|
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?
A shoei could wild halberd two handed as his "main hand" attack and kick as his "off hand" attack and get the flurry of blows full number of attacks.
At this point I should change my previous position, that was against allowing a off hand attack when using a two handed weapon.
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.
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.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 missed my point, I acknowledged that :-)
I asked specifically for using *two temple swords* to *make all attacks* work with those *different* weapons :-P
|
|
Do the right and left hand attacks have to be taken in alternating sequence?
Yes.
To be more precise, actually left/right or right/left don't matter (or headbutt/kick or whatever) but you must take your attacks from the one with the highest BAB to the one with the lowest BAB, taking them in order.So the two attacks with the highest BAB are made in whatever order you prefer, then the next two, and so on.
Reach two handed weapons are a problem with this flurry of blow clarification.
|
Forgive me, your syntax was a bit obtuse for me in its phrasing.
For the Additional Penalty:
The Monk weapon trait dictates that such a weapon is made available for Flurry of Blows and Flurry of Blows sets a fixed penalty/bonus (depending on your perspective).
For the Not Flurrying:
There is nothing stopping a monk from completing a flurry with only those two weapons and no unarmed strikes.
If I'm still off-base, could you please bullet point your questions? I'm a bit more than lacking on sleep so it's difficult for me to comprehend everything correctly.
|
|
Aand that was out of left field for me...
Here*:
Flurry of Blows:
"When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels."
Two-Weapon Fighting (feat):
See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Two-Weapon Fighting (combat description):
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
It's a bit obtuse and roundabout, but the description itself leads the reader to how the feature is meant to be handled.
[Edit]
And the other bonus iterative attacks are covered by their comparisons to the Two-Weapon Fighting tree.
*: I've omitted parts that I considered unnecessary.
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.
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.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 missed my point, I acknowledged that :-)
I asked specifically for using *two temple swords* to *make all attacks* work with those *different* weapons :-P
As it stands now, two one-handed weapons would take the greater attack penalty, because there is nothing in the description of flurry of blows which makes an exception, like there is an exception for str damage. (monk gets full damage with off-hand, which differs from other classes using two-weapon fighting, as they only get 1/2 str bonus on off-hand damage) I would not be too surprised if they do add an exception for monks taking the larger penalties for wielding a one-handed weapon in his off-hand, but we will need to wait and see when they address the issue again.
|
|
Actually, even if most of us have used it wrong, the text is fairly clear:
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 from his monk class levels. 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 uses 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 using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
The constant reference to two-weapon fighting make it clear when you look with your 20/20 hindsight.
I find no text referring to unarmed attacks as being equivalent to light weapons, one-handed weapons or two-handed weapons. In 3.5 it was specified to work as a light weapon for the purposes of feats. In the description of Weapon Finesse, it says natural attacks are treated as light weapons. I see no clear evidence one way or the other, perhaps the entry for Unarmed Attack needs some clarification.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Lol, ok go ahead and refute yourself. I'm obviously not as good at it ;p
|
|
Lol, ok go ahead and refute yourself. I'm obviously not as good at it ;pTwo-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
An unarmed strike is always considered light.
I haven't proven my own statement to be "false." What I said was "that would mean a monk takes an additional -2 penalty to if attacking with an unarmed strike because it does not specifically state that the attack bonuses[/penalties] for Flurry of Blows are for unarmed strikes or light weapons" or, there's no text in Flurry of Blows that specifically dictates that the numbers given are pre-calculated for Unarmed Strikes or Light Weapons and, thus, we cannot draw the conclusion that monk weapons take additional penalties.
The calculation would be the same for light weapons and unarmed strikes for two weapon fighting penalties, because the two weapon fighting feat specifies that unarmed strikes are always treated as light weapons.
Or maybe I am not understanding your statement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Baka Nikujaga,
The parts you omitted are not merely extraneous and useless words: they have meaning.
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 prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses 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 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 or made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers 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.
So from this we understand that flurry is a full-attack action. The monk may use any combination of unarmed strikes or monk weapons . . . (hmmm, that differs from the description of Two-Weapon Fighting, right?) . . . as if using Two-Weapon Fighting. It then goes on to say that a monk using flurry gains his monk class level as BAB in place of his normal BAB during a flurry.
