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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

What is the state of FOB


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hey, I ran across a thread stating the the "clarification" to FOB was retracted. Has there been an official ruling on how FOB works with one weapon?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

For now, you can FoB with one weapon.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The only statement I know of is saying that they'll be fixing the wording to make it more clear. The closest thing you'll get to a "retraction" is SKR saying that it's possible they might just change the intent.

There have been no posts by members of the dev team that I'm aware of that have said that you can flurry of blows with just one weapon (other than unarmed strike). And that's after checking Jason, Sean, and Stephen's posts for the past while.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They have also been talking of fixing the monk in general, as well as all options on how to handle flurry-of-blows (change the wording & intent to what a lot of people thought, make it TWF, make it REAL TWF, etc.). The thread is still running, here. It's now full of alternate monk builds to 'fix' the monk...I know, I'm guilty of a few of them!


Is there a link to that statement?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am too tired to find it right now. I will look in the morning!


Thank you all.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Right here.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber


I think Dabbler is referring to this statement by SKR.

Quote:
I don't want the monk merely patched, I want it fixed. I agree that it's hard to play an effective monk, the monk rules are convoluted, and it's expensive in terms of magic item and ability score needs. But I don't know that the monk can be sufficiently fixed without requiring significantly more explanatory text in the Core Rulebook--which we can't add without messing up the layout for pages and pages, which we can't do because we have that book and other books referring to things in the Core Rulebook by specific page number. I--and the other designers--don't want to just slap a bandage on it and call it good; this is a significant concern, just like the stealth rules, and deserves careful consideration.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:

I think Dabbler is referring to this statement by SKR.

Quote:
I don't want the monk merely patched, I want it fixed. I agree that it's hard to play an effective monk, the monk rules are convoluted, and it's expensive in terms of magic item and ability score needs. But I don't know that the monk can be sufficiently fixed without requiring significantly more explanatory text in the Core Rulebook--which we can't add without messing up the layout for pages and pages, which we can't do because we have that book and other books referring to things in the Core Rulebook by specific page number. I--and the other designers--don't want to just slap a bandage on it and call it good; this is a significant concern, just like the stealth rules, and deserves careful consideration.

Dear god, that is an angry thread!

Where does the hateful rudeness of so many posters come from?
Isn't that what 4chan is for?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks Cheapy, that's the one!

There are a lot of monk-lovers out there, it seems, and SKR's place as the face of the development team has unfortunately made him their target, it seems.

For myself, I want to offer solutions, not problems. It's pretty clear that the devs want to fix the monk, although I am not sure how they will do so without radical changes. It may be possible to keep the word-count in place, or it may not, we shall have to see.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Dear god, that is an angry thread!

Where does the hateful rudeness of so many posters come from?
Isn't that what 4chan is for?

Yes, that's why I haven't touched that thread in the last months with a 10-ft-pole even.

I guess if everything else fails they could just add a new appendix page to the CRB and the new Monk entry ends with "continued on page 853", if they run out of space.
Not perfect, but they'd preserve the formating of the following pages that way.


Is there a list of fan-built alternate monk designs, preferably without having to sift though pages of rage? I'm wanting to build a few monk NPCs for my game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I started a thread here for them. I've been tinkering with ideas and designs for a while, from minimalist changes to complete redesigns.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Note that bbt's link says the opposite of what bbt originally said: jb clarified the intent as it's always been and said you couldn't flurry with one weapon.

Unless bbt meant that you could use FoB with one weapon, but not get all your attacks with it.

Maybe I just missed something in the post...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think that they can add more pages to the CRB. After the stealth playtest, I'm quite pessimistic that anything will actually change.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

That said.. this causes some problems that came to light today as this bounced around the office, namely that it was not common knowledge that it was supposed to work this way and has gone to print without this change. This is obviously a concern and one that I intend to investigate. There is also the problem of the Zen Archer, which clearly does not work with these rules (or rather, it clearly, as its intent, violates these rules). There is also the concern that this system is a bit of a pain to figure out, which is something that does concern me greatly.

