Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

601 to 650 of 1,667 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

11 days to go!

MA


I think you're being extremely optimistic. That may be when the Conventions end, but that just means that's when they may start taking a look at things.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I just want to be able to play the monk I see in my head and not have to have a degree in system mastery to do it


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well I am managing it in one game...but in that game I diced awesomely well for stats (17, 16, 15, 14, 14, 14 before adjustments). To be honest a slow answer is probably better than a fast one, because they are more likely to revamp the monk rather than a quick fix.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
To be honest a slow answer is probably better than a fast one, because they are more likely to revamp the monk rather than a quick fix.

Have to agree there; we want a carefully thought out answer that solves the existing issues, not a quick and dirty one that just creates twice as many questions as it answers (that's kind of what got us into this mess in the first place).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:
I think you're being extremely optimistic. That may be when the Conventions end, but that just means that's when they may start taking a look at things.

I have to remain optimistic. Have to. 10 DAY TO GO!

Master Arminas

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I still believe it will be an item fix, not a rules fix.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If there is a fix at all - as one of my colleagues used to say: "Remember, in pay reviews salaries can go up as well as down!"

But even an item fix would be a welcome thing.


An item fix is no fix at all in my opinion. We are playing in a campaign world where there aren't magic shops at every corner so I wouldn't be able to buy that item and I wouldn't want to rely on having to find it...

So, I'm hoping for a real fix :-)

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liam ap Thalwig wrote:

An item fix is no fix at all in my opinion. We are playing in a campaign world where there aren't magic shops at every corner so I wouldn't be able to buy that item and I wouldn't want to rely on having to find it...

So, I'm hoping for a real fix :-)

That's why many posters have stated before that magic items are needed, period. The game is designed to assume you can buy or receive magic items on a steady basis. I am not a fan of the design, but it's how the game is designed. This is the default assumption in d20, maybe further back (I don't recall it being the case in 2E).

That being said, if there's no magic marts, GM can still give it away as part of a drop or reward from NPCs. You can easily include magic items in a drop and explain it easily, especially at low levels.

Also, if you are the GM, just change it back to PC (pre-clarification).


master arminas wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I think you're being extremely optimistic. That may be when the Conventions end, but that just means that's when they may start taking a look at things.

I have to remain optimistic. Have to. 10 DAY TO GO!

Master Arminas

You do know when I started counting I was counting days to DND Next's playtest right??


No. Talonhawke ruins all my fun. :(

Master Arminas

You do know I am kidding, right?


Of course though who knows maybe the Monk in Next will have cool options that will be compatable enought to homebrew.


Assuming there is a monk in the PHB1 for DnD Next.


They said in one of the interviews that they want every class thats been in a PHB1 to be covered in the first one here.

Give me a minute to check though.


Alright but, it was in the PHB3.


Yes on En worlds DND Next Info page they do list monk on the list of classes.


That's a relief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't care about D&D Next, whatever they call it. I play Pathfinder.


I'll look at D&D Next, but I am making no promises. WoC has burnt me a time too many for me to fork over my money unless it is VERY good.

Master Arminas


thats why I like a FREE playtest


BYC wrote:
That's why many posters have stated before that magic items are needed, period. The game is designed to assume you can buy or receive magic items on a steady basis. I am not a fan of the design, but it's how the game is designed.

We never played D&D nor AD&D in its various editions under that assumption. And I don't see why Pathfinder would need that. The classes should be balanced with and without magic items (assuming equal wealth). Actually I would expect classes to be better balanced without magic items because in that case it's not be so easy for a class to trespass on the special features of another class, thereby reducing their value.

If that doesn't work out I'd consider Pathfinder to be broken. Still have to see that, though.

(We do use the pre-clarification rules, of course, as they make more sense. Actually, there was never an issue to be clarified for us :-).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Regarding any fix (change, errata, etc): keep in mind that Paizo needs to go to great lengths to ensure that it can "fit" their Core Rule Book. The change cannot extensively change the content as things have to "fit just so". As such I wouldn't expect a change from the ground-up for the monk, but an adjustment of some class abilities.

Hopefully that will be an adjustment that makes monk players smile. :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
We never played D&D nor AD&D in its various editions under that assumption. And I don't see why Pathfinder would need that. The classes should be balanced with and without magic items (assuming equal wealth).

Although 3.0 was the first D&D to specifically assume this, the sad fact of the matter is that without a magic weapon by 4th-5th level, your fighter is having problems (DR/magic being so common). Without enhanced protection he soon starts getting stomped into the ground on a regular basis.

The casters don't suffer so directly, especially as they can have 'make your own' options to exploit. Of course you can replace the magic items with buffs, but the casters will run out of spells a lot faster than otherwise if they do this.


Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
BYC wrote:
That's why many posters have stated before that magic items are needed, period. The game is designed to assume you can buy or receive magic items on a steady basis. I am not a fan of the design, but it's how the game is designed.

We never played D&D nor AD&D in its various editions under that assumption. And I don't see why Pathfinder would need that. The classes should be balanced with and without magic items (assuming equal wealth). Actually I would expect classes to be better balanced without magic items because in that case it's not be so easy for a class to trespass on the special features of another class, thereby reducing their value.

If that doesn't work out I'd consider Pathfinder to be broken. Still have to see that, though.

(We do use the pre-clarification rules, of course, as they make more sense. Actually, there was never an issue to be clarified for us :-).

Unfortunately classes generally become less balanced without magic items available.


Oh SKR, you scamp! Do you ever not poop on the classes you personally dislike? You've been behind SO MANY of the negative changes to the monk! And of course, you were one of the leading voices behind the gunslinger's current execution, in spite of what so many people said during the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Every class should be designed by somebody that loves it and reviewed by somebody that hates it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly the part that confuses me is that people think SKR is a game designer.


Dabbler wrote:
Every class should be designed by somebody that loves it and reviewed by somebody that hates it.

What no that's idiotic. A class should be designed by someone that likes it and reviewed by people who balance it against the other classes as designed. That is how game design works. Well, ACTUAL game design, not whatever the f%$# SKR is doing over there.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Guys, I'm as frustrated about the monk as anyone else but personal attacks aren't going to accomplish anything but poison the well.


Mikaze wrote:
Guys, I'm as frustrated about the monk as anyone else but personal attacks aren't going to accomplish anything but poison the well.

From my perspective as a monk fan, there's not much water in that well to poison.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Every designer is inferior to me. Why? Because I said so.


I freely admit I didn't read the whole thread, so people might already have answered that, but how does FoB now work with the sohei ?

IIRC, the Sohei can flurry with a polearm. Since there are no one-handed polearms, what would this mean ?


Grenouillebleue wrote:

I freely admit I didn't read the whole thread, so people might already have answered that, but how does FoB now work with the sohei ?

IIRC, the Sohei can flurry with a polearm. Since there are no one-handed polearms, what would this mean ?

IIRC, every other attack would have to be thrown away to 'kick the ground' or somesuch.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Oh SKR, you scamp! Do you ever not poop on the classes you personally dislike? You've been behind SO MANY of the negative changes to the monk! And of course, you were one of the leading voices behind the gunslinger's current execution, in spite of what so many people said during the playtest.

lol

I was wondering when you were going to show up. Better super-late then never I guess.

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Guys, I'm as frustrated about the monk as anyone else but personal attacks aren't going to accomplish anything but poison the well.
From my perspective as a monk fan, there's not much water in that well to poison.

He lives!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:


Although 3.0 was the first D&D to specifically assume this, the sad fact of the matter is that without a magic weapon by 4th-5th level, your fighter is having problems (DR/magic being so common). Without enhanced protection he soon starts getting stomped into the ground on a regular basis.

The casters don't suffer so directly, especially as they can have 'make your own' options to exploit. Of course you can replace the magic items with buffs, but the casters will run out of spells a lot faster than otherwise if they do this.

I don't see the need to have a specific weapon to overcome invulnerabilities as unbalancing.

Mind that I don't talk about balancing against some CR which might or not might assume the availability of magic weapons. I talk about balancing classes with respect to other classes.
Actually what's the point of DR/magic if the availability of magic weapons is assumed??
Having to use spells for that (or having to run) is much more fitting.

Assuming enhanced protection for everybody (or not) again just changes the effective CR of the monsters. It does not unbalance the classes with respect to each other.

As CR are just some heuristic which might or might not fit your party and I generally prefer the characters to decide whether to take on some foes or whether to stick their noses into some part of the campaign world instead of the GM adapting the campaign world around the characters to fit their level (i.e. just have them encounters with "allowed" CRs).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is not magic weapons alone, per se, Liam. It is what has been christened by many as the Christmas Tree effect. Pathfinder (and 3.5, and 3rd Edition) all generally assume that a characters wealth by level will be spent to boost their ability scores, armor class, and provide a means to enhance their attacks.

By even as low as 4th-6th level, we can already see this. How many players turn down a Cloak of Resistance for what may (perhaps) be a more powerful (but situational) Cloak of the Manta Ray? Most don't. Because they know that they MUST raise their saves.

Belts of physical perfection must be the single most mass-produced magic item in the world, because EVERY adventurer can make use of them--even casters. Only casters and monks NEED headbands, but you can bet for a fighter (or other low Will save character) wanting to bump that save, headbands of inspired wisdom are cheap for what they do.

And who doesn't have the best possible ring of protection on their finger? Most characters have an amulet of natural armor as well.

And then there is magic armor and shields, whether actual armor or shields or stuff like bracers of armor, robes of the archmagi, or rings of force shield; not to mention actual magical weapons of all varieties.

By 11th or 12th level, 99% of all players will have a combination of all of the above: why? Because they realize that these items give them the most bang for their buck. And then by 17th+ you are looking at manuals and tomes.

This level of magic items and bonuses is already assumed within the mechanics of the game--unlike 1st or 2nd level. It has given rise the idea of Magic-Mart, much to the consternation of old-timer gamers such as myself. Of course, while I don't like the christmas tree effect, I know well how to use it. LOL

Part of the problem with Pathfinder (and 3.0 and 3.5 as well) is that it is infinitely scaling. What does that mean? Well, in AD&D (either 1st or 2nd edition), 25 was the hard cap on ability scores--even for Gods and Goddesses (okay, some few unique beings could exceed this, but not player characters!). Just like no matter what stacking bonuses you had, an AC of -10 was the limit (except, once again, for a handful of very rare critters that hit -11 or -12).

Ability scores of 7-14 gave no bonuses and no penalties. Bonuses only acrued at 15+, likewise penalties at 6 and below. And even here, only certain classes could benefit from certain bonuses. A Wizard with an 18 Constitition gained no mechanical benefit over having a 16 Constitition: because only Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins (and later Barbarians and Cavaliers) gained the +3 or +4 hit points per hit dice. Everyone else was capped at +2 (for a 16) or +1 (for 15).

Strength was limited as well. Only Fighter-classes (see above) could roll for exceptional strength. For everyone else, an 18 was an 18: +1 to hit and +3 to damage. Fighter-types got to roll percentile dice and boost their strength even more, from 18/01 to 18/00. No player character got a 19 or higher, except through magic. Powerful magic.

Third Edition removed that paradigm and opened the floodgates to optimization. The bonuses and penalties were smoothly applied, so that you could a +1 with stats as low as 12. All limits were removed on stats, and NOW you could increase them as you gained levels. Plus all of the races were given EVEN ability score adjustments (AD&D gave +1/-1 bonuses/penalties), so it was conceivable you could start out with a 20 and hit a 25 WITHOUT the aid of any magic. With magic? You might get a 36 by the end of your career.

And in the process, AC's expanded--they had to to keep pace with the flood of bonuses available to player characters. And save DCs. And skill check DCs.

There are many days when I would, personally, prefer a simpler system.

Master Armina

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ProfessorCirno wrote:
And of course, you were one of the leading voices behind the gunslinger's current execution, in spite of what so many people said during the playtest.

False.

The truth is I had almost nothing to do with designing the gunslinger. At all. Or the ninja. Or the samurai.

Or the monk, for that matter.

Ettin wrote:
Honestly the part that confuses me is that people think SKR is a game designer.

I honestly don't know what your intentions are with this comment.


master arminas wrote:
Of course, while I don't like the christmas tree effect, I know well how to use it.

I like Christmas trees!

And while I wouldn't like my character looking literally like a Christmas tree unless he was some kind of demented gnome arboreal scientist, I do like my character having lots of magic items - and even to an extent relying on them. Thor wasn't an unconquerable giant killing machine without his hammer, either. Achilles needed his set of god-forged gear before he could fight Hector. Volsung was unconquerable wielding Gram, but went down hard when Odin broke it. A lot of RL mythology supports the idea of heroes being reliant on their gear.


Well, I guess Mr. Reynolds has now resumed posting on this topic. Welcome back, sir.

Master Arminas


Like I said when people were bashing on Ryan Dancey in the PFO threads:

"Some people take the wierdest stuff personally."

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people need to realize that the game is not personally designed for how they want to play.

That is what house rules are for.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master arminas wrote:

Well, I guess Mr. Reynolds has now resumed posting on this topic. Welcome back, sir.

Master Arminas

I think he's just defending attacks on his person. Don't expect any updates on rule discussions.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
That is what house rules are for.

But that's hard work. D:


master arminas wrote:
Well, I guess Mr. Reynolds has now resumed posting on this topic.

If the topic is "Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows", Mr Reynolds hasn't posted on the topic at all.

Andoran

TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
That is what house rules are for.
But that's hard work. D:

I know, I know, complaining is easier...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What would I like see as a Monk fix?

1. Return to the 3.5 style flurry: drop the whole two-weapon fighting thing, and give an additional attack at the highest BAB. Later on, get a 2nd attack at your highest BAB at 15th level. Remove the penalty. Still let a monk spend ki to gain another additional attack. This would replace a monk's normal iterative attacks.

Huh? You wouldn't get your follow on attacks at -5 (8th level) and -10 (15th level) when you make a flurry.

A 1st level monk, making a flurry of blows attack would be at +0/+0. A 4th level monk, when spending ki, would be at +3/+3/+3. At 8th level (spending ki) it would be +6/+6/+6. At 15th level (with a point of ki) +11/+11/+11/+11, while a 20th level monk would have +15/+15/+15/+15.

Yes, it does nothing for the attack bonus (but see #4 below), but it would give the monk something fairly unique: a less random series of blows that are all equally likely to hit (or miss, as the case may be). Put in there that flurry of blows does not stack with TWF or natural attacks, and we are done on that part.

2. At 4th level, add this line to ki pool: A monk can spend 1 ki point to gain an additional attack at his highest attack bonus when he charges, uses the Spring Attack Feat, or makes an attack as a standard action.

He can't flurry when moving, but he can get two attacks. That is worth spending a point of ki, maybe even worth 2 if you feel like it needs to be more expensive.

3. At 4th level, ki strike acts as if the monk's unarmed strikes are a +1 weapon. Not just for damage reduction, but for affecting incorporeal creatures. He doesn't actually gain an enhancement bonus, but it acts as magic. At 7th level, and every three levels gained thereafter, this 'effective bonus' increases by +1 to a maximum of +5 at 16th level. This lets a monk, with unarmed strikes, bypass cold iron and silver at 10th level, adamantine at 13th level (keep the ignore hardness as well), and alignments at 16th level.

4. At 4th or 5th level, add Weapons Training, ala the fighter. For unarmed strikes and special monk weapons only. Adds +1 (scaling to +4) on attacks and damage for attacks made when using flurry of blows or when spending a point of ki to gain an additional attack. That fixes somewhat the HUGE disparity between monks and other martial classes.

5. Last but not least, add an item that ONLY provides an enhancement bonus for unarmed strikes. None of this natural weapons BS, just unarmed strikes. I don't care if takes the amulet slot, or a ring slot, or what have you, but monks (and unarmed fighters) need a cheaper method of enhancing their unarmed attacks. And if you price it at 1.5x, 1.75x, or 2x that of a normal weapon, we would be happy. Especially if it can go up to +10.

6. Since flurry would no longer be two-weapon fighting, and can't stack with two-weapon fighting, return to being able to flurry with a single weapon.

That's it. All it would take is an errata, and it would fix the majority of the monks problems. The monk wouldn't be the class that can get the most attacks anymore, but instead would be a class that can almost always manage to two or three or four attacks at his highest attack bonus, truely making the flurry of blows unique and something a monk would be proud of having.

That is my fix. We will probably never see it, but those six things would turn the monk from a joke into a flexible and capable skirmish/scout light warrior that finally fufills the promise of what potential the class showed in AD&D.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Master Arminas


Axl wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Well, I guess Mr. Reynolds has now resumed posting on this topic.

If the topic is "Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows", Mr Reynolds hasn't posted on the topic at all.

This thread, no. The topic, yes. the locked thread

He said, in his last post:

Quote:
I'll tell you what... I'll stop spending my time dealing with board rulings and FAQ items, use that time to actually develop products, and you can wait for Jason to make the same rulings I do.

And since then we haven't seen him in any of these discussions.

Master Arminas


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alouicious wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Every class should be designed by somebody that loves it and reviewed by somebody that hates it.
What no that's idiotic. A class should be designed by someone that likes it and reviewed by people who balance it against the other classes as designed. That is how game design works.

It's actually how successful design is best handled in just about everything.

1) You design something as best you can by someone who really believes in what they are trying to do and does their utmost to wring the best out of it.

2) You get somebody else who is absolutely determined to pick on any legitimate fault they can to tear it down to go over it.

In science this process is known as Peer Review, where your work is passed before other experts in your field all vying for the same research grant that you are.

In Engineering it is more physical in the process of 'testing to destruction' where you take the product and stress it until it breaks.

Then you go back and redesign the product, refine the theory, whatever, until it either works or you have to give up on it as impossible.

We're basically talking about the same thing, except that I'm saying to choose people who are more, ah, motivated to do their work.

601 to 650 of 1,667 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew / Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.