Looking at the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and two-weapon fighting in combat, you are correct in that it does state an off-hand (we'll get to that) weapon. However, the part I italicized (any combination) modifies the later as if TWF. TWF is very specific in how attacks are divided up (primary hand vs. off-hand). But flurry, in sentence 2, specifically informs the reader that he may use unarmed strikes and special monk weapons in any combination.
Any must, by its very defination incorporate all possible combinations. For a 6th level monk with a flurry BAB of +4/+4/-1 that means three unarmed strikes; three attacks with one weapon; two attacks with unarmed strikes and one attack with a weapon; two attacks with a weapon and one attack with unarmed strikes; or one attack with unarmed strike, one attack with a weapon, and one attack with a second weapon. Any of these is a valid combination for flurry of blows, unless you ignore the phrase in any combination.
Further, we are told by the seventh sentence that Flurry differs yet again from Two-Weapon Fighting, in that the monk receives his full Strength bonus for all attacks, regardless of whether it is a primary weapon, an off-hand weapon, or even a two-handed weapon.
Sentences 8 and 9 complete showing the difference between flurry and normal TWF, in that the monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or special monk weapon, and is forbidden from using a natural weapon.
Referencing the Table 3-9: Monk on Page 45 of the CRD shows that the attack progression is NOT BAB=monk class levels. It shows that the actual progression is BAB=monk class levels -2. That only happens in two-weapon fighting when the off-hand weapon is light and the TWF feats are taken. It implies, therefore, that all flurry attacks use monk level -2 as the modified BAB for flurry, regardless of size of the weapon--because the text for the flurry doesn't mention double weapons it mentions two-handed weapons.
Moving on to the next monk class ability:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weaopn for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strike than a normal person would, as shown on Table 3-9: Monk. The unarmed values listed on Table 3-9: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.
What is this? There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. Now, if flurry=TWF, how does this work? It doesn't. So that, combined with the above text in flurry tells us that flurry, while based on Two-Weapon Fighting, follows its own rules and does not slavishly adhere to the normal conditions set by the two-weapon fighting rules.
This differs dramatically from the ranger, who actually receives the Two-Weapon Fighting feats and then has the option of using them. To sum up:
1. The monk receives flurry of blows and not Two-Weapon Fighting.
2. Although based on Two-Weapon Fighting, the text for flurry of blows and unarmed strikes, as well as Table 3-9: Monk, provide enough evidence that the two are not the same thing.
3. Therefore, the monk, as written, does not have to follow the normal division of attacks between primary and off-hand weapons as is normally the case for two-weapon fighting. If he were to even attempt to follow this pattern, he could not use his unarmed strikes as an off-hand weapon because the monk class specifically states that there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
4. Finally, the monk, having the option for any combination of unarmed strikes and special monk weapons, must be able to flurry with a single weapon, with two weapons, with three weapons, with light weapons, with one-handed weapons, with two handed-weapons, with double weapons, and with thrown weapons, as long as those weapons are special monk weapons.
This is just how I read the rules.
Master Arminas
|
|
What I am saying is that there's no point in including the table if that's how it was meant to work. Though, arguably, that could be how it was meant to work and thus the table is superfluous (and brings all sorts of problems into the equation).
So from this we understand that flurry is a full-attack action. The monk may use any combination of unarmed strikes or monk weapons . . . (hmmm, that differs from the description of Two-Weapon Fighting, right?) . . . as if using Two-Weapon Fighting. It then goes on to say that a monk using flurry gains his monk class level as BAB in place of his...
Err..no. I omitted them because it just causes undue frustration for me in reading posts.
1) You're correct. They aren't exactly the same. But that's not a point.
2) I've already said that the exact calculations for them are different (such as my unwillingness to state that there is an additional penalty associated with certain types of monk weapons). But this still isn't a point.
3) That's an extreme jump that ignores the actual text.
4) No
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Well rather than start a new thread Im just gonna number the issues and questions i see and have here and let people respond.
1.The monk gains all the restrictions of TWF but not all the benifits. He has a small subset of weapons, and does not atually have the feats therefore he can't take additional feats.
2. The monk gains Double strike with his subset of weapon, however once again he doesnt have the feat and his comes with a restiction on TH weapons.
3.We dont know if a monk (now simply TWF) ignores weight penalties for having larger than light weapons in the off-hand. IF he does its a bonus but others may still wail about the unfairness/overpoweredness of no additional penalty.
