Yes, they do seem to change their minds a lot. Didn't Erik Mona play a monk once? How did that go?
Master Arminas
|
Actually, I prefer the argument that the changes are unnecessary and do not account for how much they weaken further a class that already has problems being combat-effective.
I'm beginning to think they haven't looked at this yet, or they just are not going to actually explain.
Or they are going to "fix" this problem via magic hand wraps, which is how all of this got started in the first place. Unless a monk is tied up, and then he can't use his arms and hands. And then people complain about that.
Or they are going to "fix" this problem via magic hand wraps, which is how all of this got started in the first place. Unless a monk is tied up, and then he can't use his arms and hands. And then people complain about that.
I think the two issues are separate and distinct, myself. Some kind of enhancement option is needed for the monks unarmed strike, though, that isn't the AoMF. Either a cheaper item, or a natural enhancement.
Then the flurry-of-blows needs addressing, because everything has been done the way the devs don't do it, and really, does it need a hit with the nerf-bat?
does it need a hit with the nerf-bat?
Since it's a Monk ability, and based off Paizo's nerf-bat usage. Yes, yes it does. Monk's can't have nice things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
does it need a hit with the nerf-bat?Since it's a Monk ability, and based off Paizo's nerf-bat usage. Yes, yes it does. Monk's can't have nice things.
Actually they have a few nice things - problem is they don't get the ones that they need.
Someone needs to find the Nerf Bat and hide it in a vault somewhere for a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if we hit Paizo's Monk Hate with the Nerf Bat first?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if we hit Paizo's Monk Hate with the Nerf Bat first?
Nope, you need to alternate between the nerf bat and the nerf fist now.
*ducks*
How long has it been since this issue was brought up? Time is subjective in Afghanistan. I'd like to play a Monk for PFS if they can fix this soon.
How long has it been since this issue was brought up? Time is subjective in Afghanistan. I'd like to play a Monk for PFS if they can fix this soon.
If you want a question really fast, I'd suggest the Ask James Jacobs thread. Hey may not be able to give you an official response, but he may be able to prod the others into coming up with an official response.
They may be waiting for a series of questions worthy of the next FAQ (odd considering they're really behind on FAQ threads), and may make an exception for you or release that FAQ early.
Pretty much every Monk player and GM of a Monk player for Pathfinder would like to know immediately. I don't know why they there isn't an answer yet.
Pretty much every Monk player and GM of a Monk player for Pathfinder would like to know immediately. I don't know why they there isn't an answer yet.
Book deadlines are probably the biggest reason. APs, Advanced Race Guide, Ultimate Equipment, various modules... it all adds up and eats up their time. They can't just drop everything for one rules issue that requires more than just a minor look up. They are probably seriously relooking the issues this change would cause if it went through before coming in with another answer. I'd rather they take a good long look before making a decision in any case, that way they can give a better researched and balanced answer. If they rush and mess up, then people are going to come storming to the forums complaining about it and we'll be right back to square one.
Waiting is really all anyone can do at this point.
Tels, James Jacobs answered your question. They are reading the threads. Also, JJ tends to not get into rules arguments since it's more Jason's territory and he doesn't like his posts to be used as ammunition for one side or another, especially since he isn't the rules guy.
Pretty much every Monk player and GM of a Monk player for Pathfinder would like to know immediately. I don't know why they there isn't an answer yet.Book deadlines are probably the biggest reason. APs, Advanced Race Guide, Ultimate Equipment, various modules... it all adds up and eats up their time. They can't just drop everything for one rules issue that requires more than just a minor look up. They are probably seriously relooking the issues this change would cause if it went through before coming in with another answer. I'd rather they take a good long look before making a decision in any case, that way they can give a better researched and balanced answer. If they rush and mess up, then people are going to come storming to the forums complaining about it and we'll be right back to square one.
Not to mention they're behind schedule because of the printer issue this winter, etc.
