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

PaizoCon 2014!

Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

251 to 300 of 1,667 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Flurry is a full attack action, so that is the only attack you can make in a round.

And even worse for your monk/ranger, when flurrying the monk is still restricted to total monk levels for number of attacks and BAB, not total character levels. So a monk 1/ranger 9 will still have only two attacks with Flurry at +1/+1 BAB, plus all other bonuses of course.


That was FAQ'd, it would be +8/+8/+3

EDIT: I should say +10/+10/+5 with the -2 for TWF


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Flurry is a full attack action, so that is the only attack you can make in a round.

And even worse for your monk/ranger, when flurrying the monk is still restricted to total monk levels for number of attacks and BAB, not total character levels. So a monk 1/ranger 9 will still have only two attacks with Flurry at +1/+1 BAB, plus all other bonuses of course.

That was true in 3.5, Enevhar. If flurry is just TWF by another name, a Ranger/Monk in Pathfinder (with the ranger having the TWF style) has an effective BAB of his Ranger BAB plus his monk class level when he flurries. He duplicates at least the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and possibly the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat, effectively wasting one of his class features.

Now, he can't wear armor and flurry (or gain his AC bonus or fast movement, for that matter), but it can result in a pretty high BAB for the Ranger/Monk multi-classed character in Pathfinder.

Master Arminas


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Still, this new ruling to make things clearer has only made them less clear, more problematic, and nerfed a class that didn't need it into the bargain.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Dabbler wrote:

Still, this new ruling to make things clearer has only made them less clear, more problematic, and nerfed a class that didn't need it into the bargain.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And if it is broke, don't kick it while its down.


You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

What? I thought were doing euphanisms!

Master Arminas


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malfus wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

Still, this new ruling to make things clearer has only made them less clear, more problematic, and nerfed a class that didn't need it into the bargain.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And if it is broke, don't kick it while its down.

Cannot agree more! Every time the monk gets some toys, something pops up to take away stuff he already had.

Shadow Lodge

Vow of. . . um um, . . .

:)


You shouldn't kick a poor man when he's down...


I think I'd really appreciate it if SKR would step in real quick and explain exactly how many castings of Magic Fang are needed to cover all of a Monk's potential Unarmed Strike options. So far, I'm up to 19 and I may have missed some.

Based on this slip up alone, SKR either got ahead of himself in his post, or genuinely doesn't know how his own rules work. I'd like to think it's the former, but I have a hard time taking any of his clarification post seriously, considering his stance on how MF/MW spells interact with Unarmed Strike.


I started a thread here: Unarmed Strikes: One Weapon or Multiple Weapons? in hopes of getting some answer on the issue. So far, not a single peep. From the developers, that is. I've had good responses from the membership of these boards.

And I made certain I asked that specific question Neo2151: if unarmed strikes are multiple weapons, exactly how many are there?

Master Arminas


I thought I would all of these quotes: they lead up to SKRs sudden statement about flurry in the Ultimate Equipment thread. Interesting stuff to mine here guys.

SKR quotes

Quote:
Okay explain to me how you can justify this as an 'unarmed strike only, doesn't affect natural attacks' sort of item. If a human can put this on his hands, why can't a lizardfolk put it on his claws? It's very metagamey.
Quote:
Okay, so why couldn't a creature with slam attacks use these proposed handwraps of unarmed strike augmenting? Slams are bludgeoning.
Quote:
I'm not ruling it out . . . if there is a workable solution. But these 'handwraps work on unarmed strikes but not other bludgeoning hand-based attacks' is not a workable solution.
Quote:

Wiat, so what your asking for is a handwrap that just enhances attacks just from that hand?

I think we can do that.

It's going to need some specific language clarifying iterative attacks with that limb and that it doesn't affect unarmed strikes from other parts of the body. But I think it's doable.

Quote:
Ah, so you want your cake and to be able to eat it, too. Why ever use a cheap-to-enhance weapon (with weaker damage) when you can use a handwrap that lets you deal unarmed strike damage and add enhancement bonuses and flaming to it? Why put a +5 enhancement bonus on your kama when you could add an ability that lets you deal 2d10 damage instead of 1d6?
Quote:

Yes, which is why I said you'd need some language claifying iterative attacks with that limb, because the monk write doesn't specify what part of your body you're using. A level 20 monk in full flurry at +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3 could be doing seven headbutts, seven punches, or seven kicks as far as the rules are concerned because the rules assume his attacks are either all unaugmented or his whole body is augmented. If he has magic handwraps that only affect one hand, that changes the parameters of how monk attacks and flurries work and we have to specify certain things for the first time, like 'you're actually making X primary attacks any Y iterative attacks, so you're only applying the handwraps bonus to X' and Y' instead of all instances of X or y.'

