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

RPG Superstar 2015

Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

951 to 1,000 of 1,667 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thank you, Master Arminas.

I came up with a better formula for my flurry-of-blows, which I think is a vast improvement. I added in Catfall in a slightly altered form, added the Greater feats into bonus feats (so long as you have the Improved feats) and a new ability for the mystic monk. I have adjusted the fast movement of both types of monk so that it can stack with enhancement bonuses, but downgraded it in scope somewhat with a clear formula for it (twice monk level rounded down to the nearest 5').

Here is my standard monk, with new improved FoB goodness among other things.

Here is the mystic monk, with similar advantages.

Edit: Melasoal, you may want to check these out.


Melasoul wrote:
master arminas wrote:

...

As I was expecting. Many people DON'T like the d4s.
...
My DM let me respec to your Monk because she was already looking for some way to pump up the monk, and let me just say that I love the d4s, both from a gameplay perspective and from the old timer perspective.

Well, that warms my heart!

Quote:
My DM and I were both concerned about the fewer number of attacks and the reduced movement speed, but the increase in Ki points makes it very similar, and I am hitting more often too. Not to mention I tossed on a pair of boots of striding and springing on top of that.

And hitting more often is a reward in and of itself!

Quote:
From a damage perspective, let me say that in our current campaign arc we are fighting a lot of outsiders. That was what caused my DM to want me to look into ways to buff up the monk because the DR of the outsiders was causing my to do literally no damage most of the time. Stunning Fist doesn't work well on creatures with a primary Fort either.

True. But at least this very DOES gain some way to alleviate that DR at mid-level via ki strike.

Quote:
Being able to make two good attacks after a move has been good for the group tactics too.

Glad that worked for you.

Quote:
If I had to complain I would say that the perception line of boosts is kind of week. Maybe start with darkvision, then give scent. A bonus to the perception skill could be good too.

Elf-sight, a 7th level discipline, gives low-light vision. Plus a bonus of +2 (7th), +4 (13th), and +6 (19th) on all Perception checks. At 15th level, you get darkvision 30' in natural and magical darkness. Which is pretty rad for a class that doesn't cast spells. In my own humble opinion.

Quote:
But yeah, good job MA!

The goal is to have fun, and if you are then I am happy that I was able to help.

MA


master arminas wrote:


Quote:
From a damage perspective, let me say that in our current campaign arc we are fighting a lot of outsiders. That was what caused my DM to want me to look into ways to buff up the monk because the DR of the outsiders was causing my to do literally no damage most of the time. Stunning Fist doesn't work well on creatures with a primary Fort either.

True. But at least this very DOES gain some way to alleviate that DR at mid-level via ki strike.

This is true and one of the main reasons we went with your Monk.

master arminas wrote:


Quote:
If I had to complain I would say that the perception line of boosts is kind of week. Maybe start with darkvision, then give scent. A bonus to the perception skill could be good too.

Elf-sight, a 7th level discipline, gives low-light vision. Plus a bonus of +2 (7th), +4 (13th), and +6 (19th) on all Perception checks. At 15th level, you get darkvision 30' in natural and magical darkness. Which is pretty rad for a class that doesn't cast spells. In my own humble opinion.

MA

Ah, I do think we are on a slightly different page here though. Specifically, I meant your writeup here, not the Monk with options.

We've been playing with the monk that I linked to for a few sessions and it has gone well so far.

We discussed several other options before I found your class. The option we were leaning the most to before was allowing hand a foot wraps that took up glove and boot slots, but were enchantable as a single weapon (which I've also seen other people suggest). We always felt it was kind of a stopgap though, so a rewritten class seemed like a better solution.

I like the idea of the Monk-with-options, a lot, but we're going to stick with what we've got for now. Who knows for the next campaign though.

Dabbler, I like a lot of the ideas in your class too. Though I do have some comments.

