Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

401 to 450 of 1,667 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Mikaze wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Malfus wrote:

Hmmm, this warrants further investigation then.

Back on subject, has anyone heard any further information from paizo after Jason Buhlman's post?

I'm sure its in the same to do list as the stealth overhaul and Mikaze's favorite The Bloodcrow strike things.

Don't get me started.

Though honestly the VoP bothers me even more.

Isn't that Beckett's Bloodcrow Strike thingy?

Taldor

Beckett wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Malfus wrote:

Hmmm, this warrants further investigation then.

Back on subject, has anyone heard any further information from paizo after Jason Buhlman's post?

I'm sure its in the same to do list as the stealth overhaul and Mikaze's favorite The Bloodcrow strike things.

Don't get me started.

Though honestly the VoP bothers me even more.

Isn't that Beckett's Bloodcrow Strike thingy?

devs finally have a ruling on bloodcrow and flurry? or just flurry? or neither? I've been afk for a bit.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber

What's wrong with Bloodcrow Strike? I don't see anything wrong, minus the missing components which SKR had answered.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Evil for the sake of being evil, just like undead.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Evil for the sake of being evil, just like undead.

A little weird but I don't personally see that as an issue. Nowhere near the level of Vow of Poverty in my opinion.


Blood Crow Strike's evil descriptor is a thousand times dumber than any evil-undead link, because magically charging your fists to shoot fire with them isn't even historically associated with evil, doesn't offend anyone's ethical sensibilities, and isn't an ethical gray area any more than "punching" or "fireballs" are. If it wasn't a unique effect, then whatever, have a spell that's evil for no reason. I'm just curious what on earth was going through the head of whoever decided Blood Crow Strike should be evil and why nobody questioned it before the material went out the door.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber

Probably has the evil descriptor because part of the damage is negative energy. A lot of spells that use negative energy have that, except surprisingly enough the Inflict spells. That I think is a bit weird...but oh well. So, since it is channeling negative energy, I am not bothered that it is evil. But I suppose we probably shouldn't derail the topic any further.

I hope they come to a decision this week. I'd imagine in the last week, they've been mulling heavily over it, doing the math and playtesting.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I think I said it before, but it is merely one item on their to do list, and I don't believe it to be very high. Expecting it anytime soon is probably just asking for disappointment. :(


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grenouillebleue wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
My 'fix' (other than leave FoB alone) is to add an item set to improve unarmed strike, and a weapon property 'Greater Ki Focus' to allow a weapon to use the monk's unarmed damage dice instead of the weapon's dice.

Either allow the monk to use any monk weapon with unarmed damage dice (makes sense, after all).

Or give him the same ability as the paladin Bond. For 1ki as a swift action, the monk can add +1 to +5 to his fists.

I agree with either of these. The former could be added as a Greater Ki Focus weapon property, the latter as a feat. Easy to tack onto the existing system.

Joyd wrote:
I'm just curious what on earth was going through the head of whoever decided Blood Crow Strike should be evil and why nobody questioned it before the material went out the door.

I asked the same question about Antagonize. Paizo's quality control seems to have allowed some glaring bloopers of late.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jared Rascher wrote:

2. Let's please get past the whole idea that because someone read something differently, they must be either deficient in their understanding of the rules or that they are somehow trying to cheat or pull of fast one of some kind.

It's a complicated game, and it has some rough language in it in a lot of places to this day.

Great point.

I'm so tired of seeing posts like "omg how hard is this to understand" or "only a complete buffoon wouldn't understand this completely clear wording" etc. If someone is posting a question let's first assume the poster isn't an idiot and isn't trying to cheat. I've gotten to the point where I used to never flag anything but I'm so sick of seeing insulting posts like that that I flag much more often now.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bloodcrow Strike:
Blood Crow Strike
School evocation [evil, fire]; Level cleric 4
Casting Time 1 round
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes

Your unarmed strikes release blasts of energy in the form of bolts of fire or glowing red crows, which fly instantaneously to strike your target. You can make unarmed strike or flurry of blows attacks against the target as if it were in your threatened area; each successful attack deals damage as if you had hit it with your unarmed strike, except half the damage is fire and half is negative energy (this negative energy does not heal undead).

For example, if you are a 14th-level monk, you can use a flurry of blows to attack five times, creating one energy crow for each successful attack against the target, and dealing 2d6 points of damage (plus appropriate unarmed strike modifiers) with each crow.

My Bloodcrow Strike rant:
First off, it's a Cleric (only) spell. And a 4th level one at that. Obviously this was designed for the Monk that gets to pick spells as Ki abilities. It is useless if you do not have Flurry and also Monk's unarmed damage, so why is this even a Cleric option. At best, a Cleric 7/Monk 1 could use this, but why?

Second it has a casting time of 1 Round Action, but is best used when making a full Attack Action with it. Would be less than great, but it also has an Instant duration, so no waiting until next round.

It acts as an Unarmed Strike, but at a distance that essentually treats 100+10ft/level as threatened area. That would be cool except for the casting time/duration issue above means it is impossible to actually use for an AoO, so why not just say it's a ranged attack unarmed strike? Well, because it doesn't actually go off of Touch AC.

And it's evil.

And it uses Negative Energy, but that special kind that doesn't heal Undead. Wait, what. This again. . .

And this is a 4th level spell? What exactly places it there? Besides the Monk shouldn't get a Ryu fireball, actually correction an evil dirty akuma ripoff fireball until about that level, even though it's a Cleric (only) spell normally?

So we get this amazingly awesome fluffed spell, that almost no one can actually use at a 2+ level increase of where it's power should place it, for a class that really shouldn't be using it unless they happen to be the Monk's personal buffer???


I assumed that it ended up on the Cleric's spell list because it needed to be on someone's spell list somewhere and "cleric 4" was what was randomly rolled up.

Shadow Lodge

I did say rant. . .


A moderater just removed one of my posts on the thread Simple Fix to Flurry of Blows and directed us to either FAQ the thread or discuss the topic, but don't campaign for votes!

And I was just answering another posters lamentation that he hasn't had a chance to contribute by linking to this thread and encouraging him to raise his voice and be heard.

I think we hit a nerve, gentlemen. Well done.

Master Arminas

Paizo Employee PostMonster General

8 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what, master arminas. Take a few days off. Hitting a nerve with people whose job it is to keep the messageboards civil and fun does not equate hitting a nerve with the developers.


Netherek wrote:

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

Idk, just thinking outside the box.

I think adding the ki power to flurry with any single weapon would be the best fix.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
master arminas wrote:

A moderater just removed one of my posts on the thread Simple Fix to Flurry of Blows and directed us to either FAQ the thread or discuss the topic, but don't campaign for votes!

And I was just answering another posters lamentation that he hasn't had a chance to contribute by linking to this thread and encouraging him to raise his voice and be heard.

I think we hit a nerve, gentlemen. Well done.

Master Arminas

Whoa, not helping, and (I think and I hope) not representative of the feelings of most who are trying to raise awareness of the issues with the clarifaction. This isn't a campaign, and it's not about "fighting the man" or anything. It's about cleanly and concisely making the people in charge aware that the clarification overturns the method of adjudicating Flurry of Blows that a significant contingient of the playerbase was using, breaks segments of existing material, introduces a few rules questions, and does detriment to the efficacy of an class that's already not particularly high on the totem pole.

There's already several threads regarding the issue piled high with FAQ flags. They've already committed to examining the issue. Additional discussion of areas where the clarification causes confusion, inconsistancy, absurdity or general breakage is potentially still useful, as bringing those things to light can help ensure that whatever decisions they come to regarding FoB bear those in mind. General Us. vs. Them rhetoric, however, is off-putting and hampers good communication. I haven't been above being sarcastic and things in the pursuit of making points regarding just how awful the clarification is, but it's not about defeating the other side; it's about persuading them, and being obnoxious is pretty bad for the latter.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Gotta concur with dialing back the tone. Kicking up bad moods in fans and devs alike just exacerbates the situation, and if you keep exacerbating you'll go blind.

Odraude wrote:
What's wrong with Bloodcrow Strike? I don't see anything wrong, minus the missing components which SKR had answered.

Like the guys upthread said, it's evil for no real reason. Add that to the fact that there are now [Evil] Qinggong powers and no [Good] ones for those that want to play supergood monks and Blood Crow Strike is also the qinggong power that's closest to the iconic Hadoken. That's something a lot of monk fans would like to have, but right now it's arbitrarily locked away from heroic monks by the [Evil] descriptor.


Either shaving off the [Evil] tag that doesn't really have any reason to be there or adding non-evil equivalents or analogues would fix that problem, though the former is probably a much easier and quicker fix.

Caedwyr wrote:
But Mikaze, being poor sucks!

>:(


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I normally stay out of commenting on stuff like this (and will endeavor to do so in future), but master arminas, few adults do things because they were bullied into it or because someone badgered them to do it--let alone by a random soul on the Internet. No one endears themselves to others and encourages them to listen by calling them names and acting self-entitled.

Which is a crying shame because when you post civilly and non-confrontationally, you actually have some excellent ideas. But why would the folks in charge listen to you when you might turn on a dime and start calling the person who gave you the benefit of the doubt lazy or apathetic?

As for deleting your posts, I know I've flagged some of your posts and I wouldn't be surprised if others have too, for being abusive and inappropriate. That's the kind of attention you're earning. Sure, you're hitting nerves. But I don't think it's gaining you the "success" you think it is.

Also, what joyd and Mikaze and Gary Teter said.

I trust the devs are working on the issue and will report when they're damn good and ready---in between checking ARG blues and writing UE and working on various Chronicles and Companions and Adventure Paths, of course--and not before. I for one would much prefer a playtested, well-thought out response that comes six months from now than a hasty answer that comes tomorrow that doesn't sufficiently deal with the problem.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem I see with the removal of the comment on the other thread is the fact that I have seen a "lot" more posts that should have been removed but weren't and suddenly this particular topic has shaken up the devs.

When almost everyone, even people that work on the same thing, interpret something one way and maybe you and one other interpret it another then I would actually question who is right and who is wrong, especially since it has taken, "how long now?", to finally say something about it.

It always pays to be civil but I have seen that some people just don't like to be wrong.


I think blood crow strike is evil because half the damage is negative energy, ie undead energy and undead are usually evil......or powered by evil energy


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
When almost everyone, even people that work on the same thing, interpret something one way and may you and one other interpret it another then I would actually question who is right and who is wrong, especially since it has taken, "how long now?", to finally say something about it.

This is pretty much my own feeling on the matter. The original interpretation of FoB may not have been what the developers intended, but it did work and it wasn't broken, so why nerf it now at this late stage?

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Lobolusk wrote:
I think blood crow strike is evil because half the damage is negative energy, ie undead energy and undead are usually evil......or powered by evil energy

Negative energy isn't evil.


@TMZ

IT is in my book but my book is only read by me......that is probably why the spell is evil. the majority of the "Dungeons and Dragons" Mythos and lore has always but an evil spin on Negative Energy because it is the reason undead do there thing. again, I am not going to have a morality conversation about Negative energy being evil or not. just my 2 cents.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
I think blood crow strike is evil because half the damage is negative energy, ie undead energy and undead are usually evil......or powered by evil energy
Negative energy isn't evil.

