them would've been following the books since 3.0's inception on some level.

[Than]

I fail to see how Flurry if unclear but I've also read the next item in the list of descriptions.

"Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes. *snip*"

"Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk’s base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus. *snip* A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. *snip*"

Notice that last bold bit. Same as up there in the unarmed strike section. This means the only part where this relates to TWF is the -2 to all attacks during the full attack action. Really the only part where they goofed up is the same place the 3.5 PHB goofed. They put flurry before unarmed strike. This could also be intentional since the SOP is that the most recently published material is held as the correct information. Going purely literal here the Unarmed Strike section was written second and therefore sets in stone that there is no such thing as an off-hand attack. Don't want to alternate? Don't! Kama Kama Kama to your heart's content. Or fist knee face. Whatever you like to hit things with.

[olentu]

Hmm, that's funky. It looks like they even had to add an exception for unarmed strikes so that monks can actually flurry with just unarmed strikes. Well that or they brought back the I multiweapon fight with my 10000 unarmed strikes deal and still didn't deal with the no off hand bit.

[JadePhoenix]

I fail to see how Flurry if unclear but I've also read the next item in the list of descriptions.
Thanks for explaining it in lenght, I was going to do so but you are obviously a better person than I am.

[Acanous]

Hmm, that's funky. It looks like they even had to add an exception for unarmed strikes so that monks can actually flurry with just unarmed strikes. Well that or they brought back the I multiweapon fight with my 10000 unarmed strikes deal and still didn't deal with the no off hand bit.

I'd say No DM would let that pass, but I'm fairly sure there's a few who would.

Myself, I'd let you have 3 weapons for purposes of MWF; those explicitly called out in the description of a monk's unarmed strike :p

[olentu]

I'd say No DM would let that pass, but I'm fairly sure there's a few who would.

Myself, I'd let you have 3 weapons for purposes of MWF; those explicitly called out in the description of a monk's unarmed strike :p

Oh I don't doubt that most DMs would limit your number of unarmed strikes. But requiring each DM to individually choose a limit is not really that great of a design.

[Darrin]

Would it really be that far-fetched, given the decisions the PF devs have made in the past?

Aren't these the same knuckleheads who claimed that Monks taking "Improved Natural Attack" was overpowered?

[Suddo]

Aren't these the same knuckleheads who claimed that Monks taking "Improved Natural Attack" was overpowered?

Oh please tell me someone has a quote.

[Lord_Gareth]

Oh please tell me someone has a quote.

Don't know about a direct quote, but they altered the text of the feat to make it impossible. They also nerfed Power Attack and tripping - 'cause, y'know, they were just shattering games wide open. Thankfully they addressed the balance problems with wizards and sorcerers by giving them more class features in an effort to stop all that filthy, spiritually unclean multiclassing that was going on and also breaking the game!

I hate Paizo. I hate them so very, very much.

[Divayth Fyr]

Oh please tell me someone has a quote.

Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:

"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."

Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.
For god's sake, why doesn't this forum allow a simple quote as an answer to a post?

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

I would like to see those "numbers" jason "crunched".
They probably have a very different idea of "optimization" than we do.

[Wings of Peace]

Uhh... wow. Wait until I tell my friend about this. He was convinced that PF Monk was better than Tahsalatora PSW, too. XD

AHAHAHA...ahahaha...hah...*Wipes tear from eye*

[CTrees]

Found one interesting post in another Paizo thread about this...


Hey there Everyone,

Boy, it sure does look like we've stirred up the hornets nest this time. Let me clear up a few things.

1. Everybody just take a breath. There is no need for the tone I am seeing in some of these posts.

2. Every single one of these FAQ posts and clarifications are discussed by the rules team. No matter who makes the actual post or clarification.

3. Concerning this particular issue...

The intent of this particular rule was to marry the flurry of blows ability to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree, so that we could easily control and correct any problems that came up, and to have those corrections universally apply to everything that interacted with it. That said, there was an exception built into the flurry rules to allow them to properly portray the monk ability to beat you to death with various body parts (hence unarmed strike). I will admit that the wording could certainly be better in this regard. Let me give it to you clearly as to what we intended...

Flurry allows you to make multiple attacks as if using Two Weapon Fighting. You can substitute any of these attacks with an unarmed strike if you choose, up to all of them. If a weapon or attack is different than the others, it was the intent to limit that to the maximum number of attacks you could normally take with said weapon while utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting (ie 2 at +6BAB, 3 at +11BAB and so on), with all of those attacks falling into the standard chain of reducing attack bonus (-5 cumulative for each additional attack). It was not the intent to allow you to make more than this using one specific weapon (not unarmed strikes), or to take all of the highest attack bonus attacks with that weapon. This makes the monks attacks, from a baseline perspective significantly better than that of a fighter, who must invest in twice the number of weapon to gain a similar benefit.

