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

New Flurry Interpretation Retcon Or Not?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sorry if I'm a bit late to the discussion, it only recently came to my attention.

I invite Master Arminas and others to this discussion in which I intend for us to collect evidence in the hopes of determining whether or not the new (old?) ruling is a retcon, or simply something that was overlooked by nearly everyone.

Here is the relevant post for those not in the know: SKR's Clarification/Retcon

The old thread was shut down because it was, technically, off-topic and in the wrong forum. This is meant to be a continuation of that discussion.

Like Master Arminas, I personally believe it IS a retcon of sorts, and will only serve to hurt the game if made an official rule (since it breaks a lot of existing rules, builds, and game mechanics. A new line of errata/FAQs on the matter will only severely complicate an otherwise smoothly flowing system.

Via his many past posts, Sean has made it quite clear that he once believed that you could flurry with only one weapon, just like the rest of us. I strongly suspect that he only changed his tune, because Jason told him to.

In fact since EVERY product EVER printed by Paizo with monk material in them SUPPORTS flurrying with a single weapon, as far as I'm concerned, only Jason and a handful of others actually believed in this new interpretation form the beginning. It's news to everyone else.

We are the 99%.

Andoran

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course its a retcon. The existence of zen archer, and its what 2 years without errata, prove it is a retcon.

So what? ATM, it only matters in PFS games. The rest of us will still use monks that make sense.


really you had to bring the 99% movement into this lol.

anyway on topic i agree with keeping the monk as was in 3.5. honestly i thought the only reason the "functions as TWF" was in there to stop people from using flurry+TWF for 11 attacks at 20th level. i never thought they actually were making it a bad version of twf.

but yes i would like to see reach weapon monks stay functioning, archer monks and what not still working as intended.

i mean if this change goes to print i have 4 monks in pfs that are completely dead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
collect evidence in the hopes of determining whether or not the new (old?) ruling is a retcon, or simply something that was overlooked by nearly everyone.

Evidence: Every monk printed, ever.

Facing a mountain of criticism over the price of AoMF, the designers decided to double down on the stupid and nerf the Monk even more.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nothing has changed of it, no matter what the whiners say. We just all misread it. Except Jiggy and one other guy.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In addition, Jason Bulmahn diction when they showed the monk preview heavily implied that it was TWF and he came out and explicitly said that it was always the intent for it to be TWF so that if it needed to be changed, both could be fixed.

Simple as that. Everyone screwed up and assumed it was the 3.5 way, even the adventure freelancers. Just like how we still see people think that bards can't use performances and cast spells, or do anything else. Or that they need perform skills.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
Nothing has changed of it, no matter what the whiners say. We just all misread it. Except Jiggy and one other guy.

I expected more of you than to call names.

Quote:

In addition, Jason Bulmahn diction when they showed the monk preview heavily implied that it was TWF and he came out and explicitly said that it was always the intent for it to be TWF so that if it needed to be changed, both could be fixed.

Simple as that. Everyone screwed up and assumed it was the 3.5 way, even the adventure freelancers. Just like how we still see people think that bards can't use performances and cast spells, or do anything else. Or that they need perform skills.

If that was always the intent, then Paizo is guilty of gross incompetence in publishing things like zen archer and stated monks that flat do not work. I do not, and can not, believe that their own understanding of the game system they have created is so poor.

I don't know why this came up now. I don't know why they've decided to try and stick to the "it was always meant to be this way, everyone, including us, has done it wrong for 2 - 3 years" rather than saying "oops, I misspoke." I would greatly like to know why they've taken that line.


Like others, when reading the text on flurry of blows, I believed that the reference to TWF was NOT meant to a literal use of 'flurry as TWF' but was instead to prevent the monk from stacking flurry of blows and two-weapon fighting. The large number of exceptions already applied to flurry of blows in the monk class feature illustrate how different the two abilities actually are.

I, for one, believed that if the original intent was for flurry of blows to be two-weapon fighting (as Jason has clarified), it would have been simpler for the designers to simply give monks Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat at 1st level, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at a bonus feat at 8th level, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat at 15th level, with the flurry of blows class ability listing the exceptions.

I am rather surprised that it took three years for the developers to understand that their original interpretation was NOT what people were reading; not even their own writers working on published material for Paizo's adventure paths. I hope that they just leave things alone and don't try to fix something that isn't broken. But we will see.

Master Arminas


If they wanted everyone to use two weapons in a flurry when in the old system they needed only one, they should have explicitly stated so. "Any combination as if TWF" is not a clear refutation of the old wording allowing a single weapon. In fact, some saw it as a nod to the old "interchangeably as desired." If anything needs to be changed, it is that particular phrase. I will not accept a clarification til that phrase is replaced or expanded.

Shadow Lodge

Retcon.

1) Intended from the beginning or not, it causes the same dissonance that any other retcon does: it doesn't fit with anything that came after it. It doesn't fit with the archtypes, feats, or NPCs. Everything else works fine together without it, and changing it causes everything else which did work together to no longer do so.

2) They left in the paragraph explaining flurry of blows as it existed in 3.5... where you could flurry with the same weapon. If the intent is actual two weapon fighting it doesn't match the paragraph after it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

100% Grade A retcon.

While I appreciate the dev's intent, he failed to communciate it to.. well.. pretty much everyone- including the folks in his own office who write the other books and such.

Its in print, in their own books. Not to mention but- while the forums are usually not evidence of anything its never, ever been mentioned argued pointed out or anything else with *countless* monk threads going on, that this was even a blip on the radar.

Not even the guys now claiming "we knew it all along, neener neener" were running around in monk threads making rules issues out of it.*

Regardless of his original intent- its been 3 years with this going on continually.. It should be clear that his intent isn't what made it to press. Changing RAW to reflect what he thought the rule was 3 years ago, is a retcon.

Now I will say- a retcon in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. We have them all the time- they are called Errata.

But a clarification and an errata are two very different things, and this is definately a retcon/errata issue not a clarification. They aren't clarifying an ambiguity. They are changing how the rule currently works, into something else. Even if that something else is how he envisioned the rule originally working.

*not that I saw anyway, am more than willin to be wrong on that though.

Clearly, thats just my .02.

-S


Ravingdork wrote:

Sorry if I'm a bit late to the discussion, it only recently came to my attention.

I invite Master Arminas and others to this discussion in which I intend for us to collect evidence in the hopes of determining whether or not the new (old?) ruling is a retcon, or simply something that was overlooked by nearly everyone.

Here is the relevant post for those not in the know: SKR's Clarification/Retcon

The old thread was shut down because it was, technically, off-topic and in the wrong forum. This is meant to be a continuation of that discussion.

Like Master Arminas, I personally believe it IS a retcon of sorts, and will only serve to hurt the game if made an official rule (since it breaks a lot of existing rules, builds, and game mechanics. A new line of errata/FAQs on the matter will only severely complicate an otherwise smoothly flowing system.

Via his many past posts, Sean has made it quite clear that he once believed that you could flurry with only one weapon, just like the rest of us. I strongly suspect that he only changed his tune, because Jason told him to.

In fact since EVERY product EVER printed by Paizo with monk material in them SUPPORTS flurrying with a single weapon, as far as I'm concerned, only Jason and a handful of others actually believed in this new interpretation form the beginning. It's news to everyone else.

We are the 99%.

Treantmonk mentioned it in his monk guide, but with that aside what sources do you have to support "EVERY"?

I do not think it was a retcon though, but I do think the change should have clearer than it was. I am sure 95% of the board thought FoB's only goal was to allow the TWF extra iterative attacks without making you use TWF.


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

Wraithstrike: I've read the entire thread where SKR made his statement, beginning to end. In there it is shown that the NPC gallery monk stat blocks use a single weapon with flurry, as do pretty much all monks ever appearing in adventure paths/modules. There are a number of archetypes that are dependent on this interpretation.

I counter your question with a question: Where else does monk flurry appear in which this discussion is at all relevant?


Is keeping the "new" old definition of FoB going to require changes in the way the RAW is written in order for it to work?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sorry, but not a retcon at all. A clarification to be sure. I am in a gaming group that has eight GM's total(and more than 50 players!) and only one missed the intent. The other seven of us have been running the rule as intended for years. The eighth is a first edition monk fan and simply house-ruled in his preference.
Sorry, but you cannot be the 99% unless I personally know a signifigant portion of the other 1%. And that seems atronomically unlikely. In fact, statistically, using my extended RPG club as a base model, then you guys are the 12.5%.
So....clarification.


Ravingdork wrote:

Wraithstrike: I've read the entire thread where SKR made his statement, beginning to end. In there it is shown that the NPC gallery monk stat blocks use a single weapon with flurry, as do pretty much all monks ever appearing in adventure paths/modules. There are a number of archetypes that are dependent on this interpretation.

I counter your question with a question: Where else does monk flurry appear in which this discussion is at all relevant?

The monk examples are all jacked up. I check the GMG when the kama is used alone.

I don't understand your question.


It is not 12.5%.

Not one monk thread that is one this board has ever used the new* interpretation. Not one group I have ever gamed with in real life or seen on the PbP boards has used the new interpretation.

Other than Treantmonk, and I guess Jiggy I have never seen anyone suggest otherwise. I take that back. People have asked about it, but when people told them two weapons were not needed they went with the flow.

*I know it is not really new since it is a clarification, but it is new to most of us.


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

Whether it's a retcon or a clarification is not that relevant. For a few people it is a clarification, but considering that the non-TWF version is actually USED by Paizo, it's a retcon.

Either way, it's a hit with the nerf-bat to a class that already struggled in combat. The monk with FoB the way most people (including many at Paizo) interpreted it was far from broken. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hopefully they make officially make it so that two weapons are not needed. The monk is hard enough to deal with without a nerf bat.


Amen.

Master Arminas


Ravingdork wrote:

Sorry if I'm a bit late to the discussion, it only recently came to my attention.

I invite Master Arminas and others to this discussion in which I intend for us to collect evidence in the hopes of determining whether or not the new (old?) ruling is a retcon, or simply something that was overlooked by nearly everyone.

Here is the relevant post for those not in the know: SKR's Clarification/Retcon

The old thread was shut down because it was, technically, off-topic and in the wrong forum. This is meant to be a continuation of that discussion.

Like Master Arminas, I personally believe it IS a retcon of sorts, and will only serve to hurt the game if made an official rule (since it breaks a lot of existing rules, builds, and game mechanics. A new line of errata/FAQs on the matter will only severely complicate an otherwise smoothly flowing system.

Via his many past posts, Sean has made it quite clear that he once believed that you could flurry with only one weapon, just like the rest of us. I strongly suspect that he only changed his tune, because Jason told him to.

In fact since EVERY product EVER printed by Paizo with monk material in them SUPPORTS flurrying with a single weapon, as far as I'm concerned, only Jason and a handful of others actually believed in this new interpretation form the beginning. It's news to everyone else.

We are the 99%.

Ravingdork, the original thread was locked, but we have since been discussing this topic here, Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blow, with over 450 posts on the topic. In case anyone wants to see what points has already been covered by previous posters.

Master Arminas


It is a clarification, but one that is _very_ late to the party.

As others have pointed out, even the Pathfinder Beta has flurry much closer to its 3.5 version (both in progression, and phrasing) than to what is in the final version of Pathfinder Core. This makes it somewhat more understandable to me how this was missed by so many for so long.

That said, I believe the quasi-TWF-but-not-really final version creates more problems than it solves, and makes for unnecessary levels of complication. Since a large part of the community has been effectively playtesting the version that emphasizes 'any combination' over 'as if using two-weapon fighting' for 3 years, with no real balance issues, it would be nice to see it become official in future printings.

The developers seem to taking their time on a final response, and seem to have been open to reworking core mechanics in the past (see: Stealth Playtest), so it would be nifty. We'll have to wait and see.


It's a total retcon, and it happened precisely because of what Rasmus said: "Facing a mountain of criticism over the price of AoMF, the designers decided to double down on the stupid and nerf the Monk even more."

Well that, and paizo hates monks.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like to ascribe motives or to assume that someone is not being forthright when they say something. I have no problem believing that the original intent might have been for this to work as it has been clarified to work.

However, it is also clear that even "official" sources were confused and not on board with the new interpretation, as it has been noted that the wording of various rules and the builds of various NPCs strongly seem to imply the less stringent interpretation.

I don't think it does anyone any good to try and vote on if this was or wasn't original intent. All that does is contravene any good will in the situation and make discussions with the staff adversarial in tone.

What I will say is that, again, it would be nice for people across the board, on both sides of the interpretation, and in official places, to recognize that the wording was problematic at least for a goodly number of people reading the rules, and to not assume that there is any deficiency of character or proficiency involved in the dissenting interpretation.

Let's just get a very clear and comprehensive ruling that takes into account the archetypes and other rules elements that have come into the game since the core, and move on from there.


Jared has a point. It does not matter if it was a retcon or not, not that I think it was. The point is that the monk is all the weaker for it in the eyes of many of us. We now have to decide how we will rule in our home games if Paizo decides to keep the newly understood version.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Jared has a point. It does not matter if it was a retcon or not, not that I think it was. The point is that the monk is all the weaker for it in the eyes of many of us. We now have to decide how we will rule in our home games if Paizo decides to keep the newly understood version.

It does matter, actually. Honestly, to me, it matters more than what they decide. I can (and will) ignore their ruling if I don't like it. However, from a customer service perspective, it matters. I want to be able to trust the company I buy the product from, but if they're going to piss on my head and tell me it is raining, then no, I'm not going to trust them and with a lack of trust, comes a lack of investing my money in their product.

Cheliax

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

Except from my looking at the situation it seems they have been up front and that whats happend in a lot of the other books has been a mistake.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Jared has a point. It does not matter if it was a retcon or not, not that I think it was. The point is that the monk is all the weaker for it in the eyes of many of us. We now have to decide how we will rule in our home games if Paizo decides to keep the newly understood version.
It does matter, actually. Honestly, to me, it matters more than what they decide. I can (and will) ignore their ruling if I don't like it. However, from a customer service perspective, it matters. I want to be able to trust the company I buy the product from, but if they're going to piss on my head and tell me it is raining, then no, I'm not going to trust them and with a lack of trust, comes a lack of investing my money in their product.

I think that's a bit strong. At the end of the day, they are the professional games designers, not us. That said, I am having trouble understanding why they would rule the TWF way. It certainly makes the monk an un-fun class if they do.

Shadow Lodge

all i have to say about this change is, in my home games this rule will not be enforced. i also will never play a monk in pfs unless it removes the flurry class feature from the monk. a tetori maneuver master, and MoMM are the 3 archetype i may choose to still play.


Retcon vs Clarification matters because its an issue of whether or not they will tell us the truth.

When their own books say X, and they are coming along saying "hey guys it was Y all the time" and its 3 *years* down the line.. then calling it a "clarification" is just a lie.

Am I saying that the author didn't mean it to be that when he wrote it? not at all. But at this point in the game- its him and 2 other guys who knew it, and those other 2 guys weren't the ones writing pathfinder books.

A clarification is "You guys don't understand how this works, let me make it clear to you"

A retcon is: The rule is currently X, as demonstrated by the language in the product and by language and examples in other products. We are changing this rule to be Y instead."

A great example is the new Stealth stuff. What is coming with that, is a retcon and rules change because the old rule didn't work. It isn't a clarification. They are *rewriting the rule*.
They are doing the same thing here with FoB. His original intent, 3 years ago, is no longer relevant. What is relevant is the game 3 years of gaming products produced later.

Its also important to note that usually speaking:
clarifications in PFS don't allow for character adjustments to conform to the new ruling, but retcons/errata do.
(though of course, that can vary on a case by case basis).

Rule 0 aside, I just want them to call it what it is. The rule wasn't vague. There is nothing to be made clearer. They are altering a rule from what it has been, to what it will be.

-S


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I think everyone knows my opinion on this, and I am not here to express my opinion on the ruling.

I am here to ask everyone to please tone down the developer hate. I really doubt they hate monks, want to nerf them at every turn, want to urinate on your head, be disingenuous, ruin your PFS characters, and laugh at you as you go and use someone else's product for your gaming purposes.

Up until the original thread on this topic got so poisonous and insulting to the developers, they had been participating in the forums on a fairly regular basis. Since then (about 3 weeks ago), I have not seen a single developer participate in any threads on this board.

Let's be civil to the developers, so they will feel it worthwhile to participate in these discussions again. Please.

Shadow Lodge

Mabven the OP healer wrote:

I think everyone knows my opinion on this, and I am not here to express my opinion on the ruling.

I am here to ask everyone to please tone down the developer hate. I really doubt they hate monks, want to nerf them at every turn, want to urinate on your head, be disingenuous, ruin your PFS characters, and laugh at you as you go and use someone else's product for your gaming purposes.

Up until the original thread on this topic got so poisonous and insulting to the developers, they had been participating in the forums on a fairly regular basis. Since then (about 3 weeks ago), I have not seen a single developer participate in any threads on this board.

Let's be civil to the developers, so they will feel it worthwhile to participate in these discussions again. Please.

ive also noticed a major change in mentality on these boards lately. seems lik epeople are snapping and being excessivly agressive to everything they disagree with. im guilty of it when people call out my posts, that are intended to help people. but yeah...

everyone take a chill pill, count to ten and let the developers do their thing. remember this will only affect PFS, home game will be played as the group deems fit.


Selgard wrote:
When their own books say X, and they are coming along saying "hey guys it was Y all the time" and its 3 *years* down the line.. then calling it a "clarification" is just a lie. ...His original intent, 3 years ago, is no longer relevant. What is relevant is the game 3 years of gaming products produced later.

I'm pretty sure that Jason Bulmahn has next to nothing to do with adventure and world setting products that Paizo publishes, and certainly doesn't comb over all stat-blocks to see if they implement the rules correctly. The person who DOES do that, James Jacobs, isn't exactly known for being 110% in tune with the actual RAW/RAI. So I'm basically saying that I wouldn't use Paizo's adventure products as hard proof of their stance on rules issues, even though with the lack of other info you may be tempted to look at published material as a guide to RAW/RAI (which is OK, it's just not hard proof, as shown by exactly this case). Plenty of other cases exist where the author of some of their crunch wasn't 100% in-line with the actual RAW/RAI. The fact is that the current PRPG rules are NOT as clear as they can be, and even professionals can make mistakes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Not one monk thread that is one this board has ever used the new* interpretation. Not one group I have ever gamed with in real life or seen on the PbP boards has used the new interpretation.

Other than Treantmonk, and I guess Jiggy I have never seen anyone suggest otherwise. I take that back. People have asked about it, but when people told them two weapons were not needed they went with the flow.

I have on multiple occasions (going back years) brought up the exact fact that the 'any combo' line is grammatically subjugated to 'as if 2WF' and pretty much every time this line of argument was just ignored. I'm not inclined to just repeatedly post the same stuff when people ignore it. Of course, the Flurry RAW is not 100% workable even if you accept that, and/or has problems with it's implications not being clear, but that core part of the rules hasn't changed, and HAS been understood by people willing to read the RAW as it is, and not mix things up with their opinion of how the class should work and/or paizo's goodness/wrongness in their treatment of their favorite class.


You were going against the flow. :)

But to be serious I think that people were giving Paizo the benefit of the doubt and thinking that they would not make the monk weaker, especially considering the low opinion people had of it when the only book available was the CRB. I also did that. With this new information(I really want to say "change"), and the antagonize feat I may have to rethink that stance. VoP did not help either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Not one monk thread that is one this board has ever used the new* interpretation. Not one group I have ever gamed with in real life or seen on the PbP boards has used the new interpretation.

Other than Treantmonk, and I guess Jiggy I have never seen anyone suggest otherwise. I take that back. People have asked about it, but when people told them two weapons were not needed they went with the flow.

I have on multiple occasions (going back years) brought up the exact fact that the 'any combo' line is grammatically subjugated to 'as if 2WF' and pretty much every time this line of argument was just ignored. I'm not inclined to just repeatedly post the same stuff when people ignore it. Of course, the Flurry RAW is not 100% workable even if you accept that, and/or has problems with it's implications not being clear, but that core part of the rules hasn't changed, and HAS been understood by people willing to read the RAW as it is, and not mix things up with their opinion of how the class should work and/or paizo's goodness/wrongness in their treatment of their favorite class.

Don't you realize that if your opinion is in the minority, you are wrong? ;-)

Seriously, I admire your ability to read the rules without opinion bias, and to accept that even when you are right and people don't agree, you are not going to convince them. I have a personal flaw that compels me to try and convince people when I am right, even if I have to repeat myself over and over.

Usually, if I am unsure about something on these boards, and you have posted on the thread, I look to your answers to guide my reading of the rules.


Well we can always look at the recent FAQ on Feral combat training to get a glimpse RD.

Feral Combat Training (page 101): What does “with” in the Special line for this feat mean for monks making a flurry of blows?
Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows (Core Rulebook 57). Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.

The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.

—Sean K Reynolds, 02/15/12

Note the bolded section, clearly either Feral Combat Training is either another "FoB rules exception" or the rules team felt back in feb that you could in fact one weapon flurry.


Thanks... I see it just as a matter of putting your energy where it can be useful.
If you don't, you're the one getting played... I don't like arguing for the sake of arguing :-)

I also generally try to point out areas of RAW that DON'T conform to the reading I'm making, or that are 'gray areas' - Mostly because I don't want to pull the wool over any body's eyes, but also because for those cases where the rules are just incontrovertibly vague, I really hope that Paizo will clear up those rules so they AREN'T so problematic.

I definitely agree that while we're clarifying things for Flurry/2WF, there's also some stuff that should be done that would HELP Monks. A decent option for single-attack UAS enhancement items is nearly crucial for Monks who want to use 1 Monk Weapon for half their Flurry attacks and not be forced to over-pay for an Amulet whose benefit (applying to all UAS/Nat Attacks) they don't need (I think Amulets are a good deal if you use them for 2 or more attacks, but if you aren't, you shouldn't NEED to use them - same goes for if you want to Enhance only ONE Natural Attack, really, there should be Claw/Fang sheathes for that purpose).
I'd really like to see Feats like 2 Weapon Defense and 2 Weapon Rend be plausibly usable/purchaseable by Flurrying Monks. Both of those changes would be hugely applauded by Monk fans, IMHO.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
I think that's a bit strong. At the end of the day, they are the professional games designers, not us.

First, this is a logical fallacy, an appeal to expertise. Second, my point was that in effect they are lying to us, they're damaging my faith in their company and that is poor customer service, rather you're a game designer or a waitress.

As to me ignoring their ruling if I don't like it, honestly, I think that's what they would advise me, or any of the rest of us, to do. (So long as we don't play PFS.) Honestly, if they did say "This is now the official rule, we'll be putting it in errata and updating the next printing" my entire reaction would be "Oh, that's stupid. House rule." House rules are not bad things after all.


Talonhawke wrote:
Note the bolded section, clearly either Feral Combat Training is either another "FoB rules exception" or the rules team felt back in feb that you could in fact one weapon flurry.

...OR... SKR just wasn't writing clearly...

The entire bolded part is an 'in other words' synopsis of the ruling, and it could have been written simply forgetting about the distinction between limbs or main/offhand in Flurry/2WF... SKR/Jason's posts have gone on at length about how 'when it doesn't matter' you can ignore these differences (e.g. your Amulet makes all your UAS the same), and he could have just neglected to 'filter out' that 'fluff' thinking from actual rules discussion. (as I wrote elsewhere, I think it's better to leave such 'if it doesn't matter' re-skinning to the Amulet of Mighty Fist description, which is really the only case it applies to... otherwise just confuses the reader's understanding of the core mechanic)


ShadowcatX wrote:
Second, my point was that in effect they are lying to us, they're damaging my faith in their company and that is poor customer service, rather you're a game designer or a waitress.

Well, what if I say that you're lying thru your characterization of Paizo as lying? Do you really want to take that up in a libel case in the UK? Alright then...


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Seriously, I admire your ability to read the rules without opinion bias, and to accept that even when you are right and people don't agree, you are not going to convince them. I have a personal flaw that compels me to try and convince people when I am right, even if I have to repeat myself over and over.

So do I, but I don't know if it is a weakness or me being stubborn.


Talonhawke wrote:

Well we can always look at the recent FAQ on Feral combat training to get a glimpse RD.

Feral Combat Training (page 101): What does “with” in the Special line for this feat mean for monks making a flurry of blows?
Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows (Core Rulebook 57). Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.

The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.

—Sean K Reynolds, 02/15/12

Note the bolded section, clearly either Feral Combat Training is either another "FoB rules exception" or the rules team felt back in feb that you could in fact one weapon flurry.

I am thinking that the devs(rules people) were not on the same page with this one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Quandary

Spoiler:
Quandary wrote:
Selgard wrote:
When their own books say X, and they are coming along saying "hey guys it was Y all the time" and its 3 *years* down the line.. then calling it a "clarification" is just a lie. ...His original intent, 3 years ago, is no longer relevant. What is relevant is the game 3 years of gaming products produced later.
I'm pretty sure that Jason Bulmahn has next to nothing to do with adventure and world setting products that Paizo publishes, and certainly doesn't comb over all stat-blocks to see if they implement the rules correctly. The person who DOES do that, James Jacobs, isn't exactly known for being 110% in tune with the actual RAW/RAI. So I'm basically saying that I wouldn't use Paizo's adventure products as hard proof of their stance on rules issues, even though with the lack of other info you may be tempted to look at published material as a guide to RAW/RAI (which is OK, it's just not hard proof, as shown by exactly this case). Plenty of other cases exist where the author of some of their crunch wasn't 100% in-line with the actual RAW/RAI. The fact is that the current PRPG rules are NOT as clear as they can be, and even professionals can make mistakes.

I don't disagree with you in principle. One book- heck we'd be in total agreement.
But we're talking about * t h r e e * years of published books.
Even if we assume that he just didn't notice it (for 3 years) it's still got 3 years of precedent behind it.

They aren't as clear as they can be. They do make mistakes. This is one of them.
This mistake was made and has been made for the past 3 years. It is now, the way it is. *changing this rule* will require them to go back and alter their previous books.
They'll have to go back and errata every book where this is an issue because of a "clarification".. that just doesn't jive with what a clarification is. They are changing a rule from what their own in house guys think that it is.
Isn't that somewhat telling?

I'm not even arguing that they don't change it. (since I don't care- I won't follow it anyway). I'm just saying they should keep it honest, and call it what it is.
Clarifications are for confusing things. Errata is for changing things from what they are, to what you want them to be.
This isn't a clarification. Its a rules change. Its errata.

-S


11 people marked this as a favorite.

To attribute to the developers the intention to deceive is a recipe for unhappiness. I have a friend who right now is in a very agitated state because he was deceived by one particular person. Since then, he attributes to the actions of all his friends an intention to deceive, exploit, and pursue selfish goals to the exclusion of consideration for his feelings. He has even gone as far as to say that his best friend inviting him on an expensive vacation (paid for in full) is "inconsiderate" because he is single, and his best friend is in a couple, and because he is not a beach person, and the vacation is on a tropical island. This is, of course, a twisted way to look at the world.

To ascribe to the developers a malicious intention, one which I see no evidence for, is only going to make you a less happy person. The developers may have made mistakes, made some classes unbalanced against others, and may even be defensive about statements that contradict each other. But that does not mean they are intentionally trying to deceive us, or have any other malicious intentions.


Quandary wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Note the bolded section, clearly either Feral Combat Training is either another "FoB rules exception" or the rules team felt back in feb that you could in fact one weapon flurry.

...OR... SKR just wasn't writing clearly...

The entire bolded part is an 'in other words' synopsis of the ruling, and it could have been written simply forgetting about the distinction between limbs or main/offhand in Flurry/2WF... SKR/Jason's posts have gone on at length about how 'when it doesn't matter' you can ignore these differences (e.g. your Amulet makes all your UAS the same), and he could have just neglected to 'filter out' that 'fluff' thinking from actual rules discussion. (as I wrote elsewhere, I think it's better to leave such 'if it doesn't matter' re-skinning to the Amulet of Mighty Fist description, which is really the only case it applies to... otherwise just confuses the reader's understanding of the core mechanic)

Feral Combat Training (page 101): What does “with” in the Special line for this feat mean for monks making a flurry of blows?

Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows (Core Rulebook 57). Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.

Try this bolded part from the rules area of the FAQ then I can apply my poison from a Natural attack to every attack from flurry thats different from using regular attacks so it should be limited like a weapon would.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
The developers may have made mistakes, made some classes unbalanced against others, and may even be defensive about statements that contradict each other. But that does not mean they are intentionally trying to deceive us, or have any other malicious intentions.

+1

1 to 50 of 383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / New Flurry Interpretation Retcon Or Not? 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.