For fast movement, why did you list it as an enhancement bonus and then say it stack with Haste and Boots of Striding and Springing? So it doesn't stack with expeditious retreat for monk/wizards or monk/sorcerers? Any reason not to just make it an unnamed bonus?

I like the weapon training abilities. Though why not let the weapon training stack with other weapon training? Yeah, you could stack monk and fighter and get weapon training bonuses kind of earlier, but it doesn't seem like that big of an advantage.

Also, why not let Maneuver Skill add to both CMB and CMD against that maneuver? As is, it seems a little weak.

Also, I like shattering strike. I like it a lot.


It is all good. I finish one and get new ideas!

MA


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Melasoul wrote:

Dabbler, I like a lot of the ideas in your class too. Though I do have some comments.

For fast movement, why did you list it as an enhancement bonus and then say it stack with Haste and Boots of Striding and Springing? So it doesn't stack with expeditious retreat for monk/wizards or monk/sorcerers? Any reason not to just make it an unnamed bonus?

Typo. I meant to change it to an untyped or intrinsic bonus. I'll fix that for the next revision!

Melasoul wrote:
I like the weapon training abilities.

Thank you. I wanted to provide combat options to the core monk other than just 'hit things in unarmed combat'. It provides a way to add decent weapons to the monks arsenal, or to enhance unarmed strike to being a very effective weapon, or go for broke with maneuvers. Best of all it puts the options right out there for the monk player to see.

Melasoul wrote:
Though why not let the weapon training stack with other weapon training? Yeah, you could stack monk and fighter and get weapon training bonuses kind of earlier, but it doesn't seem like that big of an advantage.

My reason was because there are weapons the monk can add to their single weapon training 'group' that are technically part of other weapon training groups for the fighter. My intention was that they should be in one or the other group, but not both.

Melasoul wrote:
Also, why not let Maneuver Skill add to both CMB and CMD against that maneuver? As is, it seems a little weak.

It's there to compensate for the loss of the original Maneuver training, which only effects CMB, not CMD. With 3/4 BAB, weapon training (because it will apply in just about every circumstance) and a +2 bonus, you peak at +21 to CMB at 20th level as compared to the original monk's +20 from BAB/Monk level alone.

As maneuver training never increased CMD, I saw no need for this ability to do so - also, I wanted the various abilities to be equal to about half a feat, and +2 to each would be worth more than that. I could make it +1/+1 and have it selectable multiple times for the same maneuver, I suppose, but I do not see the need.

Melasoul wrote:

Also, I like shattering strike. I like it a lot.

...

Thank you! The current monk goes from not ignoring any hardness at all to suddenly being able to ignore adamantine. That felt silly to me, so I decided a reducing hardness ability would better suit the monk.


Dabbler wrote:
Melasoul wrote:
Though why not let the weapon training stack with other weapon training? Yeah, you could stack monk and fighter and get weapon training bonuses kind of earlier, but it doesn't seem like that big of an advantage.

My reason was because there are weapons the monk can add to their single weapon training 'group' that are technically part of other weapon training groups for the fighter. My intention was that they should be in one or the other group, but not both.

Ah, ok, that makes sense. I would rephrase it that a weapon only gets the highest available weapon training bonus. That way you can stack the bonus from multiple classes in the same group without allowing a weapon to gain the bonus from multiple groups.

Dabbler wrote:
Melasoul wrote:
Also, why not let Maneuver Skill add to both CMB and CMD against that maneuver? As is, it seems a little weak.

It's there to compensate for the loss of the original Maneuver training, which only effects CMB, not CMD. With 3/4 BAB, weapon training (because it will apply in just about every circumstance) and a +2 bonus, you peak at +21 to CMB at 20th level as compared to the original monk's +20 from BAB/Monk level alone.

As maneuver training never increased CMD, I saw no need for this ability to do so - also, I wanted the various abilities to be equal to about half a feat, and +2 to each would be worth more than that. I...

Yeah, I figured it was there to compensate for the lack of "Maneuver Training", I just thought that the option was a little weak compared to the other options.