That said.. this causes some problems that came to light today as this bounced around the office, namely that it was not common knowledge that it was supposed to work this way and has gone to print without this change. This is obviously a concern and one that I intend to investigate. There is also the problem of the Zen Archer, which clearly does not work with these rules (or rather, it clearly, as its intent, violates these rules). There is also the concern that this system is a bit of a pain to figure out, which is something that does concern me greatly.

We will be evaluating this situation a bit further in the coming days and I would like to thank everyone here for pointing out some of the problems with this ruling.

I hope that clears this up a little for folks. I will see to it that we get to the bottom of this soon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

So... yeah, the writers didn't understand how this was supposed to work, modules have been printed using the wrong interpretation (stat blocks listing flurries with a single weapon being the primary example), and zen archer, as printed, is broken (it was intended to break the normal rules, but lacks any text ALLOWING it to break said rules).

Also apparently unaddressed are the kyoketsu shoge, sansetsukon, seven-forked sword, and tiger fork. These all have the "monk" weapon property, which means they can be used in a flurry of blows. They're also two-handed weapons, and unlike, say, the monk's spade, NONE of them are double weapons. Which means... they can only be used for half the attacks in a flurry, requiring unarmed strikes for the rest. Which is weird, considering that at least the kyoketsu shoge has reach... RAI seems that they were supposed to be flurryable on their own, but RAW? Not anymore!

Oh, and I did see one fun quirk: according to one FAQ, switching which hand a weapon is in is "not an action," going slightly beyond even a free action. They response given involved a cleric switching the hand hold his mace several times in one round, and this being perfectly fine. So... a monk with six attacks in a flurry, and a +2 sai? Make an attack, pass the sai to the other hand, make another attack, swap the sai back, repeat. RAW, it apparently works! Also: a normal TWF build should be able to take, say, one shortsword and toss it back and forth between hands, gaing full TWF benefits. Whee!

[Psyren]

*reads link*

Well, I'd say Zen Archer is safe, because specific trumps general. But the clarification on Sohei monks flurrying with a reach weapon is really, really awful for them.

EDIT: and yeah, at least Jason chimed in saying they saw the issue here, so they're still ahead of WotC. Sean got a bit miffed about it and ragequit the thread but Jason was a nice guy about it.

[Krazzman]

Well, I'd say Zen Archer is safe...

I would say there is a different meaning between flurry of blows and flurry of bows. The one should emulate TWF, the other Rapid Shot. Or to point it out the other way: Zen Archer is not broken or invalidates the rules (on a RAW point) since it changes the feat chain it should emulate.

[Psyren]

It strikes me that if a WotC designer had made a similar mistake, they'd either ignore the thread entirely or come in and say "I can't get it officially changed guys, but maybe use this houserule?" And we'd have to repost his "errata" in a dozen different places so it doesn't vanish off the face of the planet when his corporate overlords decide to redesign their site map or whatever.

So while paizo may not be perfect, I still have their back.



Oh, and I did see one fun quirk: according to one FAQ, switching which hand a weapon is in is "not an action," going slightly beyond even a free action. They response given involved a cleric switching the hand hold his mace several times in one round, and this being perfectly fine. So... a monk with six attacks in a flurry, and a +2 sai? Make an attack, pass the sai to the other hand, make another attack, swap the sai back, repeat. RAW, it apparently works! Also: a normal TWF build should be able to take, say, one shortsword and toss it back and forth between hands, gaing full TWF benefits. Whee!

I saw this solution too - and what I like about it, it solves the problem the designers raised about the fighter with a flaming weapon and a frost weapon fighting the fire immune and saying "I make all my TWF attacks with the frost weapon." Since he couldn't pass his frost weapon from hand to hand while holding the fire one, he'd have to put it away to use this trick, just like the devs want.

With this they'd just need to clarify the Zen Archer and Sohei thing and we'd be set, imo.

[The Glyphstone]

At least Jason appears to have a solid head on his shoulders. SKR I still wouldn't hire for the design team of Escaping A Wet Paper Bag: The RPG.

[Psyren]

At least Jason appears to have a solid head on his shoulders. SKR I still wouldn't hire for the design team of Escaping A Wet Paper Bag: The RPG.

He'd probably ragequit the bag too :smalltongue:

[Seerow]

I saw this solution too - and what I like about it, it solves the problem the designers raised about the fighter with a flaming weapon and a frost weapon fighting the fire immune and saying "I make all my TWF attacks with the frost weapon." Since he couldn't pass his frost weapon from hand to hand while holding the fire one, he'd have to put it away to use this trick, just like the devs want.

With this they'd just need to clarify the Zen Archer and Sohei thing and we'd be set, imo.

Wait, they actually consider a player who paid for two magic weapons, but choosing to only use one of them, to be broken?

If this interpretation works, you could do TWFing with one weapon by just never buying the second weapon. And if this works, that's exactly what most people would do, because buying a second weapon is really expensive and one of the major downsides of two weapon fighting.

But if that works, and a player still buys multiple weapons anyway, to be able to get advantages against certain creature types... why be worried about them actually taking advantage of that? They're wasting a lot of money for situational bonuses.

