Lets not forget that in the alpha and beta release of the core the monk FoB was identical to the 3.5 rule. Why the change whenvthe print release came out, why wasnt the the current FoB playtested thoroughly like all the other classedropped? Why was the version that was used for the beta dropped? Why the change? What was the goal?
I ask because the change has caused a great many issues than were in the previous version, and for such a change why was it so late in the process that it didn't get a thorough playtest. So what was the design goal for FoB?
I totally agree, its because they kept most of the language of the prior FoB, which prior to the print was the same as the 3.5 version. What made them change so late in the game is hard to say, but its truly created more problems than fixed. My assumption was they wanted to improve the hit ratio and make it so they couldn't stack FoB with two weapon combat.
It would be nice to hear back from the devs, since we have shown a great many holes to it now....
The problem with Flurry of blows is that the ruling contradicts the language within it. With two weapon fighting you choose a primary and offhand weapon and attack in order. Flurry states with its conflicting rules that you can make attacks with your weapons as you see fit. This is language that comes from the original flurry which was never considered two weapon fighting and allowed to choose a different weapon on each attack such as kama/fist/foot/kama. In addition strict reading of the line about two weapon fighting then means strict reading of other vague lines likebthe monk unarmed fighting and having no offhand, which then means if you two weapon fight on the flurry an unarmed strike must be the primary weapon if you wish to use that weapon, which then cascades to how all the other weapons work.
So how do we fix these issues? For now the best method is play it how you've been playing until the devs get back to us.
For fixes: a) go back to beta version or 3.5, (they're the same) and use the fighter training feature for monk weapons and unarmed strike meaning use the standard bab with bonus attacks and the weapons and unarmed get a +1 hit and damage at 5th and every 4 level after.
B) state flurry isn't literally two weapon fighting, doesn't count as having the feats, and cannot flurry and use two weapon feats together, they don't stack.
C) use Master Arminas monk, its well done and in homage to the original ad&d monk.
D) there were other ideas tossed around that I don't remember.
In one session I ran, a players Knight was on his last legs, 2hp remaining, in a climatic struggle saving a frontier town frame raiders. It was raining, the town was in flames, and he was routing the orcs. It happened that due to the chaos of battle, he ended up in the path of an ogre on its way out of Dodge. He decided that he couldn't out run the ogre so he made a valiant last stand and charged, and crit at Max damage for the win.
I forgot that the off hand attack penalty was dropped when ambidexterity was removed for 3.5. If you use the flurry from the beta, it would be +15/15/15/10/5, if they chose to get two weapon fighting by dipping or getting the feats it would be +13/13/13/13/8/8/3/3. Ya I'm really worried about that, even with a training rider they don't hit as well or as hard as the ranger and the monk has to work on a heavy MAD setup. That was why they were given a full BAB for the flurry, they don't hit. With the full BAB they gained a +3 to hit, and two extra attacks and a host of problems over the beta.
If the gave the monk a training feature maxing a +4 like the fighter as put forth by several of is now and stuck with the the old flurry they would be +19/19/19/14/9 and if they took the two weapon feats +17/17/17/17/12/12/7/7/2. And if you still feel that is too good, just keep the flurry penalty a -2 that doesn't go away. I don't anyone would have a problem with that. And dipping into other classes gives up other abilities that the monk enjoys, and reduces his overall ki pool. There is plenty of give two go the two weapon route.
I just think that if you word the weapon proficiencies as being able to use in either or both hands as they see fit, then they know they can flurry with one weapon, two weapons or ad in unarmed when ever they like they would be happy with it, then if they want EXTRA attacks over the flurry, they have to follow the two weapon rules with its penalties.
By doing this they can cover ever weapon combination conceivable with out a ton of special case rules. For instance using a temple sword, in a flurry could be used as fit, if they flurry and two weapon fight they would have to decide whether its primary and gets all the flurry attacks and the -2 penalty, or have it the offhand and have the -4 penalty. See its open this way, and fewer problems.
