Maxximilius wrote:

- Can you simply switch your weapon to off-hand as a free action and do your off-hands attacks with it ?

Presumably this would be prohibited for the same reason you don't see TWF fighters running around with a single shortsword.

Because they haven't thought of it, yet?

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.

Awesomesauce. Thanks very much for looking into the issue in depth.

This to me rings somewhat similar to the magic item creation issue as well as the animal companion intelligence thing. All of these have resulted in great gnashing of teeth and geek fury. I'm detailing the process that seems to have happened to me, as an outside observer, to help Jason and the rest of the development staff understand how these things come up for the purpose of seeing how to fix them, head them off in the future, and maybe proactively identify other items like this that are lurking out there. I have no delusions that this is the last time.

In these examples, a change was made to the rules. Change a sentence here and there, and try to keep the majority of the existing text the same for consistency. But, by patching the SRD rather than rewrite it from scratch, the new elements don't fit as tightly as they should. This is a systemic problem that stems out of how the SRD was revised to create PF. The other area that this pops up, possibly due to the IP issues associated with the difference between the SRD and published D&D 3.5, is where 3.5 included clarifying text and/or errata that didn't make it down the evolutionary tree into PF.

To be sure I'm not misunderstood, I'm not saying that the job in revising the rules was shoddy. The job was a big one and the fact that so many are playing indicates that people, in general, are quite happy with it. Rather, there was a systemic gap in terms of how the revision took place that has given rise to problems in a manner that makes some sense when viewed in hindsight. And, if looking at the places where changes were made, it can be used with foresight to predict what areas could be reviewed.

We have two threads that the community assembled on the things about PF that are different than 3.5, and the elements of PF that are crying out for clarification, that are decent starting points for what else could be reviewed to ferret out these lurking problems. There are links to both of those threads in my profile. To the forum denizens who spend hours and hours here and are looking for a project to possibly help out the community and the developers, consider working through those items keeping the systemic source of how these problems originated in mind, and I suspect others will be identified.

To the development team: please keep up the hard work and the tremendously successful communication open. Repeatedly, we see people identify it as an element that sets Paizo apart and above other game design teams. We value it highly.

Flurry of blows action here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p0g80fUf4Y&feature=related

note that the same foot is used vs. multiple attackers but this requires being flanked. Against a single target you'd have to be spinning in a really tight circle for that footwork.

if your talking fists then just look at a boxer unloading on someone. they can hit you with the same fist many times yes, but if they make like you are a punching bag, they hit you many MORE times.

so based on this I'd say for the most part yes, flurry does allow the same weapon to be used against a single target, but against flanking targets, it is more likely.

also remember that so far as monks go there is no "off hand."

And yes, if my remarks seemed too caustic, I apologize profusely. I seem to be on edge in my writing today.

MA

All I can say is it would have been nice for this to have been pointed out in any of the numerous threads in the rules forum about monks and flurry of blows.

I mean it's not like this is the first time this subject has come up or been handled with long (LONG!) threads on the subject. To date every single one of those threads had come done in favor of the single weapon flurry. Never had anyone from the design staff intervened in any of those threads.

This ruling honestly makes absolutely no sense to me, this isn't to say that the developers are 'wrong' only that this isn't some 'misinterpretation by a few people' -- this is something that is so grounded in both everything that has been presented for the monk to date by Paizo and by numberous threads on monks and flurry of blows (such as monks using two handed weapons) it seems rather disingenuous to me for anyone to suggest this is somehow people just geek-raging over something they 'clearly' had wrong.

you know what...

for the first time ever i have to say that i would say screw what a developer says and play it the way it should be played.

i hope this dosent came back to haunt me, but it will always be RAI not RAW for this ONE instance :P

you know what...

for the first time ever i have to say that i would say screw what a developer says and play it the way it should be played.

i hope this dosent came back to haunt me, but it will always be RAI not RAW for this ONE instance :P

I do this all the time, it's your game, run it the way you want. Most likely the developers would be the first to suggest exactly that.

