Building a Monkchikin (pf)

[JanusThePaladin]

So I had an idea that I'm unsure of and i wanted to see if someone can help me out:

My understanding of flurry of blows is that you can do it with a monk weapon, in this instance a quarterstaff, which is also a double weapon. So if I'm a level 1 monk, and I FOB, how many strikes would i get with my quarterstaff?

I also know that when wielding a monk weapon FOB stacks with 2wf, so my question is is how many attacks could i max out with?

Truly i'm unsure on exactly how a double sided weapon works. The way I'm interpreting it is everytime i strike with the head I get an additional attack with the other end, at the penalties of light and one handed 2wf, and if i take the feat for 2wf, that penalty would then be reduced. So I take that to mean that when flurrying I would get 4 hits in with my quarterstaff, with the penalties applied, 2 with the head of the staff and 2 with the bottom of the staff.

This is all kinda confusing to me, so any help would be appreciated....

[Deaxsa]

the most common counterargument to this idea is that flurry of blows becomes flurry of misses, thanks to al the penalties you rack up. and as far as the rules for stacking TWF and Flurry go, there are no official rules i know of, the developers didn't really know what they were doing, and have not yet tried to clarify. could be wrong though.

edit: two-sided weapons work as if you were wielding two of the weapons, with marginally less penalties. for instance, a quarterstaff becomes two clubs(one of which is light, a double sword becomes two longswords(one of which is light). they follow all of the rules for TWF normally, with the exception of the pseudo-light weapon.

a bunch of arguments against against monks can be found in http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270255 ; a thread i made about monks yesterday which i have since realized was a mistake, as it has turned into a candle war

[Deadline]

This is pretty simple to calculate. You get the same number of attacks as any other two weapon fighter, plus your flurry bonus attack.

So at first level that would be 1 (your only attack from +0 BAB), +1 (two-weapon fighting), +1 (Flurry). And your attack penalties would be awful.

Specifically, normal two-weapon penalties in this situation (off-hand weapon is light, no two-weapon fighting feat) are -4 to the main hand, -8 to the off hand. Flurry adds an extra -2 to that. So your 1st level monk would get three attacks with his quarterstaff (fighting two-weapon) at: -6/-6/-10 (before strength adjustments). So ... yeah.

With the two-weapon fighting feat, this isn't much better at: -4/-4/-4 (before strength adjustments). If your monk had an 18 Strength, the two-weapon fighting feat, and was flurrying with a monk double weapon, your attack routine would be: +0/+0/+0.

[JanusThePaladin]

I found the thing about flurry of blows and 2wf stacking on a paizo thread from 3 years ago. Anyway, can someone explain to me exactly how a double sided weapon works?

[Deadline]

I found the thing about flurry of blows and 2wf stacking on a paizo thread from 3 years ago. Anyway, can someone explain to me exactly how a double sided weapon works?

It works just like two weapons, with the added benefit that you can use one end as a single two-handed weapon instead of fighting two-weapon style if you want. You even enchant both ends separately as if they were two different weapons.

[Deaxsa]

I found the thing about flurry of blows and 2wf stacking on a paizo thread from 3 years ago. Anyway, can someone explain to me exactly how a double sided weapon works?

I edited my post, it might help. to be completely explicit: the double weapon works exactly like wielding two of the same weapons except you accrue penalties as if the off-hand weapon were light. what this allows you to do is use a double weapon in order to get a larger damage dice on your off hand. however, the 'only x.5 STR/PA bonus' rule still applies(I THINK) to a double weapon's off-hand side, and it's often an average of +1 damage, for which the extra feat is not worth(imho, besides for character flavor).


It works just like two weapons, with the added benefit that you can use one end as a single two-handed weapon instead of fighting two-weapon style if you want. You even enchant both ends separately as if they were two different weapons.


oh yea,i forgot, the enchanting is twice as expensive, and you can enchant each end separately. however, i'm pretty sure that you can't have the base enchantment be different for each weapon, for instance, i don't think you can have a gnome hooked hammer with a +2 hammer and a +3 pick, i'm pretty sure the basic bonus must be the same level.
^^that's wrong^^

[JanusThePaladin]

"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. "

I would interpret this to mean that when using a monk weapon and flurry of blowing the additional attack from the back end of the quarterstaff would still be full str

[Deaxsa]

"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. "

I would interpret this to mean that when using a monk weapon and flurry of blowing the additional attack from the back end of the quarterstaff would still be full str

but what does your DM interpret this as? i'm not just trying to play devil's advocate, by the way, this actually incredibly relevant. if my player walked up to me and said that, i'd say "you are 3rd level and already have 4 attacks." and then give a verdict on a couple of things, most notably what his strength actually is (if it's sub-15 i probably wouldn't mind), what it could become, and what the relative power of every other party member is.