[Psyren]

Wait, they actually consider a player who paid for two magic weapons, but choosing to only use one of them, to be broken?

Not broken at all, but it removes the meaningful choice of making both weapons one element or not, or one material or not. If a player can, say, have a cold-iron weapon in one hand and a silver in the other but "TWF" with whichever one he feels like, there's never incentive to get two cold iron weapons or two silver ones instead.

With the "hand-switch" trick, he can still gain the benefits of having two cold iron weapons while only having one - but he has to either sheathe or drop his silver one to gain the benefit, which can have minor consequences and/or less convenience later.

[CTrees]

*reads link*

Well, I'd say Zen Archer is safe, because specific trumps general. But the clarification on Sohei monks flurrying with a reach weapon is really, really awful for them.


Flurry of Blows

Starting at 1st level, a zen archer can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action, but only when using a bow (even though it is a ranged weapon). He may not make a flurry of blows with his unarmed attacks or any other weapons. A zen archer does not apply his Strength bonus on damage rolls made with flurry of blows unless he is using a composite bow with a Strength rating.

A zen archer’s flurry of blows otherwise functions as normal for a monk of his level.

A zen archer cannot use Rapid Shot or Manyshot when making a flurry of blows with his bow.

RAI is obviously that "Flurry of Bows" should function like Rapid Shot (and a hypothetical Imp./Greater Rapid Shot), but the only RAW changes from normal Flurry of Blows is that bows (and only bows) can be used, and the change to strength bonuses. This means that zen archers still keep the "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" language of the normal flurry of blows, which is what lead to the "you must use different weapons unless using unarmed strikes" decision by the devs. Bows requiring two hands, you can't use the "switch hands every attack" hack, so unless you're a xill... this would mean that the zen archer *probably* isn't workable, RAW.

Also, the dev response on unarmed monks flurrying with body parts being workable (because it's the only weapon they could possibly use) versus a monk with a +2 kama and an unenchanted kama not being able to use the +2 weapon exclusively (because there ARE other weapons - the other kama and unarmed strikes - which could be used). With bows and the zen archer, unarmed strikes could be used. Most of the time, enemies should be out of reach of the UAS, but the monk doesn't lose those - he just can't flurry and can't reach the enemy, so the "no other possible attacks" clause of the dev explanation doesn't trigger. And I mean, even if you are generous enough to accept "no other attacks possible at that range" (which would help the reach weapon problem!), you would have oddities like: a 20th level zen archer has an enemy 30' away. His only usable attack is his bow, so he fires seven arrows. Next round, the enemy walks up, directly adjacent to the monk. Now, the enemy is in range of UAS, so it becomes a possible attack, meaning the zen archer can only fire four arrows.

One freaking sentence in the Zen Archer entry could have solved this!

EDIT:
Not broken at all, but it removes the meaningful choice of making both weapons one element or not, or one material or not. If a player can, say, have a cold-iron weapon in one hand and a silver in the other but "TWF" with whichever one he feels like, there's never incentive to get two cold iron weapons or two silver ones instead.

With the "hand-switch" trick, he can still gain the benefits of having two cold iron weapons while only having one - but he has to either sheathe or drop his silver one to gain the benefit, which can have minor consequences and/or less convenience later.

Actually... you have a silver weapon in one hand, a cold iron one in the other, and you're fighting a fey. Switching hands with weapons is doable whenever ("not an action"/better than a free action), so... CI weapon is in primary hand. Make those attacks, switch hands with BOTH weapons (juggling? juggling!), putting the silver weapon in your primary hand and the CI one in the offhand, and make the offhand attacks. Or just do it between every attack. It's not stated that you can't switch both at once - and actually, the image of a skilled rogue with a pair of daggers, juggling them between hands and quickly slashing in between tosses, is pretty darn cool.

[Psyren]

One freaking sentence in the Zen Archer entry could have solved this!

I think it's there:


Starting at 1st level, a zen archer can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action, but only when using a bow (even though it is a ranged weapon).

The "even though" means "this normally doesn't work with flurry" and "it" is an acknowledgement that you're essentially flurrying - and TWF-ing - with one weapon.

Anyway, Jason's looking into it so this whole thread is moot - the previous interpretation applies until they come out with something official.

[Lord_Gareth]

Anyway, Jason's looking into it so this whole thread is moot - the previous interpretation applies until they come out with something official.

Y'know, honestly, while I appreciate them paying attention, I feel that silence on the matter would have been better than running off with some half-cocked 'fix' and then having to fix your fix. In the words of Mark Twain: "It's better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than it is to open it and confirm the matter for all to see."

[Psyren]

Y'know, honestly, while I appreciate them paying attention, I feel that silence on the matter would have been better than running off with some half-cocked 'fix' and then having to fix your fix. In the words of Mark Twain: "It's better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than it is to open it and confirm the matter for all to see."

We're all fools. Nobody's a perfect designer, and the only way to get to sound product is through proposals and feedback.