4. Certain Archetypes or availble weapons now fall flat for a flurry since they are limited to only half the attacks. This leads to either flurrying the ground to gain full BAB on your reach weapon, or simply being able to declare a flurry and skip half your attacks.
5. Monks have no unarmed off-hand per their own rules. This may not be a problem if we ignore off hand size however if we don't then any weapons attacks must be off-hand if combined with unarmed strikes.
Talonhawke:
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.
Very well put, and I find myself in total agreement. A rare thing.
Master Arminas
Just to add my 2 cents to the discussion, I concur with the lengthy analysis posted by master arminas (above).
In addition, I take exception to the assertion that the TWF feat requires a character using it to make any attacks with more than one weapon.
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.
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.
{Table omitted}
The Fluff flavor text (that we are free to omit or ignore for consideration of the feat mechanics) indicates weapon-centric restrictions. The actual Benefit Text talks about hands.
Consider this: Fighter 8 with TWF and Quick Draw starts his round holding two daggers (light weapons, so his TWF penalties are -2/-2). He executes his first attack with the dagger in his primary hand. He takes a free action to drop the dagger in his off hand, a free action to shift the dagger in his primary hand to his off hand, and a free action to quick-draw another dagger into his primary hand. He then (in the proper order of attacks) executes his TWF attack with the dagger in his off hand. He takes a free action to drop the dagger in his primary hand, a free action to shift the dagger from his off hand to his primary hand, and a free action to draw a fourth dagger in his off hand. He takes his third attack (2nd iterative) with the dagger in his primary hand. At no time has he attacked with more than one weapon, and at no time has he broken the rules.
Note, the justification for the shift being a free action hinges on Quick Draw as well - the feat fails to identify what constitutes "drawing a weapon" and thus the fighter draws the dagger with his off-hand from his primary hand. Hair-splitting rules nitpickkery? Sure. Does it make sense? Sure. QED. TWF does not intrinsically require attacks to be made with more than one weapon.
Additional Note: Yes, the "Normal" text identifies weapon-centric behavior, but as the feat's Benefit text does not, this is immaterial.
So the Monk isn't breaking anything, he's just sensibly not required to take Quick Draw to achieve the same benefits, since his Unarmed Strike cannot be drawn or put away. I can see the justification for requiring the Monk to take Quick Draw to be able to execute all Flurry attacks with a weapon as opposed to his Unarmed Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aaargh, here, the text in Unarmed Strike for the monk class refers to the change in rules for an Off-Hand Weapon ("when you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies").
Yes, it applies to the Strength modifier, since monks receive their full Strength bonus on all unarmed strikes. But why are you so quick to state that is only what no such thing as an off-hand attack means?
Quite literally, no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed means that the monk gets full Strength bonus and that his unarmed strike (a single weapon) cannot be used for an off-hand attack. Because the monk does not have off-hand attacks.
When viewed in the manner that you are suggesting, Baka, the entire phrase no such thing as an off-hand attack is entirely extraneous, because the next sentence provides for the Monk to use his full Strength bonus on all unarmed strikes. It is also mirrored in the earlier section on flurry of blows, whereby the text states that the monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks or made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
So, either the text there is no such thing as an off-hand attack is wasted words, or it means something more than what you are presuming it means. I believe it to be the latter.
Master Arminas
|
|
That's...some very convoluted logic, Master Arminas. What I said, and I'll say it again, is the "Unarmed Strike for the monk class refers to the change in rules for an Off-Hand Weapon" which is an actual rule found under the Damage section of Combat. The only way by which your conclusion works is to avoid, specifically, the entire entry of the Unarmed Strike class feature.
Its clear that the devs did not want two weapon fighting and flurry to stack. So just tack that in there and call it good. Have it be any and all combos and be done with it.
Exactly. From my reading of the text, the as if using Two-Weapon Fighting (and Improved and Greater) is provided to allow the player running a monk character know that his additional attack from flurry at 1st is at his highest BAB, his second additional attack at 8th level is at -5 to his highest BAB, and this third additional attack at 15th level is at -10 to his highest BAB.
And to prevent a player from combining flurry with the actual two-weapon fighting feat chain to gain a fourth, fifth, and sixth additional attack at highest BAB, highest BAB-5, and highest BAB-10.