Don't go there, TOZ, it's a whole world of worms!

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Your book is not how the rules are written. Negative energy is not evil, and so the tenuous connection between BCS and evil you tried to draw is severed.

Edit: You think I don't know exactly what I'm doing, D? :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Your book is not how the rules are written. Negative energy is not evil, and so the tenuous connection between BCS and evil you tried to draw is severed.

"BCS"?

I was trying to be polite....there is no need to throw Acronyms at me.

its fine we can disagree, in fact I care so little on the subject that even if you showed me verses int he CRB( take that acronym user) I would shrug my shoulders and say "meh" in fact I am doing just that now. no body wants a face palm incident to be repeated....


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Your book is not how the rules are written. Negative energy is not evil, and so the tenuous connection between BCS and evil you tried to draw is severed.

Edit: You think I don't know exactly what I'm doing, D? :)

I merely point out that while the RAW may support your stance, the RAI varies considerably from that, and the entire subject is one rife with disagreement.


Dabbler wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Your book is not how the rules are written. Negative energy is not evil, and so the tenuous connection between BCS and evil you tried to draw is severed.

Edit: You think I don't know exactly what I'm doing, D? :)

I merely point out that while the RAW may support your stance, the RAI varies considerably from that, and the entire subject is one rife with disagreement.

your falling into his cleverly laid trap don't do it. It starts with the whole life is sacred argument and there for if you have un life it is profane and profane is evil.....then he face palms you and you call him a tool who cant face palm correctly and he gets upset and then calls you fat, which causes you to drop your current twinkie and cry fat sugary tears...Just walk away until GORBZ shows up.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Lobolusk wrote:

"BCS"?

I was trying to be polite....there is no need to throw Acronyms at me.

its fine we can disagree, in fact I care so little on the subject that even if you showed me verses int he CRB( take that acronym user) I would shrug my shoulders and say "meh" in fact I am doing just that now. no body wants a face palm incident to be repeated....

You get offended at acronyms, like Blood Crow Strike? You'd never make it in the military bro! :P

Dabbler wrote:
I merely point out that while the RAW may support your stance, the RAI varies considerably from that, and the entire subject is one rife with disagreement.

Precisely my point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joyd wrote:

This isn't a campaign, and it's not about "fighting the man" or anything. It's about cleanly and concisely making the people in charge aware that the clarification overturns the method of adjudicating Flurry of Blows that a significant contingient of the playerbase was using, breaks segments of existing material, introduces a few rules questions, and does detriment to the efficacy of an class that's already not particularly high on the totem pole.

There's already several threads regarding the issue piled high with FAQ flags. They've already committed to examining the issue. Additional discussion of areas where the clarification causes confusion, inconsistancy, absurdity or general breakage is potentially still useful, as bringing those things to light can help ensure that whatever decisions they come to regarding FoB bear those in mind. General Us. vs. Them rhetoric, however, is off-putting and hampers good communication. I haven't been above being sarcastic and things in the pursuit of making points regarding just how awful the clarification is, but it's not about defeating the other side; it's about persuading them, and being obnoxious is pretty bad for the latter.

DeathQuaker wrote:

As for deleting your [master arminas'] posts, I know I've flagged some of your posts and I wouldn't be surprised if others have too, for being abusive and inappropriate. That's the kind of attention you're earning. Sure, you're hitting nerves. But I don't think it's gaining you the "success" you think it is.

Also, what joyd and Mikaze and Gary Teter said.

I trust the devs are working on the issue and will report when they're damn good and ready---in between checking ARG blues and writing UE and working on various Chronicles and Companions and Adventure Paths, of course--and not before. I for one would much prefer a playtested, well-thought out response that comes six months from now than a hasty answer that comes tomorrow that doesn't sufficiently deal with the problem.

The flagged posts were removed before I read them, so I retain my good opinion of master arminas.

Though I have played a Pathfinder monk and intend to play one again someday, my main interest in the Flurry of Blows clarification is as a fascinating design problem and an illustrative editing problem. Sean K Reynolds made a simple clarification that Flurry of Blows is not a stand-alone ability that resembles Two-Weapon Fighting; instead, it is Two-Weapon Fighting with some modifications. And the effects of this minor clarification snowballed to invalidate many aspects of the ability and perhaps even invalidate a monk archetype, the Zen Archer.

The Paizo developers have impressed me in the past and I look forward to seeing how they solve the confusion. And as a student of collaborative design, I hope that the forum posts contribute to the solution.

The snowballing occurred because two-weapon fighting and unarmed strike are governed by rules wierder than the usual combat rules, so interpretation is difficult. Throw in some phrasing that had one meaning in D&D 3.5 and another meaning in Pathfinder. Once a key interpretation was removed, the set of Pathfinder Flurry of Blows rules tumbled over like a Jenga tower.

Let me show my view of the tumble, as a discussion of where the clarification caused confusion, inconsistency, and change. The "naive answer" below will be my view of Flurry of Blows as a stand-alone ability independent of two-weapon fighting. The "TWF answer" below will be my view under Sean K. Renolds' clarification that Flurry of Blows is two-weapon fighting. The answers are my best guess, not official answers.

Giant Wall of Text:

Question 1. How are the weapons in each hand used in Flurry of Blows?

Naive answer. The phrase, "he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon" means that on each individual attack, the monk hits with your choice out of the monk weapons he wields and unarmed strike. A monk holding a kama and a siangham could use the kama, the siangham, or unarmed strike for any his regular attacks or his extra attacks.

TWF answer. The monk fights via two-weapon fighting rules. If the monk has a kama in his primary hand and a siangham in his off-hand, then his regular attacks are made with the kama and his off-hand attacks are made with the siangham. However, the monk's Unarmed Strike says that he may make unarmed strikes with his hands full, so he may substitute an unarmed strike for any of these weapon attacks. If a monk's primary hand or off hand is empty, he may make unarmed strikes with it.

Question 2.Some people say that unarmed strike is a single weapon and others say that it is many weapons. How does each version work with Flurry of Blows?

Naive answer. Whether unarmed strike is one weapon or many weapons does not matter, because the monk can make all his flurry attacks with a single weapon.

TWF answer. The unarmed strike is definitely many weapons, and one can be wielded with the right hand and one can be wielded with the left hand. If it were one weapon, then the monk could not do a one-two punch with a flurry of blows and that would be no fun. Ignore any phrasing in the rules that implies it is one weapon.

Question 3. What are the penalties on attack rolls for getting extra attacks during a flurry of blows?

Naive answer. Oops, we forgot to explicitly write the penalty down in the ability. Fortunately, you probably guessed that it is -2 like two-weapon fighting with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and light weapons, because we mentioned the feat. The column labeled "Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus" in the Monk Table confirms that guess.

TWF answer. The flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting, so it follows two-weapon fighting rules. Flurry of blows temporarily grants the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, so the penalty is -2 if the off hand wields a light weapon or an unarmed strike, and is -4 if the off hand wields a non-light weapon. Because most monk weapons are light and the quarterstaff is double, the -4 will almost never come up.

Question 4. Can I use flurry of blows without the extra attacks and get the base attack bonus equal to my monk level without also suffering the -2 penalty?

Naive answer. The -2 penalty is inherent to flurry of blows. You cannot avoid it by skipping the extra attacks.

TWF answer. The extra attacks are inherent to flurry of blows. Even if you don't make the extra attacks, you are still penalized for them. Although the November 2011 FAQ on Multiple Weapons by Sean K. Renolds says, "Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round," that guidance is not meant to apply to flurry of blows. It was a special case we overlooked.

Question 5. The ability says, "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands." How does a monk use a weapon wielded in both hands in a flurry of blows? I mean as a two-handed weapon not as a double weapon. I want to Power Attack with a temple sword, shoot a bow as a Zen Archer, and flurry with a polearm or spear as a 6th-level Sohei.

Naive answer. The monk holds the two-handed weapon in both hands. He can make any of his attacks with the two-handed weapon or with unarmed strike.

TWF answer. The flurry of blows differs here from the usual two-weapon fighting rules, which require a second weapon in the off hand. Treat the two-handed weapon as the primary-hand weapon, and make the off-hand attacks with unarmed strike. The Zen Archer is a further modification to the rules, and can use his bow for both the primary and the off-hand attacks.

Question 6. What are the penalties wielding a weapon in two hands for a flurry of blows.

Naive answer It's a -2 penalty, as usual.

TWF answer When using a two-handed weapon, the off-hand attack is by unarmed strike, so the penalty is -2. Except for the Zen Archer. He wields the bow in both his primary and off hands, and the bow is not light, so the penalty is -4.

I am not satisfied with my TWF answers to the two-handed weapon questions #5 and #6. Does anyone have better answers?

I am also curious: how are people currently playing the penalties on the Zen Archer's flurry with a bow? Is it -2 or -4?

Question 7. My monk cannot afford two enchanted weapons. Is there some way that he can afford to flurry with as much of an echantment bonus as his friend the two-handed-weapon fighter gets?

Naive answer. This is an advice question not a rules question. Fortunately, we have some good advice. Since the monk can make all his attacks in a flurry with a single weapon, your monk needs only one enchanted weapon.

TWF answer. This is a design question not a rules question. Suppose that a fifth-level fighter uses a +2 greatsword. He gets to apply that +2 only once per round. Suppose that a fifth-level monk flurries with two +2 kamas. He applies those +2's once for each kama during each round. The +2 to attack rolls is not additive across the round, so really it does not count twice, but the +2 to damage is additive, so it does count twice. Double the damage bonus is worth the extra cost, isn't it?

Question 8. The monk's Unarmed Strike ability says, "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." What does that mean for a flurry of blows or two-weapon fighting?

Naive answer. Flurry of Blows does not have real off-hand attacks, and the monk can use unarmed strike on both the regular attacks and the extra attacks. No monk will want to use plain two-weapon fighting instead of flurry of blows, so its meaning for two-weapon fighting does not matter.

TWF answer. The wording is a holdover from D&D 3.5 when a character always had a primary hand and an off hand, even in regular combat. For Pathfinder, it means that the monk gets a full Strength bonus on off-hand attacks with unarmed strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:

Gotta concur with dialing back the tone. Kicking up bad moods in fans and devs alike just exacerbates the situation, and if you keep exacerbating you'll go blind.

Odraude wrote:
What's wrong with Bloodcrow Strike? I don't see anything wrong, minus the missing components which SKR had answered.

Like the guys upthread said, it's evil for no real reason. Add that to the fact that there are now [Evil] Qinggong powers and no [Good] ones for those that want to play supergood monks and Blood Crow Strike is also the qinggong power that's closest to the iconic Hadoken. That's something a lot of monk fans would like to have, but right now it's arbitrarily locked away from heroic monks by the [Evil] descriptor.


Either shaving off the [Evil] tag that doesn't really have any reason to be there or adding non-evil equivalents or analogues would fix that problem, though the former is probably a much easier and quicker fix.

Caedwyr wrote:
But Mikaze, being poor sucks!
>:(

Because it's off topic:
Not really. A monk doesn't worship any deity and doesn't lose their powers for using something that is evil, only something non-lawful. So any monk can use it without penalty of losing class abilities. Hell I actually like that it's evil for a roleplaying aspect, playing a good monk that knows a dark technique that he only uses against the most evil of foes. I think the issue is overly exaggerated and nowhere near the other problems it has been compared to (such as Antagonize and Vow of Poverty).

4 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:

I normally stay out of commenting on stuff like this (and will endeavor to do so in future), but master arminas, few adults do things because they were bullied into it or because someone badgered them to do it--let alone by a random soul on the Internet. No one endears themselves to others and encourages them to listen by calling them names and acting self-entitled.

Which is a crying shame because when you post civilly and non-confrontationally, you actually have some excellent ideas. But why would the folks in charge listen to you when you might turn on a dime and start calling the person who gave you the benefit of the doubt lazy or apathetic?

As for deleting your posts, I know I've flagged some of your posts and I wouldn't be surprised if others have too, for being abusive and inappropriate. That's the kind of attention you're earning. Sure, you're hitting nerves. But I don't think it's gaining you the "success" you think it is.

Also, what joyd and Mikaze and Gary Teter said.

I trust the devs are working on the issue and will report when they're damn good and ready---in between checking ARG blues and writing UE and working on various Chronicles and Companions and Adventure Paths, of course--and not before. I for one would much prefer a playtested, well-thought out response that comes six months from now than a hasty answer that comes tomorrow that doesn't sufficiently deal with the problem.

If we're taking sides, DeathQuaker, I stand with Arminas. I've not seen him call them names or curse at them. Questioning their intellectual integrity may be offensive, but it's not outside the realm of discussion nor is it abusive and inappropriate. The terms "apathetic" and "lazy", for example, are negative descriptors not simply trolling language. If he had said, "Because you aren't motivated to work hard on this," it would be the same thing - he would be substituting the definition of the word for the word. Is he not allowed to express his negative thoughts at all? I'm so tired of elitist people teaching other people how to communicate (usually claiming that positive approaches are the only valid ones) and then (supporting) punishing them if they take a different approach. I'm tired of elitist people who can't see that negative classifications (words with meanings) are not inherently abusive.

Furthermore, I stand with Arminas because I can't see people throwing him under the bus when he's the most motivated individual keeping the conversation and debate alive. I don't see why the hard work of the devs which is, in my opinion, more than fairly compensated by money spent by me and my friends entitles them to the additional position of not being questioned, not having their decisions challenged, or in this case, their minions (agents/board moderators) supported when abusing the clientele by banning them (kicking them out of the store and community).

If you don't like what he has to say, then you have a right to disagree. If you don't like the way he says things, then you have a right to express that opinion. If you don't want to include him in the conversation, you can simply choose to ignore and not respond to what he has to say. But I definitely thinks it's wrong to try to silence him. As a consumer, customer, and community member, repeatedly expressing displeasure should not be considered abusive. When all you have is a voice, it's all you can do.

I haven't read all of the posts in all of the threads, but I understand how passionate people can get in their argumentation. Did you ask him to tone it down and he ignore you before you started flagging his posts? Did he resort to name-calling (this is different than using words to describe something he means that happen to be negative descriptors: the difference is as simple as comparing a meaningful word such as "lazy: unmotivated" vs. a word that *only expresses negativite judgment* "scum: bad person") or did he resort to cursing at people? I've read many many of his posts and the extreme preponderance of what I've read suggests that he's been a very civil advocate of his positions. So, even if he did write some posts that I missed that were less than stellar, when weighed against all of the good things he's said, I certainly don't see how something said in the heat of things (unless it was extraordinarily abusive) warranted banning, regardless of how temporary.

So it really comes down to this: what are the devs and moderators doing here? Are they here to take a hostile position or a healing one? Again, I've not read everything, but what I sense is "Here's the way it is." (the rules) "Oh, you don't like it? Well, tough... you're wrong and I'm right." (about objections to the decree) And, "Oh, you can't leave it be? We don't like what you're doing or saying, so we're going to shut you down." (the ban)

All that said, I agree that Arminas was starting to get a little shrill. Starting. Certainly not ban worthy. Perhaps, community-warning worthy. You should have said something. Others who agree with the devs should have said something. Politely. Nicely. Not jump on the devs side like the kids who went to the teacher and tattled and after the teacher punished poor Tommy for saying mean things to little Annie sticking out your tongues and saying, "See? You should be nicer."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
{Giant Wall of Text}

Can I summarise my take on the Wall-of-Text questions below?

Another Giant Wall of Text:

Question 1: How are the weapons in each hand used in Flurry of Blows?

Simple answer. You can use any weapons you are holding in any combination you like, just as it says - "any combination". You may use unarmed strike for any of these even if hands are full. If he has a kama in one hand and a signham in the other, he can make any combination of attacks that include the kama, the siangham and unarmed strokes as he wishes.

TWF answer. The monk fights via two-weapon fighting rules. If the monk has a kama in his primary hand and a siangham in his off-hand, then his regular attacks are made with the kama and his off-hand attacks are made with the siangham. However, the monk's Unarmed Strike says that he may make unarmed strikes with his hands full, so he may substitute an unarmed strike for any of these weapon attacks. If a monk's primary hand or off hand is empty, he may make unarmed strikes with it.

Question 2: Some people say that unarmed strike is a single weapon and others say that it is many weapons. How does each version work with Flurry of Blows?

Simple answer. The monk could be using elbows, knees, head-butts, kicks and fists and anything else you imagine - the unarmed strike is his entire body, but it's only one weapon type so it's effectively one weapon.

TWF answer. The unarmed strike is definitely many weapons, and one can be wielded with the right hand and one can be wielded with the left hand. If it were one weapon, then the monk could not do a one-two punch with a flurry of blows and that would be no fun. Ignore any phrasing in the rules that implies it is one weapon.

Question 2a: If TWF, how many exactly?

TWF answer. ...I'll get back to you on that.

Question 3: What are the penalties on attack rolls for getting extra attacks during a flurry of blows?

Simple answer. Mechanically the number and accuracy of the attacks is the same as with TWF with full BAB.

TWF answer. The flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting, so it follows two-weapon fighting rules. Flurry of blows temporarily grants the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, so the penalty is -2 if the off hand wields a light weapon or an unarmed strike, and is -4 if the off hand wields a non-light weapon.

Question 3a: Hang on, it specifically lists the attack bonus in the Monk table as -2 to full BAB, it says nothing about heavier weapons, just about monk weapons being the only ones it works with.

TWF answer. Because most monk weapons are light and the quarterstaff is double, the -4 will almost never come up.

Question 3b: Temple sword?

TWF answer. Well then it should be -4 with the temple sword.

Question 3c: In the primary hand? What if I have a temple sword in each hand and attack only with one of them and unarmed strikes which are light?

TWF answer. ...I'll get back to you on that one.

Question 4: Can I use flurry of blows without the extra attacks and get the base attack bonus equal to my monk level without also suffering the -2 penalty?

Simple answer. The -2 penalty is inherent to flurry of blows. You cannot avoid it by skipping the extra attacks, it's just how FoB works.

TWF answer. The extra attacks are inherent to flurry of blows. Even if you don't make the extra attacks, you are still penalized for them. Although the November 2011 FAQ on Multiple Weapons by Sean K. Renolds says, "Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round," that guidance is not meant to apply to flurry of blows. It was a special case we overlooked.

Question 4a: So flurry of blows is a special case, and the TWF FoB isn't exactly like real TWF after all?

TWF answer. Er, no, really, it IS TWF, it's just this is an exception.

Question 4b: An exception?

TWF answer. Yes, but other than that exception, it's just like TWF.

Question 4c: So you can use FoB as the basis for other TWF feats, like Two Weapon Rend?

TWF answer. No, you need TWF feat for those!

Question 4d: But you said -

TWF answer. OK, TWO exceptions!

Question 5: The ability says, "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands." How does a monk use a weapon wielded in both hands in a flurry of blows? I mean as a two-handed weapon not as a double weapon. I want to Power Attack with a temple sword, shoot a bow as a Zen Archer, and flurry with a polearm or spear as a 6th-level Sohei.

Simple answer. The monk holds the two-handed weapon in both hands. He can make any of his attacks with the two-handed weapon or with unarmed strike, it doesn't matter, the strength bonus to damage is the same as a one-handed weapon regardless.

TWF answer. The flurry of blows differs here from the usual two-weapon fighting rules, which require a second weapon in the off hand. Treat the two-handed weapon as the primary-hand weapon, and make the off-hand attacks with unarmed strike. The Zen Archer is a further modification to the rules, and can use his bow for both the primary and the off-hand attacks.

Question 5a: So yet another exception?

TWF answer. ...yes.

Question 6: What are the penalties wielding a weapon in two hands for a flurry of blows.

Simple answer. It's the same as flurrying with a single weapon, or with two. It doesn't matter. Mechanically it's -2 on monk level instead of BAB.

TWF answer. When using a two-handed weapon, the off-hand attack is by unarmed strike, so the penalty is -2. Except for the Zen Archer. He wields the bow in both his primary and off hands, and the bow is not light, so the penalty is -4.

Question 6a: But again, it lists the penalty as only -2 in the monk table, and even for the Zen Archer the off-hand weapon is light, so shouldn't it still be -2?

TWF answer. I'll -

Question 6b: - get back to us on that one, we know. What if I am attacking with a two handed weapon and don't make the unarmed attacks, does that mean I attack at full BAB?

TWF answer. No, because FoB doesn't work like that!

Question 6c: You said it works just like TWF. If I drop my off-hand weapon in TWF and take my other weapon in both hands and attack, my attack and damage increase, don't they?

TWF answer. In TWF yes, but not in FoB!

Question 6d: so it's NOT like TWF, then?

TWF answer. It's an exception.

Question 6e: That's now three exceptions.

TWF answer. Whatever!

I wouldn't even have rated this as a question, but since you listed it:

Question 7: My monk cannot afford two enchanted weapons. Is there some way that he can afford to flurry with as much of an echantment bonus as his friend the two-handed-weapon fighter gets?

Simple answer. This is an advice question not a rules question. Fortunately, we have some good advice. Since the monk can make all his attacks in a flurry with a single weapon, your monk needs only one enchanted weapon. He can have more if he wants, though.

TWF answer. This is a design question not a rules question. Suppose that a fifth-level fighter uses a +2 greatsword. He gets to apply that +2 only once per round. Suppose that a fifth-level monk flurries with two +2 kamas. He applies those +2's once for each kama during each round. The +2 to attack rolls is not additive across the round, so really it does not count twice, but the +2 to damage is additive, so it does count twice. Double the damage bonus is worth the extra cost, isn't it?

Question 7a: Dude, the greatsword fighter gets Strx1.5 in damage bonus and +3 per -1 to hit from Power Attack not to mention Weapon Specialisation and weapon training. Compared to that an extra +2 is urinating against the airflow!

TWF answer. Well he's a fighter, you can't expect to do the same damage as him!

Question 8: The monk's Unarmed Strike ability says, "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." What does that mean for a flurry of blows or two-weapon fighting?

Simple answer. If you want a weapon in each hand you can do so without penalty, just as if you were TWFing on full BAB. It's a bit like having TWF on the cheap - you don't get all the advantages of full BAB and TWF in Flurry of Blows, but you can do things that TWF cannot.

TWF answer. The wording is a holdover from D&D 3.5 when a character always had a primary hand and an off hand, even in regular combat. For Pathfinder, it means that the monk gets a full Strength bonus on off-hand attacks with unarmed strike.

Question 8a: That doesn't make sense, TWF says -

TWF answer. Its. Another. Exception.

Question 8b: That's FOUR exceptions now.

Complicated TWF answer. yes, but other than giving full damage on off-hand weapons, no increase in chances to hit if you pass on the extra attacks, no increase in damage if you use a weapon two-handed, using two-handed weapons and not being the basis for the rest of the TWF feats, it's just like TWF!

I think I prefer the simple answers, the TWF stance raises more questions than it answers and imposes problems on the class it really does not need.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber
Quote:
So it really comes down to this: what are the devs and moderators doing here? Are they here to take a hostile position or a healing one? Again, I've not read everything, but what I sense is "Here's the way it is." (the rules) "Oh, you don't like it? Well, tough... you're wrong and I'm right." (about objections to the decree) And, "Oh, you can't leave it be? We don't like what you're doing or saying, so we're going to shut you down." (the ban)

This is incorrect. Jason came in and said they'd look more into the situation regarding Flurry of Blows and how the change affects the current state of the monk. So it's not "tough, you're wrong so deal with it" it's more that they are still looking at the issue. Which means the only thing we can really do is wait. Not to mention that most of the people in this topic are against the new ruling and agree with Arminas's viewpoint. No one here is against questioning their decision.

The only issue is this. Paizo has shown in the last couple of years that they really care about their fanbase and their craft. These guys have been in the business for awhile and they love their job and love their fans. And for as long as I have been a customer, they have given me great products and great customer service. I really like how they are constantly interacting with the community. Hell, James Jacobs has an entire thread where he answers questions anyone asks him on his free time. So these guys are dedicated to us and to their work.

They make mistakes. Everyone does. When it's pointed out, they do their best to FAQ the issue in addition to the other work they have to get out. This is one of those mistakes. And it is our job to point out these issues when they arise. However, calling them lazy and apathetic is not only rude and unnecessary, but just flat out wrong. They do love their work and for some reason I can't understand, they love this community. You complain that we are so quick to 'white knight' the developers when many times, it's the overly passionate and the self entitled that are the first to jump out and throw Paizo under the bus because of one ruling they don't agree with. I believe in simply having a concise, non biased debate about my disapproval with a ruling. If that makes me an elitist white knight, then I guess I'll have to live with that.

I too do not like the new Flurry of Blows ruling. However, I'm not frothing at the mouth for an answer and furious at Paizo because it will come with some patience. I'd rather say "This Flurry of Blows ruling isn't very good. Here is the math and reasoning why I disagree with it" than say "Way to go Paizo. Another poorly thought out and unnecessary ruling. Do you guys even play the game?"

Paizo Employee PostMonster General

If you want to discuss messageboard moderation policies, please take it to website feedback.


Odraude wrote:
Quote:
So it really comes down to this: what are the devs and moderators doing here? Are they here to take a hostile position or a healing one? Again, I've not read everything, but what I sense is "Here's the way it is." (the rules) "Oh, you don't like it? Well, tough... you're wrong and I'm right." (about objections to the decree) And, "Oh, you can't leave it be? We don't like what you're doing or saying, so we're going to shut you down." (the ban)

This is incorrect. Jason came in and said they'd look more into the situation regarding Flurry of Blows and how the change affects the current state of the monk. So it's not "tough, you're wrong so deal with it" it's more that they are still looking at the issue. Which means the only thing we can really do is wait. Not to mention that most of the people in this topic are against the new ruling and agree with Arminas's viewpoint. No one here is against questioning their decision.

The only issue is this. Paizo has shown in the last couple of years that they really care about their fanbase and their craft. These guys have been in the business for awhile and they love their job and love their fans. And for as long as I have been a customer, they have given me great products and great customer service. I really like how they are constantly interacting with the community. Hell, James Jacobs has an entire thread where he answers questions anyone asks him on his free time. So these guys are dedicated to us and to their work.

That's cool. As I said, this was my sense of the situation on *this ruling*, not a final judgment. I agree with you that Paizo has seemed to be very concerned with the views of the community. I have seen, with my own eyes, language from the Devs on this subject that seemed hostile and/or sarcastic (I'm sure they weren't banned :P).

Odraude wrote:
They make mistakes. Everyone does. When it's pointed out, they do their best to FAQ the issue in addition to the other work they have to get out. This is one of those mistakes. And it is our job to point out these issues when they arise. However, calling them lazy and apathetic is not only rude and unnecessary, but just flat out wrong. They do love their work and for some reason I can't understand, they love this community. You complain that we are so quick to 'white knight' the developers when many times, it's the overly passionate and...

But there is also, I would think, an issue of timeliness ("we'll look at it" could just as easily mean, "we'll look at it in a week" as it could mean, "we'll look at it and have a ruling in our next FAQ in six months"). Most people would like to have some sort of timeframe--something to focus their attention on instead of the here and now complaint. And I suspect that's what Arminas was after, too.

Necessary is not a prerequisite to speaking. There are levels of "rude", clearly. For instance, if Arminas mistakenly believes they are lazy and apathetic, then it's not so rude to say so. Wrong, maybe. Rude, no. Calling a turd a turd isn't rude. Calling a person a snake is wrong and maybe a little rude. Calling a person a turd is both rude and wrong. All I'm saying is, don't be so quick to silence or support the silencing of people. Argue, correct, debate... but let speech live, unless it really is over-the-top abusive.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
I too do not like the new Flurry of Blows ruling. However, I'm not frothing at the mouth for an answer and furious at Paizo because it will come with some patience. I'd rather say "This Flurry of Blows ruling isn't very good. Here is the math and reasoning why I disagree with it" than say "Way to go Paizo. Another poorly thought out and unnecessary ruling. Do you guys even play the game?"

Agreed. And as Gary says, here is not the time or place.


Gary Teter wrote:
If you want to discuss messageboard moderation policies, please take it to website feedback.

Thanks, but I really don't wish to discuss your policies. I don't think it would change anything if I did. I respect your right to do with these boards what you wish.

And while I do strongly disagree with your specific decision here, I support your right to do so. My complaints here aren't about your action or your decision (which I clearly mentioned I think is wrong-headed), but rather everyone else piling on top of it and supporting the decision, when they should realize it could just as easily be one of them getting banned.

Paizo Employee PostMonster General

10 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want complete freedom of speech you can do it on your own website. When someone is behaving like a jerk we'll take whatever measures we need to to ensure that our messageboards remain a fun and friendly place. Agitating and campaigning across multiple threads rather than answering the questions posed is jerk behavior. The Pathfinder rules, as published by Paizo Publishing, LLC, are not the result of a democratic vote. They are OGL, so if you want to create your own version you can totally go for it.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Mathmuse and Dabbler, thanks both of you for your analyses/summary of the flurry-of-blows issue.

You both highlighted something in particular that I hadn't even thought much about... that archer flurry or non-light weapon flurry would impose a -4 penalty, technically, rather than -2, due to the TWF interpretation.


Odraude wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

Gotta concur with dialing back the tone. Kicking up bad moods in fans and devs alike just exacerbates the situation, and if you keep exacerbating you'll go blind.

Odraude wrote:
What's wrong with Bloodcrow Strike? I don't see anything wrong, minus the missing components which SKR had answered.

Like the guys upthread said, it's evil for no real reason. Add that to the fact that there are now [Evil] Qinggong powers and no [Good] ones for those that want to play supergood monks and Blood Crow Strike is also the qinggong power that's closest to the iconic Hadoken. That's something a lot of monk fans would like to have, but right now it's arbitrarily locked away from heroic monks by the [Evil] descriptor.


Either shaving off the [Evil] tag that doesn't really have any reason to be there or adding non-evil equivalents or analogues would fix that problem, though the former is probably a much easier and quicker fix.

Caedwyr wrote:
But Mikaze, being poor sucks!
>:(
** spoiler omitted **

+1

When I first saw Blood Crow Strike this was my first idea. Build a LG monk that learns this technique. But the more you use it, the more it eats at your soul. To remain good, you will need to try to use it only when you have no other choice. Also do more acts of good to restore the balance in your soul.

The GM I discussed this with didn't like it too much though.

In short think Ryu with the Dark Hadou growing inside of him :P


Blayde MacRonan wrote:
Here is the AoMF as presented from the editions in which they've appeared (there is no 3.0 version of the AoMF as it was created for 3.5).

There is a 3.0 version in Sword and Fist. As I recall, it's pretty much identical to the 3.5 one.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification.

I went by the SRD, which is where I pulled all of my information. Sword and Fist was released as an optional supplement so it wasn't listed in the 3.0 SRD.

So, the AoMF was an option released about a year into 3.0 that became an official item in the 3.5 revision.

The funny thing is I remember owning a copy of that splatbook. I just never got to use anything in it (a former player stole it on his last night playing with our group at the time). Maybe that's why I didn't remember it being in there.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
{Giant Wall of Text}

Can I summarise my take on the Wall-of-Text questions below?

** spoiler omitted **...

Can do you one for summoners? I need some laughs for the absurdities.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BYC wrote:
Can do you one for summoners? I need some laughs for the absurdities.

In all honesty, while I was partly joking, I was also partly serious that the TWF interpretation actually complicates things more than the simple interpretation. Many of the TWF answers just raise more questions, and perhaps more to the point, FoB isn't TWF even in the TWF interpretation, it's got masses of exceptions to it being TWF such that to all intents and purposes, except for insisting that you alternate attacks, it still isn't TWF at all.


Dabbler wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
{Giant Wall of Text}

Can I summarise my take on the Wall-of-Text questions below?

** spoiler omitted **...

Well that was definitely good for a laugh. xD

Anyway, they say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I think FoB is Pathfinder Hell and the bus just arrived. ;)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think that's a bit strong, myself. The issues with FoB - and the monk in general - are fixable with a sensible ruling and a few new feats and items.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

This has gone WAY BEYOND what is appropiate for this problem and it's becoming ridiculous and pathetic.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
BYC wrote:
Can do you one for summoners? I need some laughs for the absurdities.

In all honesty, while I was partly joking, I was also partly serious that the TWF interpretation actually complicates things more than the simple interpretation. Many of the TWF answers just raise more questions, and perhaps more to the point, FoB isn't TWF even in the TWF interpretation, it's got masses of exceptions to it being TWF such that to all intents and purposes, except for insisting that you alternate attacks, it still isn't TWF at all.

I know, that's why it's funny. I don't play monks, and the ones I was considered were not going to have FoB anyways (sensei and maneuver master).

Exceptions are how games are designed, but too many exceptions end up confusing matters.

I believe in this case, Paizo should just write out exactly what they wish for FoB to be, and then release it in a beta to get feed back and to make sure the optimizers can pick over the wording, and then release it fully, and errata Core with this entry.

401 to 450 of 1,667 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 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.