Waiting is really all anyone can do at this point.Tels, James Jacobs answered your question. They are reading the threads. Also, JJ tends to not get into rules arguments since it's more Jason's territory and he doesn't like his posts to be used as ammunition for one side or another, especially since he isn't the rules guy.
Where did JJ answer this? Just curious.
|
|
It's a good time to point out that Paizo is a small company. I've worked in many small companies, not to mention I've worked in the gaming industry.
I want answers immediately too, but not for any real reason other than knowing for the sake of knowing. That and hoping things don't get ignored because of time
So even though I give them s%$!, I'm pretty sure they are actually very busy, not just busy in the sense that they posting in the "Overheard in Paizo's Office..." thread
the time it would take to pop online and start a thread basically saying 'We are working on it' is minimal.
the time it would take to pop online and start a thread basically saying 'We are working on it' is minimal.
They've already said that. How often do they need to repeat themselves until they present their solution?
the time it would take to pop online and start a thread basically saying 'We are working on it' is minimal.They've already said that. How often do they need to repeat themselves until they present their solution?
Every day, twice a day at noon and midnight. We must have updates! We must!
Master Arminas
Excellent! Now just repeat that twice a day, every day, and we shall all be happy. LOL
Master Arminas
This is somewhat unrelated, but I saw another thread on monk power discrepancy, and I had this thought: What if monk Unarmed Strike overcame all DR? Not just magic, lawful and adamantine, but all DR starting at level 1? Would this put the monk on-par with other martial classes in the opinion of those who follow this thread?
It would certainly help, Mabven. Material and alignment based DR are the two banes of using unarmed strike (since the Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, bypass DR like weapons do).
Master Arminas
I have always operated under the assumption that having a +5 AoMF would bypass all the same DR that having a +5 weapon would (assuming the weapon is not made of a special material, nor other DR bypassing ability) But this is an assumption on my part, and has nothing to do with any RAW I can quote, and it is just as likely that AoMF functions identically to having Greater Magic Fang cast on you. (Assuming that the AoMF has only enhancement bonus, and no weapon special abilities) I would be interested to hear any citations from the rules which proves one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've FAQed it many times, but never gotten an answer. Some folks say that it does bypass DR, but others insist that since it isn't a weapon (per se), then it functions like Greater Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Fang, neither of which bypass DR based on the enhancement bonus.
It would be nice to have an official answer, but I am not holding my breath.
Master Arminas
|
|
This is somewhat unrelated, but I saw another thread on monk power discrepancy, and I had this thought: What if monk Unarmed Strike overcame all DR? Not just magic, lawful and adamantine, but all DR starting at level 1? Would this put the monk on-par with other martial classes in the opinion of those who follow this thread?
If it overcome all DR, like 5/evil 5 /law 5/adamantine 5/slashing 5/ that might be too good. I'd say spend a ki for the encounter would be more appropriate.
But monks wouldn't be top of the fighting classes or anything. Still too MAD though. Paladins go through all evil DR, but they are still a better class due to less MAD and better abilities.
|
If I were Paizo I would invest my time in fixing what needs to be fixed and then worry about pushing out new material. WoTc failed in this regard with 4th edition. They pushed a hell of a lot of material out but probably half of it needed to be fixed.
Slow down and take your time Paizo. Quality is always better than quantity.
Just got an (unofficial) answer from james Jacobs on his thread, Ask James Jacobs, here.
Here is what he said.
Mr. Jacobs
Does an Amulet of Mighty Fists that provides an enhancement bonus (not special weapon properties) bypass damage reduction or not? Magic weapons of specific enhancement bonus ignore certain types of DR based upon their enchantment (i.e., +3 weapons ignore DR based on cold iron or silver, +4 weapons bypass adamantine (but do not get to ignore hardness of less than 20), and +5 weaposn cut right through alignment-based DR).So, does an AoMF fuction like a magic wapon, or is it more limited, ala the Greater Magic Fang and Greater Magic Weapon spells?