Could the text of flurry and the monk text in general have been better written to make this clearer? Yes. Does it provide enough of a loophole that Sean and others can now go back--three years after the debut of Pathfinder and the monk core class--and retcon it away? Yes.
And in Sean's own posts, we see his own words reveal why he thinks it should be this way: it isn't fair to other characters who invest in Two-Weapon Fighting.
You know, if anyone could contact Treantmonk and get him to way in on all of this, I would be honored to see his thoughts on this subject.
Master Arminas
That's...some very convoluted logic, Master Arminas. What I said, and I'll say it again, is the "Unarmed Strike for the monk class refers to the change in rules for an Off-Hand Weapon" which is an actual rule found under the Damage section of Combat. The only way by which your conclusion works is to avoid, specifically, the entire entry of the Unarmed Strike class feature.
Really? Let's take a look at a monk's unarmed strike entry again:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weaopn for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strike than a normal person would, as shown on Table 3-9: Monk. The unarmed values listed on Table 3-9: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.
How does my previous statement avoid the entire entry? Note I italicized the section that says there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. Off-hand attacks entails more than just the Strength bonus. So if that phrase is only meant as prefatory to the next sentence, it is without merit. Especially since the text in flurry (the class feature immediately above unarmed strike) already states that a monk using flurry of blows gets his full Strength bonus. I do not believe the statement is prefatory, because word count in a rulebook is at a premium. Every word has meaning. And if there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed has no meaning beyond what the next sentence says, it is fourteen wasted words.
Those words are there. And they don't say that the rules for Strength bonuses on off-hand attacks are hereby changed; they state that there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. Which affects a lot more than just the Strength bonus.
Master Arminas
|
|
*sighs*
Alright, let's follow your recommendation then and remove the language from the Unarmed Strike class feature. Now, let's have the monk, arbitrarily, decide to use a normal Two-Weapon Fighting sequence because he's only taken a monk dip. In this scenario, the monk would no longer receive the full Strength bonus to his or her unarmed strike (should it be incorporate it in the attack sequence).
Only if he wasn't also using flurry of blows which provides for a full Strength bonus as well. LOL
And I am not recommending removing the language. The language has meaning; it may not be meaning that Sean and Co. and a few posters want to admit exists, but it clearly implies (at the very least) that off-hand means more than you think it means.
Master Arminas
How does one use TWF with shuriken?
Throw with both hands.
|
|
Flurry of Blows and Two-Weapon Fighting are not one and the same (hence why there's language separating the two). And, it's more a case of too many bad ideas being placed in a vacuum for too long. The monk is working [because we're ignoring what's wrong with it], fine, just don't cry harm or foul when someone points out a mistake.
Shuriken counts as ammunition, which means drawing them is a free action. So, a character with either the Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain or Flurry of Blows gets their full attack sequence when using them. As an interesting side note, a TWF character can use shuriken for his off-hand attacks (it is a light weapon) and his primary weapon for melee (all each of his shuriken attacks would provoke an AoO if he occupies a square threatened by an opponent, however).
A Flurry of Blows character can mix and match shurikens, melee weapons, and unarmed strikes at will. In my reading, prior to Sean's clarification.
Master Arminas
Have I cried harm or foul, Baka? My, my, my. I have only stated, and restated, my position. Thank you for recognizing that Flurry and TWF are not, indeed, one and the same. You are learning, grasshopper. Good.
Master Arminas
|
|
Yes, yes you have, Master Arminas. You've stated that this is a "retcon" and acted in a manner that is defensive in nature. Further, you seem to have been ignoring the entirety of my arguments throughout both threads if you didn't notice that I don't consider Two-Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows to be exactly the same.
Flurry of Blows and Two-Weapon Fighting are not one and the same (hence why there's language separating the two). And, it's more a case of too many bad ideas being placed in a vacuum for too long. The monk is working [because we're ignoring what's wrong with it], fine, just don't cry harm or foul when someone points out a mistake.
I'm not sure I understand the underlying premise of the argument in favor of restricting a Monk's Flurry away from making all Flurry attacks with a single Monk weapon. Other classes are *better* at things, why is it necessary for the Monk in this case to not be better at this with Monk weapons? (An example: Fighters are better at wearing armor than characters of any other class are able to be.)