We will be evaluating this situation a bit further in the coming days and I would like to thank everyone here for pointing out some of the problems with this ruling.

These paragraphs imply that what they intended isn't going to work without chaning other things. The fact that they need to investigate further implies as of right now, nothing has changed. I'm not sure that means you can flurry with one hand, but it does mean Zen Archer and Sohei work as written until the investigation is over and the errata becomes official.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I was pointing out that it is not all that clear now. Until something concrete comes along, I would run it as you always have.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Right... Nothing has changed. Flurry is still TWF.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, most people I know run it so you can flurry with one weapon.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well then it has changed for them :-P


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, it hasn't. It hasn't changed for anyone, basically. If they ran it as TWF, they continue to do so, if they ran it as 'one-weapon-flurry' they carry on doing so.

Going through my CRB the entry is 2,417 words long for the monk, excluding tables (about another 500 words). That might sound like a lot, but the monk I came up with is 4,500 words including the tables. I can work it down to 4,100, but after that it gets tough...though there is picture that could be shrunk or removed, giving a bit of leeway.

I have a feeling there may be a Pathfinder 1.1 update release at this rate.


Cheapy wrote:
I don't think that they can add more pages to the CRB. After the stealth playtest, I'm quite pessimistic that anything will actually change.

Thats a bit off topic now, but what happened to those stealth changes? I remember the blog half a year or so ago, but after that I kinda lost track of it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

James Jacobs said that they couldn't fit the changes in without changing pages drastically, so they dropped them.

Well, that's the gist of it.


Dabbler wrote:
No, it hasn't. It hasn't changed for anyone, basically. If they ran it as TWF, they continue to do so, if they ran it as 'one-weapon-flurry' they carry on doing so.

This. If it was errata and the errata got retracted, it'd go back to the previous wording. But this was "People are reading it wrong" which got retracted, so you go back to the old way of reading it, whatever that was for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the stealth rules, monk rules, and anything else that gets a bunch of extra text, why not put a significantly abbreviated form in the appropriate section and then refer to a new appendix?

So the appropriate page of the core rulebook says, under the flurry of blows ability, something like: "The monk can get more attacks than normal with her flurry. For a full description of this ability, see the Core Appendix page A-3."

Shadow Lodge

They may try to change flurry back to how people were reading it while leaving the wording the same.

For now its up in the air.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AvalonXQ wrote:

For the stealth rules, monk rules, and anything else that gets a bunch of extra text, why not put a significantly abbreviated form in the appropriate section and then refer to a new appendix?

So the appropriate page of the core rulebook says, under the flurry of blows ability, something like: "The monk can get more attacks than normal with her flurry. For a full description of this ability, see the Core Appendix page A-3."

Messy, to be honest, and I do not think they want to go that route. I am wondering if there are many more changes if a "Pathfinder 1.1 Update" release is in order - not a complete release of the whole rules set, but an update to them. After all, new rules were introduced in the APG, UC and UM.

An update volume could contain: the new monk, new stealth rules, how to integrate the them into an existing game, how they interact with the existing archetypes etc.


Why not just make up a CRB errata PDF that can be released for free down load on the webpage. With the most recent printing of the books make that same PDF into a booklet insert that can be distributed with CRBs already in stock. That would buy Paizo enough time to rework their CRB layout.


Anthony Kane wrote:
Why not just make up a CRB errata PDF that can be released for free down load on the webpage. With the most recent printing of the books make that same PDF into a booklet insert that can be distributed with CRBs already in stock. That would buy Paizo enough time to rework their CRB layout.

You mean like these?

(Sorry, can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not)

-------

The problem isn't updating the books, the problem is changing the page numbers. If the APG says "(Core page 342)", and you insert two pages at 143, it should now be pointing at page 344. Which means you need to errata every page reference in the APG... And every other book they've published... It just becomes a huge mess.