Then the sohei and Zen archer only have 5 attacks on the flurry, with out ki, but no confusing exceptions problems or issues. It does make the archer lose a bit I'd probably allow rapid shot to stack with it.
Its how I see things at least, and I will use the beta with a training feature as the beta is the same as the core other than the flurry.
Yes we do indeed MA, and we need answers that don't require a bunch of special rules, otherwise we just end up with yet more problems down the road. There are times I wonder why things are so clear to the people that play the game and yet not acknowledged by the writers.
Hey guys we know you do a great job, we love your product, its why we get so enthusiastic about stuff we problems with.
Flurry needs to be divorced from two weapon, ASAP. As pointed out, it has a lot of problems and ramifications then anyone thought.
Language on unarmed strike need to be polished. Something to the effect that even though they have suffer no offhand penalties and use their full strength EVEN when making an offhand attack. This eleminates the offhand issue. Reinstate the previous flurry to fix the associated problems, holes, exceptions, and special case rules.
Hell, even put in weapon proficiency that monks may a weapon in either hand and that they interchange weapons and unarmed strikes as they see fit. Make it clear that they can do that in a flurry as well, and state that don't gain extra attacks for extra weapons unless they two weapon fight and take all its rules in the process. Allow the flurry while using two weapons if the want to invest in the feats. Its simple, doesn't make the monk overshadow the ranger and it works no natter how you stack the classes.
Add a training feature if you feel the bab isn't enough. Hell if unarmed damage overshadows the weapons reduce the the unarmed die and give a static bonus to unarmed strike and their monk weapons.
Idk. DO SOMETHING....
So I decided to look at the beta release of Pathfinder, and I was a bit surprises to see that flurry was the 3.5 version. The change was done late in the game and wasn't thoroughly tested and which is why we inconsistent interpretations of the ability. Making it two weapon with a 1/1 bab was more less a way to up there hit without actually giving them the bab.
So what now? I say go back to the beta version and add monk warriors training that say they get a +1 hit and damage at 5th and every 4 after.
It simple and effective.
So I decided to take a look at the alpha and beta launches of the monk, the flurry was exactly the same as 3.5 both in language and bab progression.
The beta monk is just like it is in core, except for the flurry. So there you have it.
No wonder it such a mess now, they changed it pretty much last minute. Way to go. I am going to use the old way with a training feature so that they can hit.
Now its clear why they don't have a consistent idea on how it should work.
That's a poor argument for the monk, not every fighter has a shield as some two weapon or two hand fight. I just don't understand why said amulet can't state that it only improves unarmed attacks instead unarmed and natural attacks, and reduce the cost by that reasoning.
And in the case of magic fang, have it state unarmed attacks or one natural weapon. And state the reason for it is that you enchant the weapon and in the case of unarmed its the whole body because that is how the power in an unarmed attack is produced.
By considering them separate justifies the feats a little more and looks less like metagame hand waving for the sake of balance.
Odaude, its not that we as a collective don't agree on what should be done, its that we don't exactlyvknow where powers that be think they should be at. So wevhave suggested mild to moderate changes that we feel put the monk into a working class that either stays at it current place (mild change) or improves it to be competitive in its perceived function(moderate change).
Feedback from the designers would be nice, shouldn't this be a joint venture? Wasn't that what the playtesting was all about? Making a great game better?
I seriously hope they do NOT rule the flurry is actually two weapon fighting and they get the feats. That just kills the Kung Fu aspect.
Keep them separate. And fix the bab for crying out loud. It simply makes no sense that a monk has a lower chance to hit on a single attack then a multiple attack.
For the quick fix make flurry as its been used, does not work with two weapon and can use one or more weapons. And the have the monk have the same bab for a standard attack with the monk weapons be the same as the first attack of the flurry. Tip it off with requiring a proficiency feat to use temple sword so that there is more investment required in to work and therefore not an instant go to weapon choice.
A rewrite of the Core, with a fixed monk.
Don't really care for the complete series, if they redid them, a truly serious overhaul is need in my opinion, I'm not a big fan of prestige classes as most were uninspiring and poorly written to fill the marketing needs of the time. PF has shown that you don't need a 1001 prestige classes to have a fun unique class as archetype work nicely.