So if you're using this 'I enhance only one of my attacks' item, you need to specify which one as part of your attack routine. If you don't want to deal with that, then you go with 'no enhancement' or 'amulet of mighty fists', because you can't have it both ways.

Quote:

You folks are sending me mixed signals.

If you want an item that enhances unarmed attacks, it's the amulet of mighty fists. We're not going to introduce a new item that enhances multiple attacks at a lower price than the amulet. If you want to make a new that does the same thing as the amulet, but in the chest slot, that's fine, but something that does what the amulet does at a lower price is a better item than the amulet, and we're not going to introduce an item that's clearly better than a core item.
If you want an item than enhances one unarmed attack, it has to cost a little more than the enhancement on a weapon, because it can't be disarmed, it doesn't look like a weapon (nobody's going to make you 'leave your handwraps at the door' when you visit the king), and you never have to spend an action to draw it. And if you're just enhancing one of a monk's unarmed strikes (even if you can decide on the fly whether that's a punch, kick, knee, or heatbutt), that still means you have to figure out which of the monk's attacks are from that unarmed strike (and are enhanced by the item) so you know which ones aren't (and aren't enhanced).
And because the amulet of mighty fists costs 2.5x what a single magic weapon costs, that means the item that enhances one attack has to be priced about 1.5x what a single magic weapon costs because:

standard magic weapon= 1x
proposed one-attack item = ??
amulet of mighty fists = 2.5x

The easy-math options are 1.5x and 2x, and I'm sure you'd rather it be 1.5x rather than 2x.
Which means if you have two of these proposed items, your net cost is 3x what a magic weapon costs, which means in terms of cost you're better off with an amulet of mighty fists.
That's how the math works. It can't be cheaper than a weapon because it's better than a weapon. It can't affect multiple attacks because it invalidates the amulet of mighty fists. As far as I can tell, there's only a narrow strip of middle ground, and if you're not satisfied with that, our other option is to not include anything like this at all.
I'm trying to create something that is balacned and is still something you'd like, but if that doesn't satisfy you, our other option is not publish anything like this at all, because I'd rather not waste my time creating something you're going to hate anyway. I really am trying to work with you on this, but you're not seeing the repercussions of what you're asking--or you're being unclear in what you're asking for.

Quote:
You're asking for a magic item that lets you deal unarmed strike damage instead of weapon damage. We have to balance that for the optimized character so it can't be abused. That means we have to balance the choice of having a +5 weapon vs. an item that lets a 20th-level monk deal 2d10 damage with each attack, even a said that normally deals 1d4 damage.
Quote:

Apples and oranges. Short swords and warhammers are in the game because they're actual, historical weapons, and if the game doesn't have a reasonable assortment of historical weapons, it fails the basic premise of 'sword and sorcery' gaming. So yes, some historical weapons are worse than other . . . just like how it was in history. The game models that, and allows characters to choose sub-optimal weapons for flavor. That's material in the core rulebook for the game.

You're talking about adding an option in a new book that is clearly better than an option in that core rulebook. It invalidates that part of the core rulebook, like a new version of hte bard class that has d12 Hit Dice but only 4 skill points per level. 'Some people would still play the old bard because it has more skill points' doesn't change that the new bard is better than the old bard. You're invalidating something in the baseline game. That's rules creep. That's bad.
I'm all about allowing players to make sub-optimal choices. I frequently quote Monte Cook's adage about the game letting you eat rocks if you want to. But there's a difference between 'giving you the option to make suboptimal choices' and 'turning a standard choice in the core rules of the game into a suboptimal choice'.
Quote:
Well, they are. AoMF costs 2.5x the cost of one weapon. Why 2.5x and 2.0x? Because the AoMF doesn't have the 'must start with a +1' limitation that weapons do. Mr. TWF has to pay 8,000 gp twice to get two flaming weapons . . . a monk with AoMF pays 5,000 gp because he's only paying for flaming (at a +1 cost), and gets it on all his attacks. And he can't be disarmed. And he can bring his amulet into the throne room because it's not a weapon. And he doesn't have to spend an action to draw a weapon. And he applies these bonuses to most combat maneuver rolls. And so on.
Quote:
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 makes it obsolete for everyone.
Quote:
And like I said before, putting an item in UE that's clearly a better choice for monks than the AoMF in the Core Rulebook is power creep and is not an option.
Quote:
This was from another poster (MA): 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.
Quote:
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 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.'


I hate to say it but I am in 100% agreement with SKR on the power creep thing.
It's what wrecked 3.5.

The theoretical handwraps are problematic. Precisely because they clone AoMF. If an alternative to AoMF is to come about in a way that is consistent with the one body is one weapon philosophy it will not be anything more than a static enhancement bonus. No disruption, agile, flaming, holy mods.

In truth I'd be happy with JUST a bonus To HIT.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I understand his point about power creep, I don't think he understands that the monk in combat is not cutting it at the current state of affairs, and hitting it with the nerf bat isn't helping. Power creep for the monk isn't a problem, it fixes a problem.

MY suggestion is:


  • Let Flurry-of-blows work as everyone thought it did: any attacks in any combo. Forget the TWF thing, that just describes the number of attacks. It certainly isn't broken to let the monk make all attacks with one weapon, because what he saves in cost he loses in applied abilities, unless it's a ki-focus weapon (which then soaks up the additional resources, leaving him as well-off as everyone else). Other classes do not have that problem, their abilities work through normal weapons.
  • Create a new item set to enhance the monk's attacks. I would suggest gloves & tabi. They enhance up to +10 total effects & enhancements. Cost to be decided, but less than the AoMF (I would suggest bonus-squared x 3000gp). Downside, they take up TWO body slots, hands and feet, and they only work if you have the set.
  • I'd add an item, a gi of protection for the monk, functionally the same as bracers of defence and occupying the body slot. It just means the monk isn't going to fall drastically behind in AC.
  • I'd also add a suite of feats to allow the monk to overcome DR with unarmed strikes. One feat for each kind of strike, such as good, cold iron, silver etc.

Thoughts/feedback?


Hi, I'm new here but thought I'd weigh in with a question.

Could the descriptions of GMW/GMF not be amended to allow the enhancement bonus to bypass DR in accordance with pg562. And then have this pass on to AoMF?

This sorts out DR at mid to high levels and the monk just has to carry an alternate weapon at low level where the damage differential is not that great anyway. If the devs can just allow an AoMF to go to +10, I'd be very happy. I can live with the extra cost as it should almost certainly be at least x2 a weapon.


IF Unarmed Strike counts as a single weapon, then considering you can flurry with all unarmed strikes, it makes sense that the cost is 2.5x greater than a normal weapon. 2x for the fact that if can affect all your attacks, and 0.5x for the other benefits of Unarmed Strike (not needing to draw the weapon, can't be disarmed, etc.)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
IF Unarmed Strike counts as a single weapon, then considering you can flurry with all unarmed strikes, it makes sense that the cost is 2.5x greater than a normal weapon. [b]2x for the fact that if can affect all your attacks[b], and 0.5x for the other benefits of Unarmed Strike (not needing to draw the weapon, can't be disarmed, etc.)

Enhancing all of your attacks with a single abstract weapon warrants the x2?

Getting a +1 on a sword affects all attacks with that weapon too.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:

I understand his point about power creep, I don't think he understands that the monk in combat is not cutting it at the current state of affairs, and hitting it with the nerf bat isn't helping. Power creep for the monk isn't a problem, it fixes a problem.

MY suggestion is:


  • Let Flurry-of-blows work as everyone thought it did: any attacks in any combo. Forget the TWF thing, that just describes the number of attacks. It certainly isn't broken to let the monk make all attacks with one weapon, because what he saves in cost he loses in applied abilities, unless it's a ki-focus weapon (which then soaks up the additional resources, leaving him as well-off as everyone else). Other classes do not have that problem, their abilities work through normal weapons.
  • Create a new item set to enhance the monk's attacks. I would suggest gloves & tabi. They enhance up to +10 total effects & enhancements. Cost to be decided, but less than the AoMF (I would suggest bonus-squared x 3000gp). Downside, they take up TWO body slots, hands and feet, and they only work if you have the set.
  • I'd add an item, a gi of protection for the monk, functionally the same as bracers of defence and occupying the body slot. It just means the monk isn't going to fall drastically behind in AC.
  • I'd also add a suite of feats to allow the monk to overcome DR with unarmed strikes. One feat for each kind of strike, such as good, cold iron, silver etc.

Thoughts/feedback?

Agreed. While power creep is something to watch out for, refusing to make anything better when there's something wrong with the Core just dooms the monk.

Absolutely agreed on letting flurry of blows function like the vast majority thought it did.

The idea of an unarmed strike-enhancing set of items is pretty much what I was asking for when this whole mess started. The need to have the whole thing, which could be wraps or gloves or tabi depending on your desired flavor, would have to be on and intact in order to work. And when it did, it enhances your entire unarmed strike, allowing monk players to have their flavor back. It's a concept I hope actually gets a chance in Ultimate Combat rather than dismissed.

I'd like to see more monk-flavor friendly defensive items too, even if my ideal image I'd like to get out of a monk is barechested. Same thing for barbarian, but that doesn't tend to work out very well...

IIRC, there was a feat in the original Campaign Guide that did some of what you're suggesting with that feat. I can't remember the particulars without referencing the book, but it was under 3.5 rules and never made the transition over to PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
IF Unarmed Strike counts as a single weapon, then considering you can flurry with all unarmed strikes, it makes sense that the cost is 2.5x greater than a normal weapon. 2x for the fact that if can affect all your attacks, and 0.5x for the other benefits of Unarmed Strike (not needing to draw the weapon, can't be disarmed, etc.)

I've seen a few people saying Unarmed Strike needs to cost more to enhance than weapons (even more than two weapons), because fighting unarmed has other advantages such as not being disarmed and being able to bring it anywhere.

I don't buy that. That's part of the unarmed "package." Do you also think a magic longspear should cost extra for being a reach weapon? Or a dagger cost extra for the +2 to Sleight of Hand checks to hide it? Or maybe a hand axe should cost extra because you can also throw it? If not, why should unarmed cost extra for side benefits?


Requiring the ki focus enhancement for a monk to be able to use his special abilities with a weapon covers the cost increase due to the exponentially-increasing cost of magic weapons.


  • A ranger using two +1 short swords spends 4,620gp on weapons and can use all his class abilities with them.
  • (old assumption) A monk using a +1 ki focus sansetsukon spends 8,308gp on weapons to be able to use all his class abilities with them.
  • A monk who fights unarmed buys a (+1 equivalent) amulet of mighty fists for 5,000gp for the same bonus.
  • A monk operating under the proposed rule he cannot make all his flurry of blow attacks with his two-handed weapon has to purchase two +1 ki focus kama for 16,604gp to be able to gain a +1 enhancement bonus to his attacks while still being able to use all his class abilities.

SKR wrote:
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 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.'

SKR on the off-chance you haven't given up on reading commentary on this issue after getting hit by the initial explosion of nerdrage last week, let's break this down:


  • A TWF character with a +1 flaming short sword and +1 frost light hammer has paid 16,611gp for his weapons. Fighting against a fire-immune creature this character loses 1d6 damage from attacks with one of his weapons. All of his class abilities work on every single applicable attack.
  • (Assuming you cannot flurry with a single weapon) A monk with a +1 flaming kama and a +1 frost kama has paid a similar 16,604gp for his weapons. Fighting against a fire-immune creature this character loses 1d6 damage from attacks with one of his weapons. However, he also lacks the ability to use some of his best class features with his weapon attacks because he cannot afford the enhancement to do so.
  • The monk's twin brother decided his class abilities were important, so he purchased two +1 ki focus kamas for his 16,604gp. Against the fire-immune creature he gets to use all his class abilities. However, in comparison he's losing 1d6 elemental damage from all his attacks against every opponent he faces. He simply couldn't afford the spiffy enhancements of the TWF, because he has an enhancement tax just to use class abilities with his weapons.
  • (old assumption) Ol'skuul the orc monk purchased a +1 flaming ki focus sansetsukon for 18,308gp. It lets him use his cool monk class abilities with all his flurry of blows attacks. However, against fire-immune creatures he deals no extra elemental damage. The TWF refuses to adventure with him because he thinks this sansetsukon which cost more than the TWF's two equivalent weapons is broken and unfair.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
zagnabbit wrote:

I hate to say it but I am in 100% agreement with SKR on the power creep thing.

It's what wrecked 3.5.

The theoretical handwraps are problematic. Precisely because they clone AoMF. If an alternative to AoMF is to come about in a way that is consistent with the one body is one weapon philosophy it will not be anything more than a static enhancement bonus. No disruption, agile, flaming, holy mods.

In truth I'd be happy with JUST a bonus To HIT.

The problem with AoMF is that the monk is paying a huge cost for benefits he doesn't receive: the ability to enchant natural weapons. The amulet is correctly priced, based on that it can add bonuses on attacks and damage and special weapons properties to any critter out there with any number of natural attacks!

Put it on a hydra and watch your players cry.

For that reason alone, it needs to be priced as is (hell, it probably needs to be priced HIGHER).

But where SKR and the other developers mess up is that they consistently and vehemently refused to consider creating an item that drops the bonuses to natural weapons and only enhances unarmed strikes. 'That would obsolete the AoMF,' wails SKR. 'It's metagaming, because how to design something unarmed strikes that doesn't also affect natural weapons?'

Look, Sean. Jason. James. Erik. You guys are doing wonderful things with Pathfinder and I love Paizo. But listen to us, for just once in your careers, listen to us. All the players that play a monk wants is a way to get an enhancement bonus to their unarmed strikes; we don't care about natural weapon attacks. We don't care if Sean thinks it is meta-gaming. We just want to play monks and have fun. And it ain't no fun when you are a martial character with no additional damage option (like say, sneak attack) AND your to-hit bonus is consistently 11+ points behind classes that just have FIVE more points of BAB than we do.

So make us some gloves of perfect striking, or an amulet of incredible wuxia or whatever you want to call it, already. If you think that not being able to disarmed, or sundered, or having to leave your weapons behind is THAT big a deal, make it cost the bonus squared x 3,000 gold per point of enhancement! We'd pay it!

But for God's sake, get off your rumps and give your players what they want; not what your charts and paradigms of design theory says is 'balanced'. Because guess what? There is no such thing as balance in a game where three classes can cast either Wish or Miracle.

Sorry about getting on my high horse, there, but their justifications for never changing AoMF just tick me off.

Master Arminas


Hell if you think its to metagamey make the enhancement(to the strikes) only function if you have ki points, not spend them have them. Everyone's happy the monks can now compete. Charge it like a double weapon if you think the poor TWF is gonna cry.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Though I am against the whole you cannot flurry with just one item idea I am not for make monks stronger.

Some people are saying that the DPS of monks is below that of a fighter and many other classes.
That is true, because monks <gasp> are not DPS guys.

Monks are controllers. They control the battle where it occurs who it occurs with. They have good damage but not the same output of the fighter.

I am not for reducing the damage they can do by saying when you flurry you have to alternate between weapons.

No need to add more goodies to make them do more damage, in my opinion.

You want to do a ton of damage at high level with a monk. Put on a pair of monk's robes. Have a ranger cast strong jaw (or use a wand). At 15th level you are doing 6d8 with your unarmed attacks! That will bring you on par with the damage output of the fighter with the longsword +5 flaming frost shock acidic.

Cheliax

OgeXam wrote:

Though I am against the whole you cannot flurry with just one item idea I am not for make monks stronger.

Some people are saying that the DPS of monks is below that of a fighter and many other classes.
That is true, because monks <gasp> are not DPS guys.

Monks are controllers. They control the battle where it occurs who it occurs with. They have good damage but not the same output of the fighter.

I am not for reducing the damage they can do by saying when you flurry you have to alternate between weapons.

No need to add more goodies to make them do more damage, in my opinion.

You want to do a ton of damage at high level with a monk. Put on a pair of monk's robes. Have a ranger cast strong jaw (or use a wand). At 15th level you are doing 6d8 with your unarmed attacks! That will bring you on par with the damage output of the fighter with the longsword +5 flaming frost shock acidic.

I have not seen any proof that a monk is a good "controller". The best controller is and always has been a caster.


An enhancement to unarmed should not cost any more than enhancing a weapon. Yes, it can't be disarmed or sundered, but comes with plenty of its own drawbacks. Crit is set to a base of 20/x2, which is terrible. Against any spiky/slimy/acidic/flaming/etc... enemy, you're often getting hurt just by attacking it. If the manufactured weapon user ever needs to, he can chuck his sword w/ a 10 ft range increment at a -4 penalty for improvised weapon, monk ca't exactly do that with his unarmed strike.

Frankly, it annoys me that the thing even takes up a body slot. I wouldn't mind seeing a club/kama/staff/tonfa/whatever that instead of being enhanced itself, granted enhancement to unarmed, and thus took up the "held item slot" like a weapon would. Perhas grant the enhancement bonus to hardness and hit points (+2 and +10 per +1 enhancement, respective), just to keep it from being pathetically easy to sunder.

...Or they could implement my simple fix: Ki Strike (Magic) makes unarmed strike a +1 enhancement per 4 monk levels, continuously active as long as he has ki remaining. AoMF remains the same. An incredibly expensive item that has the benefit of not needing a +1 before adding special properties. A Monk 20 then has a +5 enhancement and up to +5 in special weapon proprties from the AoMF. Simple and balanced.

Silver Crusade

What about giving the monk an ability similar to the Paladin's "Divine Bond" ability that allows him to enhance his weapon with bonuses and weapon properties?


Mergy wrote:
OgeXam wrote:

Though I am against the whole you cannot flurry with just one item idea I am not for make monks stronger.

Some people are saying that the DPS of monks is below that of a fighter and many other classes.
That is true, because monks <gasp> are not DPS guys.

Monks are controllers. They control the battle where it occurs who it occurs with. They have good damage but not the same output of the fighter.

I am not for reducing the damage they can do by saying when you flurry you have to alternate between weapons.

No need to add more goodies to make them do more damage, in my opinion.

You want to do a ton of damage at high level with a monk. Put on a pair of monk's robes. Have a ranger cast strong jaw (or use a wand). At 15th level you are doing 6d8 with your unarmed attacks! That will bring you on par with the damage output of the fighter with the longsword +5 flaming frost shock acidic.

I have not seen any proof that a monk is a good "controller". The best controller is and always has been a caster.

And the best martial "controller" is a (enlarged) Fighter with a reach weapon, Combat Reflexes, Pin Down, and possibly Dazing/Stunning Assault, with CMD optimized as much as possible to make tumbling practically auto-fail. Find a way to make him the mobile focal point of a dimensional lock spell and you've got yourself lockdown in a can. Or he can just take the feat to mess with teleporters, which like Pin Down is fighter-only.


shallowsoul wrote:
What about giving the monk an ability similar to the Paladin's "Divine Bond" ability that allows him to enhance his weapon with bonuses and weapon properties?

Why is letting the monk be able to afford a continuous enhancement / special properties bonus weapon on par with other martials so against everyone's sensibilities?


Controller? This isn't DnD 4th Edition where each class has a designated role. The class is a damage dealer if the player damn well pleases. And I certainly believe the class is a damage dealer and no one should tell me otherwise.

Shadow Lodge

GM Kyle wrote:
Controller? This isn't DnD 4th Edition where each class has a designated role.

But you can play it that way.


master arminas wrote:

The problem with AoMF is that the monk is paying a huge cost for benefits he doesn't receive: the ability to enchant natural weapons.

The Core Book says this:

Quote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

So am I missing something somewhere else that negates this and makes your argument valid?


Fighters are the best martial controllers. Weapons training adds to combat maneuvers when using weapons that can apply to CMB. Gloves of dueling adds +2 to all attacks, damage, and combat maneuver bonuses for weapons in EVERY weapon group a fighter possesses. In addition a +4 to CMD to avoid disarms or sunders. And other stuff.

So a fighter has a CMB of their BAB (20), plus weapon training (4), plus gloves of dueling (2), PLUS the enhancement on their weapon (5), PLUS weapon focus and greater weapon focus (2). That is +33 even before strength.

A monk has a CMB of their class level (20), plus the enhancement on their weapon (5), plus weapon focus (1). +26 before strength.

Fighters can afford to boost their Strength higher than monks, because basically a fighter only needs Str and Con, with Dex running in third place.

Monks need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, with Int running in fifth place.

Fighters can easily get the Greater Manuever feats, while it is harder for a monk to qualify (fewer feats, more MAD, none on bonus feat options list).

So, even before Strength, fighters are +7 to +9 higher than the monk when performing combat maneuvers: the thing that monks are supposed to do as well if not better than any other class.

Master Arminas


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why this is such an issue, nobody complains that the rapid fire sequence allows using a single weapon to make multiple attacks when the two weapon fighter cannot. I just don't see it as that big of an issue, certainly not enough to justify the complexity of tracking what a monk can do when he has which body parts unavailable and how many attacks he is limited to at that point.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
master arminas wrote:

Fighters are the best martial controllers. Weapons training adds to combat maneuvers when using weapons that can apply to CMB. Gloves of dueling adds +2 to all attacks, damage, and combat maneuver bonuses for weapons in EVERY weapon group a fighter possesses. In addition a +4 to CMD to avoid disarms or sunders. And other stuff.

So a fighter has a CMB of their BAB (20), plus weapon training (4), plus gloves of dueling (2), PLUS the enhancement on their weapon (5), PLUS weapon focus and greater weapon focus (2). That is +33 even before strength.

A monk has a CMB of their class level (20), plus the enhancement on their weapon (5), plus weapon focus (1). +26 before strength.

Fighters can afford to boost their Strength higher than monks, because basically a fighter only needs Str and Con, with Dex running in third place.

Monks need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, with Int running in fifth place.

Fighters can easily get the Greater Manuever feats, while it is harder for a monk to qualify (fewer feats, more MAD, none on bonus feat options list).

So, even before Strength, fighters are +7 to +9 higher than the monk when performing combat maneuvers: the thing that monks are supposed to do as well if not better than any other class.

Master Arminas

Don't forget that monks aren't entitled to the Weapon Specialization feats which give the fighter another +4 on damage.


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
master arminas wrote:

The problem with AoMF is that the monk is paying a huge cost for benefits he doesn't receive: the ability to enchant natural weapons.

The Core Book says this:

Quote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
So am I missing something somewhere else that negates this and makes your argument valid?

Yes, a monk's unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance those natural weapons (but apparently not for feats such as Improved Natural Attack).

But does a monk actually have any natural weapons? Can he use them in a flurry of blows? Can he even get a natural weapon attack in addition to his flurry attacks?

It is a red herring to suggest that since monk's unarmed strikes are treated as both manufactured weapons and natural weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve either, that the monk shouldn't want a cheaper alternative that only enhances unarmed strikes.

Or, let me put it another way. Are you really suggesting that since that phrase is in there that you would let both greater magic weapon and greater magic fang stack on the same monk? Adding their bonuses together? After all, their unarmed strikes are equally affected by both spells. No you wouldn't. And no player would waste both spells on the monk because they don't stack.

But when it comes to buying the amulet, monks have to spend more to get both effects.

Master Arminas

Silver Crusade

master arminas wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
master arminas wrote:

The problem with AoMF is that the monk is paying a huge cost for benefits he doesn't receive: the ability to enchant natural weapons.

The Core Book says this:

Quote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
So am I missing something somewhere else that negates this and makes your argument valid?

Yes, a monk's unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance those natural weapons (but apparently not for feats such as Improved Natural Attack).

But does a monk actually have any natural weapons? Can he use them in a flurry of blows? Can he even get a natural weapon attack in addition to his flurry attacks?

It is a red herring to suggest that since monk's unarmed strikes are treated as both manufactured weapons and natural weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve either, that the monk shouldn't want a cheaper alternative that only enhances unarmed strikes.

Or, let me put it another way. Are you really suggesting that since that phrase is in there that you would let both greater magic weapon and greater magic fang stack on the same monk? Adding their bonuses together? After all, their unarmed strikes are equally affected by both spells. No you wouldn't. And no player would waste both spells on the monk because they don't stack.

But when it comes to buying the amulet, monks have to spend more to get both effects.

Master Arminas

They both provide the same type bonus so why would they stack?


shallowsoul wrote:
Don't forget that monks aren't entitled to the Weapon Specialization feats which give the fighter another +4 on damage.

Quite right. I was concentrating solely on the to-hit side of the equation. And we can't forget the fighter capstone of Weapon Mastery that auto-confirms critical hits. And all of the Critical Focus feats whose BAB requirement is too high to be use to a monk. And the Penetrating Strike (and Greater Penetrating Strike) feats that are fighter only.

Master Arminas


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
master arminas wrote:

The problem with AoMF is that the monk is paying a huge cost for benefits he doesn't receive: the ability to enchant natural weapons.

The Core Book says this:

Quote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
So am I missing something somewhere else that negates this and makes your argument valid?

I am not really on the side of those who state that AoMF is unfair to monks who use unarmed strikes for the reason of cost. There are several ways in which that monk is not spending gold that other martial characters have to. However, there is the issue of DR. A weapon-wielding martial character can have a weapon (or weapons) that have a total enhancement of 10, +5 enhancement bonus plus +5 worth of weapon special abilities. This means they can bypass most DR with the +5 enhancement bonus, and have +5 worth of abilities, whereas the monk must choose one or the other, because GMF and GMW do not imbue the target with any of the DR bypassing ability that a weapon which is enchanted with an enhancement bonus gets.

/devil's advocate


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that the assertion that "AOMF, but it only works for Monk punches and isn't so dang expensive is power creep and it's bad because it obsoletes an item in core" is incorrect for both reasons.

First, taking one of the weaker options in the game for performing a specific role and making it better isn't power creep. Making the monk better at basically ANYTHING will still make it so that a party with another martial class is better than a party with a monk. (Note that I'm not saying that I don't personally think playing a monk is cool or that monk's aren't badass or that you shouldn't play a monk for any number of other reasons, but when we're discussing power creep we have to look at things in the most objective manner we can.) Power creep is harmful when it makes the best options better. A feat that gives you +5 dodge bonus to AC against AoO if you're a level 10 expert isn't power creep, even though it's better than Mobility and stacks with it.

Second, I don't think that obsoleting the use of an item in one of its uses for one class is bad, even if that item is core, if that item is objectively overcosted. (And by objectively here I mean "running the numbers and playing the game" not "making shallow comparisons to TWF".) Suppose there was an item in core that gave +2 to stealth checks and +27 to breath weapon damage while you were huge and flying. The item costs an enormous amount because it has the second property. And suppose that that's the only item in core that gives a bonus to stealth checks. And suppose that there's a class that really needs that bonus to stealh to come even close to other options at filling its role, and even then is clearly lagging behind most of them. Do you never create a more efficient stealth item because you don't want to obsolete the Amulet of Stealthy Dragoning for the class that buys it? Or do you let the notion that core is sacred and perfect somehow prevent you from ever releasing an item that would help the class work right without paying too much for it?