Why they can't insert page 143A and 143B, I don't know.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's not that simple. Besides, even if they change the page numbers the errata will not necessarily reach everyone out there.

I think an update book is the way to go, a sort of half-way house until a re-release of a new version of the CRB, perhaps.


Dabbler wrote:

It's not that simple. Besides, even if they change the page numbers the errata will not necessarily reach everyone out there.

I think an update book is the way to go, a sort of half-way house until a re-release of a new version of the CRB, perhaps.

At that point, I'd probably suggest making it an entire collection of alternate/additional rules, similar to Unearthed Arcana. Include gestalting, epic rules, alternate forms of class abilities, etc. Copy over (and expand?) the alternate magic from UM and the alternate armor & such from UC. Maybe add other alternate magic systems (mana points?)...

Not that it'll ever happen, but I'd love to see it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think it will depend on how they do things. They may choose to release a Pathfinder 1.5, for example, or release just a new rules update, or do any one of a number of things.

I agree, I would love to see a Rules Expansion, perhaps incorporating a great deal of material from adventure paths that hasn't made it into other books yet, maybe epic level rules and a great deal of other material that could be included.


I really don't understand all the fuss about FoB. I always thought everything was clear (maybe because English is not my mother language).

"Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

"Any combination"
So would attacking with only one weapon/hand not qualify as one of those combinations? To me it sounds like it would.

The last part of the sentence "as if using TWF" does not bother me in this regard, for FoB works similar to but is not not the same as TWF.

Now it seems I have been wrong all the time.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Apparently the important part was not "Any combination" but "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

But that's all academic now, as it may all change.


I always took "any combination" to mean any combination. Unfortunately, a lot of people seemed to think the staff had just killed there puppy and shat upon its broken body. I agree the monk is weaker than most classes and does do most things as well as the other classes. Still I have seen a monk cross a room to pin down and enemy spell caster before its zombie ogres can react.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I always took the "any combination" to mean any combination, and the "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" part to let you know that it could not be combined with two-weapon fighting, and suffered similar penalties.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree, monks are situationally good, but they do need those situations and have nothing to fall back on when those situations do not arise, and this is the problem with the class.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I always took the "any combination" to mean any combination, and the "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" part to let you know that it could not be combined with two-weapon fighting, and suffered similar penalties.

If that means you thought it works like most people seemed to think it worked, and not like the "clarification", then I agree with that.

Except that I interpreted the "like TWF" part to just be an easy way to describe how it works without repeating the entire TWF rules again.


Armour wrote:
Is there a list of fan-built alternate monk designs, preferably without having to sift though pages of rage?

Here's my flurry of blows suggestion. And here's the telekinetic monk archetype. :)


I've always been confused by the FoB using 1 weapon arguement when it states that it works like two weapon fighting (with a few changes). To me that always indicated two distinct weapons whether two different appendages doing unarmed or the use of a monk weapons.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It's the "any combination" part.


gourry187 wrote:
To me that always indicated two distinct weapons whether two different appendages doing unarmed or the use of a monk weapons.

But that's not 'any combination'.

In fact, even with the 'clarification' a monk can flurry of blows entirely using an unarmed strike (unless I misunderstood the clarification).

From the clarification there are limits to the combinations, while I (and others) had read 'like to TWF' to be mitigated by 'any combination', just like a Monk's 'offhand' attacks don't deal +1/2STR mod.

I had always assumed that they put in this wording, not to subsume flurry within TWF, but to prevent the 'flurry of misses' that 3e had by combining the two.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think maybe next time Paizo does a new set of rules, they should seriously consider using a format like the the one used by the NEC (National Electric Code) and other similar standards. It's got things broken down into chapters, articles, parts, and sections. You never use page numbers as a reference.