I don't see a problem with them trying to clarify their intent for the ability. Jason's goal was admirable - marry flurry to TWF as a way of making things easier both for designers and DMs. It makes perfect sense to me (in concept.) Keeping mum about that intent wouldn't help anyone.

The problem, just as it was with WotC, was execution. Sean's attitude at being corrected was the worst part of that, but at the same time a lot of the guys trying to correct him did it in the most obnoxious way possible, so it's no wonder his back got put up. If that's really how the "community feedback" went during beta, I can see how so many people got banned. I couldn't imagine anyone flaming the Giant like that over here and getting away with a simple request to just watch their tone.

And I'll take "fixing your fix" any day over WotC silence.

[The Random NPC]

With the "hand-switch" trick, he can still gain the benefits of having two cold iron weapons while only having one - but he has to either sheathe or drop his silver one to gain the benefit, which can have minor consequences and/or less convenience later.

Or, wait until the smart guy uses his Knowledge:Monsters skill and just never draw the wrong weapon in the first place. I admit, it won't work for all situations (multiple monsters with different DR), but you could also invest in something like the weapon cord to just bump the non-action up to a swift and ignore "draw backs" of needing to drop a weapon.

[Coidzor]

I don't see a problem with them trying to clarify their intent for the ability. Jason's goal was admirable - marry flurry to TWF as a way of making things easier both for designers and DMs. It makes perfect sense to me (in concept.) Keeping mum about that intent wouldn't help anyone.

Eh? :smallconfused: Seems like a decision to do unnecessary busywork to me. If they didn't want it to be compatible with TWF and their intent was such from the get-go rather than some kind of knee-jerk reaction years after the fact, then they should've just said that one could not Flurry of Blows and use the TWF rules to gain extra attacks at the same time.

[Psyren]

Eh? :smallconfused: Seems like a decision to do unnecessary busywork to me. If they didn't want it to be compatible with TWF and their intent was such from the get-go rather than some kind of knee-jerk reaction years after the fact, then they should've just said that one could not Flurry of Blows and use the TWF rules to gain extra attacks at the same time.

There was a quote in that thread showing this was intended from the very beginning, not something that just happened recently.

Again though, I'm not defending the execution.

[Coidzor]

There was a quote in that thread showing this was intended from the very beginning, not something that just happened recently.

Again though, I'm not defending the execution.

Then it's laughable and pathetic that it took them this long to realize they needed to word it that way and questioning why it took them so long is entirely reasonable considering the legacy they were inheriting.

I mean, if they knew that was how it was supposed to be for the past 12 years and didn't put it in during the beta or the official release, that raises some pretty big questions. It beggars belief and them lying to our faces makes more sense than them telling the truth in this case.

Which is just plain sad.

Something had to have precipitated this.

[olentu]

You know one of the more interesting points brought up in that thread is the feral combat training FAQ entry.

[Infernalbargain]

Actually this is a non-issue because of the any combination clause. So at level 20, you can do 4 "off-hand" attacks or 5 on hand and 2 off-hand or 7 on hand and 0 off hand. So while you do have something that you could attack with, you don't ever have to use it. How this works with Zen Archer is unclear.

[Coidzor]

You know one of the more interesting points brought up in that thread is the feral combat training FAQ entry.

I have a headache now from reading through the threads and FAQ on that. x,x

[olentu]

Actually this is a non-issue because of the any combination clause. So at level 20, you can do 4 "off-hand" attacks or 5 on hand and 2 off-hand or 7 on hand and 0 off hand. So while you do have something that you could attack with, you don't ever have to use it. How this works with Zen Archer is unclear.

You would think that but from what I gather the developers are choosing to explicitly contradict this reading. Well except for the random exception given to unarmed strike just because but you know.


I have a headache now from reading through the threads and FAQ on that. x,x

Sorry about that.

[Master Arminas]

So anyone got a handy link?

Here is the link to the currently open thread: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5ec0?Flurry-of-Changes-to-Flurry-of-Blows which has the link to the original 11-page, 568-post thread that has now been locked. It acheived 11 pages and 568 posts over three days, but then a moderator decided it was in the wrong sub-forum and locked it.

Master Arminas

[Master Arminas]

Here is the full text of Sean K Reynolds statement, before Jason came. Heck, before SKR got miffed at me implying he has his head up his ass.


I just double-checked with Jason, and my statement is correct. Flurry works like TWF. You can't pick your best weapon and use it for all of your flurry attacks.

We're really talking about two different situations. Say we have a monk15 doing a flurry of blows. His attack sequence is +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3.