Thank you,
Master Arminas
I hate the rule that enhancement bonuses eventually bypass DR. Hate it.
So I'm gonna say that the amulet of mighty fists does NOT help you. Monks have other ways of getting through DR in any case.
Monks get no love, do they?
Master Arminas
This is somewhat unrelated, but I saw another thread on monk power discrepancy, and I had this thought: What if monk Unarmed Strike overcame all DR? Not just magic, lawful and adamantine, but all DR starting at level 1? Would this put the monk on-par with other martial classes in the opinion of those who follow this thread?
No, the monks primary problem is just hitting with unarmed strike, pure and simple. Secondary is doing much damage (particularly with weapons), overcoming DR is third.
I think the ki-strike should have the potential to overcome all DR, and my solution was to give the ki-strike a +1 enhancement bonus to hit at 4th level, increasing by +1 per four levels and overcoming DR as a magic weapon. This solves the problem of getting hits and overcoming DR in one ability.
Somewhere a monk is crying.
Pretty much every Monk player and GM of a Monk player for Pathfinder would like to know immediately. I don't know why they there isn't an answer yet.Book deadlines are probably the biggest reason. APs, Advanced Race Guide, Ultimate Equipment, various modules... it all adds up and eats up their time. They can't just drop everything for one rules issue that requires more than just a minor look up. They are probably seriously relooking the issues this change would cause if it went through before coming in with another answer. I'd rather they take a good long look before making a decision in any case, that way they can give a better researched and balanced answer. If they rush and mess up, then people are going to come storming to the forums complaining about it and we'll be right back to square one.Not to mention they're behind schedule because of the printer issue this winter, etc.
Where did JJ answer this? Just curious.
Waiting is really all anyone can do at this point.Tels, James Jacobs answered your question. They are reading the threads. Also, JJ tends to not get into rules arguments since it's more Jason's territory and he doesn't like his posts to be used as ammunition for one side or another, especially since he isn't the rules guy.
It was in the Ask James Jacobs thread in the off topic discussion. A lot of times, people in arguments on forums ask him questions to settle something, even though he's not the rules guy. If he gives an answer, it's usually through the point of view as a DM. Or else, when he does answer the question, his posts get used as ammo against DMs/Players or he gets demonized by people that disagree.
EDIT: Deleted something I felt was an attack on another poster. Not cool of me.
By the way, which question specifically? I've asked him a lot of question recently, some having no purpose what-so-ever.
Are you referring to the question I asked about whether or not Paizo keeps an eye on all the Monk threads? Then yes, he did answer saying the designers keep any eye on the rules section. I don't know if they keep an eye on the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew section where most of the Monk threads seem to spawn, so we just need to manipulate the thread rules into allowing our Monk discussions be in the Rules section.
James may not be the rules guy, but he does know who the Rule guys are, and he may ask them for a quick clarification before posting something. If he is unsure of something, he generally tells people something like, "At my table, I would run it like this" instead of saying something is the rules.
Even in Master Arminas' question, James answered the question from his own viewpoint on the enhancements bypassing DR. I wouldn't be surprised that at his own table, the DR bypass is house-ruled out of the game if he hates it so much.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, which question specifically? I've asked him a lot of question recently, some having no purpose what-so-ever.
Are you referring to the question I asked about whether or not Paizo keeps an eye on all the Monk threads? Then yes, he did answer saying the designers keep any eye on the rules section. I don't know if they keep an eye on the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew section where most of the Monk threads seem to spawn, so we just need to manipulate the thread rules into allowing our Monk discussions be in the Rules section.
James may not be the rules guy, but he does know who the Rule guys are, and he may ask them for a quick clarification before posting something. If he is unsure of something, he generally tells people something like, "At my table, I would run it like this" instead of saying something is the rules.
Even in Master Arminas' question, James answered the question from his own viewpoint on the enhancements bypassing DR. I wouldn't be surprised that at his own table, the DR bypass is house-ruled out of the game if he hates it so much.
The biggest problem I have is I don't care what the designers homebrew in their own games, I want to know what the actual rule is.
The biggest problem I have is I don't care what the designers homebrew in their own games, I want to know what the actual rule is.By the way, which question specifically? I've asked him a lot of question recently, some having no purpose what-so-ever.
Are you referring to the question I asked about whether or not Paizo keeps an eye on all the Monk threads? Then yes, he did answer saying the designers keep any eye on the rules section. I don't know if they keep an eye on the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew section where most of the Monk threads seem to spawn, so we just need to manipulate the thread rules into allowing our Monk discussions be in the Rules section.
James may not be the rules guy, but he does know who the Rule guys are, and he may ask them for a quick clarification before posting something. If he is unsure of something, he generally tells people something like, "At my table, I would run it like this" instead of saying something is the rules.
Even in Master Arminas' question, James answered the question from his own viewpoint on the enhancements bypassing DR. I wouldn't be surprised that at his own table, the DR bypass is house-ruled out of the game if he hates it so much.
Exactly. The Pathfinder has rules, such as Master Arminas' question, that need to be clarified, especially for PFS. I personally think, the Paizo team has bitten off a little more than they can handle and can't devote enough time to all their various projects. They've set a schedule of 2 adventure paths, a number of scenarios, a number of modules, 2 rule books, a bestiary, and all the other little things like player companions, XXX race of Golarion, that needs to be published every year. It's a huge work load, and to top it all off, they run RPG Superstar. I'm surprised the team has the time to come onto these forums and answer our questions at all.
It sounds to me like they need to hire some more people on a more permanent basis to handle some of the workload that doesn't need, say, SKR's direct handling.
Or maybe, collect the each weeks FAQs, and send a memo around the work force for those in the Rules Department to read through and give their feedback on. It may be a little impersonal, but it would get done that way.
If Paizo quietly let this issue die and stay as it is, I would be perfectly happy. Why waste time trying to fix something that wasn't broken and wasn't an issue when they have so many more important items to work on. It was just something that came up in a recent discussion sparked by one major game designers interpretation of the rules that snowballed into something bigger as more people chimed in. If I were Buhlman and SKR, I would shrug, run it the way I want in my own games, and let the issue disappear like it never happened. They have so much else on their plate that addressing this issue is like asking for someone to club them in the head with a hammer to give them a headache they don't need or want.
The bare minimum of what needs to be addressed us probably ZA. Until that's fixed, the issue is unlikely to die out for good. It's okay for the sohei to be a comedy archetype, it's okay for weapon monks to get the shaft, but ZA currently stands as an archetype for four-armed monsters, which is going to be hard for people to let go of, given its (former) popularity. (And of course, given its continued popularity amongst any group unaware of or ignoring the breakage, which I imagine is essentially 100% of groups anywhere.)
Maddigan, the problem is they've issued a ruling that flies in the face of the logic used by 99% of the players out there. Many of their own Pathfinder Soceity scenarios have used been breaking the rules, according to SKR. Because PFS is so strict when it comes to rules, they are obligated to clairfy unclear rules so there is no variance in rulings from table to table.
For instance, I don't think it explicitly states casting a spell with the Evil descriptor will slowly change one's alignment, but James Jacobs said that's how he'd play it in his games. So one GM could interpret the rule into changing their alignment, while another doesn't interpret the rule that way. If it's true there is no hard and fast rule, then this is something Paizo needs to clarify to prevent variances in rulings.
Basically, what Tels said.
A lot of this issue popped up because of PFS. A sohei in PFS now has to forgo half his attacks, or kick the ground, when using a reach weapon. A zen archer is the same way. Many of the monks printed up in their scenarios (Rube Phoenix, looking at you), have the tactics state something like, "XXX uses his flurry to make all attacks with his XXX weapon".
So the writers of the scenario were unaware that flurry didn't work that way, the editors were unaware it didn't work that way, the developer/designer that approved the scenario, was unaware it didn't work that way. Basically, everyone in that plays the game, was unaware it didn't work that way, except for SKR and whoever else decided on the ruling.
Flurry is the one thing that a Monk even has remotely going for them. Since it's seems to be Rule #1 that Monks Cannot Have Nice Things in Pathfinder, they nerfed it.
I swear, there is going to be a day when Paizo comes in and says, "Monks can't use magic items, they can't use weapons, they can't have any buff spells, and they can't attack. They can sit in a corner and cry at how useless and ineffective they are. Be happy we left you with the ability to jump uselessly high."
It's really frustrating for me, as I love the Monk class, I just never (rarely) get to play it. Monk and Ranger are tied for my two favorite classes as they both (well the Ranger does) possess strong combat options with a lot of out of combat utility.
I swear, there is going to be a day when Paizo comes in and says, "Monks can't use magic items, they can't use weapons, they can't have any buff spells, and they can't attack. They can sit in a corner and cry at how useless and ineffective they are. Be happy we left you with the ability to jump uselessly high."
I seriously doubt this will ever happen.
A lot of this issue popped up because of PFS. A sohei in PFS now has to forgo half his attacks, or kick the ground, when using a reach weapon. A zen archer is the same way. Many of the monks printed up in their scenarios (Rube Phoenix, looking at you), have the tactics state something like, "XXX uses his flurry to make all attacks with his XXX weapon".
So the writers of the scenario were unaware that flurry didn't work that way, the editors were unaware it didn't work that way, the developer/designer that approved the scenario, was unaware it didn't work that way. Basically, everyone in that plays the game, was unaware it didn't work that way, except for SKR and whoever else decided on the ruling.
Flurry is the one thing that a Monk even has remotely going for them. Since it's seems to be Rule #1 that Monks Cannot Have Nice Things in Pathfinder, they nerfed it.
I swear, there is going to be a day when Paizo comes in and says, "Monks can't use magic items, they can't use weapons, they can't have any buff spells, and they can't attack. They can sit in a corner and cry at how useless and ineffective they are. Be happy we left you with the ability to jump uselessly high."
It's really frustrating for me, as I love the Monk class, I just never (rarely) get to play it. Monk and Ranger are tied for my two favorite classes as they both (well the Ranger does) possess strong combat options with a lot of out of combat utility.
I kind of hope they do, just for the people that keep saying "Monks can't have nice things".
I would go back to that other PFRPG: Palladium Fantasy Role Playing Game. While saying stuff that I can't type here.
Master Arminas
I would go back to that other PFRPG: Palladium Fantasy Role Playing Game. While saying stuff that I can't type here.
Paizo have shown many times that they care what their customers think. I think they will resolve the issue with the monk at some point, or at least give us a good explanation as to why they feel they cannot.
@ Maddigan: The problem is now because its a "clarification" and not a FAQ or ERRATA it can't just die its now in effect for PFS I believe since thats the way it always worked.
@ Tels I can find again but I already quoted the FAQ where we can tell even SKR just found out it was a "clarification". He says in the FAQ for Feral Combat Training that the monk can make all his attacks with his natural weapon. Somthing that unless they come in pairs this "Clarification" prevents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Tels I can find again but I already quoted the FAQ where we can tell even SKR just found out it was a "clarification". He says in the FAQ for Feral Combat Training that the monk can make all his attacks with his natural weapon. Somthing that unless they come in pairs this "Clarification" prevents.
Oh I know, I've read that FAQ and I thought it funny that SKR seems to be of two minds about Flurry.
One of the reasons I won't play PFS is because of all the Monk hate and errata's that I don't agree with. At the same time, the strict rules interpretation really appeals to me because I play with GMs that hate the fact I know more about the game than they do, and will often houserule away clever things I do (like Heightening a light spell to 4th level to over power Deeper Darkness). I like the challenge of out-witting them, but I hate the fact I have to struggle and fight, just to make a semi-effective character because they are convinced every move I make, or do, has an ulterior plan that has consequences later in the game.
They know I have the ability to break the system if I so choose, but I keep telling them I only break the system in theory, so I can be vigilant of those that intend to break the system in practice*. We have 2 people that are all too willing to play munchkin characters if they can sneak the abilities in there. I've always got to keep my eye out for those two, whether I'm a player or a GM.
*Had a guy who tried to bring AM BARBARIAN to the table. He got miffed when I saw what he was doing and said, "No, you can't have that toy."
Well, if I were SKR or Buhlman, I would say "Play as it was played previously until further notice" and be done with it for now. They oked the Sohei and Zen Archer archetypes, why are they going to slam on those archetypes after we've already paid for the book? That will further create an aura of distrust between the customer and company. Why would Paizo want that? I pay $30 for Ultimate Combat and Advanced Player's Guide to have SKR and Buhlman issue a ruling that flies in the face of products their company signed off on? Is that a wise way to run a company? I don't think it is.
If they adjust the way the monk flurry works, they will screw every sohei and zen archer player out there. Why do that when they are doing no more damage than other similar classes?
A specialized fighter archer can fire up to 6 times per round doing more damage with with the addition of double specialization and weapon training. They also get to perform ranged combat maneuvers, which is extraordinarily powerful.
Sohei still doesn't do more damage with a polearm than a two-weapon fighter since Flurry is inherently limited straight strength no matter how you wield the weapon.
There's just no need for a change. I thought the same thing SKR was thinking when I played a Two-weapon fighter and my friend played a monk in the same group. I thought the monk would eventually outdamage my two-weapon fighter given I had to spend so much to get my weapons up to snuff. But it never worked out that way because of feats and ability focus up to lvl 14. It only got worse for the monk and more in favor of the two-weapon fighter.
Once my two-weapon fighter got his dex up via magic item, he never had to worry about it again and pumped up strength. I had a much easier time tricking out weapons with special abilities to add to damage. And the biggest advantage was my crit range and crit feats. I had a wider crit range and with that number of attacks I critted far more often. With critical feats or even feats like Stunning Assault and Penetrating Strike, I had less problem with damage reduction and often crushed enemies by stunning them to death, especially lesser enemies. It worked out to no contest with my fighter doing far more damage than the monk as we rose in level. Every smart two-weapon fighter makes sure to get to the point where he's using the same weapon in both hands thus gaining all the benefits of his feats.
Monk unarmed strike is inferior to a tricked out weapon. They don't get anywhere near as many feats focused on making you better with your weapon. And if they take a weapon, they're still vastly inferior due to feats and more limited weapon selection. Speaking from experience, there is no need for the concern. I'd just leave the whole thing alone. It's nothing more than an inconvenience, which is why it is irritating. Having to remember how many attacks I do with each fist or how many were weapon and how many were fist would be unnecessary bookkeeping that would lead to more headaches at the table for the DM who is already overwhelmed. And open up player error and accusations of cheating for a reason that did not have any great game impact.
It's a good time to point out that Paizo is a small company. I've worked in many small companies, not to mention I've worked in the gaming industry.
I want answers immediately too, but not for any real reason other than knowing for the sake of knowing. That and hoping things don't get ignored because of time
So even though I give them s%!!, I'm pretty sure they are actually very busy, not just busy in the sense that they posting in the "Overheard in Paizo's Office..." thread
I'm curious. I'm a latecomer to the PF world, but wasn't this system built through community support? Why not enlist the community to again work on developing the ruleset and so forth? I know they make their revenue on the "other stuff", but to keep the population happy, the product improving, and running up the scoreboard on the competition, I would think that an ongoing effort involving community contributions would make *everyone* happy and everything better.
I mean, afterall, they offer this through the OGL, why not get the development process at least partly open, as well?