I can understand wanting it to be about half a feat, but I see the +2 to CMB and CMD is about half a feat (well, maybe a little more, but not much). Look at the Improved Maneuver feats: each gives a +2 to CMB, a +2 to CMD, and lets you ignore the AOO that maneuver generates. If I had to assign how much people value each of those, I'd probably say 40%, 20%, and 40%. Most people want to ignore the AOO and the bonus to perform the maneuver. Not to mention that most people will be performing the maneuvers far more often than defending against them.

Normally, when I balance things, I look at two things: If someone is building specifically for this, how tempting is it to take something other than this? And if someone is not building for this, how tempting is it to dip it for fun and flavor.

Looking at the available abilities, all of them fit the first question fine. For what they are intended for, each one of them is the best available option. However, I can honestly say that I don't think I would ever use 1/5 of a class ability for a +2 to CMB for one maneuver.

But, just to say, overall, this is a small complaint.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

True the feats take away the AoO, but you won't take this option unless you already have the feat regardless, so that isn't really an issue. If the maneuver is rarely coming back at you, and the monk has possibly the best CMD in the business.

I'll probably change the phrasing on the weapon training, though, it's a good point.


Hello All Players and Developers,

Here is my attempt to Errata the monk. I have tried to fix the problems and keep the fixes as simple as possible. Flurry of Blows is now a virtual off-hand weapon and the full two-weapon fighting feats are granted. I have also tried to make it fit with archetypes and still allow a flexible build and for multi-classing.

You are all more than welcome to review, reuse, rehash this contribution.

Stragen's Monk Errata

Kind Regards,

Stragen


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am a huge fan of Paizo, and I am shocked by some of the hateful posts here. The Developer team would get a day at the spa from me, if I could afford it, for all the unwarranted abuse they get.

Moving on. Whatever the changes to the monk may be, I believe a minimalistic solution is the greatest answer. I know it will be hard to fix with only minimal changes, but it will have the greatest effect within the game.

Also, to the Paizo team: I know it's hard, but I would try not to get too upset with angry posters. Just delete, move on, and remember you have a lot of fans on your side.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Development team,

Just wanted to throw out a quick thank you for all the work you do. I hope to see some FAQ blogs once again, as there are a number of topics that I would like to see clarification on.

We Paizo fans are filled with passion regarding Pathfinder. Unfortunately, there are times that that passion gets the better of us and a fixation occurs which, consequently, means civil discourse is forgotten. I certainly hope this doesn't discourage you from further interraction, but more importantly I hope the instigating "jerks" realize their error, and take steps to curtail such emotional outbursts in the future and learn to communicate their displeasure in a way that builds discussion rather than breaks it.

Regarding the monk, I am of the opinion that you should stay the course and not change the monk just because "that's how everyone does it". Sure, language might need to be cleaned up, and there might need to be some adjustments or clarifications to archetypes, but as a class, I do not believe the monk to be sub-par or in need of a drastic overhaul.


And I say that if the majority of people commenting seem to believe that your own rules are ambigious enough to support a second 'right' way to play, and that your own staff and free-lance writers have, in published material, supported that second 'right' way, perhaps it is time to reconsider whether or not your original intentions will instead cause more confusion and chaos than simply accepting that other 'right' interpretation.

Just so our side is voiced as well, HangerFlying.

Master Arminas

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Certainly, you are within your right to voice your point of view in a civil manner, and I think having an opposing view is important as it helps the discussion in the long run.

That being said, I don't think there is a problem with the monk, and I don't think changing the rules just because a lot of people have been playing it differently is a good policy precedent for making a rules clarification.

The original rules intentions only cause confusion and chaos if the language isn't clarified. I agree there needs to be a change of language, but a change in order to clarify the intent of the game designer. If this change is made, then what confusion and chaos would there be? All that would be left are the nerdragers that are miffed because they have to "change the way they have always played it".