The environment book while interesting tend to be hit and miss, a single wilderness survival book covering both the mundane and fantastic would be interesting.
I think that I have to seriously disagree with monks FoB being two weapon fighting, and I don't want to see it that way. If I was involved on the playtest I would have ranted against it from day one.
Thematically and historically ( in d&d) the FoB was never about two weapon fighting but a rapid series of attacks. Two weapon fighting was a unique fighting style open to the ranger and once the proficiency options and feat options were available any class that wanted to invest in them. Before FoB, they just simply had more attacks, and could gain more through two weapons.
I think it was a poor decision to implement it the way its been done. I get they're unhappy, the class has been shot full of holes that were missed in the play test and consults with Monte Cook and other designers.I know I'd be irritated. The thing is, we care about this as much as they do, we understand the that things get missed. We want it fixed and have put forward many ideas on how to fix the holes and improve the design so that it fills its role properly with overdoing it. We have put many ideas that range from mild to moderate. It would be nice and I hope they do realize that its about love and not spite. I know I'd like to hear from then in this more than they have.
Hell, I'd like to know where their arbitrary numbers are for classes, because it really doesn't make sense that the fighter is flat out better than a monk in all things except stunning attack and unarmed damage. Every thing a fighter exceeds, and really every other class does. So what's the deal? Knowing where they should be at or expected would honestly help our feedback, though I really think the class needs a huge overhaul due to the unarmed damage, amount of attacks, etc.
Conan d20 had Reputation, which modified Intimidation and other social skills if your rep was known. This varied from a -5 to +5 depending on circumstances. I liked it. Something like that would be nice for PF
I think that for sake of clarity, Separate Charge and Mounted Charge into their own individual Full Actions. As it stands now there are discrepencies that lead to abuse/confusion as to what applies to which. So if this is done, you list in Charge abilities that they apply to Charge, Mounted abilities apply to Mounted Charge, and stuff that applies to both say applies to Charge and Mounted Charge Actions.
If that is done, it'll be clear to everyone and designers will have that much less to FAQ. We will then know definitively that Pounce applies to Charge, etc,.,.
3rd edition has always made feats and abilities linked to charge functionally different than mounted charge. That's why you have Spirited charge and lances function only from horseback. Feats that don't have mounted combat or state that you must be on horseback ala Lance, do not function from horseback.
It's always been that way even thought the language for them isn't a 100% precise.
What should have been done since day one is have Mounted Charge a separate Full Attack that all the same penalties and conditions as a charge. Then anything that is based off it just says mounted charge. But since the designers from day one thought that this was obvious from the begining and never thought someone would try to stack a clearly foot based ability with a mounted ability did not do that.
Since both the lance and spirited charge mention Mounted, either charging from horseback or requiring the mounted combat feat it's clear that is the intent. That intent is never applied or hinted at in pounce. Pounce doesn't apply.
I hope that Paizo learns from this and make Mounted Charge a separate Action. It'll clear things up and make it easier when adding new features.
One thing I thought about is why is the monks unarmed so high? In AD&D it made sense for a 20th level monk to have the 5 or 6 d4. The rounds were one minute and length and a single attack represented many blows. So a single hit was like 6 or more hits. In the 6 second round do we really need a damage that is twice that of a bastard sword?
I get the increase in damage, but it still should have some limits. I think it should improve, but overshadow their own weapons. I think improving this relationship would go a long way, that's where my thought on a lower damage die and have a training feature on top of it that improves the hit and damage of all monk weapons is a win win. It keeps the flavor, makes both options viable.
Then Brass knuckles don't need a nerf, and then fix AoMS. Just a thought.
I think a training bonus, and a lower damage die is a good way to go. If the monk got a hit and damage bonus to all monk gear, and the US so that both improve as the leveled you make it appealing to both styles.
So a lets say the unarmed damage improve a die step every 5 levels and ends at a d10. and the training feature stops at +4 at 17.
