Island Hopper19's page

You are mistaken as to who is responsible for "every negative change" to the monks since they came out.

I am not functioning alone. The design team works together on these things. And before it goes to print, Jason reads all the rules content as a last-minute check.

How brass knuckles interact with monk attacks was a decision the design team reached after discussing it.

Monk vows were a decision the design team reached after discussing it. (Mind you, in the design turnover for the vow, the benefit was you got +1 ki for every 5 monk levels. So it's not like I took what was presented and nerfed it, I felt it needed more of a boost than as it was originally written. Clearly most people think it deserved more, but don't paint this situation like I did this to punish anyone or that I hate monks or vows.)

The wording for flurry of blows in the Core Rulebook was written by Jason (and as that TWF reference isn't in the Beta, it was probably added very late in the design process for the Core Rulebook). At the time, Jason felt his intent was clear. The blog preview for PFRPG monks shows flurry-as-TWF was his intent. "Sean's ruling" on how flurry works isn't my personal belief (derived independently with no input from Jason) of how the rule should work, it's the result of me checking and re-checking with Jason about it over the course of the boards discussion to make sure I understand what he meant by the text in the Core Rulebook.

As it turns out, the rules for the monk flurry aren't clear. I got it wrong when answering an earlier FAQ (perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough to Jason when addressing that FAQ issue, perhaps Jason misrembered that he changed how flurry works in PF). Other people on staff got it wrong when they built or developed stat blocks. Freelancers got it wrong when they wrote archetypes for the monk. Like much of the rules text in the Core Rulebook, the flurry text could really benefit from being rewritten and reworded. The design team hasn't decided what to do about that yet, but that doesn't change that Jason intended it to work like TWF. This isn't "Sean's ruling," this is "how Jason the designer wanted it to work."

It's really easy to make me the point man for your outrage and rude comments because I'm the guy who's always answering FAQ questions. And it's easy to want to "go ask mom" if you don't like the rule answer from "dad." But that's not how it works. If you don't like my answer, you can't ask Jason to override me... because what we say in the FAQ is the result of a discussion and consensus with the other designers, regardless of whose name (mine, Jason's, Stephen's) is attached to that specific FAQ. It's fine to disagree with a FAQ, or say you won't do it that way in your campaign, or ask for the design team to reconsider a FAQ decision, but you can't single out me or Stephen or Jason and say "that guy is wrong, I want another designer to correct them." That just makes you look foolish.

Yes, ProfessorCirno, your information is wrong about me designing the gunslinger. I have no idea where you got the idea that I had anything to do with the design of that class. Maybe you should think about what other information you think is true is actually wrong. And that goes for everyone in this flurry meta-topic. I've been reading all of this, and I can't help but laugh at some of the ridiculous and provably false things some people are quoting as the truth. One really good example is "Jason couldn't have meant flurry to work like TWF, that would make the sohei invalid, and Jason designed the sohei, and he wouldn't have designed the sohei that way if he meant flurry to work like TWF." Except that Jason didn't design the sohei (at least, Jason Bulmahn didn't... it was designed by freelancer Jason Nelson). You guys don't know who designed which parts, or who developed which parts, or what discussion led to a particular choice of wording. Talking as if you do know really puts you on shaky ground.

Does the brass knuckles ruling hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a weapon choice that would become the default weapon for monks if you don't want your monk PC to suck.

Does the vow of poverty hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a two-paragraph option for gearless monks that doesn't address the greater campaign issues of wealth by level, wealth in a party, and so on.

Does the flurry-as-TWF rule hurt the monk? Well, it certainly doesn't help that it breaks or forces weird interpretations of certain archetypes, and is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.

I don't want the monk merely patched, I want it fixed. I agree that it's hard to play an effective monk, the monk rules are convoluted, and it's expensive in terms of magic item and ability score needs. But I don't know that the monk can be sufficiently fixed without requiring significantly more explanatory text in the Core Rulebook--which we can't add without messing up the layout for pages and pages, which we can't do because we have that book and other books referring to things in the Core Rulebook by specific page number. I--and the other designers--don't want to just slap a bandage on it and call it good; this is a significant concern, just like the stealth rules, and deserves careful consideration.