And that raises an important question: why do the rules have to be changed to "how people interpret it"? Why can't these people, upon having it pointed out that an error was made, adjust to the clarified intent of the rules? The argument doesn't just go one way.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do the rules need to be changed? Because every game designer that has published Monk Archetypes or Monks in PFS, PFS of which is played with a strict adherence to the rules, have published their Monk contributions or NPCs in PFS modules under the assumption of 1 weapon flurries.

So Paizo has published lots of material under the assumption the Monk can flurry with all attacks using one weapon, from official NPCs in PFS scenarios, to Archetypes that don't work unless that mechanic is assumed to be true. So while the original intention of how the Flurry was supposed to work, was as Two Weapon Fighting, the reality is almost no one has been playing it that way.

There are many cases where the RAI doesn't make it to print, and gets changed. This should, probably one that gets changed because of how it's being played.


HangarFlying wrote:

Certainly, you are within your right to voice your point of view in a civil manner, and I think having an opposing view is important as it helps the discussion in the long run.

That being said, I don't think there is a problem with the monk, and I don't think changing the rules just because a lot of people have been playing it differently is a good policy precedent for making a rules clarification.

The original rules intentions only cause confusion and chaos if the language isn't clarified. I agree there needs to be a change of language, but a change in order to clarify the intent of the game designer. If this change is made, then what confusion and chaos would there be? All that would be left are the nerdragers that are miffed because they have to "change the way they have always played it".

And that raises an important question: why do the rules have to be changed to "how people interpret it"? Why can't these people, upon having it pointed out that an error was made, adjust to the clarified intent of the rules? The argument doesn't just go one way.

I know you're playing dumb to get a rise out of people, but to clarify it for other people who are reading the thread: the issue people have is that it's disingenuous to say that it was always like this when official material seem to have stated it differently. Examples like archetypes and NPCs are telling us that this is not a clarification of how the rules have always worked.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
That being said, I don't think there is a problem with the monk, and I don't think changing the rules just because a lot of people have been playing it differently is a good policy precedent for making a rules clarification.

Regarding the clarification vs interpretation of FoB, the fact that for three years Paizo's own writers were 'getting it wrong' has lead to a huge amount of material out there based on the one-weapon-flurry. This is a problem Paizo cannot ignore.

Regarding the monk in general, if everyone is house-ruling the monk to be different than it was designed, this is showing that everyone perceives a problem with the monk. If everyone thinks there is a problem, then there is a problem.

Mr Reynold's post on the matter is here.

Recommended reading, really.


May I ask, who exactly designed the zen archer?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You need to ask Mr Reynolds, I have no idea myself but it was a cool concept and one of the few monks designs that really work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trikk wrote:
I know you're playing dumb to get a rise out of people, but to clarify it for other people who are reading the thread: the issue people have is that it's disingenuous to say that it was always like this when official material seem to have stated it differently. Examples like archetypes and NPCs are telling us that this is not a clarification of how the rules have always worked.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Let's start by taking a look at the monk's primary mode of attack: flurry of blows. This system is revised from the 3.5 version to work using mechanics similar to the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, but the new monk goes one step further and uses its monk level as its base attack bonus whenever it uses flurry of blows. At 8th level, this means that Sajan has one additional attack and all of those attacks are at a +1 over his 3.5 counterpart. If we look at 20th level, Sajan would have 2 extra attacks and those attacks are at a +3 over the 3.5 statistics. Of course, Sajan can still use special monk weapons for these attacks as well.

This was written by the lead designer on July 8, 2009, a month BEFORE the release of the core rules. It is pretty clear that his intention was that it work like two weapon fighting. It is also clear that this has been a confusing part of the rules since day one. But there is nothing "disingenuous" about it.

Note: I had been under the impression that you could attack multiple times with the same weapon myself.


I'd just like to point out for the record, that the FoB text says "as if using the Two Weapon Fighting feat." Notice the word feat. If you read the feat, the only thing it does is reduce penalties. That's it.