Joyd wrote:
Suppose there was an item in core that gave +2 to stealth checks and +27 to breath weapon damage while you were huge and flying. The item costs an enormous amount because it has the second property. And suppose that that's the only item in core that gives a bonus to stealth checks. And suppose that there's a class that really needs that bonus to stealh to come even close to other options at filling its role, and even then is clearly lagging behind most of them. Do you never create a more efficient stealth item because you don't want to obsolete the Amulet of Stealthy Dragoning for the class that buys it? Or do you let the notion that core is sacred and perfect somehow prevent you from ever releasing an item that would help the class work right without paying too much for it?

I tried to make this exact point to SKR... he totally didn't get it:

My post
His response
My counter-response


I see him using the "doesn't need a +1 to give properties" argument.

You know what, then? REMOVE THAT if it bothers you so much! If AoMF were for unarmed strike only, cost (bonus^2)*2000 gp like other weapon enhancements do and could go up to a +10 total of bonus and special properties like other weapon enhancements do, there is no more porblem, now is there? I do think since neck slot is valuable and an item enhancing your entire body (since unarmed strike = your whole body as a weapon) it should at least be moved to the vest/shirt or robe/armor slot. But...baby steps. Getting a fairly priced AoMF would be a great start.


Yep that's the gist of the issue.

Some people, including SKR, think that the AoMF is a monk item.

Some of us feel that the AoMF is an item that the monk benefits from, but one that is of equal or greater benefit to "monsters" and of course the Druid and his zoo.

Unarmed Strike does not equal Natural Attack. The monk's UA strike goes out of the way the differentiate the two. For good reason, if natural attacks and UA strikes are equal I will be able to break the monk when I get 4 arms, (Shobahd race+monk levels) and Multiattack or play a Toothy Orc. UA strike is ONLY bludgeoning, sans feats, and doesn't allow for tails, multiple mouth bite attacks, extra appendages etc..

Letting a monk benefit from all of the Natural Attack adjustments in the rules; feats, spells, racial abilities, and "monster morphology" could get super silly. Since they seem to want FoB to be TWF then Multiattack is on the table.

Of course a Feral Mutagen, Extra Appendages, Flurry of Blows could be a fun low level build.


The AoMF was intended to be a monk item, but is has really become a must-have item for critters (dragons love it), druids (for their animal companions), and summoners (for their eidolons).

Master Arminas


You know this issue would be moot if there was a way for the monk to craft an AoMF. Technically he could Master Craftsman the bonuses maybe.

Maybe a Ki Crafter feat.
The monk can substitute ki points for spell requirements? I'm not sure how that would work. It's a feat tax, but half priced Bracers and amulets I could live with.

Shadow Lodge

master arminas wrote:

The AoMF was intended to be a monk item, but is has really become a must-have item for critters (dragons love it), druids (for their animal companions), and summoners (for their eidolons).

Master Arminas

Druids wear them as well. They can get matching sets!


The guy who ONLY plays Druids in our group, has never not had at least one AoMF. The 3 monk players try to live without them until it's absolutely necessary.


I think focusing on the cost formula for AoMF detracts from the other (much more) relevant issues revolving around monks and FoB. Just my .02.


Yes. But this is what the whole issue rose out of. SKR made his 'pronouncement' in the course of the debate on this issue. I think they are still working around the problem to making AoMF more attractive to monks.

Master Arminas


I understand the clarification, since FoB specifically calls out to the TWF feat chain, but there's something wrong when a "clarification" raises more questions and problems then the original presumption did.

It's like "Here, have TWF, but it only works with a specific group of weapons and has all these IF/THEN/BUT's that it's not really TWF but it is."

Whaaaat?

This quasi-TWF...something is just convoluted and requires too many exceptions to work without making errata for established archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My alchemist has one and loves it dearly for monstrous physique. The item that is supposed to be ideal for monks is oddly enough being bought up by everyone else.

Having it be both unarmed and natural seems to me to be just simplification of concept. Of course the catch to that is that it winds up being a tax on the general monk who will never, typically, be using a natural weapon. When you factor that on top of the, as currently presented, flurry rules which are markedly worse than using the standard two weapon feats it makes it somewhat hard to want to play a monk.

Edit: I'm looking over the monk's flurry ability and I'm thinking why not play a ranger instead. In my very humble opinion if flurry is supposed to work like the two weapon fighting chain exactly then get rid of flurry and grant the feats instead. Of course adding in a corollary that states that when using them monks bab is equal to level. That way they can at least qualify as perquisites for the rest of them.

251 to 300 of 1,667 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.