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

1 to 50 of 1,667 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ok the previous 11-page, 568-post thread on this discussion was locked. But the moderator said if we wanted to continue discussing start a new thread: here it is. We are not going to let this go quietly away.

The Locked Thread

And so everyone knows what was being discussed, I have pulled together the relevant quotes from SKR and JB:

Sean K Reynolds said wrote:

Actually, because the rules say a monk's flurry is as if he's using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can't simply declare that he's using the same fist seven times. So there is something stopping him from hitting someone seven times with his left fist or a +2 flaming kama: the rules for how flurry works.

Because the AOMF is intended for monks and not other classes, making it obsolete for monks in effect makes it obsolete for everyone. Just as an item that made a robe of the archmagi obsolete for sorcerers and wizards in effect makes it obsolete for everyone.

Sean K Reynolds said wrote:
Volaran said wrote:
If they're fighting a lycanthrope and want to use the +3 silver kama for all 6 attacks, I'm cool with that too, and I really don't think it is game-breaking.
I wouldn't say it's game-breaking, but it's certainly unfair because no other character using TWF gets to do that. The TWF fighter with a +1 flaming short sword and a +1 frost light hammer who's fighting a fire-immune creature doesn't get to say, "oh, all of my attacks are with my hammer."
Sean K Reynolds said wrote:
Zark said wrote:
It boils down to: do we still want most players do and use a temple sword or become a Zen Archer?

You're making the mistake of assuming we "want" monks played one way or another.

Foghammer said wrote:
I would also like to go on record saying that I have seen Jet Li make several iterative attacks with a single fist. "Unleashed" is a prime example of that. May not be an in-game precedent, but something.
I don't believe I ever said you couldn't make iterative attacks with a fist.
Sean K Reynolds said wrote:

I just double-checked with Jason, and my statement is correct. Flurry works like TWF. You can't pick your best weapon and use it for all of your flurry attacks.

We're really talking about two different situations. Say we have a monk15 doing a flurry of blows. His attack sequence is +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3.

1) If all of his potential attacks are identical (for example, all he's doing are unarmed strikes and none of his unarmed strikes are enhanced by magic fang or any other effect that would give it a different attack bonus or damage value, it doesn't matter if you justify all six of those as punches, all six as headbutts, all six as kicks, or three as kicks and three as punches, or punch kick knee elbow elbow headbutt, because those attacks are identical in terms of attack and damage. That's what the "any combination" text in the flurry rule means--the difference between the attacks is just flavor and has no game effect, so you can use them in any combination because what you call it has no effect on the dice.
(Just like if you have a TWF fighter using two identical +1 short swords with identical attack and damage bonuses, it doesn't really matter for each individual attack if he's using the left shortsword or the right shortsword, declaring it doesn't affect the dice, he can roll all his attack dice at the same time and doesn't have to call them out separately.)

2) If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others, such as using a special monk weapon with an attack bonus or damage different than his unarmed strike, or having magic fang on one hand but not any other body part, now the order and identity of each attack matters, and you have to specify what you're attacking with and you have to abide by the TWF rules because your decisions affect the die rolls. In other words that monk15 is actually making attacks with two weapons, one with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3, and another with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3. So if you have a +5 sai in your left hand and a normal sai in your right hand, you can't say you're using the +5 sai for all six of your attacks, you're doing +13/+8/+3 with the left hand (adding the sai's +5 enhancement bonus, of course) and +13/+8/+3 with the right hand.
Jason says that in this situation, the "any combination" text means you can swap in a regular unarmed strike in place of any of those attacks (though that's not clear in the text). (Doing so affects the attack and damage rolls for that attack, of course.) So you could swap out your left-hand +8 attack for an unarmed strike such as a kick or elbow (losing the +5 enhancement bonus to that attack because you're not actually using the +5 sai to make that attack), swap out all of the right-hand sai attacks for unarmed strikes, and so on, but you're still abiding by the TWF setup in that you have a series of attacks with one weapon and a series of attacks with your other weapon.

TLDR: (1) Flurry is based on TWF. (2) If all your attacks are identical, declaring which weapon is which is pure flavor and doesn't affect the dice, so go ahead an call them whatever you want. (3) If even one of your attacks is different than the others, you have to follow the TWF rules when flurrying; you can't just declare all of your flurry of blows attacks to be your best weapon because you can't do that with TWF.

Jason Bulmahn said wrote:

Hey there Everyone,

Boy, it sure does look like we've stirred up the hornets nest this time. Let me clear up a few things.

1. Everybody just take a breath. There is no need for the tone I am seeing in some of these posts.

2. Every single one of these FAQ posts and clarifications are discussed by the rules team. No matter who makes the actual post or clarification.

3. Concerning this particular issue...

The intent of this particular rule was to marry the flurry of blows ability to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree, so that we could easily control and correct any problems that came up, and to have those corrections universally apply to everything that interacted with it. That said, there was an exception built into the flurry rules to allow them to properly portray the monk ability to beat you to death with various body parts (hence unarmed strike). I will admit that the wording could certainly be better in this regard. Let me give it to you clearly as to what we intended...

Flurry allows you to make multiple attacks as if using Two Weapon Fighting. You can substitute any of these attacks with an unarmed strike if you choose, up to all of them. If a weapon or attack is different than the others, it was the intent to limit that to the maximum number of attacks you could normally take with said weapon while utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting (ie 2 at +6BAB, 3 at +11BAB and so on), with all of those attacks falling into the standard chain of reducing attack bonus (-5 cumulative for each additional attack). It was not the intent to allow you to make more than this using one specific weapon (not unarmed strikes), or to take all of the highest attack bonus attacks with that weapon. This makes the monks attacks, from a baseline perspective significantly better than that of a fighter, who must invest in twice the number of weapon to gain a similar benefit.

That said.. this causes some problems that came to light today as this bounced around the office, namely that it was not common knowledge that it was supposed to work this way and has gone to print without this change. This is obviously a concern and one that I intend to investigate. There is also the problem of the Zen Archer, which clearly does not work with these rules (or rather, it clearly, as its intent, violates these rules). There is also the concern that this system is a bit of a pain to figure out, which is something that does concern me greatly.

We will be evaluating this situation a bit further in the coming days and I would like to thank everyone here for pointing out some of the problems with this ruling.

I hope that clears this up a little for folks. I will see to it that we get to the bottom of this soon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Make you voice heard, people of Paizo and players of Pathfinder! Speak your thoughts and rouse the heavens with your thunder!

Master Arminas


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am thinking we should wait for Jason, to clarify I think Paizo gets the point that us filthy Monk lovers are now very upset and confused and...you know. so I think we should wait and see


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

Ah, I didn't know JB posted there. Glad to see that was always the intent and that this was just a clarification, and nothing new. Guess I was wrong on the Zen Archer bit :D

Thanks for bringing that up, arminas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to hope this thread has a much less of the angry attitude from the previous thread. I'm against the new monk ruling but I really don't want to be lumped together with the angry masses...


One question for Ross Byers:

Ross Byers said wrote:

I removed some posts that were less than civil (it's a long thread. If I missed any, please flag them.)

I'm also locking this thread because it's gone well past being a rules question and into being a debate on if the rule works or not and various game design principles.

If you want Official clarification, please click the FAQ button on the first post in the thread.
If you're still unclear on how this rule works, make a new thread in this forum.
If you want to talk about how the rule should/shouldn't work, then make a new thread in the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion forum.

Was it not possible just to move the thread to General Discussion so that people don't have to go back and forth, looking up things in a (now) locked thread and perhaps rehashing the same issues again? Was it truely necessary to lock the thread entirely?

The tone in the original thread DID calm down considerably, I doubt you removed very many posts.

Not questioning your authority to lock threads, here RB, just wondering on the reasons.

Master Arminas


Cheapy wrote:

Ah, I didn't know JB posted there. Glad to see that was always the intent and that this was just a clarification, and nothing new. Guess I was wrong on the Zen Archer bit :D

Thanks for bringing that up, arminas.

You are welcome, Cheapy. I didn't want to start quoting everyone, but I did want to include Sean K Reynold's and Jason Bulmahn's statements. I think (think) I found all of the ones on topic, but if I missed any please feel free to post them.

Master Arminas

Taldor

Ima gunna save my outrage and uproar until we hear from Jason or the developer team again.

I disagree intensely with the retcon (some contention on this word but monks in Paizo products list them flurrying with a single weapon 'the old way') but I advocate giving them a chance to respond etc. before we refuse to let it quietly go away :).

Andoran

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 8 people marked this as a favorite.

If this was always the rules, how did zen archer get through? It worked just fine with the original interpretation of the rules, but now, all of a sudden doesn't even come close to working within the rules? And no one in Paizo noticed this in the years APG has been out?

No, even I don't believe that they're that sloppy. So, despite what some people will say, this is a rules change and a nerf, and a heavy one at that, on a class that really didn't need a nerf. But they're the powers on high, and as far as the official rules go, their say so is the one that matters.

But really, so what? If you don't play PFS Just ignore it. That's my intention.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Question from my other thread for discussion just to see as the above does not seem to answer it:

Can a monk ignore the second weapon in a flurry and just take a full attack without the penalty as another 2 weapon fighting character would?


With the original flurry that would be no. Either you flurry or you don't. With flurry you use monk level as your BAB (plus any BAB from multi-classing) and gain the extra attacks.

With the new clarification that looks and smells like a retcon but apparently isn't, I don't know. I still want to say no, but we will have to wait and see whether the monk now actually gets this feats (or is allowed to use these feats as prerequisites), but on the safe side I would probably say no.

Sorry.

Master Arminas


My guess would be no, since flurrying involves acting like you are two weapon fighting. I am intrigued by by that line of thinking though.

Taldor

In Ross' quote, he mentions clicking the FAQ button on the first post to find the Official clarification. I cannot find this button or a link to it. Does he mean SKR's "ruling?" Or did the devs hold their meeting and make a decision on it?

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So kicking the ground to keep full BAB with your reach attacks?

Shadow Lodge

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

I agree its probably a no, but it is an interesting idea. Hopefully we'll get clarification tomorrow on the blog.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nezthalak wrote:
In Ross' quote, he mentions clicking the FAQ button on the first post to find the Official clarification. I cannot find this button or a link to it. Does he mean SKR's "ruling?" Or did the devs hold their meeting and make a decision on it?

At the top of each post, there are a few links labeled 'Flag', 'List', and 'Reply'. In some forums (such as the RPG forums) they are joined by a link labeled 'FAQ'.

Clicking that link nominates the post as a question needing official clarification. The more people who click it, the higher in the list it ends up.

The rules team is aware of the issue, and as indicated by the quoted posts in this thread, they are looking at the further-reaching implications of the rule and more information will be forthcoming. Clicking the FAQ link is a more effective way of letting them know you're concerned about the issue than posting in these threads.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Christopher Van Horn wrote:

Question from my other thread for discussion just to see as the above does not seem to answer it:

Can a monk ignore the second weapon in a flurry and just take a full attack without the penalty as another 2 weapon fighting character would?

I believe the answer to your question specifically is "Yes, the monk can take a standard full-attack action with one weapon or fist, but his BAB would NOT equal his class level, it would be 3/4 as shown on the Monk table."

There's nothing saying that you NEED to flurry to do a full attack action.


Ross Byers wrote:
Nezthalak wrote:
In Ross' quote, he mentions clicking the FAQ button on the first post to find the Official clarification. I cannot find this button or a link to it. Does he mean SKR's "ruling?" Or did the devs hold their meeting and make a decision on it?

At the top of each post, there are a few links labeled 'Flag', 'List', and 'Reply'. In some forums (such as the RPG forums) they are joined by a link labeled 'FAQ'.

Clicking that link nominates the post as a question needing official clarification. The more people who click it, the higher in the list it ends up.

The rules team is aware of the issue, and as indicated by the quoted posts in this thread, they are looking at the further-reaching implications of the rule and more information will be forthcoming. Clicking the FAQ link is a more effective way of letting them know you're concerned about the issue than posting in these threads.

Now I am depressed. He was here and didn't answer my question. But, Rosssssssss. Posting is so much more fun than simply clicking a button.

Master Arminas

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Nezthalak wrote:
In Ross' quote, he mentions clicking the FAQ button on the first post to find the Official clarification. I cannot find this button or a link to it. Does he mean SKR's "ruling?" Or did the devs hold their meeting and make a decision on it?

At the top of each post, there are a few links labeled 'Flag', 'List', and 'Reply'. In some forums (such as the RPG forums) they are joined by a link labeled 'FAQ'.

Clicking that link nominates the post as a question needing official clarification. The more people who click it, the higher in the list it ends up.

The rules team is aware of the issue, and as indicated by the quoted posts in this thread, they are looking at the further-reaching implications of the rule and more information will be forthcoming. Clicking the FAQ link is a more effective way of letting them know you're concerned about the issue than posting in these threads.

But while we're waiting, a lot of us just don't have anything better to do!


And what's the point in rabble-rousing if there is no rabble? LOL

Master Arminas


I notice the argument against flurry as written is that it isn't fair to other TWF builds, but I'm not sure this is an appropriate comparison. For every other TWF build there is the possibility of a THW build for the same class. Not for Monks.

Monks must flurry to be full BAB and are not casters so the comparison should be to the best class of builds for each of the non-casting martial classes. The extra 0.5x strength modifier and effectively double weapon damage from flurry are not a better deal than the constant damage and accuracy benefits from weapon training or the increased strength of rage and the benefits of not taking -2 to hit. It may be a better deal than a cavalier's challenge, but not better than a full druid level animal companion even if that companion is off a restricted list.


And a Sohei has to wield 2 halberd? I lold hard

Taldor

Ross Byers wrote:
Nezthalak wrote:
In Ross' quote, he mentions clicking the FAQ button on the first post to find the Official clarification. I cannot find this button or a link to it. Does he mean SKR's "ruling?" Or did the devs hold their meeting and make a decision on it?

At the top of each post, there are a few links labeled 'Flag', 'List', and 'Reply'. In some forums (such as the RPG forums) they are joined by a link labeled 'FAQ'.

Clicking that link nominates the post as a question needing official clarification. The more people who click it, the higher in the list it ends up.

The rules team is aware of the issue, and as indicated by the quoted posts in this thread, they are looking at the further-reaching implications of the rule and more information will be forthcoming. Clicking the FAQ link is a more effective way of letting them know you're concerned about the issue than posting in these threads.

Ah, i see. Thank you! I'm still learning the navigation. Fast response much appreciated :).


Well a sohei wielding a halbred as a double weapon could flurry with it, right?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

This issue brings up something that has bothered me quite a bit. The Core Rulebook was released 3 or 4 years ago, and since then, 3 different books have been released which create alterations to the core rules in order to add classes, spells, feats, combat maneuvers, magic items, etc..

Perhaps it would be more useful if the developers would release a "theorycrafting" book after each rulebook which hashes out the mechanics of the content of the previous book, presents sample characters which are designed to take one or two mechanics and exploit them to their most optimal incarnation, and generally act as a guideline for GM's, players, and content creators to understand the limits of the mechanics already in existence. Think of it as being similar to the "cheat books" which come out for every popular video game these days.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mabven, we don't normally agree, but in this case . . . +1. Excellent idea. Especially if they made it a free-form discussion that has their thoughts and ideas on why things were done in this specific manner and how they see the rules as working, it could probably sell. At least as a low-cost PDF. Not so sure, it would be a great seller in hardback.

Master Arminas


master arminas wrote:

Mabven, we don't normally agree, but in this case . . . +1. Excellent idea. Especially if they made it a free-form discussion that has their thoughts and ideas on why things were done in this specific manner and how they see the rules as working, it could probably sell. At least as a low-cost PDF. Not so sure, it would be a great seller in hardback.

Master Arminas

It wouldn't even have do be done by paizo themselves - a third party publisher could do the same thing, and pay paizo a licensing fee + consulting fee for their editorial input. (ie, "this works," or "this is not in accordance with RAI, change it".)

Silver Crusade

Mabven the OP healer wrote:

This issue brings up something that has bothered me quite a bit. The Core Rulebook was released 3 or 4 years ago, and since then, 3 different books have been released which create alterations to the core rules in order to add classes, spells, feats, combat maneuvers, magic items, etc..

Perhaps it would be more useful if the developers would release a "theorycrafting" book after each rulebook which hashes out the mechanics of the content of the previous book, presents sample characters which are designed to take one or two mechanics and exploit them to their most optimal incarnation, and generally act as a guideline for GM's, players, and content creators to understand the limits of the mechanics already in existence. Think of it as being similar to the "cheat books" which come out for every popular video game these days.

I always referred to that style of game design as the "Never looking back design style." It's like the designers never looked back to see if an upcoming rule conflicts with a previous rule that's already been out.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I'm not sure I agree with the 'it's not fair to two-weapon fighting builds' argument... just because two-weapon builds need to spend a bunch of extra feats and twice as much gold just to compare with a basic two-handed weapon build, it doesn't mean that monks should have to suffer too.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

So I've been thinking about the ruling as described and it seems like for the original Monk it boils down to;

While flurrying a monk gains the benefits of the following feats:
1st level - Double Slice & Two Weapon Fighting
8th level - Improved Two Weapon Fighting
15th level - Greater Two Weapon Fighting

In addition, any or all weapon attacks in the flurry sequence may be replaced by an unarmed attack at the same attack bonus.

Double Slice also applies to any unarmed attacks a Monk makes which are not part of a flurry.

However, there is one anomaly. The original writeup mentioned that a weapon wielded with two hands as part of a flurry still only does 1x strength bonus damage. The only one of the original 'monk weapons' that could apply to would be the quarterstaff. There would then be no difference in damage whether using it two handed or as a double weapons... and thus they probably just glossed over whether there would be any impact on the number of attacks which could be made with the weapon. Per the new ruling, if that original Monk were to strike with just one end of a quarterstaff held in two hands (like a long baseball bat) they'd apparently only be able to use it as either the primary or secondary hand of the TWF sequence, with the remaining attacks having to be unarmed strikes.

That certainly isn't anywhere close to clear in the original writeup.

Presumably that logic would extend to newer examples such as the Sohei use of polearms or bows... they can still make the same number of attacks, but only half of them can be with the two-handed weapon. Also, since there are now non-light melee weapons in the mix, then if things are really working "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" the flurry attack bonuses would be lower for a Sohei using two short spears or other non-light weapons. Crossbow Sohei's would presumably also be limited by the need to reload, with any remaining attacks in the flurry being perforce unarmed.

The Zen Archer doesn't seem to fit at all, but the fact that they lose all normal flurry benefits AND cannot use Rapid Shot or Many Shot with their special 'bow flurry' suggests that it should be treated as a completely different ability which just happens to give them a number of bow shots at the same bonuses a Monk using TWF with light weapons would get.


This whole thread really makes me happy that they took away the ability for the Zen archer to flurry with unarmed strikes, so that he can ONLY use his chosen weapon.

The zen archer also sets a precedence for the use of a weapon multiple times. Despite the wording of the TWF feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Well a sohei wielding a halbred as a double weapon could flurry with it, right?

A halberd isn't a double weapon, though. But that's an interesting solution - let ANY weapon become a double weapon when wielded by a monk in a flurry, where the 2nd side of the double=the monk's unarmed attack. In some cases, this could actually be an unarmed attack, while in others, it'd represent striking with the haft, flat of the blade, and the like.

It doesn't "fix" the fact that the monk loses the special benefits of the weapon for half the flurry, but it's no more complex than a double weapon already is. Given that apparently the developers WANTED to keep a monk from flurrying with a single weapon, this might be how I'd play it . . .

Except for Sohei bows/crossbows and the Zen Archer. Are bows wimpy enough to go ahead and let them be exceptions?


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata.

I do think it's worth keeping discussion going; if nothing else it turns up other issues caused by the clarification, (Zen archer is el busto) things that work but probably don't want to be baked into the game rules (Groundkicker Sohei), other things that possibly no longer work as intended (if I'm flurrying with two temple swords, do I take the harsher TWF penalty because it's not light?), and things that probably still work right but are sources of confusion.

While the time limit on editing posts makes it slightly inconvenient, it might be worthwhile to compile a master list of questions raised by the clarification, including things that are broken, things that are causing confusion even if they're not broken, consequences of the clarification that might not be immediately obvious to everyone (increased TWF penalties with Temple swords, for example), and things like Groundkicker Sohei that are kind of dumb even if they're sort of functional.

The easiest way to do this is probably to have someone who understands the issue well, such as Mergy (I'm volunteering you, but there are other people who could handle it) keep track of suggested additions to the issues list and re-post it the updated version occasionally. If Mergy or someone else doesn't want to curate the list, I can do it.

The list can freely include things that there's debate about whether they work or not, since the fact that there's debate means that clarification on those points would be useful. I think it's best if the list primarily centers around stuff that's busted-feeling, and not smaller balance issues. ("Monks are bad and need help" may or may not be true, but it's not a rules issue.)

The goal is to compile a list of problems that emerge from the clarification using the rules as written; you may feel that, for example, zen archers must have some kind of special exception because otherwise the archetype doesn't work, but as written they do not, making it a rules issue.

Here is my humble attempt at a start of a list.
------------------------

Zen Archer
- Zen Archer offers the ability to flurry with a bow, but provides no written exception to the flurry requirement to use two different weapons. This renders the Archetype largely nonfunctional for monks with fewer than four arms.
- An exception written to allow Zen Archer to count the bow as both weapons for TWF should also address whether the bow counts as light or what for the off-hand attacks.

Two-Handed Reach Weapon Flurries
- Sohei and monks using monk weapons with the reach property can flurry using a two-handed reach weapon for some of the attacks. Because such monks are monks, they do have their unarmed strike available. This produces the situation where if a monk with a flurry-ready reach weapon wants to hit a target ten feet away with a full attack and wants the benefits of flurrying, they have to kick the ground, the air, or the wall with their feet, which is pretty silly. Even if they're allowed to simply forgo these attacks to avoid the silly visual, this still represents a significant blow to fighting with a reach weapon.
- It's definitely not the case that a monk with a reach weapon can make all his flurry attacks through that weapon. It is similar to the situation where a fighter with a polearm and armor spikes wishes to full attack an enemy ten feet away; he cannot turn his armor spike attacks into polearm attacks just because the spikes cannot reach.

Single-weapon flurries
- Monks who, for stylistic reasons or because they are a Sohei who wishes to use a two-handed weapon, wish to fight with one weapon are no longer well-supported under the pathfinder rules. This doesn't cause any rule breakage, but represents a loss of a character option that, as long as the rules are being examined, might be considered.

TWF non-light weapon penalties
- The table in the monk section gives an attack sequence that assumes that the off-hand weapon counts as light. The Flurry of Blows text offers no special exemptions for monks who are using a Temple Sword or other non-light weapon for the off-hand attacks. Do such monks take the additional penalty for using a non-light weapon in their off-hand, or do monks always treat the off-hand as light? If the latter is the case, that needs to be called out specifically.

Monks with three or more attack forms
- A monk holding a weapon in each hand has at least three attack options available - the two weapons and his unarmed strike. When a monk armed in such a fashion makes a flurry of blows, does he select two of the weapons, designate one as the main hand one, one as the off-hand one, and ignore the other? Can he somehow use all three? If so, what constraints are there on what weapons can be used for what attacks?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
glandis wrote:
Except for Sohei bows/crossbows and the Zen Archer. Are bows wimpy enough to go ahead and let them be exceptions?

No. Bows are one of the strongest weapons in Pathfinder on the strength of their full-attacks being more frequent. Either flurrying with monk weapons, even two-handed monk weapons, is OK, or flurrying with bows is vastly overpowered. The difference between them is just that great.

Shadow Lodge

Mabven the OP healer wrote:
master arminas wrote:

Mabven, we don't normally agree, but in this case . . . +1. Excellent idea. Especially if they made it a free-form discussion that has their thoughts and ideas on why things were done in this specific manner and how they see the rules as working, it could probably sell. At least as a low-cost PDF. Not so sure, it would be a great seller in hardback.

Master Arminas

It wouldn't even have do be done by paizo themselves - a third party publisher could do the same thing, and pay paizo a licensing fee + consulting fee for their editorial input. (ie, "this works," or "this is not in accordance with RAI, change it".)

You know...one just has to look to the past of Pathfinder and find a number of system savvy individuals who were willing to do all of this work essentially for free...however, shortly after posting their remarks (probably in not the friendliest way possible) the "malevolent" party of "ne'er-do-wells" were banned from the forum and ignored by both staff and forum members alike.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems anytime the monk has anything good going for it, the DEVs come in and nerf it to hell. Personally, it seems Paizo as a whole is firmly against the Monk and the only reason it was even included in the Core was to make Pathfinder backwards compatible with 3.5E, otherwise they would have just erased the class and be done with it. Pathfinder has stood on it's own for awhile now, I see no reason for the DEVs to keep shying away from the fact they hate Monks and don't want people to play them.

As it is, unless the people I'm playing with are in a PFS game, we tend to give the DEVs the finger when it comes to Monk rulings and play them how we want to.

That's my own personal little rant, but back on topic, I'd love to see a PbP game where the developers actually sit down and play a Monk with all their nerfs and sub-par abilities they keep issuing them. Maybe a couple of various encounters with different types of monks that can be used in each encounter with a standard party. For instance, take a party of 4 characters, 3 of the iconics, and a 4 different monk builds, rotating out the monk builds and playing the encounter 4 different times, and play them out in 5 different scenarios and see if the monk really helps that much.

Then, they need to play the monk without the erratas and see if they're more or less effective. For instance, play where brass knuckles do unarmed damage and can be enhanced as a weapon. Compare and contrast them to the other classes, does this make the monk better than a barbarian of equal level? Or a Fighter? Or a Ranger? I get the feeling the Monk was never really play tested and that they just designed the class on paper only.

Shadow Lodge

Hmm...could someone PM me a complete list of the supposed monk "changes" that have occurred over the course of Pathfinder? Besides the brass knuckle/cestus clarification (which, unfortunately, make sense) or the Flurry of Blows clarification.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

If I may ask what exactly has changed?

If you have 6 attacks a round with FOB and one Kama, you can't take all 6 attacks with that Kama you have to split it up with 3 fist 3 kama? is that what the Devs are saying? so you in essence need 2 Kamas to effectively use the ability?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master arminas wrote:
Ok the previous 11-page, 568-post thread on this discussion was locked.

That's it? I'm rather dissapointed. At least the TWF thread made it over 900 posts before it got locked.


Chris Kenney wrote:
No. Bows are one of the strongest weapons in Pathfinder on the strength of their full-attacks being more frequent. Either flurrying with monk weapons, even two-handed monk weapons, is OK, or flurrying with bows is vastly overpowered. The difference between them is just that great.

Yeah - if flurrying is supposed to be like TWF (and I still like my double weapon idea to handle the odd melee cases), then I guess a "bow flurry" needs to be like rapid/manyshot.


Lobolusk wrote:

If I may ask what exactly has changed?

If you have 6 attacks a round with FOB and one Kama, you can't take all 6 attacks with that Kama you have to split it up with 3 fist 3 kama? is that what the Devs are saying? so you in essence need 2 Kamas to effectively use the ability?

Yes, that is exactly what the developers have said. They have also said that they recognise that there are multiple problems with archetypes which this raises, so they are reviewing the situation.


HangarFlying wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Ok the previous 11-page, 568-post thread on this discussion was locked.
That's it? I'm rather dissapointed. At least the TWF thread made it over 900 posts before it got locked.

Agreed. And while it had it's moments of heat, it was suprisingly civil for such a hot-button topic. I think they jumped the gun on locking it down to try and stop this dissension in the ranks from spreading.

Master Arminas


master arminas wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Ok the previous 11-page, 568-post thread on this discussion was locked.
That's it? I'm rather dissapointed. At least the TWF thread made it over 900 posts before it got locked.

Agreed. And while it had it's moments of heat, it was suprisingly civil for such a hot-button topic. I think they jumped the gun on locking it down to try and stop this dissension in the ranks from spreading.

Master Arminas

I think they thought you and I were hurting each others' feelings. My feelings weren't hurt, I don't think yours were either :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So how do we fix it. Simplest is count the monk as having the various two weapon feats with the restrictions so that its similar to the ranger and then they can take other two weapon feats.

An idea I have that would be nice is to get rid of the increased bab for flurry, and have the monk have a weapon specialty like the fighter so the increased ability to hit functions whether they flurry or not. That gives them a little increase without over doing it. If that was matched up with having the virtual two weapon feats could make for a nice solution. Then for using ki, allow the extra attack to the full attack an and at a high level allow it to happen on a standard attack as well. What do you think?


Not bad, Netherek, not bad.

MA


Lobolusk wrote:
If you have 6 attacks a round with FOB and one Kama, you can't take all 6 attacks with that Kama you have to split it up with 3 fist 3 kama? is that what the Devs are saying? so you in essence need 2 Kamas to effectively use the ability?

Yup, that's my understanding. So you lose your magic/flaming/etc. bonus's on half the flurry, unless you have two magic/flaming/etc. somethings. I actually like the flavor-boost here, as it means having (say) a Magic Fang'd fist and +2 Flameburst Sai is functionally meaningful - but it is a loss of efficiency.

Problems come up with reach weapons (which treating as a double weapon with the other side = monk unarmed seems to solve for me), non-light weapons (e.g., temple sword) in the off-hand (solve by disallowing/lowering the flurry to hit bonus's?), and bow flurries (need a new method to support this?)


Or have the ki ability not only add an attack, but allow the flurry to be with a single weapon. That way the rule matches intent, but allows for that dynamic flurry of blowsvwe want on occassional but limited resource.

Idk, just thinking outside the box.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Or we could give in to demands to increase the monk's base BAB (since, really, Flurry of Blows as is, is only an altered Two-Weapon Fighting tree with an obtuse table), alter class features to reduce MAD, and change or introduce magic items that are comparable in cost to other classes. But...that would require changing the chassis wouldn't it...? *sigh*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, unless you're dealing with organized play, there's no reason not to ignore this update/rules change/retcon/whatever and just keep playing FoB the way you like... I doubt there's a patrol going house-to-house enforcing this, after all.

I don't play monks, so it isn't a matter of import to me. But people seem more than a little invested in this working a particular way... when for the most part, it can keep working that particular way...


I didn't dig through the thread, so maybe this has been answered: If you are required to use two weapons to make all your flurries work, and you select a one-handed weapon such as the temple sword, and it is supposed to work like two-weapon fighting, does this not mean that you have to take an extra penalty to your attacks? Or is it not possible to flurry all your attacks with those new one-handed weapons at all? Are they considered to be too powerful?

Funnily I had always thought that you need two weapons until those weapons came out...

Shadow Lodge

Alitan wrote:
On the other hand, unless you're dealing with organized play, there's no reason not to ignore this update/rules change/retcon/whatever and just keep playing FoB the way you like... I doubt there's a patrol going house-to-house enforcing this, after all.

The problem with that type of solution is the lack of addressing the actual problem, ignores it in favor of embracing the Oberoni Fallacy, and implies that the status quo is fine.

Sangalor wrote:

I didn't dig through the thread, so maybe this has been answered: If you are required to use two weapons to make all your flurries work, and you select a one-handed weapon such as the temple sword, and it is supposed to work like two-weapon fighting, does this not mean that you have to take an extra penalty to your attacks? Or is it not possible to flurry all your attacks with those new one-handed weapons at all? Are they considered to be too powerful?

Funnily I had always thought that you need two weapons until those weapons came out...

You cannot use the entirety of your flurry with only one weapon because Flurry of Blows acts as Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting states that you use your off hand for the extra attacks. Thus, for the extra attacks (those not specifically granted from the initial BAB) must use either another weapon or an unarmed strike.

1 to 50 of 1,667 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.