[JanusThePaladin]

thanks, much appreciated. Also, off topic, but its my topic anyway, so who cares, can someone tell me where in the pathfinder rules it says you cannot have a weaponsmith add on to a magic weapon, or make a masterwork weapon that is not brand new out of the box into a magic weapon? I can't find this rule anywhere

[Deaxsa]

thanks, much appreciated. Also, off topic, but its my topic anyway, so who cares, can someone tell me where in the pathfinder rules it says you cannot have a weaponsmith add on to a magic weapon, or make a masterwork weapon that is not brand new out of the box into a magic weapon? I can't find this rule anywhere

That's pretty niche, although i could see where it comes into play. i would use the rules for repairing magic/masterwork weapons: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items#TOC-Damaging-Magic-Items (magic objects)and http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/damaging-objects#TOC-Damaged-Objects (mundane objects)
edit: also, craft skill: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/craft. scroll down for the rules on crafting masterwork items.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Didn't the head guy at Paizo specifically ruled against using FoB and TWF at the same time?

[Darius Kane]

Didn't the head guy at Paizo specifically ruled against using FoB and TWF at the same time?
It always worked like that. It's just that no one knew, not even the other designers/writers.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Seriously?

[Lord_Gareth]

Seriously?

That was SKR's statement, yes. Dude is a despicable human being and needs to be out of game design forever and ever and ever.

[Darius Kane]

Seriously?
Yes. thjuhdetuyhde

[Dusk Eclipse]

That was SKR's statement, yes. Dude is a despicable human being and needs to be out of game design forever and ever and ever.

Oh I agree he shouldn't be employed as a game designer (not sure if he is really a bad person though); but how is it possible that not even the others designers knew that you couldn't FoB and TWF at the same time...

[Lord_Gareth]

Oh I agree he shouldn't be employed as a game designer (not sure if he is really a bad person though); but how is it possible that not even the others designers knew that you couldn't FoB and TWF at the same time...

It's not, it's just that SKR decreed that it was the "only possible" reading of those rules and then accused anyone who combined the two of being a filthy munchkin who sacrifices babies to Cthulu before opening up their charcoal-only orphan grilling festival.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

It's not, it's just that SKR decreed that it was the "only possible" reading of those rules and then accused anyone who combined the two of being a filthy munchkin who sacrifices babies to Cthulu before opening up their charcoal-only orphan grilling festival.

In all fairness, non-charcoal roasted orphans taste terrible.

[Dusk Eclipse]

It's not, it's just that SKR decreed that it was the "only possible" reading of those rules and then accused anyone who combined the two of being a filthy munchkin who sacrifices babies to Cthulu before opening up their charcoal-only orphan grilling festival.

I retract my previous statement questioning his morality.

[Darius Kane]

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nrv4?Flurry-of-Changes-to-Flurry-of-Blows#1

[Deaxsa]

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nrv4?Flurry-of-Changes-to-Flurry-of-Blows#1

...the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.
-Captain Barbossa

You're pirates. Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway.
-Elizabeth

apply liberal amounts of either quote.

[Vaz]

I see this a lot about "SKR"; I'm fairly new to the game, and don't know too much about the game design process; but did he spit in your soup?

Pathfinder seems popular, (although I can't make head nor tail out of it), but aside from clearly moronic comments in regards to "OP'd Monks", why is he villified like Mat Ward is for Warhammer? (as ironic as it is; his rules are pretty kosher, if OP'd compared to everyone elses).

[The Glyphstone]

I see this a lot about "SKR"; I'm fairly new to the game, and don't know too much about the game design process; but did he spit in your soup?

Pathfinder seems popular, (although I can't make head nor tail out of it), but aside from clearly moronic comments in regards to "OP'd Monks", why is he villified like Mat Ward is for Warhammer? (as ironic as it is; his rules are pretty kosher, if OP'd compared to everyone elses).

Because it's not just Monks. Every rule he visibly gets his hands on gets worse, more confusing, contradictory, or all of the above, and he's proven to have no grasp of balanced game design. People have known this since well into 3.5's, past, where he posted a homebrew 'Feat Point' system that showed he thought Skill Focus was an overpowered feat compared to Quicken Spell, to name one example.

[Lord_Gareth]

Because it's not just Monks. Every rule he visibly gets his hands on gets worse, more confusing, contradictory, or all of the above, and he's proven to have no grasp of balanced game design. People have known this since well into 3.5's, past, where he posted a homebrew 'Feat Point' system that showed he thought Skill Focus was an overpowered feat compared to Quicken Spell, to name one example.