My much-earlier point from the other thread still stands: I go out of my way to engage with people on the boards, discuss rules, and figure out what people want in the FAQ. When Jason and I discuss something in the rules, if I disagree with his ruling (for example, I think the trip weapon property is really weak), I'm not afraid to (1) explain the official ruling, and (2) admit that I disagree with that ruling. Yet too many people here think that I'm some kind of FAQ-lackey, making rulings without talking it over with other members of the staff, and think it's okay to be rude to me or go "over my head" when they disagree with the official ruling from the design team. I got tired of that attitude. And I stopped posting answers to rules, and stopped posting FAQs, because I didn't want to deal with it any more (which is sad, because I actually like answering rules questions). Because I'm not required to deal with rudeness and personal attacks, I won't do it.

And since I stopped posting rules clarifications and FAQs, there have been zero new FAQs posted.

Take that as you will.

So I've been thinking about the ruling as described and it seems like for the original Monk it boils down to;

While flurrying a monk gains the benefits of the following feats:
1st level - Double Slice & Two Weapon Fighting
8th level - Improved Two Weapon Fighting
15th level - Greater Two Weapon Fighting

In addition, any or all weapon attacks in the flurry sequence may be replaced by an unarmed attack at the same attack bonus.

Double Slice also applies to any unarmed attacks a Monk makes which are not part of a flurry.

However, there is one anomaly. The original writeup mentioned that a weapon wielded with two hands as part of a flurry still only does 1x strength bonus damage. The only one of the original 'monk weapons' that could apply to would be the quarterstaff. There would then be no difference in damage whether using it two handed or as a double weapons... and thus they probably just glossed over whether there would be any impact on the number of attacks which could be made with the weapon. Per the new ruling, if that original Monk were to strike with just one end of a quarterstaff held in two hands (like a long baseball bat) they'd apparently only be able to use it as either the primary or secondary hand of the TWF sequence, with the remaining attacks having to be unarmed strikes.

That certainly isn't anywhere close to clear in the original writeup.

Presumably that logic would extend to newer examples such as the Sohei use of polearms or bows... they can still make the same number of attacks, but only half of them can be with the two-handed weapon. Also, since there are now non-light melee weapons in the mix, then if things are really working "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" the flurry attack bonuses would be lower for a Sohei using two short spears or other non-light weapons. Crossbow Sohei's would presumably also be limited by the need to reload, with any remaining attacks in the flurry being perforce unarmed.

The Zen Archer doesn't seem to fit at all, but the fact that they lose all normal flurry benefits AND cannot use Rapid Shot or Many Shot with their special 'bow flurry' suggests that it should be treated as a completely different ability which just happens to give them a number of bow shots at the same bonuses a Monk using TWF with light weapons would get.

Ok the previous 11-page, 568-post thread on this discussion was locked. But the moderator said if we wanted to continue discussing start a new thread: here it is. We are not going to let this go quietly away.

The Locked Thread

And so everyone knows what was being discussed, I have pulled together the relevant quotes from SKR and JB:

Actually, because the rules say a monk's flurry is as if he's using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can't simply declare that he's using the same fist seven times. So there is something stopping him from hitting someone seven times with his left fist or a +2 flaming kama: the rules for how flurry works.

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 in effect makes it obsolete for everyone.

Volaran said wrote:

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 fighter 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."

Zark said wrote:

It boils down to: do we still want most players do and use a temple sword or become a Zen Archer?

You're making the mistake of assuming we "want" monks played one way or another.

Foghammer said wrote:

I would also like to go on record saying that I have seen Jet Li make several iterative attacks with a single fist. "Unleashed" is a prime example of that. May not be an in-game precedent, but something.

I don't believe I ever said you couldn't make iterative attacks with a fist.

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.

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

Make you voice heard, people of Paizo and players of Pathfinder! Speak your thoughts and rouse the heavens with your thunder!

Master Arminas

Wasn't it a 2 ki point per use ability though? That's a pretty big expenditure, and you're also giving up all kinds of other good things you could be doing because it costs your swift action to activate.

{stuff on damage}

You completely miss the point. Wizards and clerics et al can do crazy sh*t that has nothing to do with damage. The fighter is there to do damage, it's what he is best at.

Note
This tweak, inspired by some recent discussions, allows monks to use other weapons than the special monk weapons to perform a flurry of blows. The requirements and limitations are steep in order to maintain the balance between the number of attacks and the damage output.

Tweaked rule
When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack with unarmed strikes and with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). He may also use flurry of blows with a simple or martial one-handed weapon with which he is proficient and for which he has taken the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat. He may also use flurry of blows with a one-handed exotic weapon (other than the special weapon monk weapons) for which he has taken the Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus feats.

He may attack with unarmed strikes and appropriate weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether he wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than the weapons specified above as part of a flurry of blows.

In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that he has enough attacks in his flurry of blows routine to do so.