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

651 to 700 of 1,667 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

master arminas wrote:


Stuff

Why did you say that he has resumed posting on this topic?

Were you being sarcastic?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you check back you will see that Mr Reynolds posted on the previous page.


Dabbler wrote:
If you check back you will see that Mr Reynolds posted on the previous page.

???


Axl wrote:
master arminas wrote:


Stuff

Why did you say that he has resumed posting on this topic?

Were you being sarcastic?

I have not seen him post to any thread since then. I was merely welcoming him back into the pool.

Manners, you know.

Master Arminas


TOZ wrote:
He lives!

A bizarre sudden retcon to one of the if not the already weakest class in the game that disregards and screws up a laughably great deal of their own material just for the sake of making that class even weaker?

How could I resist? ;)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
The truth is I had almost nothing to do with designing the gunslinger. At all. Or the ninja. Or the samurai.

Then mea culpa, my information was wrong. I didn't really mention the ninja or samurai though?

(That said, others being the ones who did the gunslinger does not actually speak well)

Quote:
Or the monk, for that matter.

Sean, you've been the one who's posted every negative change to monks since they came out. Brass knuckles, the vows, this...if you're not behind these decisions, then someone is using you as a very nasty scapegoat.


Mikaze wrote:
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

I want a generic martial artist class, where the Monk is the archetype (or archetypes... after all, the more mystical versions fit more with the traditional Monk image than normal martial artists ).

That all non-Monk martial artists are crammed into one ( not that very good ) archetype really doesn't sit well with me. :-/

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post and the reply to it. Don't be a jerk. Flag it and move on.


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

More importantly, that's not official and thusly won't work at every table.

Is it really too much to expect that designers try to fix issues with a weak class, instead of further nerfing it into the ground.


ProfessorCirno wrote:


Sean, you've been the one who's posted every negative change to monks since they came out. Brass knuckles, the vows, this...if you're not behind these decisions, then someone is using you as a very nasty scapegoat.

That could be the case, but the thing with the Vow of Poverty was all him. Maybe not the design itself, but the defense of "Hey, we put a trap option there, because being poor sucks, why should we actually make this thing worth your while? Or do something for the people who want to play a non-christmas tree character."

Still angry about that. :-/

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
How could I resist? ;)

I thought you'd be too busy in the trenches against D&D Next. :)

Contributor

43 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take that as you will.

Andoran

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I for one think the gift horse got punched in the mouth.

Yet another example of why we can't have nice things...


ciretose wrote:

I for one think the gift horse got punched in the mouth.

Yet another example of why we can't have nice things...

Gift horses are great and all, who doesn't want a pony? Unless you are a Trojan and the gift-horse givers a bunch of angry Greeks. That is.

rimshot

Master Arminas


Firstly, that was a great post, thank Sean. I'm just cherry picking the bits I want to reply to. The others I agree and accept and don't think need response.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
<SNIP>I've been reading all of this

Kudos, that takes a lot more dedication than I have for this issue, but then all my DMs have gone with: that's silly I'll allow single weapon flurry.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I don't want the monk merely patched, I want it fixed. <SNIP> Which we can't add without messing up the layout for pages and pages, which we can't do because we have that book and other books referring to things in the Core Rulebook by specific page number.

I know it looks less awesome but this is a pretty good reason to go the technical book approach and give entries a number reference and refer to those not pages. Much to late for that now, but I hope it's in the plans for future products.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
<SNIP>I got tired of that attitude. And I stopped posting answers to rules, and stopped posting FAQs, because I didn't want to deal with it any more (which is sad, because I actually like answering rules questions). Because I'm not required to deal with rudeness and personal attacks, I won't do it.

I don't know your job description, I'm not directly your employer, just a customer, so I can't comment on you being required to do it. As a customer I do know that I feel better buying products when the people behind them do have a highly visible presence in the community.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

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

Take that as you will.

Following on from my previous bit, I don't know/care if it's your role to be posting them. But I personally find value in there being someone posting them.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Edition-war name calling is not appeciated, and continuing to take potshots at Paizo staff is even less so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
{A lot of clear explanations of how things work}

I understand your problems, and in an environment like this, there is no decision you can make that will not annoy the gubbins out of somebody, somewhere. Of course people who complain do so more readily and more loudly, too.

In the interest of proposing solutions, not problems...

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

You have the nail on the head there. At the moment the amulet of mighty fists is the default for most monks, and is only half an item at twice the cost. On the flip side monk unarmed damage scales already and whichever way you look at it can be used as multiple weapons.

My proposals:
1) Change the ki strike class feature to an enhancement bonus to hit only for the unarmed strike, equal to the monk's AC bonus. This will stack with the AoMF's properties and bonus to damage (but not bonus to hit). This enhancement bonus will penetrate DR as a magic weapon, getting around the monk's other major problem when fighting unarmed.

2) Do the above with a feat (not popular as it's a feat-tax on the monk just for using his class features, but it would work)

3) Add an item (I used a ring) that grants an enhancement bonus to hit only for all melee weapons held (including unarmed strike). Cost is enhancement squared x 3Kgp, capped at +5. Combined with the AoMF it gives the monk close to full enhancement with the unarmed strike, sans the bonus damage, at roughly the same cost as an equivelant weapon.

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

Ki is a tricky one because unlike rage or bardic song, ki is clearly not intended to be spent round on round to enhance the monk, but to be used in desperate circumstances or boss-fights. There just is not enough of it otherwise.

If the vows were just there to grant extra ki then this is acceptable, if never truly viable save in a very low magic game. The problem here is not just the monk but the entire 'Christmas Tree Effect' for the game in general, and addressing that is a supplement's worth of work.

It's a good idea for a supplement, now that I mention it though...

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

The easiest answer is to just reword it slightly to mean what everyone took it to mean. This doesn't effect any builds based up on the original intention, nor any made from the unintended interpretation.

At the end of the day, you guys are in a catch-22 situation I do not envy: You have to apply a change to the class, and yet you are limited with what you already have published and can amend. The best solution for addressing the monk's problems is to rework it from scratch (plenty of suggestions around for that), but that's not a viable option for sticking with the majority of what is already written. If you stick with what is written, how can you adjust the class sufficiently to be effective without a Bachelors degree in system mastery?

Ideally you would want to:


  • Fix flurry of blows to everyone's satisfaction.
  • Fix the enhancement/DR problem with unarmed strike
  • Reduce the MADness (the monk just needs too many good stats)
  • ...as well as maybe address many of the other little issues highlighted in the dozens of 'fix the monk' threads. Like why the monk has to pay a feat tax to use abundent step the way it was intended? Why is wholeness of body so bad? (hint: fix this one and the monk becomes less MAD because like the Paladin he need not consider Con so essential).

It's a tall order.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post that replied to a post removed earlier.

I also removed a post that did not belong in this thread, and was offensive to boot.

Contributor

ProfessorCirno wrote:
I'm sorry, but you cannot blame freelancers for writing material that your company went on to publish in your official splatbooks. That's what playtesting and editing is for! If it were one or two whoopsies that would be fine, but nearly all monk material outside the Core book is suddenly being changed and disfigured.

Like I said...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Flurry... is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.

Most people who read it interpreted it wrong, and based their development and editorial decisions based on that wrong interpretation.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I'm sorry, but you cannot blame freelancers for writing material that your company went on to publish in your official splatbooks. That's what playtesting and editing is for! If it were one or two whoopsies that would be fine, but nearly all monk material outside the Core book is suddenly being changed and disfigured.

Like I said...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Flurry... is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.

Most people who read it interpreted it wrong, and based their development and editorial decisions based on that wrong interpretation.

...which you then published in official books, despite being based on a faulty reading of the rule?

Hmmmmmm.


Ross Byers wrote:

I removed a post that replied to a post removed earlier.

I also removed a post that did not belong in this thread, and was offensive to boot.

I would have liked it if you had just deleted the response then, rather then my whole response to SKR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I'm sorry, but you cannot blame freelancers for writing material that your company went on to publish in your official splatbooks. That's what playtesting and editing is for! If it were one or two whoopsies that would be fine, but nearly all monk material outside the Core book is suddenly being changed and disfigured.

Like I said...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Flurry... is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.

Most people who read it interpreted it wrong, and based their development and editorial decisions based on that wrong interpretation.

In the interest of helping clarify things, one of the issues is that the way Flurry is written, the intended interpretation is not communicated, and the understood interpretation is communicated by the words/sentence/grammer used. People tend to get a bit standoffish, when they are told after years of taking the book at apparent face value that they are wrong and failed at reading the book.

A more tactful way to express the same thing, would be to say the widely accepted flurry interpretation was not the intended meaning of the section and that the new flurry interpretation is the one that was intended all along. You could then go on to say that in light of the differing intreptations, the issue is currently being discussed (as the publishing scheduel permits), and that the language around Flurry will be cleaned up regardless.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:

I removed a post that replied to a post removed earlier.

I also removed a post that did not belong in this thread, and was offensive to boot.

I would have liked it if you had just deleted the response then, rather then my whole response to SKR.

We prefer to remove posts in their entirety rather than editing them: It's less work for the moderators and it prevents us from putting words in anyone's mouth (Basically, we think that if you see a post by a person, it should contain what that person actually wanted to say.)

The other portion of your post is quoted below.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Sean:

As I said, if it were not the case of you being behind the changes, then someone is using you as a very nasty scapegoat. Yeah, it sucks, but for better or worse - and probably worse - you have been the face behind the stuff like brass knuckles or this recent bit. This one is particularly vexing because it's a sudden change after three years of material that said otherwise. I'm sorry, but you cannot blame freelancers for writing material that your company went on to publish in your official splatbooks. That's what playtesting and editing is for! If it were one or two whoopsies that would be fine, but nearly all monk material outside the Core book is suddenly being changed and disfigured.

The fact of the matter is, on other forums such as SomethingAwful, when people ask how to handle a monk, the advice given by far others then just me - and many of whom only play Pathfinder, they're pretty big fans! - is to simply not do it.

Yes, the monk needs to be fixed. I totally agree! But every time something like this comes up, all it does is remind people that it's not happening. And that in fact the opposite is happening - monks are bizarrely just getting weaker and weaker as time goes on. If sucks when people shoot the messenger. But if the messenger is consistently being shot every time, maybe the message has some flaws?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Speculating on a thread getting locked is the opposite of helpful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Exactly Dabbler, I agree completely.

Like Dabbler said, Mr. Reynolds, you guys are between the devil and the deep blue sea. But I (humbly) submit that the monk can be 'fixed' in the original word and character count of the original text. Let's take a look at it:

Quote:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he used flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks when using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows.

Okay, the original text from the Core Rules Document. That is 282 words, 1,568 characters including spaces. Now following is an example of just how you could (not should, but could) rewrite the flurry of blows text without meaningfully affecting word count or character count.

Quote:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) at his highest attack bonus. When making a flurry of blows attack, a monk loses all normal iterative attacks which he might normally receive (i.e., those attacks made at -5 and -10 to the monk’s Base Attack Bonus). A monk is not required to divide his attacks when using flurry of blows among multiple weapons.

At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he used flurry of blows. These additional attacks are made at his highest attack bonus.

At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks when using flurry of blows. These additional attacks are made at his highest attack bonus.

A monk may not combine flurry of blows with two-weapon fighting in order to receive additional attacks. A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows.

That is 280 words and 1,585 characters. Two less words and thirteen more characters. And those paragraph breaks give us plenty of room to play with.

Then, we could tighten up Unarmed Strike by removing the redundant text there, in order to add Weapons Training (Monk Group) at 5th level; we could even save enough space and words to allow for the expenditure of a point of ki to make an addtional attack on a charge, standard attack, or when using the Spring Attack feat.

Yes, Mr. Reynolds, we realize that it would be a major revision to the monk class in the prior printings. And that it would take effort to shoe-horn into the available space between the Fighter and the Paladin. But it could be done.

Speaking only as a player of the game, might I suggest changing wholeness of body to something even remotely usefull and worth spending 2 ki points on? Spend 2 ki as a standard action to heal a number equal to your level . . . REALLY? Either the cost should go down, the healing should go up (I recommend 2d8+Wis+class level), or it should be a swift action.

That is all for now.

Oh, wait. Ross, I am sorry you are having a hard day policing this thread. You have my apologies, Sir. Now I am done.

EDIT: Oh, boy. Lots of posts before my post got posted. (How much can I say post in this post, I post wonderingly?) Please guys, let's not push things to the point where a moderator has no choice but to shut things down. We can maintain a civil and courteous debate, can we not? Please?

Master Arminas


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I'm sorry, but you cannot blame freelancers for writing material that your company went on to publish in your official splatbooks. That's what playtesting and editing is for! If it were one or two whoopsies that would be fine, but nearly all monk material outside the Core book is suddenly being changed and disfigured.

Like I said...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Flurry... is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.

Most people who read it interpreted it wrong, and based their development and editorial decisions based on that wrong interpretation.

Sean.

thanks for all the hard work you do and all the internet Donkeyness you have to put up with. you and your team have truly made a great system/game. and in the scope of things the monk being for a lack of a better word "broken" is not really the end of the world. take a look at all the proposals on the board dabbler and Master amrinus have some great ideas. contact those folks figure out what you want to do and do it. its your company and your product. I don't have a really good idea on how to fix the monk at all.... I just like to punch things in the game in the face.. Thanks very much of your hard work you are appreciated even if certain people feel that typing behind a computer enables them to step on civility.

just my 2 cents ps monks are frisking rad

EDIT: oh yeah a wise person to me once said don't you worry your pretty little mind people throw rocks at things that shine and the monk shines brightest.


Ross you too keep up the good work don't let them ruin your day.

Contributor

Caedwyr wrote:
A more tactful way to express the same thing, would be to say the widely accepted flurry interpretation was not the intended meaning of the section and that the new flurry interpretation is the one that was intended all along.

Oh, the wording is very confusing, there's no need to be tactful about that fact. And saying "most people interpreted it wrong" isn't a judgment against anyone who didn't come to the same conclusion Jason did.

The wording is unclear. Most people didn't get what Jason meant, and assumed it worked like how it was in 3.5.

The wording will be fixed. It has been discussed ad nauseum on the boards.

I don't think we need to add to that discussion at this time.

The design team will deal with it, hopefully soon.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Most people who read it interpreted it wrong, and based their development and editorial decisions based on that wrong interpretation.

First off, thanks for putting up with us. I know we can be a little... erm. contentious... when arguing rules.

This may seem like an odd question, but why can't the way most people seem to have reading it become the right interpretation? People have been using the wrong interpretation to build feats, class abilities, and a flourishing plethora of archetypes referencing a legitimate interpretation of the rules as they're written (if not intended). The rules and wording in the monk don't have to change at all, just the intent.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Most people who read it interpreted it wrong, and based their development and editorial decisions based on that wrong interpretation.

First off, thanks for putting up with us. I know we can be a little... erm. contentious... when arguing rules.

This may seem like an odd question, but why can't the way most people seem to have reading it become the right interpretation? People have been using the wrong interpretation to build feats, class abilities, and a flourishing plethora of archetypes referencing a legitimate interpretation of the rules as they're written (if not intended). The rules and wording in the monk don't have to change at all, just the intent.

That would indeed be the simplest thing to do. And as a great believer in the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), I would not mind seeing exactly that in lieu of a broader fix.

Master Arminas

Contributor

9 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
This may seem like an odd question, but why can't the way most people seem to have reading it become the right interpretation? People have been using the wrong interpretation to build feats, class abilities, and a flourishing plethora of archetypes referencing a legitimate interpretation of the rules as they're written (if not intended). The rules and wording in the monk don't have to change at all, just the intent.

I make no promises, but that is a likely possibility.


Ross Byers wrote:

We prefer to remove posts in their entirety rather than editing them: It's less work for the moderators and it prevents us from putting words in anyone's mouth (Basically, we think that if you see a post by a person, it should contain what that person actually wanted to say.)

The other portion of your post is quoted below.

My thanks


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


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

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

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

Well, they say the first step to fixing a problem is admitting it.

So you admit the Monk has issues. This is good.
Quote:


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

Hmm, so are you willing to do what you did in the Stealth playtest idea? Test a new Monk?

Because it sounds like the only way to fix it is to rewrite it. You don't have to call the new class Monk. Or you can just make it an alternate class of Monk (that way you don't have to say what you replaced).
I support the idea either way.

Quote:


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

Yeah, I think it was because you were/was the messenger and people do have a tendacy to shoot the messenger.

Sorry, you felt that hurt. It was likely when you kept telling them about "nerf"s to the monk, it hurt them. So they thought you did it, even if it was a team thing.


PROTIP: This debacle could have been avoided if the monk had full BAB and free TWF.

Shadow Lodge

Well, they don't.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
This may seem like an odd question, but why can't the way most people seem to have reading it become the right interpretation? People have been using the wrong interpretation to build feats, class abilities, and a flourishing plethora of archetypes referencing a legitimate interpretation of the rules as they're written (if not intended). The rules and wording in the monk don't have to change at all, just the intent.
I make no promises, but that is a likely possibility.

It seems like not everyone does, but I trust you Paizonians know what's best for Pathfinder. I hope you make decisions on your vast game expertise, and not on the amount of negative posts on the boards.


Enchanter Tom wrote:
PROTIP: This debacle could have been avoided if the monk had full BAB and free TWF.

What works have you been published in, or were you just using "PROTIP" as a manner of speech?


Quote:
Well, they don't.

Newest house rule in my games.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What took you so long? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sean, my mother used to say "Don't slap your name on something if you don't want to be blamed for it". If it's not you alone who is making all the rulings and FAQs then simply say that earlier or sign them as "Paizo Design Team", because until now people saw only your name associated with many decisions that they didn't like. Just saying.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I removed a post. If you know a post is going to be removed, please save everyone some time and don't post it.


Quote:
I removed a post. If you know a post is going to be removed, please save everyone some time and don't post it.

On the bright side, it wasn't me this time.

Contributor

5 people marked this as a favorite.
ImperatorK wrote:
Sean, my mother used to say "Don't slap your name on something if you don't want to be blamed for it". If it's not you alone who is making all the rulings and FAQs then simply say that earlier or sign them as "Paizo Design Team", because until now people saw only your name associated with many decisions that they didn't like. Just saying.

That's actually something we've considered as a consequence of people being jerks on the message boards, but at this time we don't have that implemented in the boards code, other than by creating a "sock puppet" account that any of the three of us can use, and that's kinda hokey.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I just want to be able to play a monk that feels like a monk.

I get that there's a lot of frustration at inflammatory comments from the fanbase, but not a small amount of fan frustration stems from how a lot of the issues with the monk have been handled. From the "armchair developer" crack and getting lectured about how wanting VoP to work closer to something like the original VoP was wrong to this flurry clarification coming out three years after everyone else was taking it for granted on the boards and in the books that it worked another way, it just doesn't feel good to me a monk fan most days. This doesn't excuse bad behavior from some fans, but it does account for the why of some of it, and certainly accounts for the frustration even more fans that are posting civilly feel.

Right now I think most of us just want some hope that the monk is going to get better, and will be better able to live up to its flavor and, hopefully, less of a headache to make.

With so many possibilities put forth on the boards by monk fans on these very boards, there has to be something that can be put out in some form that could work. Make it a blog post. Make it an "alternate" monk write-up. Just something. At this point, many of us are probably willing to take a patch because an actual fix for the core class just seems to get further and further away every time a mention of it comes up.

Haven't monk fans waited long enough?

651 to 700 of 1,667 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 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.