And it's not just his work quality, it's his work ethic. Sean is insulting to his customers, hostile and confrontational about opposing viewpoints, snide and dismissive about criticism, and takes every opportunity to mock, belittle, and put down those who disagree with him. His treatment of the WotC op boards was typical; they offered to stress test Pathfinder for him, and when he didn't like their findings he insulted them, banned a ton of people from Paizo's forums and then walked off congratulating himself.

What we need is a large man hired to, every day at a random time, slap SKR in the face. And whenever SKR asks why he does this, the man will say, "Because you have still not learned your lesson." And the day that large man sees SKR apologize to his player base, fans, and critics, the slapping will stop.

[Deadline]

oh yea,i forgot, the enchanting is twice as expensive, and you can enchant each end separately. however, i'm pretty sure that you can't have the base enchantment be different for each weapon, for instance, i don't think you can have a gnome hooked hammer with a +2 hammer and a +3 pick, i'm pretty sure the basic bonus must be the same level.

Did they change this in Pathfinder? In 3.5, enchanting isn't "twice as expensive". You do have to pay twice the masterwork cost (so, 600gp for a masterwork double weapon). You also get to enchant each end completely differently if you want (although randomly found magic double weapons usually have both ends enchanted the same).

[only1doug]

Did they change this in Pathfinder? In 3.5, enchanting isn't "twice as expensive". You do have to pay twice the masterwork cost (so, 600gp for a masterwork double weapon). You also get to enchant each end completely differently if you want (although randomly found magic double weapons usually have both ends enchanted the same).

Yes it is, standard 3.5 rules are that each end of the quarterstaff has to be enchanted seperately, so if you want a +1/+1 quarterstaff you have to pay for the +1 enchantment twice.

[Deadline]

Yes it is, standard 3.5 rules are that each end of the quarterstaff has to be enchanted seperately, so if you want a +1/+1 quarterstaff you have to pay for the +1 enchantment twice.

Yes, of course, but that isn't twice as expensive to enchant. It costs the same as if you were enchanting two entirely separate weapons (which I mentioned in the 4th post of this thread). I took Deaxsa's comment to mean he thought that enchanting a double weapon was even more expensive than that.

[Deaxsa]

Yes, of course, but that isn't twice as expensive to enchant. It costs the same as if you were enchanting two entirely separate weapons (which I mentioned in the 4th post of this thread). I took Deaxsa's comment to mean he thought that enchanting a double weapon was even more expensive than that.

ach, you're right, i'll cross that out. thanks for the clarification.

[only1doug]

Yes, of course, but that isn't twice as expensive to enchant. It costs the same as if you were enchanting two entirely separate weapons (which I mentioned in the 4th post of this thread). I took Deaxsa's comment to mean he thought that enchanting a double weapon was even more expensive than that.

Yes, I think I misinterpreted his point as he didn't think you could have different bonuses on the different ends (which you can).

[Larkas]

This (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5le61?Monkeying-Around) might be relevant. Ipsis litteris:


Monkeying Around

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Late last week, we posted up a few quick FAQ issues to resolve some problems involving the monk. There has been a lot of discussion on the monk on the boards, and while it has taken us a while to come up with some solutions, we have made a few simple changes to address these concerns. I wanted to take this blog post to review these changes and to announce a few more.


Flurry of Blows: We have decided to reverse a previous ruling (that came from this very blog) that stated you needed to use two weapons when using flurry of blows (or a combination of weapon attacks and unarmed strikes). You can now make all of your attacks with just one weapon, or substitute any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. Of course, if you have a pair of weapons and want to keep using both of them, that still works as well.

Ki Pool: Monks typically have problems bypassing DR with their unarmed strikes, forcing them to rely on weapons to deal with many forms of DR. We have decided to add a new ability to the Ki Pool monk class feature. At 7th level, a monk's unarmed strikes count as cold iron and silver for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction, so long as he has at least 1 point remaining in his ki pool.

Amulet of Mighty Fists: On Friday, we posted up a FAQ that stated that the enhancement bonus from an amulet of mighty fists does allow natural attacks and unarmed strikes to bypass damage reduction if the enhancement bonus is at least +3 (as with other weapons, see page 562 of the Core Rulebook). In addition, we have decided to adjust the price of the amulet of mighty fists. The new prices are as follows: 4,000 gp (+1), 16,000 gp (+2), 36,000 gp (+3), 64,000 gp (+4), 100,000 gp (+5). Accordingly, the costs to create these amulets are also reduced to the following: 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), 50,000 gp (+5). This makes this item priced a bit more competitively for monks and creatures that rely on natural attacks. I should note that this change will be reflected in future printings of the Core Rulebook, Ultimate Equipment, and the NPC Codex.

Well, that about wraps up our current thoughts on the monk. Thanks to all the folks on the boards that provided us with feedback on this class.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer