What is the sound of thousands of Monks realizing there might be a reason they would want to Enchant both sides of their Quarterstaff?
SO, with the 'new' paradigm that Monk Flurry REALLY DOES work like 2WF (like it always has said) and the 'any combo of attacks' REALLY IS subjugated to what you can accomplish via 2WF (exactly as it has always been phrased), how to deal?
People seem to worry about using a pole-arm and UAS since they have different reach areas.
Seems like Lunge could help those areas overlap. Not to mention the lovely 5-step could help you maneuver to get both weapons on the same target. Or just attack different targets at different range with the appropriate weapon.
SKR recently posted that he is fine with 'one UAS weapon' (e.g. one fist only, e.g. can only deliver half your flurry attacks) items that can be enhanced for cheaper than Amulets (which affect all UAS, e.g. can apply to ALL your flurry attacks), although since there are various side benefits (can't be disarmed, doesn't need to be drawn, etc) it would need to be more expensive than normal weapon enhancments. That would seem to satisfy people on the other end of things.
I'm not sure of that increased costing (he suggested 1.5x weapon cost as a round number): at minimum it doesn't have to be 1.5x, 1.25x could work, or a fixed non-scaling cost (like special materials for weapons).
Further, I'm not sure of the rationale for the benefits he mentions: non-disarm-ability and no need to be drawn are normal features of UAS for anybody... Since ANYBODY could use these 'single UAS weapon enhancement', I don't see the case for a price differential since it's on top of a CRAPPY WEAPON for anybody but Monks, and for Monks the exact degree to which UAS is NOT crappy is what their Class is based on/balanced around.
Finally, it seems like a 'single UAS weapon enhancement' DOES have a further drawback compared to an Amulet of Mighty Fists: a single body part can be disabled (hypothetical su ability: if your opponent fails a fort save, the UAS or natural weapon they attacked you with is rendered unusable for 1d4 rounds) or prevented from moving (even if it can't be 'disarmed' usually) while if any remaining part of your body can move, you can deliver UAS attacks with it with the Amulet (and Flurry with all attacks).
Really, the game just currently doesn't distinguish between any possible UAS vector, when it COULD be doing so: why don't UAS-linked Feats specify the type of UAS they use, and thus if you want Enhancement bonus/effects you either use the Amulet (which affects everything) or you need the 'right' weapon that works with that Feat/style/etc. If it takes a while for the game to catch up to that new paradigm, I think it will be OK in the mean time.
Finally: I think the simplest fix to Flurry is removing the 'any combo of attacks' bit... It doesn't seem needed, it's just fluff that GMs can add in even to other classes/scenarios, because if mechanically it doesn't matter, GMs will do that sort of thing. If anything, why not add that wording to the Amulet of Mighty Fists itself?
well, yeah, i'm aware nothing has changed yet,
flurry's 'any combo of attacks' is still grammatically subjugated to 'as if using 2wf',
so you can't do any combo that 2wf can't do, that's how it's always been...
at the end i'm speculating/suggesting how the design team whose intent is in consensus might proceed in modifying it, but was mostly wanting to address this 'reach weapon + UAS' issue which some people seemed to find problematic in the other thread, as well as bring things together with the 'single UAS weapon enhancement' issue, which is kind of part and parcel of '2wf flurrying' as far as I can see.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SO, with the 'new' paradigm that Monk Flurry REALLY DOES work like 2WF (like it always has said) and the 'any combo of attacks' REALLY IS subjugated to what you can accomplish via 2WF (exactly as it has always been phrased), how to deal?
Except it doesn't work like TWF.
With TWF you get access to the entire feat tree. FoB does not let you take Two Weapon Rend, Two Weapon Defence etc.
With TWF your offhand weapon only gets half your strength bonus to damage, FoB it's full strength bonus even if you use the weapon two-handed, or in the off-hand.
With FoB, it makes a difference if the offhand weapon is light or one-handed, the TWF ruling is unclear on this.
With TWF, you cannot use a two-handed weapon unless it is a double weapon.
TWF applies to any weapons you can hold in one hand, FoB only applies to Monk weapons.
... so it's not like TWF at all, really. Whichever way you look at it, FoB is it's own thing.
People seem to worry about using a pole-arm and UAS since they have different reach areas.
Seems like Lunge could help those areas overlap. Not to mention the lovely 5-step could help you maneuver to get both weapons on the same target. Or just attack different targets at different range with the appropriate weapon.Does that 5-feet step really work like that? Or better, does twf really work like.
I remember a discussion a few months ago concerning the order of twf attacks. I thought the conclusion (based on comments from someone at paizo IIRC) that you can't just chose how to do your attacks. You start with the highest base attacks for each weapon, then go for the second highest etc.
So, if my memory serves me well, things don't work like that. Or to say it better, they shouldn't if you play like it was intended.
That was their intention, but they never actually spelled it out. In various supplements they then allowed the 'any combination' phrase to dominate, which is why you have zen archers and other builds that focus on flurrying with one weapon only.
They are now reconsidering the whole issue: insist on TWF as originally intended, or use FoB as it's own thing as almost everyone (including some of their own staff) has used it?
|
For the Zen Archer, call it "Flurry of Arrows". One problem solved. The Zen Archer can shoot fast.
For other monks, I had always assumed that the reference to TWF was intentional, but I had thought that the "as if" was also important. Anyway, we now have clarification. I think it is wrong to call this a "retcon". I still would like to see a Qinggong power to allow the monk's unarmed strikes to bypass DR.
|
With FoB, it makes a difference if the offhand weapon is light or one-handed, the TWF ruling is unclear on this.
I don't understand this sentence. If you are using a long sword and a dagger to TWF, you can choose which weapon to attack with first. If you attack with the dagger first, then you apply the non-light-weapon-off-hand penalties for using the long sword as an off hand attack. What is unclear about this?
Edited the quote to clarify what I was referring to.
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.
Above is an excerpted paragraph from the post Blackbloodtroll linked. Notice the bolded text. So, Jason specifically calls out unarmed strike as being exempt from the requirement to alternate weapons. Thus, a 1st level monk, with a kama in one hand, a sai in the other, could flurry and do any of the following: kama/sai, kama/kick(right foot), kick(right foot)/sai, kick(right foot)/kick(right foot), etc... This means there is no need to cast magic fang on each fist, or, if there were a hand-wrap item you could enchant, no need to buy two. Beyond this clarification, I have nothing to say about magic items, what they cost, and what is fair about the amount of money a monk needs to spend.
With FoB, it makes a difference if the offhand weapon is light or one-handed, the TWF ruling is unclear on this.I don't understand this sentence. If you are using a long sword and a dagger to TWF, you can choose which weapon to attack with first. If you attack with the dagger first, then you apply the non-light-weapon-off-hand penalties for using the long sword as an off hand attack. What is unclear about this?
Edited the quote to clarify what I was referring to.
Sorry, I mis-typed that line:
"With FoB, it makes no difference if the offhand weapon is light or one-handed, the TWF ruling is unclear on this."
What I meant is, in FoB you can use any weapons, as long as they are monk weapons, and it appears that the same penalty (-2 to full BAB) is applied. It's different for TWF, where the size of the weapon matters. It's unclear that if we use the 'FoB is TWF' interpretation, what happens if a monk uses a temple sword as the off-hand weapon? it's a monk weapon, but one-handed rather than light.
Truesidekick has the right of it in that the monk is being asked to suck up the disadvantages of TWF with this ruling, without reaping any of the rewards.
With FoB, it makes a difference if the offhand weapon is light or one-handed, the TWF ruling is unclear on this.I don't understand this sentence. If you are using a long sword and a dagger to TWF, you can choose which weapon to attack with first. If you attack with the dagger first, then you apply the non-light-weapon-off-hand penalties for using the long sword as an off hand attack. What is unclear about this?
Edited the quote to clarify what I was referring to.
Except for that single line in the Unarmed Strike class feature of the monk: "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
Some people claims that this ONLY applies to the reduced Strength on a monk's unarmed attacks when making an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike; but that is not how it is worded. So if flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting, then by this line (in the monk class), the monk cannot use unarmed strikes as off-hand attacks, meaning his unarmed strikes must be primary weapons and his weapon is the off-hand. And some monk weapons (like the temple sword) are one-handed, not light.
Master Arminas
brother sapo i HATE your avitar, g&! d**n the 3.5 monk was one of the ugliest pictures in that book.
"With TWF you get access to the entire feat tree. FoB does not let you take Two Weapon Rend, Two Weapon Defence etc"
this is what really pisses me off about this ruling. a monk is weaker then a fighter in one more area. not only do they have a weaker bab, lower ac, lower hp, and more. now they have to play by the twf rules without gaining acess to the twf feat tree?
oh and if you multi clas out of monk you lose out on your flurry bab progression once you leave. monk level 5, you have a 5 bab when flurring at 20, congragulations.
so flurry of blows is already worthless unless you go 1-20 monk, you guys just made it even worse lol.
You don't gain additional attacks on your flurry, but flurry of blows uses your monk level instead of your monk class BAB (in your example 5) and ADDS the BAB of your remaining classes (not specified, but let's say fighter 15). That would give you a flurry BAB of +20 (+18 after the -2 penalty for two-weapon fighter/flurry), but you would only get ONE (1) additional attack at your highest attack bonus -2.
Master Arminas
To me, the flurry of bows is always been a way to give the monk free feats (TWF chain + double slice for free) nothing more, nothing less.
To me, the flurry of bows is always been a way to give the monk free feats (TWF chain + double slice for free) nothing more, nothing less.
But he doesn't get the TWF feats, is my point here.
Flurry works like TWF in that they both grant extra attacks at a -2 penalty. And that's about all they share in common.
That's my take on it, based on the wording etc. That's how most people took it...
Flurry works like TWF in that they both grant extra attacks at a -2 penalty. And that's about all they share in common.That's my take on it, based on the wording etc. That's how most people took it...
Agreed.
MA
Hm, I was actually hoping for specific feedback re: the dual UAS+Reach Weapon Flurry issue, if the Lunge solution is enough to fix people's purported issues with it or not... I assume so then...?
Definitely, the 'there is no such thing as an off-hand attack' line is hugely problematic in the context of Flurry as a subset of 2WF, since the extra attack of 2WF is explicitly an off-hand attack. Given the assumption of text trumps table, I take the Flurry progression to be DERIVATIVE of the normal 2WF rules, but that apparently requires that you are applying the appropriate modifiers as if you were making off-hand attacks with a Light Weapon. I don't really care if Monks could Flurry with 2 1-handed (non-Light) Monk Weapons in each hand, but if so, that should be explicitly stated if the normal 2WF assumptions (re: Light Weapon to qualify for -2 penalty) DON'T apply.
Really, the 'no such thing' line should just be ditched since if off-hand can NEVER be invoked re: Flurry, then Flurry shouldn't be subjugated to 2WF to begin with. Instead, just state the exceptions: full STR dmg to off-hand (effectively, Double Slice for free in exchange for 1x STR dmg to main-hand NO MATTER WHAT, e.g. even for 2-handed weapons*). The 'no such thing' line really feels like 'layman's shorthand' for describing what the RAI is, NOT something actually intended to be taken as RAW.
I definitely agree with the stupidity of Monks not being able to take auxiliary 2WF Feats like 2 Weapon Rend, 2 Weapon Defense, etc... Well, to clarify, Monks CAN take those but would need to take the entire normal 2WF chain in order to take those Feats, and then their Flurries wouldn't be able to trigger any effect that required hitting with an off-hand weapon (since 'there is no such thing...' yada yada). ...Obviously not viable. Changing this would obviously need explicit wording saying they count as having the 2WF feats...
Which makes me agree that it really would be so much CLEANER to just give Monks the 2WF Feats, albeit limited to Monk weapons and UAS, and subject to other Flurry differences/limitations, but otherwise counting as having the Feats (perhaps wording to say that unless you take the real 2WF feats, any Feats you take using the Monk 2WF Feats to qualify for are themselves subject to the limitations of Monk Flurry, e.g. you can't use those Feats UNLESS you are 'Flurrying', with associated limitations... For such Feats, I would also allow the Monk's effective Flurry BAB to count for 2WF Feat Pre-Reqs.
* And hey, while we're at it with Flurry/2WF, what about the STR damage for the main-hand of Double Weapons? James Jacobs (non-Rules Dude) has weighed in that Double Weapon main-hands are at 1x STR, but that doesn't even deal with 2WF with Greatswords + Armor Spikes... I don't see why Double Weapons should be at a mechanical disadvantage there. If Paizo really wants Double Weapon main-hands to only get 1x STR, OK, but there should really be wording to that effect in the 2WF rules so that the same applies to Greatsword+ArmorSpike combos. That doesn't apply to Flurry (since they always do 1x STR), but it definitely does for normal 2WFing.
Question: Why has it taken this long for this issue to be addressed? It's definitely not new, and I'm sure plenty of people FAQed it before, but it seems like it just got some attention recently when SKR happened to comment on somebody's Rules Question thread... Have previous threads just not gotten ENOUGH FAQ hits, and Paizo doesn't act on any low-number FAQ items? (unless they choose to post on a specific thread itself, irrespective of FAQ tag)
I think the issue does need to be looked at (by Paizo) in context of possible revisions/new options for 'single UAS attack' enhancements. Monks who want to Flurry with Monk Weapon + UAS are going to be the prime market for such an item/option, since the benefits of an Amulet are largely wasted on them (if they are only using 1 UAS attack in their main Flurry/Full Attack sequence). I went into the details of that more in another thread, but I thought I'd mention the synergy between those rules again...
They just took the same wording from 3.5 for TWF. RAW and RAI don't match up. The only reason I was able to prove it in a previous debate was by citing the "3.5 Rules of the game" article, and showing how the wording is the same as PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, I'm not saying the 2WF/2-Handed thing is a problem they invented, but that doesn't mean they can't fix it... Fixing 3.5 was one of the goals of PRPG AFAIK. It doesn't seem like many words to specify in 2WF that Main Hand always gets 1x STR bonus to DMG if that's the intent.
Not yet, Nezthalak. Thanks for the welcome.
Master Arminas
|
|
If they intended FoB to require two weapons, then they should not have used this description.
Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows (see Classes).
The description does not say, "...as part of a flurry of blows." The description says, "...to perform a flurry of blows."
I have not seen any reference to this before, but maybe I just missed it. I would interpret that wording to mean that all the attacks could be done with one weapon.
I seem to be arguing both sides of this debate.
I don't think anyone argues that there is no inconsistency in FoB, or monk npc's created for adventure paths, or in later alterations to FoB for archetypes in later books. I think it is universally agreed that, whatever Jason Bulmahn's original intention for how FoB works, other developers have interpreted it differently, and perhaps he, himself has interpreted it in two different ways at different times. This only reveals inconsistencies, and not original intent, and Jason has admitted to inconsistency in the rules himself.
Given this universal agreement, even from the devs themselves, that FoB has been applied inconsistently in written material, we have no choice but to wait for errata, which Jason has said will be forthcoming. However, I thank you for finding yet another instance of inconsistency, and hopefully the developers will be able to wade through all the threads on the subject, find all the inconsistencies we have pointed out, and create a thorough errata on the subject.
Honestly, I always considered Flurry more akin to Rapid Shot than Two Weapon Fighting.
Me too. I thought the idea of the change in wording in the CRB was to make clear you could effectively TWF with it if you chose to do so without having to take the TWF feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flurry works like TWF in that they both grant extra attacks at a -2 penalty. And that's about all they share in common.That's my take on it, based on the wording etc. That's how most people took it...
Yesterday, flurry troubles seemed so far away
now it seems as though they're here to stayoh I believe in yesterday
I agree with Quandary. FoB, is just the Monk's version of TWF. It's even better since you don't have to take any of the feats to gain the attack roll penalty reductions.
If you want *more* than that, take the feats.
Stynkk then answer me the following questions based on the fact that a monk is in fact simply TWF.
1. Can a monk make off-hand attacks using unarmed strike? Its listed that they have no off-hand when fighting unarmed.
2. If a monk wields a larger than light weapon in his off hand does the penalty go up. Note that at no point does the FoB ability say it changes the rules for TWF and at the time of printing only light weapons were availble to a monk short of the 1/4staff.
3. Is unarmed strike one weapon or more than one. If one then the monk cannot flurry using only unarmed strikes under this rule. If more than one then each part must now be MW or GMW indivdually in order to achieve a balanced flurry.
One monks do have Double slice when flurrying. Two you dont have a full BAB when you need it most staying mobile a monk cant afford to exchange full attacks with a heavy hitter.
Stynkk then answer me the following questions based on the fact that a monk is in fact simply TWF.
Ok buddy :)
1. Can a monk make off-hand attacks using unarmed strike? Its listed that they have no off-hand when fighting unarmed.
Disclamier: This is my personal opinion. I think the developers wrote this because they essentially want US to be treated as if the monk has the double slice feat when using FoB (that is to say off-handed attacks deal full STR damage since that line of the Monk Rules follows this.) It is a very strange choice of words but I think many folks are reading too far into it. This is one of those weird instances where fluff entered the rules text and fubar'd it all.
2. If a monk wields a larger than light weapon in his off hand does the penalty go up. Note that at no point does the FoB ability say it changes the rules for TWF and at the time of printing only light weapons were availble to a monk short of the 1/4staff.
No, if the monk is using a monk weapon, it's all good.
3. Is unarmed strike one weapon or more than one. If one then the monk cannot flurry using only unarmed strikes under this rule. If more than one then each part must now be MW or GMW indivdually in order to achieve a balanced flurry.
It's more than one weapon, each fist/leg/knee/headbutt are different. The idea (and SKR explained this) was that monks could "flavor" their full attack however they want with unarmed strikes from any body part because all parts of the body are treated in the exact same way. If your fist is special because it has flaming somehow, you now start have to track all your attack forms separately.
@Martiln
Close, it is missing its full BAB in one area, namely skirmishing. You cannot move and attack and have the benefit of full BAb. Monks, having abnormally high move speed, should be able skirmishers, instead it is one of their weak points for their BAB. Granted, maneuver mechanics have been streamlined and are more advantageous to players than they were in 3.5, but lack of skirmishing leaves monks with a disparity.
@Stynkk
On number 1 Flurry also gives this ability so unless the monk decides to pick up the TWF feats and go that route it real doesnt change much.
Other than that on number 2 nothing actually changes how penaties funtion for FoB people assume the chart but the text (which is greater than the chart) actually simply says "as TWF" meaning that bigger weapon bigger penalties.
3. Agreed on this one sadly combined with the retcon it becomes a bit of a nerf in the Magic Weapon department.
Edit for clarity and fixed mistakes in point one.
how exactly did i jump the gun? everything i posted is true, and yes a twf fighter will sevearly out dps a monk, and have feats to boot. once the UM came out i thought that changed, but i was wrong since this clarification came out.
This is so true. Merely on gain to hit he does more damage by hitting more often, and his static bonuses more than match the rising damage the monk does.
As for Power Attack being used with FoB, it's virtually unusable because you won't hit anything.
at what point did i mention cmb/cmd? nothing has a better cmd then a monk, that is there one clame to fame. but then again you can argue that since lore warden came out.
This is also true, the monk is defensively very strong in many areas except actual hit points. Problem is, that doesn't mean much when the enemy can effectively ignore you.
and no they dont have a full bab when it counts, they dont qualify for feats unless they are monk feats, or for up to 4 levels after a real full bab class would qualify. also if you have to move it needs to be finished off with a trip, disarm, or a grapple because you wont have that full bab otherwise.
QFT.
Hmmmm.
Yesterday, flurry troubles seemed so far away
now it seems as though they're here to stay
oh I believe in yesterday
Still, brass knuckles gently weep...
Fixed that for you :)
Dabbler was agreeing with you.
Yeah QFT Quote for Truth. Though he might have thought Quit F#@$@#% Talking maybe??
I have never seen the second second version telling someone to shutup before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me either but these things get confusing oh omnipotent and all knowing highlord wraithstrike the soon to be supreme ruler of the fish bowl!