The great thing is that you can change things and not worry about layout. Also, if you keep things consistent between editions, you can easily refer to previous editions and see what changed.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gourry187 wrote:
I've always been confused by the FoB using 1 weapon arguement when it states that it works like two weapon fighting (with a few changes). To me that always indicated two distinct weapons whether two different appendages doing unarmed or the use of a monk weapons.

The term 'any combination' implied literally that to many readers. It was interpreted as using the TWF+full BAB attack bonus and number of attacks to determine the number of attacks in total and their effective BAB used in flurry of blows, with 'any combination' layered over the top to mean that you could hammer away with whatever weapon you had that was most effective.

What they actually meant, it seems, was two-weapon fighting, period. The 'any combination' only meant that even with your hands full you could make unarmed attacks instead of any or all of your armed attacks. It transpires a fighter with a greatsword and spiked boots or Improved Unarmed Strike can use TWF to make multiple attacks just as the monk does, so the 'any combination' was really just redundant text to the intention of the rules.

The problem was, people didn't read it that way because in 3.5 it didn't work that way, 'any combination' meant what it said. Then all the stat-blocks were being published with single-weapon flurries, and the devs have only just realised belatedly that their intention had been completely misinterpreted, hence the current mess. Now they have worked out how poorly the monk compares with other classes anyway, they are looking at complete overhauls.

Killsmith wrote:

I think maybe next time Paizo does a new set of rules, they should seriously consider using a format like the the one used by the NEC (National Electric Code) and other similar standards. It's got things broken down into chapters, articles, parts, and sections. You never use page numbers as a reference.

The great thing is that you can change things and not worry about layout. Also, if you keep things consistent between editions, you can easily refer to previous editions and see what changed.

Isn't hindsight wonderful!


Killsmith wrote:

I think maybe next time Paizo does a new set of rules, they should seriously consider using a format like the the one used by the NEC (National Electric Code) and other similar standards. It's got things broken down into chapters, articles, parts, and sections. You never use page numbers as a reference.

The great thing is that you can change things and not worry about layout. Also, if you keep things consistent between editions, you can easily refer to previous editions and see what changed.

I like this idea, but it'll never happen. It's much easier to find page 298 quickly than to find 5.7.12.9...

Shadow Lodge

i dont think they should even errata this.

if i were paizo, i would make an ALT class book. a book you can buy for very little money, im talking 5 bucks or so, directly from paizo that has all of the classes that need to be revised in one source book. then they wouldnt be limited by word count for the new changes to these classes. they could have the monk, rogue, maybe the sorcerer, maybe the give the fighter a few new abilities to make him more, magical?

but most of all i would love to see paizo make the classes how they want them to function without worrying about backwards compatability. they want the monk to be a full bab class? DO IT! they want the fighter to have a few magic abilities? DO IT! this would allow them to make classes how they want to, while still preserving the current material for the people who want monks to need 2 weapons to flurry, who dont like magic in there fighters, and think the rogue is working just fine.

that is how i would change things, and while i was at it i would have a feat errata section to fix things they dont like, for instance vital strike, spring attack, and prone shooter to name a few off the top of my head.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheSideKick wrote:

i dont think they should even errata this.

if i were paizo, i would make an ALT class book.

{stuff}

I like this idea. I am not sure about stuff like Vital Strike, I think the rules should be compatible with what they have already produced, but they could produce some stuff that has been asked after and doesn't wuite fit with what is.

Shadow Lodge

they have made posts about how both vital strike and spring attack should have been reworked for the game, thats the only reason why i mentioned those feats.

but they have 20+ more that should be reworked to function better... antagonize anyone?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
TheSideKick wrote:

they have made posts about how both vital strike and spring attack should have been reworked for the game, thats the only reason why i mentioned those feats.

but they have 20+ more that should be reworked to function better... antagonize anyone?

There are any problems with Antagonize? I see none, it makes grown men cry at my table, and that's much more than I would ever want from a feat.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / What is the state of FOB 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.