At level 17 the monk would be...
US:1d10+4 and Kama:1d6+4
So take it they are saying the damage is 1d3? Why? The monk just too powerful? What about anyone else who improves their unarmed damage? Like the raging brawler? Is there 1d6 too powerful too, or is this just to spite the monk?
This is one thing I just don't get.
Give the monk awesome Unarmed Damage, and do everything possible to make it unusable. Give the monk crappy weapons as an alternative. Really?
If unarmed is so powerful here's an idear. Reduce it's damage, and allow some love. Geez.
On top of that give every other class a way to improve their damage with their attack of choice. Seriously?
So a weapon that simply altered the monks attacks by special material or enhancement, that could be disarmed, taken, and suffer every other penalty associated with a weapon was TOO powerful??? Are you kidding? So because it makes AoMS less needed by the monk, they change the weapon? Did they forget you can't disarm AoMS, that it affects every limb, etc. On top of which to truly get the most out of Brass Knuckles you have to have a pair of them, so suffers all the associated penalties of weapon issues.
Lets not forget that it's easier to disarm a monk than a frontline fighter.
I guess it would over shadow the rest of the monk gear.
I think that when they revise PF, they should overhaul the monk. Give an increase to unarmed and monk weapons. Here's what I have in mind...
At level 1: US:1d4 Monk Weapons: Base damage
Add training bonus on top.
So at level 17 with training it would look like this...
US:1d10+4, Kama: 1d12+4
Or don't improve the weapons and just improve the unarmed at half the pace with the training feature so that it would like this at 17
US:1d10+4 and Kama:1d6+4
IDK, the monk just keeps getting hosed...
I take you have never been threatened by a lawyer. Intimidation is more than physical, far more. Lawsuits are often used as a form of Legal intimidation. Cops intimidate without using Strength or size, they use their legal standing and the law.
How convincing someone is is through the force of personality, what they can and will do, and have the means to back the said threat.
Does size matter? Not really. I doubt a 145lb UFC fighter would be intimidated by the majority of us gamers. Just sayin
I think that they should make unarmed strikes as a single weapon for the purposes of feats and spells, but a multiple weapon when used. Meaning that you can only have one Unarmed Strike statistic. What I mean by this is a single damage, type, enhancement, etc.
So regardless of what limb I use it's always the same. You have more than one implement, so can two-weapon fight with just unarmed or use as one of the two. If you some how increase or enhance your strike you enhance it for all of them. Its not a natural weapon so you can't use it as such, so retains the standard use as already written.
So if you get a +1 to hit and damage, you get for all the unarmed strikes. Not a single fist. No flaming right fist, cold left fist, electric headbutt, etc... It's just too much. Make a single weapon of the body. It's simple and works. Why does the worst weapon already need to suck that much more.
Lets look at the history of the 3e monk.
In 3.0 the monk had a funky bab. It was 3/4 like always, but iterative attack were -3 instead -5, and flurry was an extra attack with a penalty of -2. The monk could use any order of attacks, unless they fought with two-weapons. If they two weapon fought, they had to follow the rules for it, even when flurry attacking. So the level 20 monk had this set up:
Full attack: +15/12/9/6/3
This was problematic though when multiclassing and the like. How do the differing BAB's mix, etc.
So enter 3.5, The monk loses the odd BAB structure for a normal one, flurry gains two extra attack and loses the penalty over time. The class may choose to add two weapon fighting still.
Full attack: +15/10/5
These were fine except the monk had a poor hit percentage in relation to other classes.
So enter the PF monk. Its full of holes and problems. It doesn't have the two weapon feats, so multiclassing is overlapping. Its bab doesn't sinc between a full attack and a standard attack. different interpritations, and so on, and so on.
The class was vastly improved until you get to FoB, and then it goes to crap.
If they had kept the 3.5 flurry, added monastic training at level 5 and improve it every 4 monk levels just like the fighters weapon training you solve ever issue. The monk is encouraged to stay in class, with monk weapons, has more versatility, opens up options, removes MC penalties, cleans up most issues, and so on.
Metamorphosis was the psionic polymorph, polymorph was broken period. PF fixed polymorph so why can't metamorphosis?
I mean really, the attitude that psionics is broke so ditch it is a terrible attitude. Its just like saying that magic is broken because they outclass non casters. Wait they did, its called 4e.
PF has done many repairs to imbalances, and dreamscarred has done fine work though I have picked up the unleashed yet as I am just getting into PF.
Umm, no. Its specifically states making unarmed attacks, nothing about combining with weapon attacks. Nothing states anywhere that you can't two weapon fight with two fists. You have to follow the rules laid out, declaring one as offhand.
This is one of the reasons flurry was not two weapon fighting in3.5.
A ranger can use two fists for his two weapons. There is not a single place any where that says otherwise. Its just not optimal. This is one of the very reasons why I prefer the old FOB, except for the low BAB.
Again this why I think using the old FOB, and giving monk a training feature for their weapons and unarmed is much better. It gives them a decent hit ratio, improves the damage of monk weapons a little, and retains the flavor. And its a simple fix. You don't need to add special case rules, multiclassing doesn't have overlapping suboptimal issues, etc. On top of that, standard attacks with their "trained" weapons are on par, encouraging movement making the monk an effective skirmishers again. It puts the monk where it should be, an effective light warrior that doesn't outshine or or lag behind the rest of the classes.
Fix the monk. Flurry of blows was never a form of two weapon fighting in 3.5. Monks are supposed to be the best unarmed and maneuver combatant, but the fighter still surpasses them. The new ruling on fob has caused further issues.
There are a ton of threads about it, this one thing I'd like worked on and improved.
I'd like their standard attack with monk weapons and unarmed be the same as their first attack with fob on higher levels. This was never a difference in the 3.5, it makes a lot of feats a dead end with a monk that aren't so with the rest of the classes, fixing that opens up possibilities and doesn't overshadow any other class.
As to planar binding, I don't see anything wrong with it, maybe a longer casting time is appropriate but its not as written. Planar ally is more easily used though I don't see it as a problem either.
One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is weapon mastery rules like they had in basic, where the damage and abilities improved by more than weapon specialization, and was open to all classes.
If possible, don't know if it would violate the OGL, but I think have a set save progression and a simple non stacking bonus for the class would be great, like they did in saga and 4e. This keeps the multiclassing reasonable.
Pretty happy otherwise.
You can two weapon fight with unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes are a light weapons, may be used as an offhand weapon or primary. Nothing prevents a non monk from using both fists in two weapon fighting. If a ranger or other combatant wants to box in a bar room brawl they can.
To rule otherwise just creates more problems than fixes. Flurry of blows was always meant bro depict the rapid attacks of Kung Fu fighting. It should be a separate thing from two weapon fighting. It was its own thing prior to PF, it just had a low hit ratio due to it bab.
PF made flurry convoluted and problematic. I get the goal of increasing the hit ratio, bit it was poorly implemented.
In my opinion, making FoB a form of two weapon removes flavor from the monk. I want them to be like chin li, ryu, crouching tiger, etc. I don't want them to be a slightly more exotic two weapon fighter. That is just lame, lame, lame.
If they are just two weapon fighting, then give them the stupid feats with a restriction the ranger and be done with it. I don't like that idea as its LAME, but whatever.
Why is so bad to have a versatile, flavorful, and workable monk? Why can't they have the same bab on there standard attack? Why is it that the most mobile, class has their primary ability make them stand still. So many things just so wrong with it it just ticks me off.
No I don't think essentials was a bigger change, they did a pretty decent job of it. It was a change though, and they stopped printing there pre-e books. The issues are minor in the great scheme of things but it changed how classes and themes were built from that point on.
I do not consider 3.0,3.5, or PF separate editions, more like revisions. It still has the same framework, etc. Much like ad&d, 2nd, and revised are the same game to me. Yes I get there are differences, but the framework, is recognizably the same.
I guess I look at them like an evolutionary tree. D&d basic the trunk, and ad&d, 3.x and 4e separate limbs and the branch's are the updates, revisions and editions in between. Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from, I'm using my phone for these posts so I lose track of some of the discussion at times.
That's part of the whole problem with flurry. Is flurry a rapid series of attacks as described or using more than one weapon. If its more than one weapon, just give them the flippin feats like the ranger gets. If its not, and as I believe a rapid series of attacks that is limited to a select group of weapons, then it should stack.
Here's why. A monk ranger. Sucks with if its two weapon, since its pure overlap. A monk ranger with an even split for levels would only gain one extra attack over a a pure ranger in 3.5 if that ranger monk invested in the feat greater two weapon combat etc. And would lose some bab in the process. It was balanced, and didn't have MC issues.
What sucked about 3.5 was the hit ratio of a monk, which is why the change in pf, a full bab was to much, so tack on two weapon rules to tone it down and hopefully nit have MC issues. Unfortunately its more problematic and as I and others have said, a weapon training feature is a superior way to balance and improve the monk while retaining its unique flavor and keep mc a viable option without overdoing it.
I find it kind of humorous with the talk of dismemberment. The Inquisition was notorious for heinous acts against there prisoners, though usually after they got to where they would torture them.
And frankly, just cause the villain says he'll kill the children doesn't mean he will. Think about it, they are his shield while they are alive. To kill all the children removes the very thing protecting him. So while he might demand and hope you surrender, its a stalemate. So roleplaying is what was needed. Not fragging the kids.
I think we all agree on that.
Yes it is heartbreak. The few thing explicitely unique to the monk are slowly being ruined. Flurry was one, unarmed strike is the other. And the two others not replicated in some fashion by another class.
On top of the fact that they are getting there hands and feet tied, this just makes for odd holes and problems with the rules.
For instance how does the new rule and by new I mean PF rule of flurry interact when multiclassing. I mean do they have the feats or not? The ranger does except when in medium/heavy armor/load. How does flurry interact with other martial classes. In 3.5 it was a rapid attack, and if you really wanted you could pick up two weapon fighting on top of it but then you had to choose what was the off hand weapon. So in the PF we have a bunch of little/big issues with the toughest class to be effective with.
It sad, it has so much flavor, and yet so many problems.
MA, that's always been a mixed bag per hard reading of the rules. With the feat and monk unarmed its written that it one thing. Per the spell magic fang etc its per fist/foot etc. Which was setup to keep the druids and other beasts in line.
I think it would be best if the spell simply stated one natural attack, then clarify a claw/bite/tail/etc. And then state that unarmed attacks are one natural attack regardless of what limb is used as its described in the feat/ability.
Just my thoughts, and that's looking at my 3.5 players guide.
So before we get into this too far, I'm not going to argue about what edition is best or how much change does have to be to be considered a different game.
You missed my point about essentials. It is different, the classes do not follow the 4e framework that was established within the players handbook, and yes while it did maintian the same rules with an update. The changes to 3.5 were a bit more heavy, but still able to use much of the books, though monster manuals were largely out. And you still can use 3.5 for pathfinder, though some things have to adjust.
For the change to 4e it was an entirely different game. And while I am not disagreeing that by the time 4e was out 3 was out of print. Being out of print does not matter much unless you still want to say essentials is the same as pre essentials. If that's the case why end your print run of all pre-e stuff. There is about as much change in the typeset that 3.5 had if don't have the errata. Its the rules and design going forward from this point on. The same could be said about 3.0 to 3.5 etc
So my point is that 4e is the shortest lived version, not talking about updates etc. The people who carried on with pathfinder are 3e players, which is the basis of my point. The company (Hasbro) is on their way making their third version of d&d in just over a decade. I have a feeling that they will have a similar response that 4e had. Some will not make the change, as they feel its the best darned thing since the invention of beer and don't even mention anything good about that old grognard predecessor. Just saying.
The only thing I see going for 5e is the semi open playtest. And maybe hiring Monte Cooke, as they want the 3e holdouts (largest group of holdouts) and he was one of the main designers of 3e era.