1) If all of his potential attacks are identical (for example, all he's doing are unarmed strikes and none of his unarmed strikes are enhanced by magic fang or any other effect that would give it a different attack bonus or damage value, it doesn't matter if you justify all six of those as punches, all six as headbutts, all six as kicks, or three as kicks and three as punches, or punch kick knee elbow elbow headbutt, because those attacks are identical in terms of attack and damage. That's what the "any combination" text in the flurry rule means--the difference between the attacks is just flavor and has no game effect, so you can use them in any combination because what you call it has no effect on the dice.
(Just like if you have a TWF fighter using two identical +1 short swords with identical attack and damage bonuses, it doesn't really matter for each individual attack if he's using the left shortsword or the right shortsword, declaring it doesn't affect the dice, he can roll all his attack dice at the same time and doesn't have to call them out separately.)

2) If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others, such as using a special monk weapon with an attack bonus or damage different than his unarmed strike, or having magic fang on one hand but not any other body part, now the order and identity of each attack matters, and you have to specify what you're attacking with and you have to abide by the TWF rules because your decisions affect the die rolls. In other words that monk15 is actually making attacks with two weapons, one with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3, and another with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3. So if you have a +5 sai in your left hand and a normal sai in your right hand, you can't say you're using the +5 sai for all six of your attacks, you're doing +13/+8/+3 with the left hand (adding the sai's +5 enhancement bonus, of course) and +13/+8/+3 with the right hand.
Jason says that in this situation, the "any combination" text means you can swap in a regular unarmed strike in place of any of those attacks (though that's not clear in the text). (Doing so affects the attack and damage rolls for that attack, of course.) So you could swap out your left-hand +8 attack for an unarmed strike such as a kick or elbow (losing the +5 enhancement bonus to that attack because you're not actually using the +5 sai to make that attack), swap out all of the right-hand sai attacks for unarmed strikes, and so on, but you're still abiding by the TWF setup in that you have a series of attacks with one weapon and a series of attacks with your other weapon.

TLDR: (1) Flurry is based on TWF. (2) If all your attacks are identical, declaring which weapon is which is pure flavor and doesn't affect the dice, so go ahead an call them whatever you want. (3) If even one of your attacks is different than the others, you have to follow the TWF rules when flurrying; you can't just declare all of your flurry of blows attacks to be your best weapon because you can't do that with TWF.

I bolded the two sections that most people have skipped over. As an exception to two-weapon fighting rules, you can take ALL of your attacks in a flurry of blows with unarmed strikes. But only IF all of those attacks have the same enhancement bonus.

Seems SKR is still under the 3.0 idea that an unarmed strike is not a single weapon with different descriptive fluff text, but is instead at least 8 (R/L fist, R/L elbow, R/L knee, R/L foot), and possibly more (head, shin, etc) different weapons. Hence, if one of your weapons is different is any fashion (attack bonus, damage bonus, base damage dice, critical threat range, critical multiplier), then you have to divide up your attacks between a primary hand and an off-hand. Of which the limb with the enhanced unarmed strike can only be one or the other.

Some days I despair for my game. Now, of course, this was before Jason (on post 138 out of 568 in the locked thread) came out and said hold your horses, we will look into it. But since then (last Friday) we haven't heard a peep.

Master Arminas

[Lord_Gareth]

Here is the full text of Sean K Reynolds statement, before Jason came. Heck, before SKR got miffed at me implying he has his head up his ass.

Y'know, if they ever floated over to a forum where they couldn't ban everyone that disagreed with them, the entire design team might learn that their collective heads are, in fact, up each other's asses, which may be why they never hear any critique.

[Reverent-One]

Y'know, if they ever floated over to a forum where they couldn't ban everyone that disagreed with them, the entire design team might learn that their collective heads are, in fact, up each other's asses, which may be why they never hear any critique.

Hmm, strange, Master Arminas hasn't been banned as far as I can tell, even after he, by his own admission, implied SKR had his head stuck up his ass. Nor did they prevent discussion on the topic, even arguments against the ruling. Not sure where you're getting the idea they ban everyone that disagrees with them and/or that they never hear any critique.

[Starbuck_II]

Hmm, strange, Master Arminas hasn't been banned as far as I can tell, even after he, by his own admission, implied SKR had his head stuck up his ass. Nor did they prevent discussion on the topic, even arguments against the ruling. Not sure where you're getting the idea they ban everyone that disagrees with them and/or that they never hear any critique.

I think they don't do banning because everyone in the community is upset: and they can't ban the while community (well, technically they could, but that'd be silly).

[Lord_Gareth]

I think they don't do banning because everyone in the community is upset: and they can't ban the while community (well, technically they could, but that'd be silly).

Pretty much this. I know too many people that got banned from Paizo's forums for bringing up mechanical flaws and sloppy design decisions (and I've observed too many more that happened to people I, sadly, never got the chance to know) to believe that the design team runs their forums objectively rather than, say, as petty tyrant-gods.

[Coidzor]

^: The tone of the forums and your forum account being an extension of your account with which you buy things from them has always struck me as a bit oppressive, I must admit.

So it does all boil down to melee not being allowed to have nice things, in this case the particular instance of monks not being allowed to have the same ease of access to, and use of, magical weaponry as every other class.