The text as written seems to suggest (as indicated by Master Arminas) that Monks ought to be better at making Flurry attacks than other classes can be at wielding multiple weapons. Where is the ideological basis that justifies opposition to this notion? (Basing the literal objection on the specific wording of the class ability is an insufficient defense of the ideology that supports the interpretation-away of this Monk feature.)
|
|
Ideologi--what? I'm not behind nerfing the monk at all and I've stated that in the other thread (though, chances are you haven't seen that post of mine*) - if anything, I'd like to see the monk rise to a tier 3 class. However, that isn't the purpose of this discussion, is it? The purpose of this discussion is to discuss how the rules work, as written, and what that implies.
[Edit]
If you mean to say "what information defends the stance I am abiding by": RAW, writers, other forums, and so on. Though, I had thought this statement, "it's more a case of too many bad ideas being placed in a vacuum for too long," would have implied that.
[Edit the Edit]
*: I've also stated somewhere on this thread a number of recommendations I would make to the base chassis of the monk class that are all in favor of increasing its capabilities (such as reducing MAD).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Baka, I called it a retcon because it is precisely a retcon. A retroactive change in the rules that the ruler-changers then insist has been that way from the beginning.
Sean K Reynolds has also been all over the map; while insisting on one hand that flurry works like two-weapon fighting, just last month he made the statement that your can flurry with a single weapon on all attacks. Check out the old thread, and you will find a link to that post.
So. It isn't a rules clarification, it is a retcon, and it will have ramifications for many, many aspects of the game.
Master Arminas
|
|
I've already answered (admittedly, in the other thread) why it "seemed" like only one weapon could be used (because the feat designates Natural Attacks as Unarmed Strikes for the purposes of Flurry of Blows) and some other members have even decided to bold the sentences you have been so offended by.
[Edit]
I mean, just visit any of the other major forums...this isn't even an issue that's on their radar (and, if it was, it was raised back in '09 or '10).
Ideologi--what? I'm not behind nerfing the monk at all and I've stated that in the other thread (though, chances are you haven't seen that post of mine) - if anything, I'd like to see the monk rise to a tier 3 class. However, that isn't the purpose of this discussion, is it? The purpose of this discussion is to discuss how the rules work, as written, and what that implies.
Apologies, then! ^_^ The other thread is somewhat lengthy and I admit I have not read it fully.
On additional reading, however, and the rigorous re-examination of the rules text as written under the harsh and unforgiving light of symbolic logic, I can only conclude that the phrase "any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon" is modified by "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat," as opposed to Master Arminas's suggestion that the former modifies the latter.
I cannot, however, disagree with his assertion that the text in the Unarmed Strike that identifies a Monk's Unarmed Strike as unable to be off-handed is meaningful, as it would otherwise not have been included, since the full Strength modifier for Flurries is already addressed in the Flurry section. It does, however, strike me that if a Monk with BAB 6+ executed a non-Flurry attack and elected to attempt a Disarm combat maneuver with his first melee attack, was successful, and elected to retain the object he took from his foe in his hand, that the identification of the non-off-handedness of his unarmed strike would be usefully applicable in adjudicating the damage of his second iterative unarmed strike in the event that it was successful in connecting.
That being said, it cannot be denied that the designation of the Unarmed strike as something that is not an off-hand attack exists, and on that basis I am forced to conclude, surprising even myself, that a Monk's Unarmed Strikes cannot be off-hand attacks, and therefore any Flurry sequence involving a weapon must logically relegate that weapon to the off-hand role if the Flurry also includes Unarmed Strikes. (Rather torturous, I know, but that is the logical implication.)
I don't believe that any of this was intended to be nearly this complex or restrictive, but there we are, as you say, it's how the rules are actually worded. (Which makes me wince.)
Clearly these rules need to be cleaned up. Ideally, imo, they should be cleaned up so as to make the Monk capable of being better at TWF (with Monk weapons) than other classes *can* be. But that's just my opinion...
|
|
I cannot, however, disagree with his assertion that the text in the Unarmed Strike that identifies a Monk's Unarmed Strike as unable to be off-handed is meaningful, as it would otherwise not have been included, since the full Strength modifier for Flurries is already addressed in the Flurry section. It does, however, strike me that if a Monk with BAB 6+ executed a non-Flurry attack and elected to attempt a Disarm combat maneuver with his first melee attack, was successful, and elected to retain the object he took from his foe in his hand, that the identification of the non-off-handedness of his unarmed strike would be usefully applicable in adjudicating the damage of his second iterative unarmed strike in the event that it was successful in connecting.