The idea that people do otherwise is a little weird to me.

This nerfs the shuriken quite well. Even though it is a monk weapon, the monk is effectively unable to flurry with it. The description of the 8th level monk (HERE) says that Sajan uses FoB only in melee.
In my mind, the only real advantage of shuriken over the light crossbow was the monk's ability to get lots of them in the air.

EDIT On the plus side, the description certainly seems to imply that his Amulet of Mighty Fists enhances all of his unarmed strikes.

This nerfs the shuriken quite well. Even though it is a monk weapon, the monk is effectively unable to flurry with it. The description of the 8th level monk (HERE) says that Sajan uses FoB only in melee.

In my mind, the only real advantage of shuriken over the light crossbow was the monk's ability to get lots of them in the air.

Kind of assumed monks flurried shuriken with both hands. Nothing preventing it.

Brother Sapo wrote:

This nerfs the shuriken quite well. Even though it is a monk weapon, the monk is effectively unable to flurry with it. The description of the 8th level monk (HERE) says that Sajan uses FoB only in melee.

In my mind, the only real advantage of shuriken over the light crossbow was the monk's ability to get lots of them in the air.

Kind of assumed monks flurried shuriken with both hands. Nothing preventing it.

as did i. free draw as ammo, no offhand attack. monks by their very nature train to be ambidextrous as to have no weak side or "off-hand"

Thanks Jason for the clarifications. The issues raised here are :

- How does it work for reach weapons if your unarmed attacks cannot reach ?
- How do the zen archer work in regards of the flurry ?
- Can you simply switch your weapon to off-hand as a free action and do your off-hands attacks with it ?
- Considering how the monk's wording reflects the intended design, is your off-hand treated as free for the purposes of the magus's spell combat, whose wording states that "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast" ?

Good list and I would add these considerations as well:

- How does the Sohei operate when flurrying with a ranged or reach weapon?

- Same question for the Crusader's Flurry feat, when using a ranged or reach weapon.

Yes. A monk can draw shuriken as a free action, and each shuriken counts as a different weapon; even though they are ammunition.

Master Arminas

I say get a stopwatch and hit the start button. Now punch with a single hand as fast as you can for 6 seconds (full round). max FoB attacks for a level 20 is what, 7 attacks? I'd bet anything you punched more than 7 times in 6 seconds with one hand.

Or take flip strikes from Philipino Arnis stick fighting. back to back strikes to opposite sides of the body. same hand, same weapon, a fraction of a second apart.

I'll defer to my earlier comment that people can make the case for whatever they want, be it PFS, RAW/RAI or whatever. The GM makes the final call for our games no matter what. Play what makes you happy without breaking the game.

Play = fun. Otherwise you are doing it wrong, good sirs.

- Same question for the Crusader's Flurry feat, when using a ranged or reach weapon.

Prerequisites: Channel energy class feature, flurry of blows class feature, Weapon Focus with your deity’s favored melee weapon.

Benefit: You can use your deity’s favored weapon as if it were a monk weapon.

0gre wrote:

Brother Sapo wrote:

This nerfs the shuriken quite well. Even though it is a monk weapon, the monk is effectively unable to flurry with it. The description of the 8th level monk (HERE) says that Sajan uses FoB only in melee.

In my mind, the only real advantage of shuriken over the light crossbow was the monk's ability to get lots of them in the air.

Kind of assumed monks flurried shuriken with both hands. Nothing preventing it.

as did i. free draw as ammo, no offhand attack. monks by their very nature train to be ambidextrous as to have no weak side or "off-hand"

But I do have to wonder why they wrote the iconic description without shuriken FoB.

I say get a stopwatch and hit the start button. Now punch with a single hand as fast as you can for 6 seconds (full round). max FoB attacks for a level 20 is what, 7 attacks? I'd bet anything you punched more than 7 times in 6 seconds with one hand.

i jus tied this wif headbus again wall and manjed to do lots,

feeleng veri sleepi now tho

I believe that a reach weapon still counts as a melee weapon. So that part of the question is still valid.