Just like with the brass knuckles. :smallsigh:

[Master Arminas]

Yes, you can discern SKRs attitude on monks and monk equipment on the thread that spawned all of this. It was the Ultimate Equipment discussion; the 11-page, 568-post thread came afterwards.

He was defending the decision by Paizo on pricing the amulet of mighty fists and absolutely refused to consider a less expensive version that only affected unarmed strike, unless it was restricted to a single limb.

In explaining the amulet of mighty fists to all of us, he said that the natural weapons properties were only secondary to the amulet and had nothing whatsoever to do with it's costs. That the cost was simply because a monk fighting unarmed needs to pay the cost of two weapons. Then we asked, in that case why is it 2.5x the cost? And he said, those weapons can't be disarmed, sundered, lost, or stolen. You can't part with them when you ushered into the presence of high noble. You've got to pay for that.

Master Arminas

[Lord_Gareth]

Yes, you can discern SKRs attitude on monks and monk equipment on the thread that spawned all of this. It was the Ultimate Equipment discussion; the 11-page, 568-post thread came afterwards.

He was defending the decision by Paizo on pricing the amulet of mighty fists and absolutely refused to consider a less expensive version that only affected unarmed strike, unless it was restricted to a single limb.

In explaining the amulet of mighty fists to all of us, he said that the natural weapons properties were only secondary to the amulet and had nothing whatsoever to do with it's costs. That the cost was simply because a monk fighting unarmed needs to pay the cost of two weapons. Then we asked, in that case why is it 2.5x the cost? And he said, those weapons can't be disarmed, sundered, lost, or stolen. You can't part with them when you ushered into the presence of high noble. You've got to pay for that.

Master Arminas

...Has anyone ever explained exactly how screwed Monks already are to this man? Is he that stubborn? Because if he is, I'm starting to see why WotC fired him.

[Rubik]

...Has anyone ever explained exactly how screwed Monks already are to this man? Is he that stubborn? Because if he is, I'm starting to see why WotC fired him.And someone needs to send this quote right to him for the purposes of QFT.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

...Has anyone ever explained exactly how screwed Monks already are to this man?
They "crunch" their "numbers". According to their calculations, monks are not screwed, and should be carefully restrained because a little improvement (imp nat weapon, for example) could suddenly make them broken.

I really, really wish I could see those calculations. I'd like to understand what scale they use to evaluate a character's power.

[Lord_Gareth]

They "crunch" their "numbers". According to their calculations, monks are not screwed, and should be carefully restrained because a little improvement (imp nat weapon, for example) could suddenly make them broken.

I really, really wish I could see those calculations. I'd like to understand what scale they use to evaluate a character's power.

Hell, I'd love to see a fight between an eighth level Monk and a CR 8 creature like the Erinyes. Hell, I'd love to see a Monk fight a Shadow or even a flippin' Harpy.

[NineThePuma]

Who wants me to start crunching numbers over on Paizo?

[Seerow]

Who wants me to start crunching numbers over on Paizo?

If you do, post a link here.

[Rubik]

If you do, post a link here.Oh gods yes. Please, please do.

[Coidzor]

I really would like to see them actually have to defend that statement, yeah.

[mikau013]

I'm quite sure I saw someone at paizo say that amulet of mighty fists was expensive because it enchanted many possible attacks for monsters.
I thought it was jason bullman but I can't find anything on their forums (hate that terrible layout).
I did find these gems though:

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz0ike?Monk-Slowfall#27
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtyzwqg?New-Monk-BandAid-on-Sucking-Chest-Wound#38

[NineThePuma]

I'm going to ignore the TWF ruling for my number crunching, aiming primarily at melee types.

What's a good measuring stick to compare the monk against?

Commoner?

[mikau013]

Compare it to equal challenge rating monsters.

[NineThePuma]

Well, yeah, but I need a control.

Shall I do an "Unarmed Fighter" to compare it against?

[Seerow]

Compare it to equal challenge rating monsters.

Make sure to use the elite array (or whatever their equivalent is), and NPC WBL, if comparing to equivalent monsters.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm going to ignore the TWF ruling for my number crunching, aiming primarily at melee types.

What's a good measuring stick to compare the monk against?

Commoner?

Try level-appropriate monsters, then start tossing in Rogues and other 3/4 base attack bonus classes of a martial bent (what the Monk is 'supposed' to 'match'). Expand things out from there if you've got the time - make sure to point out that the most iconic enemies of fantasy and science fiction are all very similar to the protagonists and would be beings with class levels, not monsters - people like Manshoon, Iggwilv, Sarumon the White, and others.

[mikau013]

You could always compare it to an eidolon or animal companion to drive the point home that it the core monk isn't a real class.

[Curious]

You could always compare it to an eidolon or animal companion to drive the point home that it the core monk isn't a real class.

That would more likely get them going off about how the Summoner is broken, not how the monk is weak.

[NineThePuma]

Paizo is backwards like that.