Technically, FoB never mentions Two Weapon Fighting at all. It has the text in FoB itself that governs the number of attacks you can make, and the Two Weapon Fighting feats to govern the penalties taken on those attacks.

This has always been my interpretation, and I would guess that a number of the people who single weapon flurry came to the same conclusions as I did.

Also note that this is technically correct. That's the best kind of correct.


Plus I think for a lot of people the fact that the rules tended to use qualifying language such referring to how flurry was "like" Two Weapon Fighting, or attack bonuses were "as if" the monk were Two Weapon fighting tended to be interpreted as "use the Two Weapon Fighting numbers, but not the rules." Especially when added into the fact that the flurry rules also had the much-mentioned "make any combination of attacks" addendum and the old rules legacy issues for people coming in from 3.5.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Plus I think for a lot of people the fact that the rules tended to use qualifying language such referring to how flurry was "like" Two Weapon Fighting, or attack bonuses were "as if" the monk were Two Weapon fighting tended to be interpreted as "use the Two Weapon Fighting numbers, but not the rules." Especially when added into the fact that the flurry rules also had the much-mentioned "make any combination of attacks" addendum and the old rules legacy issues for people coming in from 3.5.

Pretty much this. If you had any doubts, you check a stat-block for a monk in a supplement and would you look at that? It lists flurrying with a single weapon, so that must be how it is done, right?

I hear what Fergie is saying, and with the clarification the text in the CRB makes sense that way, except for the line "make any combination of attacks" which suddenly stops making much sense at all, because FoB is no longer doing anything that TWF cannot do, so the line is redundant.

Thing is: is the monk broken with the FoB as interpreted? No, the monk is a weak class and needs fundamental problems addressing.

Which causes a bigger problem, enforcing a rule 'just because' or adapting what is? The monk needs fixing, this much is clear, so it may be that flurry of blows will change anyway. I think this is what the devs are discussing - at least, I hope they are.


Dabbler wrote:
The monk needs fixing, this much is clear, so it may be that flurry of blows will change anyway. I think this is what the devs are discussing - at least, I hope they are.

It has been four months. I have lost hope.

:-(


For Axl, so that he never loses hope.

[clears throat]

Next time you're found, with your chin on the ground
There's a lot to be learned, so look around

Just what makes that little old ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyones knows an ant, can't
Move a rubber tree plant

But he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie in the sky hopes

So any time you're gettin' low
'stead of lettin' go
Just remember that ant
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant

When troubles call, and your back's to the wall
There's a lot to be learned, that wall could fall

Once there was a silly old ram
Thought he'd punch a hole in a dam
No one could make that ram, scram
He kept buttin' that dam

'cause he had high hopes, he had high hopes
He had high apple pie in the sky hopes

So any time your feelin' bad
'stead of feelin' sad
Just remember that ram
Oops there goes a billion killowat dam

All problems just a toy ballon
They'll be bursted soon
They're just bound to go pop
Oops there goes another problem kerplop

[/clears throat]

With apologies to Mister Frank Sinatra.

High Hopes

MA


Hehe, somewhat before my time, but thank you.

:-)


Axl wrote:

Hehe, somewhat before my time, but thank you.

:-)

Hey, I wasn't born until 1968. But Sinatra's crooning is classic. He is a timeless artist.

Master Arminas


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Axl wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The monk needs fixing, this much is clear, so it may be that flurry of blows will change anyway. I think this is what the devs are discussing - at least, I hope they are.

It has been four months. I have lost hope.

:-(

Patience, these things take time.

Star Voter 2013

It has been stated multiple times that Paizo probably won't be looking into it until after Cons are over. Besides, it's a serious problem, and, for all we know, they may be running in office play tests right now.

Hmm, you know what would be cool? Live Streaming Video of the Paizo crew playing games, and seeing how they do things.


Dabbler wrote:
ReconstructorFleet wrote:
7: World-wise is awesome, but with that added in, I desperately wish this monk was 6 + Int Mod skills.
Well, I want the monk to have decisions to make to focus in one direction, not be able to do everything at once. If you take a small boost to Int then you can handle this.

Take a small boost to Int? This is MADness! ;)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
ReconstructorFleet wrote:
7: World-wise is awesome, but with that added in, I desperately wish this monk was 6 + Int Mod skills.
Well, I want the monk to have decisions to make to focus in one direction, not be able to do everything at once. If you take a small boost to Int then you can handle this.
Take a small boost to Int? This is MADness! ;)

Oh yes, but if you look at my design you will see that I've reduced the need for high strength and good con without the feat tax by supplying weapon finesse with monk weapons/unarmed strike, agile maneuvers through maneuver training, and made wholeness of body a 1-ki swift action, so strength and con just got a lot less vital. <Entering SMUG mode!>

Star Voter 2013

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I don't want to wait for a 2nd edition of the Pathfinder RPG to fix the monk class.

That said, we'll have to find a way to make the monk fixes fit in the space allotted. So that mean we can't go adding 500 words of new abilities.

The designers haven't had a meeting on what exactly to do, but the three of us agree something needs to be done.

On a related note, I don't know when we'll be doing a 6th printing of the Core Rulebook, which means I don't know if a fixed monk would appear in the 6th printing. For example, they could tell us on next week that we've run out of the 5th printing (unlikely) and need to hit the button for the 6th printing ASAP... and obviously we wouldn't have time to fix the monk in such a short period of time.

We'll keep you informed about the monk as things develop.

Just a small bit of an update on things it seems we may see some changes prior to a ver. 2


Great news and I especially like the part about keeping us informed as things develop!
Big thanks to the devs for that!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Seconded. Ground my monk design down to under 4,000 words now.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Checking in from my point of view, I am fine with FoB working like TWF if you make the monks body into a masterwork weapon that can be enchanted (like a double weapon).

All of that can be done with text replacement I believe, as it would shorten the flurry description, and the masterwork part is very short.


Dabbler wrote:
Seconded. Ground my monk design down to under 4,000 words now.

If I did this correctly, NOT including the two Tables/Charts in the CRB, the word count for the PF Monk is @ 2,397. It looks like the font is typed at size nine.

(SIGH) 'Tis a shame really. You, Master Arminas and others have some great ideas.

[Joking Mode] For all you grammar folks out there...seee?!?!? Look how complicated words can be! AND this is WITH using computers to boot![/Joking Mode]

;p

That'll be two cents please,

Rom001


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks Rom! I was including tables which add a lot, so I think I can estimate equivalence down to 3,500. Still a thousand over, but you can probably grind more out of it, and there are features that could be dropped without the basic design suffering. Also, there are illustrations that can be re-sized allowing for more wordage.


I love to see so many monk fans doing so much to help.

In my table, as a simple (although a bit extensive) fix, we:

- Let monks use either Str or Dex to attack roll and either Str or Wis to damage, so monks don't need Str, but if for some reason someone wants a strong monk, they can do it.
- Increased Ki to Monk level + Wis modifier,
- Substituted Slow Fall for a constant Feather Fall-like effect, (although I must say I loved the idea of reducing fall damage by 1d6 per monk level)
- Made monks recover 1 ki whenever lands a critical or kills a non-undead enemy.
- Improved most of Ki Powers
- Created a Mystic Gauntlets item that can be enhanced as an weapon and affects all Unarmed Strikes (ONLY Unarmed Strikes). It also makes Unarmed Strikes be treated as weapons made of whatever material the gauntlets themselves are made of. So you can have a cold iron gauntlet and change to a silver gauntlet when necessary. The monk can use 2 different gauntlets at the same, but each attack can only benefit from the effects of one of them at a time. These gauntlets cost the same as a longsword with the same properties/enhancements.
-Increased unarmed strike critical range to 19-20, but reduced the maximum base damage (to 2d6, IIRC).