Nezthalak wrote:

0gre wrote:

Brother Sapo wrote:

This nerfs the shuriken quite well. Even though it is a monk weapon, the monk is effectively unable to flurry with it. The description of the 8th level monk (HERE) says that Sajan uses FoB only in melee.

In my mind, the only real advantage of shuriken over the light crossbow was the monk's ability to get lots of them in the air.

Kind of assumed monks flurried shuriken with both hands. Nothing preventing it.

as did i. free draw as ammo, no offhand attack. monks by their very nature train to be ambidextrous as to have no weak side or "off-hand"

But I do have to wonder why they wrote the iconic description without shuriken FoB.

10 ft range increment I'd imagine. If you are close enough to shuriken FoB, you are close enough to 5 foot step and melee FoB. Shuriken are near useless if you have to take the range increment penalty on top of deadly aim penalty (since dex builds are tough for monks to pull off and the range monk has his own archetype and you'd have to burn several feat slots to make a situational ability a practical one.

Yes, reach weapons are melee. They just get affect by soft cover if you don't position yourself appropriately.(of course, you'd get the cover from that target as well)

I say get a stopwatch and hit the start button. Now punch with a single hand as fast as you can for 6 seconds (full round). max FoB attacks for a level 20 is what, 7 attacks? I'd bet anything you punched more than 7 times in 6 seconds with one hand.

only caution I'd put there is that you might want to try this with FULL POWER punches instead of rapid ones. I can do a butt load of punches (like 15) but they have very little power, FULL power I can get off maybe 5. If I really use body mechanics and such it slows down further. So maybe I'm illustrating power attack with that?

And thanks for the post, Jason.

I'm glad it's being looked at, and hopefully reconsidered. I share Davick's sentiment though:

But I'm glad it's being looked into and not pushed under the rug like Brass Knuckles.

I think monk fans are understandably annoyed considering the rollercoaster they've been on the past couple of years. Personally, the frustration over the drawn out brass knuckles thing, post-errata Cockatrice Strike still being practically unusable, the VoP, the monk reevaluation we haven't heard any updates on if it happened or not, evil qinggong powers but no good ones, and MIA errata for Blood Crow Strike haven't made for a pleasant time for someone trying to make the monk he really wants.

And then this comes along, when it could have been mentioned in any number of threads where most of us were clearly working off the one-weapon-flurry paradigm.

Monk fans need to catch any break they can.

The problem is it's very difficult to dual-wield reach weapons, and that's apparently the only way to flurry with them.

This nerfs the shuriken quite well. Even though it is a monk weapon, the monk is effectively unable to flurry with it. The description of the 8th level monk (HERE) says that Sajan uses FoB only in melee.

In my mind, the only real advantage of shuriken over the light crossbow was the monk's ability to get lots of them in the air.

EDIT On the plus side, the description certainly seems to imply that his Amulet of Mighty Fists enhances all of his unarmed strikes.

Shuriken, in addition to being prooooobably unaffected by the clarification, are much better than a crossbow shot anyway, because they're drawn like ammo and the monk adds their full strength modifier to each toss.

Monk fans need to catch any break they can.

See to do that you'll need to take deflect arrows and snatch arrows.

of course then they'll tell us that breaks are melee only but still we've got a few months until then -- afterward will come the news that stunning fist DC is set by racial hit dice only.

Yeah, yeah harsh and probably unnecessary -- just like this suggested nerf of the monk

Nezthalak wrote:

I say get a stopwatch and hit the start button. Now punch with a single hand as fast as you can for 6 seconds (full round). max FoB attacks for a level 20 is what, 7 attacks? I'd bet anything you punched more than 7 times in 6 seconds with one hand.

only caution I'd put there is that you might want to try this with FULL POWER punches instead of rapid ones. I can do a butt load of punches (like 15) but they have very little power, FULL power I can get off maybe 5. If I really use body mechanics and such it slows down further. So maybe I'm illustrating power attack with that?

IMHO, power attack would be like if they were all reverse punches, or backleg kicks. stronger for sure (+damage), but the openings aren't always there (-attack). 7 jabs from Mike Tyson (or a fighter of significant power you want to substitute) would be plenty enough to rattle someones brains about. sure he's gonna throw a cross in there, but a few set up jabs IN SEQUENCE is going to create that opening.

trying to apply logic or real world mechanics into a fantasy RPG is just asking for trouble and fuel debates that end without satisfactory resolution: e.g. A katana would very rarely be wielding one handed because of the mechanics of how the blade works, but thats how the RAW states it is used.

The problem with monks is the movies, we want our monks to be able to do the wuxia awesomeness from the movies, flurrying with a longspear, using that taichi blade to do multiple slices.

Perhaps another feat to allow us to continue to do that, a monk only feat...

The problem with monks is the movies, we want our monks to be able to do the wuxia awesomeness from the movies, flurrying with a longspear, using that taichi blade to do multiple slices.

Perhaps another feat to allow us to continue to do that, a monk only feat...

Crusader flurry is halfway there. Given the 'Lawful' limitation of most monks and their archs, there deity list is super limited. free martial weapon proficiency for a 1 level dip of cleric, + use magic device. still not a great trade i think.

Crusader flurry is halfway there. Given the 'Lawful' limitation of most monks and their archs, there deity list is super limited. free martial weapon proficiency for a 1 level dip of cleric, + use magic device. still not a great trade i think.

Ex monks don't lose any of their class features. The prereq on Crusader's is only FoB, this should open up the whole pantheon.

Oh yeah, well aware of the Crusader's Flurry, though there should just be a feat which allows a monk to have a specialized weapon to flurry with. In addition there should be a monk feat to allow shields to be used without losing their normal abilities, as Shaolin monks train with shield and sword.

flurry of shield bash :)

Heck, dual wield Lionhead Shields, and animate a 3rd. super shield bash + bite combo.

Even with Crusader's there's apparently no way to flurry with a single blade.

Play what makes you happy without breaking the game.

Play = fun. Otherwise you are doing it wrong, good sirs.

until you play PFS and are obligated to go off RAW.

I'm not understanding how this ruling affects shurikens. Could someone explain this to me?

Nezthalak wrote:

Play what makes you happy without breaking the game.

Play = fun. Otherwise you are doing it wrong, good sirs.

until you play PFS and are obligated to go off RAW.

true. I don't play PFS so that is not a concern for me, but I can see where a largescale project like PFS would need very accurate and specific guidelines, making the RAW super important. As for the home game we run, its not so big of a deal.

I'm fully confident in the devs to arrive at a fair solution. I've been doing some editing of the text of unarmed strike and FoB from the core and have some suggested tweaks that fix the misconstruing. I believe the devs were rushed in crafting the wording of it and once its in print its too late.

So it seems we have two basic issues here:

1. The PF Monk FOB attack sequence has been largely misinterpreted by both customers and developers.

2. The Zen Archer was built using a misinterpretation of the Pathfinder Monk FOB.

Number 1 we have a solution for right in this thread. It's odd, but does work when you apply the clarifications from the devs in this thread. Mistakes were made in the past in published product but that's water under the bridge now. An FAQ post can take care of this and the devs will just have to be more careful in the future.

Number 2 is the real fly in the ointment here. Clearly, the Zen Archer no longer functions when the clarifications to FOB are applied. Clearly the Zen Archer was built using the common misinterpretation of FOB. With this in mind, the Zen Archer should just be left as is, a dead alternate class. I sincerely hope we don't end up with a further warping of the FOB rules just to try and fix the Zen Archer. The Zen Archer is an alternate class feature published in an alternate rule book. Unfortunate, yes, but the core game should not be mangled to support an erroneous alternate option.

The way PF FOB works is clear with the errata provided in this thread so now just make sure everyone is on the same page when writing published material using it. Leave the Zen Archer the way it is and move on.

My problem with the clarification is it seems to say (to me) that as long as it doesn't make a difference the attack routine can go however you want but if there is an option that would result in you doing worse then you have to take it.

I read it as, "Yeah if you have two +2 temple swords you can attack with just one of them since it doesn't matter. But if you have a +2 temple sword and unarmed strikes you have to switch up with the temple sword and unarmed strike. However if all you have is an unarmed strike with an amulet of the mighty fist it can all be the same unarmed strike, as it doesn't matter -- but if you are using greater magic fang then you have to split it up."

This is way too metagamey and gamist for me.

I'm not understanding how this ruling affects shurikens. Could someone explain this to me?

It doesn't.

The issue as I see it has always been that the unarmed monk is at an attack disadvantage compared to other classes because they can't add attack bonuses to their "weapons" without using a slot to acquire an item like amulet of mighty fists.

Many people got enchanted monk weapons presuming that a single weapon could flurry in the same way a single limb could flurry.

Apparently this wasn't the intent.

If flurry is intended as functionally equivalent to TWF, there needs to be something that doesn't take an amulet slot that allows the monk to be able to hit things as well as other classes with TWF.

When a ranger has +3 weapons and a monk has fists with no addition to attack, they are at a major disadvantage that more or less forces them to use weapons in order to hit things which is completely counter to one of the main benefits of the class, increased unarmed damage.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a full enchantment, with a bonus to attack and to damage. The monk gets bonuses to damage as it goes up in level from unarmed as is. But we do need some way for the attack bonus to increase without taking up an amulet slot that is needed by a class that can't wear armor.

So it seems we have two basic issues here:

1. The PF Monk FOB attack sequence has been largely misinterpreted by both customers and developers.

2. The Zen Archer was built using a misinterpretation of the Pathfinder Monk FOB.

Number 1 we have a solution for right in this thread. It's odd, but does work when you apply the clarifications from the devs in this thread. Mistakes were made in the past in published product but that's water under the bridge now. An FAQ post can take care of this and the devs will just have to be more careful in the future.

Number 2 is the real fly in the ointment here. Clearly, the Zen Archer no longer functions when the clarifications to FOB are applied. Clearly the Zen Archer was built using the common misinterpretation of FOB. With this in mind, the Zen Archer should just be left as is, a dead alternate class. I sincerely hope we don't end up with a further warping of the FOB rules just to try and fix the Zen Archer. The Zen Archer is an alternate class feature published in an alternate rule book. Unfortunate, yes, but the core game should not be mangled to support an erroneous alternate option.

The way PF FOB works is clear with the errata provided in this thread so now just make sure everyone is on the same page when writing published material using it. Leave the Zen Archer the way it is and move on.

I don't think the Zen Archer need be a dead archetype. It's just flurry of blows needs to be replaced in that build with a separate ability which does what the designers intended flurry of blows to do for the Zen Archer.

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.

Jason, was the follow interpretation intended or am I seeing things were they're not?

A monk can use 2 kama's and flurry with them. Assuming one creates (houserule I think) an equivalent for brass knuckles for their feet which are counted as unarmed strike, right? (the same works for plain unarmed attack though it looks less interesting).

Does this mean that your "You can substitute any of these attacks with an unarmed strike if you choose, up to all of them" allows this monk to, forinstance, make 2 attacks at highest base attack with the kama's and then switch to a combination of unarmed attack (the brass knuckle feet things included) for the rest of the attack sequence?

P.S. If flurry of blows was meant do be so closely related to two weapon fighting, wouldn't it be interesting to create archetypes that utilise the two weapon fighting feats/abilities that came after the core rules.
A monk gaining Doublestrike/Equal Opportunity (Two-Weapon Warrior fighter archetype) could be interesting to make the monk less depending on full attacks and combat manoeuvres.

Mabven the OP healer wrote:

I'm not understanding how this ruling affects shurikens. Could someone explain this to me?

It doesn't.

The issue as I see it has always been that the unarmed monk is at an attack disadvantage compared to other classes because they can't add attack bonuses to their "weapons" without using a slot to acquire an item like amulet of mighty fists.

Many people got enchanted monk weapons presuming that a single weapon could flurry in the same way a single limb could flurry.

Apparently this wasn't the intent.

If flurry is intended as functionally equivalent to TWF, there needs to be something that doesn't take an amulet slot that allows the monk to be able to hit things as well as other classes with TWF.

When a ranger has +3 weapons and a monk has fists with no addition to attack, they are at a major disadvantage that more or less forces them to use weapons in order to hit things which is completely counter to one of the main benefits of the class, increased unarmed damage.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a full enchantment, with a bonus to attack and to damage. The monk gets bonuses to damage as it goes up in level from unarmed as is. But we do need some way for the attack bonus to increase without taking up an amulet slot that is needed by a class that can't wear armor.

Ok, I didn't think it would affect shurikens, but there were some posts that stated it did somehow, but did not explain their reasoning.

I don't really see how this is super unfair to the monk. If he wants to use manufactured weapons which qualify for flurry, he needs to get two if he wants every attack to have that weapon's bonus, just like any character with twf. I also don't see the amulet of mighty fists being an unfair allocation of a wondrous item slot. What you get out if it is basically equivalent to any other character having two weapons identically enchanted, and at a comparable price (perhaps a few hundred gold more expensive, if you are comparing to simple weapons). I think of it more in the vein of, the monk can have three different options for weapon types, for example, a shocking weapon, a flaming weapon, and an amulet of mighty fists with the frost enchantment, and can pick and choose between the three for their full attack, and can even make every attack with frost if they choose. This is a level of flexibility that other characters are most likely not taking advantage of, because of the feat investment, and because of the very low damage die of unarmed strikes for non-monk characters.

Additionally, a monk loses all penalties related to TWF by 5th level, and from that point on, the monk flurries at the same attack bonus as a full-base-attack class with two-weapon fighting. I am just not seeing the disadvantage.

I honestly think it is unfair for the monk -- he has a series of very strict rules he must follow or he loses assess to this ability.

His weapons suck, he can't wear armor, he must be lawful, he can't use a shield and he has medium BAB. On top of that he doesn't even really get the feats (which means he can't qualify for other specific feats that would help him with his two weapon fighting) -- all in all it seems so unnecessary.

I know that the tables I play at won't be using the interpretation that is in this thread. It creates an unneeded hindrance on a class that was just starting to really look great again.

It would be like if they went back to the bard and said, "Hey the bardic performance is supposed to block his use of magic and everything (including the bonuses from bardic spells) are all supposed to be morale bonuses and non-stacking. Plus you have to actually perform to use versatile performance."

Ok, I didn't think it would affect shurikens, but there were some posts that stated it did somehow, but did not explain their reasoning.

I don't really see how this is super unfair to the monk. If he wants to use manufactured weapons which qualify for flurry, he needs to get two if he wants every attack to have that weapon's bonus, just like any character with twf. I also don't see the amulet of mighty fists being an unfair allocation of a wondrous item slot.

It is the fact that it costs a slot.

You are correct that if I want to attack with manufactured weapons, making me get two like everyone else makes sense.

But if I want to be the classic unarmed monk, I have to give up an amulet slot to get the same effect everyone else gets on a weapon without losing an amulet slot. If I don't my attack is always going to be between 1 and 5 lower than a TWF class, which is what my flurry is based off of.

And monks need that amulet slot more than most since they can't wear armor.

Wow.

This could cripple a lot of monk builds that depend on weapons. I think my sansetsukon-wielding PFS monk will be rendered unplayable if this becomes PFS law.

I must also say that it is vastly inconsistent with how the Zen Archer archetype works, and renders the Weapon Adept archetype severely limited at its intended role.

I guess I really never had anything to get disappointed about, because I have always assumed this interpretation. I really don't see this suddenly making the monk a non-viable class. Maybe that's just me.

Mabven the OP healer wrote:

Ok, I didn't think it would affect shurikens, but there were some posts that stated it did somehow, but did not explain their reasoning.

I don't really see how this is super unfair to the monk. If he wants to use manufactured weapons which qualify for flurry, he needs to get two if he wants every attack to have that weapon's bonus, just like any character with twf. I also don't see the amulet of mighty fists being an unfair allocation of a wondrous item slot.

It is the fact that it costs a slot.

You are correct that if I want to attack with manufactured weapons, making me get two like everyone else makes sense.

But if I want to be the classic unarmed monk, I have to give up an amulet slot to get the same effect everyone else gets on a weapon without losing an amulet slot. If I don't my attack is always going to be between 1 and 5 lower than a TWF class, which is what my flurry is based off of.

And monks need that amulet slot more than most since they can't wear armor.

It makes the monk between 1-5 points lower than a full base-attack progression class with twf. It makes it between 2 greater and 2 fewer than a 3/4 base-attack progression class with twf with at least a +1 weapon. Yes, if they choose an amulet of natural armor, they lose natural armor bonus from a core item, but they can wear bracers of armor, up to +8, which would be completely ineffective for any other martial class in most cases. Kind of a lot better than an amulet of natural armor +5. And if you have a druid, ranger or summoner in the party, you are really not going to miss that amulet at all. You can also use potions.

I guess I really never had anything to get disappointed about, because I have always assumed this interpretation. I really don't see this suddenly making the monk a non-viable class. Maybe that's just me.

It isn't that it isn't viable, it's just that it makes it lag behind classes if they can't hit things without losing one of their main benefits, the unarmed damage bonus.

A monk is going to likely have lower strength than a Ranger or Martial Fighter due to needing to put points in Wisdom, so they start off with a lower attack bonus. When that same fighter or ranger gets a +1 weapon, the monk falls more behind unless they get a +1 monk weapon, which will have lower average damage than most martial weapons, and will again negate the advantage of unarmed damage.

It's a catch 22, if I want the unarmed damage I have to get an amulet that has a +5 enhancement cap (vs +10 for weapons) and lose the opportunity to receive another benefit from that amulet slot relative to the ranger or fighter who can get an amulet and still have the full bonus.

Is the monk still viable. Yes. Is it at a disadvantage relative to other "TWF" classes? Yes when you realize the only weapons they can TWF with are suboptimal relative to martial weapons (and generally rare in modules and AP's) or severely behind with regards to attack bonus since even with an AOMF they only have half the maximum enchantment cap.

And on top of that, the AOMF takes a slot while a weapon doesn't.

The amulet uses a slot. Weapons use a free hand. Both are valuable for different reasons. You can carry two fists full of beer and still use IUS, tough to do with a sword. Monks can also just flurry with two monk weapons, same as a fighter. Or... they can flurry with one weapon, while holding a beer, I'd love to see a two weapon fighter do that!

Actually there are currently several builds that can end up better off without actual armor (using the bracers instead).

To figure the under/over point just take the best armor they can wear and add the Dexterity limit for the armor to that the total AC from the armor itself. When your Dex modifier +8 is better than that number you switch to the bracers.

Also Bracers are a crap deal in general compared to actual armor consider a chain shirt provides a +4 armor bonus for 200 gp which would cost 16,000 gp for the bracers. Even the +1 bonus that padded armor can get you is on an order of 100 times cheaper than what a +1 bracer of armor would cost.

The amulet uses a slot. Weapons use a free hand. Both are valuable for different reasons. You can carry two fists full of beer and still use IUS, tough to do with a sword. Monks can also just flurry with two monk weapons, same as a fighter. Or... they can flurry with one weapon, while holding a beer, I'd love to see a two weapon fighter do that!

Armor spikes, boot blades, and the fact the fighter can also take the improved unarmed strike feat all kind of put huge divots into your position.

The fighter can manage the same thing without having to give up armor, alignment, and better weapon choices to boot.