[Master Arminas]

James Jacobs said that the price of a +5 AoMF (for example) is 50,000 gp for +5 enhancement bonus to unarmed strike, 50,000 gp for +5 enhancement bonus to natural weapon attacks, and 25,000 gp for the secondary property.

Here are all of SKR's quotes in the Ultimate Equipment discussion thread leading up to his bombshell retcon of flurry of blows. Most of them are discussing the amulet of mighty fists and trying to get a cheaper item just for monks. Enjoy.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5ld7y&page=4?Ultimate-Equipment-Whats-Missing#discuss


Okay explain to me how you can justify this as an 'unarmed strike only, doesn't affect natural attacks' sort of item. If a human can put this on his hands, why can't a lizardfolk put it on his claws? It's very metagamey.


Okay, so why couldn't a creature with slam attacks use these proposed handwraps of unarmed strike augmenting? Slams are bludgeoning.


I'm not ruling it out . . . if there is a workable solution. But these 'handwraps work on unarmed strikes but not other bludgeoning hand-based attacks' is not a workable solution.


Wiat, so what your asking for is a handwrap that just enhances attacks just from that hand?

I think we can do that.

It's going to need some specific language clarifying iterative attacks with that limb and that it doesn't affect unarmed strikes from other parts of the body. But I think it's doable.


Ah, so you want your cake and to be able to eat it, too. Why ever use a cheap-to-enhance weapon (with weaker damage) when you can use a handwrap that lets you deal unarmed strike damage and add enhancement bonuses and flaming to it? Why put a +5 enhancement bonus on your kama when you could add an ability that lets you deal 2d10 damage instead of 1d6?


Yes, which is why I said you'd need some language claifying iterative attacks with that limb, because the monk write doesn't specify what part of your body you're using. A level 20 monk in full flurry at +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3 could be doing seven headbutts, seven punches, or seven kicks as far as the rules are concerned because the rules assume his attacks are either all unaugmented or his whole body is augmented. If he has magic handwraps that only affect one hand, that changes the parameters of how monk attacks and flurries work and we have to specify certain things for the first time, like 'you're actually making X primary attacks any Y iterative attacks, so you're only applying the handwraps bonus to X' and Y' instead of all instances of X or y.'

So if you're using this 'I enhance only one of my attacks' item, you need to specify which one as part of your attack routine. If you don't want to deal with that, then you go with 'no enhancement' or 'amulet of mighty fists', because you can't have it both ways.


You folks are sending me mixed signals.

If you want an item that enhances unarmed attacks, it's the amulet of mighty fists. We're not going to introduce a new item that enhances multiple attacks at a lower price than the amulet. If you want to make a new that does the same thing as the amulet, but in the chest slot, that's fine, but something that does what the amulet does at a lower price is a better item than the amulet, and we're not going to introduce an item that's clearly better than a core item.
If you want an item than enhances one unarmed attack, it has to cost a little more than the enhancement on a weapon, because it can't be disarmed, it doesn't look like a weapon (nobody's going to make you 'leave your handwraps at the door' when you visit the king), and you never have to spend an action to draw it. And if you're just enhancing one of a monk's unarmed strikes (even if you can decide on the fly whether that's a punch, kick, knee, or heatbutt), that still means you have to figure out which of the monk's attacks are from that unarmed strike (and are enhanced by the item) so you know which ones aren't (and aren't enhanced).
And because the amulet of mighty fists costs 2.5x what a single magic weapon costs, that means the item that enhances one attack has to be priced about 1.5x what a single magic weapon costs because:

standard magic weapon= 1x
proposed one-attack item = ??
amulet of mighty fists = 2.5x

The easy-math options are 1.5x and 2x, and I'm sure you'd rather it be 1.5x rather than 2x.
Which means if you have two of these proposed items, your net cost is 3x what a magic weapon costs, which means in terms of cost you're better off with an amulet of mighty fists.
That's how the math works. It can't be cheaper than a weapon because it's better than a weapon. It can't affect multiple attacks because it invalidates the amulet of mighty fists. As far as I can tell, there's only a narrow strip of middle ground, and if you're not satisfied with that, our other option is to not include anything like this at all.
I'm trying to create something that is balacned and is still something you'd like, but if that doesn't satisfy you, our other option is not publish anything like this at all, because I'd rather not waste my time creating something you're going to hate anyway. I really am trying to work with you on this, but you're not seeing the repercussions of what you're asking--or you're being unclear in what you're asking for.


You're asking for a magic item that lets you deal unarmed strike damage instead of weapon damage. We have to balance that for the optimized character so it can't be abused. That means we have to balance the choice of having a +5 weapon vs. an item that lets a 20th-level monk deal 2d10 damage with each attack, even a said that normally deals 1d4 damage.


Apples and oranges. Short swords and warhammers are in the game because they're actual, historical weapons, and if the game doesn't have a reasonable assortment of historical weapons, it fails the basic premise of 'sword and sorcery' gaming. So yes, some historical weapons are worse than other . . . just like how it was in history. The game models that, and allows characters to choose sub-optimal weapons for flavor. That's material in the core rulebook for the game.
You're talking about adding an option in a new book that is clearly better than an option in that core rulebook. It invalidates that part of the core rulebook, like a new version of hte bard class that has d12 Hit Dice but only 4 skill points per level. 'Some people would still play the old bard because it has more skill points' doesn't change that the new bard is better than the old bard. You're invalidating something in the baseline game. That's rules creep. That's bad.
I'm all about allowing players to make sub-optimal choices. I frequently quote Monte Cook's adage about the game letting you eat rocks if you want to. But there's a difference between 'giving you the option to make suboptimal choices' and 'turning a standard choice in the core rules of the game into a suboptimal choice'.


Well, they are. AoMF costs 2.5x the cost of one weapon. Why 2.5x and 2.0x? Because the AoMF doesn't have the 'must start with a +1' limitation that weapons do. Mr. TWF has to pay 8,000 gp twice to get two flaming weapons . . . a monk with AoMF pays 5,000 gp because he's only paying for flaming (at a +1 cost), and gets it on all his attacks. And he can't be disarmed. And he can bring his amulet into the throne room because it's not a weapon. And he doesn't have to spend an action to draw a weapon. And he applies these bonuses to most combat maneuver rolls. And so on.


Because the AoMF is intended for monks and not other classes, making it obsolete for monks in effect makes it obsolete for everyone. Just as an item that made a robe of the archmagi obsolete for sorcerers and wizards makes it obsolete for everyone.


And like I said before, putting an item in UE that's clearly a better choice for monks than the AoMF in the Core Rulebook is power creep and is not an option.


This was from another poster (MA): If they're fighting a lycanthrope and want to use the +3 silver kama for all 6 attacks, I'm cool with that too, and I really don't think it is game-breaking.


I wouldn't say it's game-breaking, but it's certainly unfair because no other character using TWF gets to do that. The TWF with a +1 flaming short sword and a +1 frost light hammer who's fighting a fire-immune creature doesn't get to say, 'oh, all of my attacks are with my hammer.'

And the next post by SKR was where he said why, it's been this way all along that flurry of blows is like two-weapon fighting and you have to divide up your attacks between your primary weapon and your off-hand. And they wonder why we don't believe them?

Master Arminas

[OracleofWuffing]

Shall I do an "Unarmed Fighter" to compare it against?
Hm... Do you think there might be a kneejerk reaction to nerf unarmed fighters if your crunch shows that they're superior to Monks? Part of me would suggest an unarmed wizard, with the hope that they'll either buff monks or nerf wizards, but my guess is right now that any "blank versus wizard" discussion ends up getting tuned out as noise.

Somewhere in there, it was suggested that a Monk isn't too much different than a Rogue, so if I were to hazard a more practical guess, that's where they kind of have their measuring stick. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if that beaten dead horse has been beaten dead and beaten again by now. After 568 posts, it's kinda hard to find out something useful to say.

[Starbuck_II]

Here Jason (back in 2008) seemed confused why having more attacks and better defenses but no damage boost (sneak attack) made the monk weaker than the rogue (The MAD didn't help)
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtyzwqg?New-Monk-BandAid-on-Sucking-Chest-Wound#38


So, I am thinking a lot about the monk as of late. The monk, as I stated before, fills a different role than a fighter. They hit more like a rogue, with a different sort of damage potential. For some reason, and I am wondering why, there seems to be an opinion that the monk does not work, but the rogue, who is based off the same progression, does. The monk has access to some of the same bonuses as a rogue (to hit at any rate), but the monk has quite a bit more defenses (good saves, some immunities, and, in the right build, a better AC).

So, to help me understand the arguments being thrown about here. I am wondering. Where is the flaw with the monk? And, as a secondary question, why are these not the same problems with the rogue?
I have seen a large number of monks played over the pas
t few years, and every one of them has been pretty solid at their role in the party. They are great at harrassing spellcasters (clerics, bards, wizards, and sorcerers) and other, equally classed, combatants (rogues and other monks). They do not stand up as well in a straight up fight with fighters, barbarians, and paladins. But this limitation is more about their niche than their shortcomings.


So he seems Monks as weaker in straight fight than 3.5 Fighters, Barb, pally.

He was open about making a cheaper item than the amulet:


I think we are starting to see what I felt has been the problem with the monk all along, the fact that they cannot really gain the same kind of bonuses to their unarmed strikes as others can with their weapons without paying a ridiculous cost.

I have been working on a way for them to do this, that is, apply weapon enhancements (such as +1 and flaming) to their fists at a reasonable price. The tripping point was not the idea, but the in game implementation. I thought of some sort of hand wrapping, rings, or maybe bracers, but these are really going off the beaten path, as they are not, in and of themselves, weapons.

[Coidzor]

He was open about making a cheaper item than the amulet:

And then he, according to SKR, "crunched the numbers" and decided that brass knuckles being that item was unreasonable and so OP. :smallconfused: