Haven't been following the recent rules changes over the past few months, what exactly got nerfed on the monk?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I keep seeing references to this on the boards but I used my best search-fu and also downloaded the most recent errata and can't find what people are talking about.


Nothing. Many people misread what flurry of blows did, and it came as a shock when the developers finally reiterated that they always intended it to work as TWF, not how most people thought it worked.

Liberty's Edge

In the past, many people thought you could Flurry of Blows with a single weapon, such as one +3 Temple Sword.

Post-clarification, you need at least two weapons (so exactly like TWF), making the costs (in GP) significantly higher.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

In the past, many people thought you could Flurry of Blows with a single weapon, such as one +3 Temple Sword.

Post-clarification, you need at least two weapons (so exactly like TWF), making the costs (in GP) significantly higher.

Oh, I didn't realize that either. That makes staff monks make a lot more sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please note that this was after an earlier errata that said you could flurry with just one weapon, and that it kills the Zen Archer Monk...

Liberty's Edge

Azten wrote:
Please note that this was after an earlier errata that said you could flurry with just one weapon, and that it kills the Zen Archer Monk...

Clearly, RAI, Zen archers are an exception, though Sohei probably are not.


It was, to be fair, easy to misread. There's a bit of a logic train one has to follow to get from the original Flurry of Blows text to "all your main attacks with the weapon and all the extra attacks as unarmed strike, or vice versa". It's sound logic (if disappointing), but not terribly clear for a core class's most visible feature.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Azten wrote:
Please note that this was after an earlier errata that said you could flurry with just one weapon, and that it kills the Zen Archer Monk...
Clearly, RAI, Zen archers are an exception, though Sohei probably are not.

It's even worse for sohei. A monk archetype designed around wearing armor can't flurry in armor. Might as well have traded flurry entirely for something useful.


blahpers wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Azten wrote:
Please note that this was after an earlier errata that said you could flurry with just one weapon, and that it kills the Zen Archer Monk...
Clearly, RAI, Zen archers are an exception, though Sohei probably are not.
It's even worse for sohei. A monk archetype designed around wearing armor can't flurry in armor. Might as well have traded flurry entirely for something useful.

Like the main Two-Weapon Fighting feats? I'm starting to agree with the people that say Monks should have just gotten those feats for free. At least then they could pick up Two-Weapon Defense or something.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It was nerfed to require 2 weapons, flying in the face of basic logic and reading comprehension skills of the flurry of blows entry, numerous examples to the contrary in paizo's own printed sources, and consistency with 3.5's flurry of blows (They didn't give the monk full BAB because of those same "compatibility concerns," right? Convenient how that only matters SOMETIMES.)

All for the sake of trying to justify the price of an amulet of mighty fists as the only thing a monk can buy to enhance his unarmed strike like any other warrior can, instead of admitting it's overpriced for unarmed, and priced solely for use with monsters with numerous natural weapons.

Cheapy wrote:
Nothing. Many people misread what flurry of blows did, and it came as a shock when the developers finally reiterated that they always intended it to work as TWF, not how most people thought it worked.

That's not what happened at all.


and separately, one of paizo's rules developers clearly stated that having an option for ONE unarmed attack to be enhanced similarly to weapon (vs. amulet of mighty fist applying to ALL unarmed and natural) sounds perfectly reasonable to him, and they would be happy to do something like that. that type of thing would be appealing to weapon monks that want to combo UAS (head but, kick, fist, etc) along with their weapon attacks. (without paying for amulet of mighty fist that enhances ALL UAS and natural weapons, that they don't plan on using in their flurry combo.)

who knows when they will release something like this, and whether it will be a new product, or a 'paladin smite' style errate of something in an existing product (which have TONS of 'beefing up UAS' weapons already, e.g. fist wraps, cesti, et al).


Jiraiya22, here is the link the thread where this topic has been discussed and debated: Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows.

Master Arminas


Many people were surprised at the rules clarification because of the preponderance of evidence suggesting that it had always been the intent that you could flurry with a single weapon, including the existance of archetypes that don't otherwise work, every single weapon-using monk that appears in any Paizo product ever published, and previous FAQ answers.

As for what the actual effects of the clarification are:

Other than rendering one archetype (Zen Archer) nonfunctional and another (Sohei) half-functional, it's really not that extreme of a difference; it makes weapon-using monks have to pay more for their style and makes them less compatible with the variety of monk options that require a free hand. It had a relatively minimal effect on the barefisted monk (they now have to carry and draw an extra copy of whatever backup weapons they have, but that's it.) There's an excellent chance that whatever monk you're playing is barely even affected, unless you're a ZA or a Sohei, in which case your DM can and should simply ignore the clarification. (They're at least in theory working on some stuff that will de-break those archetypes.)

Due to the renewed interest in digging into the monk rules, a bunch of other questions got flipped up during the kerfluffle regarding magic fang and stuff, but I see those as less central, and many are questions that would exist even without the clarification having broken anything.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Did they actually get around to updating the faq? I could have sworn the last developer post on the subject was that they were backtracking because of unintended consequences like the a fore mentioned destruction of zen archer.


Cheapy wrote:
Nothing. Many people misread what flurry of blows did, and it came as a shock when the developers finally reiterated that they always intended it to work as TWF, not how most people thought it worked.

Cheapy, you can keep SAYING that, but that won't make it true. Especially since EVERY supplement produced contradicts your words. That still hasn't changed since the FIRST time you said that.

Really, what makes the uproar so vicious is the massive damage dealt to the Zen Archer...but really, what grinds my gears is how thoroughly the Sohei has been smashed to bits. I loved my Sohei.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally the biggest frustration is that this came out three years late without ever being touched on before now. On the heels of the year-late brass knuckles clarification that ruined that item for many monk players. And the VoP.

It was the chain of events that just seemed to dogpile the monk that really got me down.


I never, in five million years, would have interpreted flurry any other way than has been clarified, nor would I expect it to be any other way. The complaining is nothing but bitter grapes from people who knew damn well how out of control their interpretation was, and are now sourpusses about a clear ruling on what they knew they weren't supposed to be doing in the first place.

The clarification makes it match the 3.5 version, it does not fly in the face of it. Whoever said that has clearly been twisting this to his own benefit for quite some time.

This reminds me of the old 3.5 Great Cleave controversy, a pot of honey for game breakers everywhere. I remember getting in a fight with someone on the Wizards boards because he did not believe me when I pointed out that "a" (as in "a dog") or "an" (as in "an attack") means ONE by its very definition. Three of his buddies came in to his defense, and these guys tried to actually convince me that there was no rule on earth, or in any dictionary, that "an" meant "one." They were so desperate to save their broken interpretation of the feat, despite all evidence against it, that they actually tried to tell me I didn't understand English.

By the way.


Bruunwald wrote:

I never, in five million years, would have interpreted flurry any other way than has been clarified, nor would I expect it to be any other way. The complaining is nothing but bitter grapes from people who knew damn well how out of control their interpretation was, and are now sourpusses about a clear ruling on what they knew they weren't supposed to be doing in the first place.

The clarification makes it match the 3.5 version, it does not fly in the face of it. Whoever said that has clearly been twisting this to his own benefit for quite some time.

The way many people (and all the printed material) was playing it wasn't out-of-control at all. A monk fighting with a single weapon and flurrying was worse at combat than most martial classes. With the clarification, it's just more worse. The most powerful weapon monk by far has, since it existed, has been the zen archer monk, a class that I guess has a completely imaginary invisible rule saying that it can two-weapon-fight with a single weapon, however that would work. (An invisible rule the normal monk doesn't have, for whatever reason.)

Honestly, the counter-complaining confuses me more than anything. Where were all these people when the appearantly always-has-been-broken versions of Zen Archer and Sohei were released?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That would be the other part of what's made this such a downer:

The attitude from some corners that everyone that thought it worked the generally accepted way was somehow dishonest or deficient.


Mikaze wrote:

That would be the other part of what's made this such a downer:

The attitude from some corners that everyone that thought it worked the generally accepted way was somehow dishonest or deficient.

That's part of why I dislike the perception that the issue is an issue because it was a nerf. While the clarification does technically make monks linearly weaker, and thus technically qualifies as a nerf, it's a small one (and one that's even smaller for the iconic barefisted monk, who is only affected in that he needs and needs to draw more copies of his backup weapons), and the power alteration isn't, I feel, even worth caring about all that much. That it's technically a nerf is mostly just a distraction in that it misleads people into drawing the incorrect conclusions about the motivation for the clarification (to bring an overpowered character option back into line - obviously not the case) and the motivations for the reactions to the clarifications (sadness that their cheese-o-matic build was righteously and correctly slapped down for great justice).

I mean, I'm not even normally a player. I'm a DM. If they issued a clarification, FAQ ruling, or errata that smacked down something that actually was a problem build, I'd be rejoicing. (Obviously as DM I can forbid anything I want to, but I'd rather be drawing as few arbitrary lines as I can get away with.) I certainly was not playing a monk using a single weapon at the time the clarification was issued, and if one of my players was, I'd certainly let them continue playing their character. (I'd be surprised if it's not trivially obvious to anyone with an iota of play time with such a character that "monk using a single weapon to flurry" is not exactly a character the DM needs to be worried about - the closest thing to that that I'd be worried about is the Zen Archer, and they apperantly have an implied invisible exception anyway.)


In fiction, we see archers occasionally fire multiple arrows at the same time (Marvel's Hawkeye being the main practitioner of this tactic), so Zen Archers should be able to perform the same feat. Perhaps they should have a variant of flurry with blows that can only be used with bows?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:

I never, in five million years, would have interpreted flurry any other way than has been clarified, nor would I expect it to be any other way. The complaining is nothing but bitter grapes from people who knew damn well how out of control their interpretation was, and are now sourpusses about a clear ruling on what they knew they weren't supposed to be doing in the first place.

The clarification makes it match the 3.5 version, it does not fly in the face of it. Whoever said that has clearly been twisting this to his own benefit for quite some time.

What.


Do, all in all the zen archer is now nerfed essentially? Can't flurry with a bow. Lovely... : sarcasm:, was just wanting to play a zen archer for my backup character for my current archer.


Morgan Champion wrote:
In fiction, we see archers occasionally fire multiple arrows at the same time (Marvel's Hawkeye being the main practitioner of this tactic), so Zen Archers should be able to perform the same feat.

Sounds like the Manyshot feat.


Bruunwald wrote:

I never, in five million years, would have interpreted flurry any other way than has been clarified, nor would I expect it to be any other way. The complaining is nothing but bitter grapes from people who knew damn well how out of control their interpretation was, and are now sourpusses about a clear ruling on what they knew they weren't supposed to be doing in the first place.

The clarification makes it match the 3.5 version, it does not fly in the face of it. Whoever said that has clearly been twisting this to his own benefit for quite some time.

Er what.


Bruunwald wrote:

I never, in five million years, would have interpreted flurry any other way than has been clarified, nor would I expect it to be any other way. The complaining is nothing but bitter grapes from people who knew damn well how out of control their interpretation was, and are now sourpusses about a clear ruling on what they knew they weren't supposed to be doing in the first place.

The clarification makes it match the 3.5 version, it does not fly in the face of it. Whoever said that has clearly been twisting this to his own benefit for quite some time.

This reminds me of the old 3.5 Great Cleave controversy, a pot of honey for game breakers everywhere. I remember getting in a fight with someone on the Wizards boards because he did not believe me when I pointed out that "a" (as in "a dog") or "an" (as in "an attack") means ONE by its very definition. Three of his buddies came in to his defense, and these guys tried to actually convince me that there was no rule on earth, or in any dictionary, that "an" meant "one." They were so desperate to save their broken interpretation of the feat, despite all evidence against it, that they actually tried to tell me I didn't understand English.

By the way.

By the way, this is trolling. Regardless of how superior you think you are to everyone else the fact remains, this is an unnecessary nerf. Flurry has always been described as your body (with all its extremities) is the weapon. Builds have existed for years that replace unarmed attacks in a flurry with "a" weapon. Just because you're late to the party doesn't give you the right to talk down to people.

This is how the majority has used flurry and this is how it was intended in the previous edition. They should just drop flurry, give the monk a full base attack and the two-weapon fighting feats as bonus feats for use with unarmed attacks only.


Sorry Shane, but I cannot agree with your use of the word "majority".
Seven out of eight of the GM's in my extended gaming group all interpreted the PF Flurry of Blows as the developers intended.

Seven out of eight. 12.5% of us misread it. That is, if anything, counter indicative to your "majority" statement.

It is important to remember when posting on forums such as these that the populace of the forum in no way is indicative of any accurate crossection of PF players. All you see here are the most computer-social oriented players/GM's posting here.

The real majority is those who have never even posted.

I am not telling you how to run your game. I am also not telling you that either interpretation is "right" or "correct". The only "right" way to play is the way that is fun for you, and that varies DRAMATICALLY from table to table. (Unless, of course, you are a PFS player/GM)

I am just saying, seven out of eight of us caught this more than a year ago and only 12.5% of us did not understand what the developers intent was.


It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
In the past, many people thought you could Flurry of Blows with a single weapon, such as one +3 Temple Sword.

Right. People (including some writers of Pathfinder RPG products) thought the phrase "any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon" had the same meaning in Pathfinder as it did in 3.5E D&D.


Kakitamike wrote:
It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly, because things like Paizo's Zen Archer, Paizo's Sohei, Paizo's iconic character using a single temple sword, and several relevant stuff about unarmed combat styles and ambidexterity

Fixed for you.

I have a question. If when you use Unarmed attacks you count as TWF too, and thus you have to enchant/greater magic fang your unarmed attacks separatedly... what happens to monks that fight Capoeira style? Can they enchant "kick"? Do they need to enchant "left kick" and "right kick" separatedly? Are they forced to kick left-right combos as boxers do?


A Monk's entire body counts as one weapon. If you could take your hand off and let someone else use it, then Unarmed Strike would make your body more than one weapon. Which is why things can get weird, since it's the only non-double weapon you can make main and off-hand attacks with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kakitamike wrote:

It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly.

Yah, god i feel dumb for reading the rules as if Zen archers can actually fire 6 arrows at level 20 with their bows and not have to fire 4 arrows, and attack twice with their feet or whatever. Especially if we also throw in that they cant use manyshot or rapidshot, then it seems really obvious that such a limitation is not to prevent them from having upwards of 9 attacks per round, but instead because anything more than 4 attacks at level 16 is cheese. Oh wait that doesn't make sense...

The only thing this "faq" did, was to explain how monks are not supposed to be using any type of weapons, though i must say that i dont understand why they did it. Even letting the monk flurry with one +4 weapon (worth 32 k) compared with the fighter/ranger/barbarian using two +3 weapons (36k) he is still inferior.


Azten wrote:
A Monk's entire body counts as one weapon. If you could take your hand off and let someone else use it, then Unarmed Strike would make your body more than one weapon. Which is why things can get weird, since it's the only non-double weapon you can make main and off-hand attacks with.

Actually as per RAW you cannot make offhand and main hand attacks with your body because it counts as a single weapon, and nowhere in the rules does it say that your body functions like a double weapon. Technically flurry of blows alows monks to break this rule, and make both main and offhand attacks with their body, but unless you are a monk then you cant dualwield fists (atleast by RAW which is kinda dumb).

Sovereign Court

If they hadn't nerfed brass knuckles and had, instead, invented 'wraps' to enchant unarmed strike as well then...

- Amulet of Mighty Fists could have stayed a monster weapon with monster pricing.
- Monks would be rocking Amulets of Natural Armour.
- Flurry could have been left alone.

That's the impression that I get.

However, once brass knuckles were nerfed and 'wraps' dismissed eveything else started to unravel.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:
It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly.b]

Keep your misinterpretations to yourself. You can state your justifications if you'd like, but don't misquote me because you can't stand behind your assumptions.

RAW, it sounds like you'd have to enchant each given appendage, as it states one of your attacks, not all of your attacks.

I should clarify, I don't work on the paizo rules team, so you should probably direct rules questions to them.


nicklas Læssøe wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:

It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly.

Yah, god i feel dumb for reading the rules as if Zen archers can actually fire 6 arrows at level 20 with their bows and not have to fire 4 arrows, and attack twice with their feet or whatever. Especially if we also throw in that they cant use manyshot or rapidshot, then it seems really obvious that such a limitation is not to prevent them from having upwards of 9 attacks per round, but instead because anything more than 4 attacks at level 16 is cheese. Oh wait that doesn't make sense...

The only thing this "faq" did, was to explain how monks are not supposed to be using any type of weapons, though i must say that i dont understand why they did it. Even letting the monk flurry with one +4 weapon (worth 32 k) compared with the fighter/ranger/barbarian using two +3 weapons (36k) he is still inferior.

I never said the clarification made sense. I was simply stating that taking offense to a clarification does not somehow change it from being a clarification into a nerf.

It's like people who complain that throws are cheap in fighting games, instead of just adapting.

People would rather throw in passive aggression with a nerf statement every time then admit there was a misunderstanding, and then move towards getting it clarified where it now doesn't seem to make sense based on the intended wording.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bruunwald wrote:


The clarification makes it match the 3.5 version, it does not fly in the face of it. Whoever said that has clearly been twisting this to his own benefit for quite some time.

No it doesn't. Quoting the 3.5 faq:

If you have one (or two) special monk weapons, you can
freely substitute attacks with those weapons with unarmed
attacks in the flurry (see the flurry of blows description on page
46 of the PH). If you’re allowed three attacks in a flurry, and
you have a +1 alchemical silver sai (or other special monk
weapon), you could use the sai up to three times in the flurry.
The examples given in the flurry of blows entry don’t make
that completely clear because they don’t cover all the
combinations of weapon attacks and unarmed strikes that are
possible.

Beyond that in 3.5 you could stack flurry of blows, two weapon fighting, and natural weapon attacks. Gaining the extra attacks for each. I am of the opinion that flurry of blows has very little in respect to it 3.5 version.

And I personally still find the "any combination" line to be expressly misleading. When apparently you were suppose to use the exact same combination of weapons as anyone else using two weapon fighting.


Weslocke wrote:

Sorry Shane, but I cannot agree with your use of the word "majority".

Seven out of eight of the GM's in my extended gaming group all interpreted the PF Flurry of Blows as the developers intended.

Seven out of eight. 12.5% of us misread it. That is, if anything, counter indicative to your "majority" statement.

It is important to remember when posting on forums such as these that the populace of the forum in no way is indicative of any accurate crossection of PF players. All you see here are the most computer-social oriented players/GM's posting here.

The real majority is those who have never even posted.

I am not telling you how to run your game. I am also not telling you that either interpretation is "right" or "correct". The only "right" way to play is the way that is fun for you, and that varies DRAMATICALLY from table to table. (Unless, of course, you are a PFS player/GM)

I am just saying, seven out of eight of us caught this more than a year ago and only 12.5% of us did not understand what the developers intent was.

Really? Because 4 out of 4 of my GMs viewed Flurry of Blows "as it was misinterpreted."

Frankly, it's not possible to use a "Silent Majority" argument here. Mostly because the "Silent Majority" is just that: Silent. Prove to me it exists.

Every single Paizo supplement supported what you are, by consequence, declaring the "Vocal Minority."

Look, this is going to be a classic thread-fight square dance. Posters are going to dance around this every time it comes up. But the above statement will still be true EVERY time you say the above quote. And the Zen Archer and Sohei will STILL be broken for PFS play. Monk will STILL be unable to hit targets and have trouble playing in most parties due to it's inconsistent nature.

And if we were Powergamers complaining about the loss of an exploit, then... well, I think the reason why the CharOp boards aren't overflowing with monks even before this would be self-evident: there is no such exploit.

None of the people who are complaining about Monk right now are asking for anything other than what is just. They just want things to be fair. And most of the people who seem to complain about those complaining about monk have yet to respond in any way to the issue of fairness. And not a single person has defended Monk as it is currently built in any substantial way, whereas all the evidence has pointed to its frailty, and how things are bad enough as it is before this decision.


Well the "exploit" in the monk is not even a real exploit, it barely made him ok no matter who you compare him to. Now the charging pouncing lancing barbarian is a whole other matter, but that is an exploit and it is actually legal, how about they use their energy to fix stuff that is broken, and not take my poorly made ugly but in the end nice toy and jump on it again.

The thing is, i like monks. I think they are a cool flavor class even if they dont work system wise, but i just hate feeling like a 3.5 bard in combat if i am going to play him.

Honestly i cant understand all those nerf changes to FoB from 3.5, because unless you started cheesing with the psychic monk and about 3 other Prestige classes, then he was also sub par back then. Ofcourse if you went completely off the grid with that huge dire bear psychic monk, then he was extremely broken but what in 3.5 couldnt be cheesed to extreme degrees.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:
I never, in five million years, would have interpreted flurry any other way than has been clarified, nor would I expect it to be any other way.

Good for you. Now that you emphasized your superior mental reasoning and shown that you are in lock-step with the intentions of the developers, what will you impress us with now?

Quote:
The complaining is nothing but bitter grapes from people who knew damn well how out of control their interpretation was, and are now sourpusses about a clear ruling on what they knew they weren't supposed to be doing in the first place.

Excuse me? Out of control? Do you play monks at all? Do you read, run, or play through any Paizo adventures? Because the men and women who write for Paizo have, universally, presented NPC monks and opponents with monk levels in the single-weapon flurry style, NOT in the 'clarified' intentions. Every module, every adventure path, every official supplement. Yes, obviously it was so crystal clear that only us buffoons could have possibly been in error. That was sarcasm by the way, just in case you were unable to comprehend my words in their original intent.

Quote:
The clarification makes it match the 3.5 version, it does not fly in the face of it. Whoever said that has clearly been twisting this to his own benefit for quite some time.

Wrong. 3.5 clearly and succinctly spelled out, in the FAQ already posted by Maezer, that monks could flurry with a single weapon, with an unarmed strike (counted as a single weapon), or with any combination of weapons and/or unarmed strikes as they wish. I do believe that Paizo has stated, a time or two, that with backwards compatability being their goal, if some rule has not been specifically changed, it remains as the 3.5 rules stated. Correct?

Quote:
This reminds me of the old 3.5 Great Cleave controversy, a pot of honey for game breakers everywhere. I remember getting in a fight with someone on the Wizards boards because he did not believe me when I pointed out that "a" (as in "a dog") or "an" (as in "an attack") means ONE by its very definition. Three of his buddies came in to his defense, and these guys tried to actually convince me that there was no rule on earth, or in any dictionary, that "an" meant "one." They were so desperate to save their broken interpretation of the feat, despite all evidence against it, that they actually tried to tell me I didn't understand English.

Monks being able to flurry with a single weapon reminds you of someone trying to break Great Cleave? Really? So what is it about flurry of blows (and the pre-clarification way that many gamers and Paizo writers) interpreteted it that you see as the pot of honey for game breakers everywhere? What is it, exactly, that we gamers are so desperate to save our broken interpretation of?

Is it that a monk getting to flurry with a single weapon isn't fair to rangers and two-weapon fighting rogues? Rangers get favored enemies, favored terrains, animal companions, and spells; rogue get sneak attack. Both classes get these abilities in addition to their two-weapon fighting (if they decide to select the TWF feats; they both have the option not to). Monks, on the other hand, are locked into using a fighting style that is already weaker; if they decide not to flurry, their attack bonus actually decreases. If they use unarmed strikes for the potential extra damage dice, they have to pay 2.5 times the cost of enhancing a weapon for each plus equivilant--and are limited to a total of +5 in bonuses and special properties. If they use a weapon, they no longer gain their unarmed damage--and become the sole martial class with no class feature means of increasing their damage.

Quote:
By the way.

Was it truely necessary to post the defination of 'an' by the way?

Master Arminas


I did not claim to be a majority. Shane did that.

I said that these posts do not, and never will, represent an accurate
crossection of PF players. I said that because they do not, and they will not.

IF I were arguing, then I might be willing to contest what you have said. Fact is, I am not arguing. If I were so inclined, I would not expend my energy to do so here.

If 100% of your GM's missed the developers intent, then...well, lets just say that is really, really sad and leave it at that without delving into how well and truly sad that really, really is...

I never called anyone a minority. I specifically said these posts do not and cannot represent an accurate crossection of PF players. What part of that is confusing you? If I had intended to claim you were a minority I would have spelled it out in capital letters. I DID NOT!

What I said was IN MY EXTENDED GAMING GROUP ONLY 12.5% (OF US!)
MISSED THE DEVELOPERS INTENTION WHERE FOB IS CONCERENED.

How did you possibly misinterpret what I said into "since only 12.5% of my giant group missed it, then that must be the absolute, unwavereing, concrete figure from across all players in all of Pathfinderdom."

The reason that I have not acted in defense of the Monk as written is because every time I have tried I have been all but shouted off the board by offended "Monk Movement" people. I refuse to endure torrents of criticism to fix something that is not broken.

See ya


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kakitamike wrote:
nicklas Læssøe wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:

It's not a nerf. They didn't change it. They clarified it for the apparently dozens of people on this board who were using it incorrectly.

Yah, god i feel dumb for reading the rules as if Zen archers can actually fire 6 arrows at level 20 with their bows and not have to fire 4 arrows, and attack twice with their feet or whatever. Especially if we also throw in that they cant use manyshot or rapidshot, then it seems really obvious that such a limitation is not to prevent them from having upwards of 9 attacks per round, but instead because anything more than 4 attacks at level 16 is cheese. Oh wait that doesn't make sense...

The only thing this "faq" did, was to explain how monks are not supposed to be using any type of weapons, though i must say that i dont understand why they did it. Even letting the monk flurry with one +4 weapon (worth 32 k) compared with the fighter/ranger/barbarian using two +3 weapons (36k) he is still inferior.

I never said the clarification made sense. I was simply stating that taking offense to a clarification does not somehow change it from being a clarification into a nerf.

It's like people who complain that throws are cheap in fighting games, instead of just adapting.

People would rather throw in passive aggression with a nerf statement every time then admit there was a misunderstanding, and then move towards getting it clarified where it now doesn't seem to make sense based on the intended wording.

Except that for the preponderance of evidence to the contrary that even Paizo's own writing staff were not clear on the developer's intentions. And that the issue was never even raised until discussion started on the Ultimate Equipment thread about monk's getting a fair shake for their unarmed strikes. I do not doubt Mr. Buhlman's sincerity when he states that it was his intention from the start to have flurry=TWF. The problem arose in that his intention was never clearly conveyed to his own writing staff and to his customer base. It may not be a nerf; I strongly doubt that it was intended to be a nerf. But coming out of the blue, three years after the release of Pathfinder, it certainly feels like a nerf.

I am glad to see that Mr. Buhlman is taking a look at the issue, and having discussions with other members of the Paizo team. At the same time, I--and others--would like them to tell us where they are going. And that is for three reasons:

1. Pathfinder Society players with monk characters (especially Zen Archer or Sohei archetypes) are now in an official limbo. PFS is allowing a free 'rebuild' of their characters in accordance with the clarification, but have already stated that if the 'clarification' is changed, no more rebuilds will be allowed. Many of them are forced, if they want to keep their character builds, to switch to a different class. Every week that we do have a ruling is a week in which they miss out playing their characters.

2. It would be best if Paizo settled the issue instead of letting it fester. Debate (on both sides) has been intense. We, as players and posters, should have some expectation that issues with the rules will be quickly dealt with and not allowed to linger. That is one of the things about Paizo that I greatly admire--they, generally speaking, don't hide in the closet and ignore problems with the rules once the issues with those rules have been raised. It is better to have a final ruling--even if it is one that I myself disagree with, than to have silence and only encourages more . . . intense debate.

3. Future products, including adventure paths and modules, need to be brought compliant with the actual rules--not what the writer believes those rules to be. For the writing staff to be brought onboard on this issue, there needs to be a final, official ruling.

Master Arminas


Weslocke wrote:

I did not claim to be a majority. Shane did that.

I said that these posts do not, and never will, represent an accurate
crossection of PF players. I said that because they do not, and they will not.

IF I were arguing, then I might be willing to contest what you have said. Fact is, I am not arguing. If I were so inclined, I would not expend my energy to do so here.

If 100% of your GM's missed the developers intent, then...well, lets just say that is really, really sad and leave it at that without delving into how well and truly sad that really, really is...

I never called anyone a minority. I specifically said these posts do not and cannot represent an accurate crossection of PF players. What part of that is confusing you? If I had intended to claim you were a minority I would have spelled it out in capital letters. I DID NOT!

What I said was IN MY EXTENDED GAMING GROUP ONLY 12.5% (OF US!)
MISSED THE DEVELOPERS INTENTION WHERE FOB IS CONCERENED.

How did you possibly misinterpret what I said into "since only 12.5% of my giant group missed it, then that must be the absolute, unwavereing, concrete figure from across all players in all of Pathfinderdom."

The reason that I have not acted in defense of the Monk as written is because every time I have tried I have been all but shouted off the board by offended "Monk Movement" people. I refuse to endure torrents of criticism to fix something that is not broken.

See ya

The reason that people might be perturbed, Weslocke is the bolded part of your post. Apparently, while 87.5% of your group got it right, were you protesting to Paizo, or even informing them of their error, when 100% of their published products to date featured monk NPCs that are specifically listed as a using a single weapon in their flurry attack routine? Even their GameMastery Guide does not show so much as a single monk that uses a two-weapon fighting routine on their flurry of blows.

Putting that aside, even in your (remarkably) homogenous group, there was at least one person who did not read and interpret the rules in the same way as the rest of you. That alone points out that perhaps the written text should have been rewritten (should have been clarified, perhaps) before release. There is more than sufficient ambiguity in the monk class feature descriptions to accomodate both viewpoints. And as I have said before, if a rule appears ambigious and can be reasonably misinterpreted, it should be examined and rewritten in a more concise and clear manner to avoid a future misunderstanding. On that point, Paizo dropped the ball.

Master Arminas


Well, I believe the OP's question has long been answered and since already established products have always used the "wrong way of thinking" the question now can only be, , ,

Now what?

I, for one, do not play Society and as of now am very glad not to do so. My games will not incorporate this rules change (I cannot view it as a clarification) and I'm sorry to say that Paizo screwed the pooch here.

At least it isn't as bad as the ending to Mass Effect 3.


I too am not in pfs, however, I still never saw an answer for the zen archer. Is it now gimped (4 atks like other normal martial classes) or can it flurry of bows? I looked through three threads and I think there was a statement stating they were going to clarify the zen archer, but I never saw if they did. Help?


Grizzly the Archer wrote:
I too am not in pfs, however, I still never saw an answer for the zen archer. Is it now gimped (4 atks like other normal martial classes) or can it flurry of bows? I looked through three threads and I think there was a statement stating they were going to clarify the zen archer, but I never saw if they did. Help?

well it does seem reasonable to expect that they will change the wording of the zohei and zen archer to include the flurry changes so that they can flurry anyway, but there has been no official statement regarding them yet. (atleast to my knowledge)


Hexcaliber wrote:
At least it isn't as bad as the ending to Mass Effect 3.

Okay, now that is just a low blow and you know it.

To be on topic, I wish people would save any complaints or words that you all wish to share until we get the official FAQ entries on the matter from the higher ups on Paizo's staff.

Until then, I believe everyone is in agreement that "RAI" and "RAW" will mixed on this subject.


nicklas Læssøe wrote:
Grizzly the Archer wrote:
I too am not in pfs, however, I still never saw an answer for the zen archer. Is it now gimped (4 atks like other normal martial classes) or can it flurry of bows? I looked through three threads and I think there was a statement stating they were going to clarify the zen archer, but I never saw if they did. Help?
well it does seem reasonable to expect that they will change the wording of the zohei and zen archer to include the flurry changes so that they can flurry anyway, but there has been no official statement regarding them yet. (atleast to my knowledge)

I hope so. Right now, I can't even make a RAW/RAI-standard NPC version of one for our game, and I did have plans for the sohei. (I'm not certain I could even after the changes due to the fact that sohei can't flurry in armor. I'll have to modify the archetype and hope that it's balanced if the situation ever comes up.)


nicklas Læssøe wrote:
Grizzly the Archer wrote:
I too am not in pfs, however, I still never saw an answer for the zen archer. Is it now gimped (4 atks like other normal martial classes) or can it flurry of bows? I looked through three threads and I think there was a statement stating they were going to clarify the zen archer, but I never saw if they did. Help?
well it does seem reasonable to expect that they will change the wording of the zohei and zen archer to include the flurry changes so that they can flurry anyway, but there has been no official statement regarding them yet. (atleast to my knowledge)

So currently, the zen archer is not an option to play essentially. gotcha.

Shadow Lodge

yes

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Haven't been following the recent rules changes over the past few months, what exactly got nerfed on the monk? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.