Which brings us back to the point when I had asked Master Arminas about a Two-Weapon Fighting-style (not Flurry of Blows) character that has taken a monk dip.
I've already answered (admittedly, in the other thread) why it "seemed" like only one weapon could be used (because the feat designates Natural Attacks as Unarmed Strikes for the purposes of Flurry of Blows) and some other members have even decided to bold the sentences you have been so offended by.
[Edit]
I mean, just visit any of the other major forums...this isn't even an issue that's on their radar (and, if it was, it was raised back in '09 or '10).
The major issue then is why can I make all seven attacks with my bite/horn/tailwhip/tongue but not with one weapon or one fist or one foot.
This actually means that a natural weapon monk now has multiple advantages for the cost of a feat over a unarmed monk.
He can choose to go the GMW route over a AoMF. He can benifit from Improved natural attack. He might be able to use any number of special abilities (such as tripping for free on attacks or such) with every attack but the normal monks are relegated to having to attack with multiple body parts that have no extra abilities.
I cannot, however, disagree with his assertion that the text in the Unarmed Strike that identifies a Monk's Unarmed Strike as unable to be off-handed is meaningful, as it would otherwise not have been included, since the full Strength modifier for Flurries is already addressed in the Flurry section. It does, however, strike me that if a Monk with BAB 6+ executed a non-Flurry attack and elected to attempt a Disarm combat maneuver with his first melee attack, was successful, and elected to retain the object he took from his foe in his hand, that the identification of the non-off-handedness of his unarmed strike would be usefully applicable in adjudicating the damage of his second iterative unarmed strike in the event that it was successful in connecting.Which brings us back to the point when I had asked Master Arminas about a Two-Weapon Fighting-style (not Flurry of Blows) character that has taken a monk dip.
Look up some of the threads on the issue there are seveal debating this very topic. Ranging from can you even TWF using 2 unarmed strikes at all to the question of does a lvl in monk mean you have to make primary attacks with your unarmed strike from then on.
Its been asked repeatedly on the boards and never answered.
|
|
*sighs*
I'll make a generalized post again:
Feral Combat Training (Combat)
Benefit: Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike.
Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature.
Honestly, I don't know why he used "as a monk weapon" since the feat says otherwise, but whatever.
And to Talonhawke:
Is that...only on the Paizo forums...?
Yes, it is the Feral Combat post/errata from UC, originally found by Talonhawke (whose search-fu exceeds my own greatly).
Feral Combat Training (page 101): What does “with” in the Special line for this feat mean for monks making a flurry of blows?
Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows (Core Rulebook 57). Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.
—Sean K Reynolds, 02/15/12
Master Arminas
I cannot, however, disagree with his assertion that the text in the Unarmed Strike that identifies a Monk's Unarmed Strike as unable to be off-handed is meaningful, as it would otherwise not have been included, since the full Strength modifier for Flurries is already addressed in the Flurry section. It does, however, strike me that if a Monk with BAB 6+ executed a non-Flurry attack and elected to attempt a Disarm combat maneuver with his first melee attack, was successful, and elected to retain the object he took from his foe in his hand, that the identification of the non-off-handedness of his unarmed strike would be usefully applicable in adjudicating the damage of his second iterative unarmed strike in the event that it was successful in connecting.Which brings us back to the point when I had asked Master Arminas about a Two-Weapon Fighting-style (not Flurry of Blows) character that has taken a monk dip.
First of all, why would you? Second, they wouldn't stack. Even if you had the full TWF chain, if you used Flurry of Blows, you would be restricted in your attacks by all of the exceptions put in place on flurry, although you would get your full Strength bonus on all attacks made as part of a flurry. But, unless you were an 8th level monk, you could not get your second additional flurry attack, even if you already have Improved Two Weapon Fighting from another class.
If instead, you used Two-Weapon Fighting and not Flurry, you aren't bound by the restrictions, but get .5x your Strength bonus on your off-hand.
That said, you could do it but it is very unoptimal and would tend to get strange looks.
Master Arminas