Also, I'm glad most posts are made with a polite tone. Attacking Paizo staff members is not only unacceptably rude and unecessary, but also short-sighted and stupid.

Thanks to all of Paizo staff for their hard work and willingess to listen to the fans, and thanks to all reasonable and polite fellow players who give Paizo a reason to stay in touch with us.


Fergie wrote:

This was written by the lead designer on July 8, 2009, a month BEFORE the release of the core rules. It is pretty clear that his intention was that it work like two weapon fighting. It is also clear that this has been a confusing part of the rules since day one. But there is nothing "disingenuous" about it.

Note: I had been under the impression that you could attack multiple times with the same weapon myself.

And nowhere in the two-weapon fighting feat does it say that you can't attack with the same weapon. If they intended it to work like that, then they would have said that it works like the two-weapon fighting rules instead of going into a specific feat.

At no point could I find anything that applied this limitation to FOB and apparently neither could the writers, first party and freelancers, who continued to create content for the game.

There was never any indication of their intent with the rule, including the post you cited. Therefore it is disingenuous to say that "it was always like this" when they failed to address the apparent errors for so long. Do they not play the game or witness the game being played with non-designers?


Allowing 5' steps between each flurry attack would be pretty sweet.
Allowing a half move and flurry would be helpful also.


Allow monks to use the 'unarmed damage' listed for monk weapons as well.


Yeah, we also made monks proficient with ALL monk weapons (but that was more to an old mistake than balance concern, when we learned it was not how things worked, we just didn't bother fixing). We considered increasing AC bonus every 2 levels instead of 4, but we were not sure if that would be too much.

5ft steps between each flurry sounds awesome! Like in those fight scenes where the character attacks the enemy from every side! Very DBZ-ish! I like it!

Use the unarmed damage for monk weapons is a great idea. We never even think of anything like that 'cause the monk player wanted an unarmed warrior anyway, although he did carry a few monk weapons so enemies would think he was harmless when disarmed. It was very useful when we were captured. The sorcerer carrying a old (and not very good) grimoiry for similar reasons didn't hurt either. Gods bless his fricking +24 Bluff.

EDIT: Now I'm contemplating allowing the monk get any 1st tier Style Feat as monk bonus feats. And maybe a variant Pounce ability... Instead of a Full attack, he can use Flurry of Blows after a charge.


Style feats can be taken as monk bonus feats, I thought...


Only the Master of Many Styles, IIRC. At least without having to meet the prerequisites... I could be wrong, though.

Star Voter 2013

No, you're correct. None of the feats listed in APG, UC, or UM, were added to the Monk Bonus Feats. The monk only gets what the CRB gave him.


Wow. Ok that should probably change.


Kryzbyn said wrote:

Wow. Ok that should probably change.

Heh... is that not the monk's motto these days?

But seriously, giving the abilities of the Master of Many Styles to every single monk without taking the respective class features could probably help a lot with no risk of unbalancing the game, but I'd rather not go so far.

Although I'd consider allowing a few thematically appropriate spells to be used as Ki Power (caster level = monk level, mostly self only), such as Air Walk, Grace, Protection From Evil/Good/Chaos, etc...

EDIT... 3 Times... Don't you love when you notice a typo as soon as you click on "Submit Post"?


Trikk wrote:


And nowhere in the two-weapon fighting feat does it say that you can't attack with the same weapon. If they intended it to work like that, then they would have said that it works like the two-weapon fighting rules instead of going into a specific feat.

At no point could I find anything that applied this limitation to FOB and apparently neither could the writers, first party and freelancers, who continued to create content for the game.

There was never any indication of their intent with the rule, including the post you cited. Therefore it is disingenuous to say that "it was always like this" when they failed to address the apparent errors for so long. Do they not play the game or witness the game being played with non-designers?

Here:

prd wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

Prerequisite: Dex 15.

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.

Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

Again, this is confusing, and needs to be written out more clearly. But there is nothing deceptive going on here.

951 to 1,000 of 1,667 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 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.