|
| 21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the maneuver master monk archetype takes flurry of maneuvers instead of flurry of blows, is that class feature still voided if a monk wears armor? Or more generally, is an alternate class feature voided by armor the same as the class feature it replaced? I'm sorry if this has been FAQ'd or erratad somewhere, but I have looked and have not been able to find anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't say he can't use FoM with armor on so he can use FoM with armor on.
"Do alternate Monk class features work like normal class features when it comes to armor?"
Not unless specifically written so
This is why as example a full plate using fighter can get two levels into Titan Mauler and don't worry about his ability that replaced uncanny dodge, it would be silly if the man forgets how to wield his weapon in one hand if flat-footed
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would check with your DM omn this, though, as I can see it as one of those things that could be considered an 'oversight' and be house-ruled.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Necro!
I've just run into a pocket of folks thinking it's pretty obvious that you can't wear armor and use Flurry of Maneuvers. Talking about "precedent of monks losing their monk abilities in armor" and "obvious intent of how monks work" and so forth.
Anyone hear anything more on this topic, like developer commentary or anything?
I've heard nothing.
But it would be my personal gut feeling that it doesn't make sense that FoM would work with armor when the entire Monk class is pretty much built around not having armor.
Though I guess since you have to spend a Feat to be proficient in any armor maybe that's what they intended?
I do not see it as an oversight.
I also see no reason to shoehorn a houserule to possibly weaken a weak class.
All balance arguments aside, saying a class feature/non-feature shouldn't be clarified because "the class is weak" is kinda a weird justification.
It doesn't make much sense when applied to TF2's Pyro ("Groundstalling is okay, even if it is a glitch, because Pyro SUCKS!") and it doesn't make much sense here.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's entirely possible they intended for FoM not to work in armor. It's also entirely possible that they intended for it to work exactly how they published it.
After all, there are TONS of examples of archetypes that modify class abilities without changing the names of said abilities (thus leaving their interactions with other rules untouched). There are also TONS of examples of archetype abilities that say things like "this modifies ability X" or "this otherwise functions as ability X" or "this archetype's ability X has this one difference", which would also preserve prior interactions with other rules.
Flurry of Maneuver does none of these.
So which is more likely? That they forgot to use 2-3 different well-established means of preserving the armor restriction? Or that they meant what they published?
the entire Monk class is pretty much built around not having armor.
There's a lot of that going around.
Special monk abilities that don't work in armor: AC bonus, Fast Movement, Flurry of Blows.
Special monk abilities that work in armor: Unarmed Strike, Bonus Feats, Stunning Fist, Evasion (Light armor only), Maneuver Training, Still Mind, Ki Pool, Slow Fall, High Jump, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, Improved Evasion, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Perfect Self.
So which is more likely? That they forgot to use 2-3 different well-established means of preserving the armor restriction? Or that they meant what they published?
I think either is as likely as the other.
I think a simple "It works as Flurry of Blows, except where specified" would suffice as a clarification though. Until then, I'm flip-floppy on the whole matter.
the entire Monk class is pretty much built around not having armor.There's a lot of that going around.
Special monk abilities that don't work in armor: AC bonus, Fast Movement, Flurry of Blows.
Special monk abilities that work in armor: Unarmed Strike, Bonus Feats, Stunning Fist, Evasion (Light armor only), Maneuver Training, Still Mind, Ki Pool, Slow Fall, High Jump, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, Improved Evasion, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Perfect Self.
And those three abilities you listed are pretty much the defining features of the class, along with Ki Pool and Unarmed Strike.
Are you sincerely trying to tell me you pick up a Monk because you're enamored with getting Still Mind or Tongue of the Sun and Moon instead of "Moves faster, hits faster, intuitively dodges"?
Those 5 core things (or at least the majority of the 5 in conjunction) are what makes the Monk class function as it does. Slow Fall, Still Mind, The Bodies, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, High Jump, etc are all things that A.) Are easily removed or replaced without hurting the class and B.) Are easily replicated (or even improved on) by common spells.
Just because my car has bumpers, airbags, and cushioned seats does not mean any of those elements are as important as the engine, transmission, or steering wheel. Not all mechanics are carry equal weight.
Another monk archetype by the same author had this same issue as well. The intent with the sohei wasn't to let them flurry in armor. Since this archetype gives absolutely no indication that it's meant to be an armored monk, I see no reason to think that's the intent. This is just another pistolero pistol training, as far as I'm concerned.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another monk archetype by the same author had this same issue as well. The intent with the sohei wasn't to let them flurry in armor.
So let me get this straight:
The author of the sohei confirms that the intent is exactly what was written, despite it seeming counterintuitive.My (and others') contention is that the MM's intent is exactly what was written, despite it seeming counterintuitive.
And you believe the former undermines the latter?
|
Flurry of Maneuvers is written almost exactly the same as Flurry of Blows. It works almost exactly the same except that Flurry of Maneuvers works with all maneuvers (including those taking a standard action) and not with strikes.
I think it incredibly disingenuous to interpret the lack of a "this doesn't work with armor" statement as saying you can use it with armor.
Was it poorly written? Sure.
But as so many developers and James Jacobs say, the rules can't cover every eventuality. The Monk was written well before archetypes were conceived of, and so you can't go back and alter the way Monk was written.
In this case, I believe it a loophole that is exploited if you try to use Flurry of Maneuvers with armor.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Another monk archetype by the same author had this same issue as well. The intent with the sohei wasn't to let them flurry in armor.So let me get this straight:
The author of the sohei confirms that the intent is exactly what was written, despite it seeming counterintuitive.
My (and others') contention is that the MM's intent is exactly what was written, despite it seeming counterintuitive.And you believe the former undermines the latter?
Jason confirmed that the intent was that you could not use flurry of blows in armor for the sohei.
I will tell you that the sohei is proficient with simple and martial weapons and with light armor; however, this is *NOT* meant to supersede the normal limitation on flurry of blows or any other monk ability that is limited by weapon or armor type
As written, the sohei can use flurry of blows in armor because it changes the weapon and armor proficiencies from this:
Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.
Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields.
When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.
to this
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A sohei is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor.
As written, the sohei does not have the restriction on AC bonus, fast movement, and flurry of blows while wearing armor, as that whole section was replaced.
Jason confirmed that the intent was not what was written, but that the limitations were still in place.
I believe that since he's already shown that he forgot to deal with the weapon and armor proficiency being the section that deals with the restrictions on flurry of blows the evidence is in the favor of he just forgot with this as well. My evidence is further bolstered by there being nothing else in the maneuver master that supports armor use. Mistakes happen :)
|
Jason said that if it doesn't specifically say you ignore monk penalties it simply gives you the option to be an armored monk (reducing MAD) OR a flurry monk with a better weapon for those who want to use a weapon.
Most importantly, his RAI belief is that it should specifically state anything that changes the rules for how monks work.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Bbauzh: If you want to make a case, go for it. If you want to make accusations against the character and intent of those who disagree with you, then please flag the OP for FAQing and move on. Thanks.
@Cheapy: Ah, I see what you mean now! Interesting indeed. I don't suppose you could pull a string or two to get him to talk about the MM, couldja? ;)
If you want to make a case, go for it. If you want to make accusations against the character and intent of those who disagree with you, then please flag the OP for FAQing and move on. Thanks.
Wait who did that?
Does this board have some other weird definition of "accusations against character" that I'm not aware of?
Edit: NVM, I completely overlooked Bbauzh's post.
Thought it was kind of a minor "accusation".
|
|
@Bbauzh: If you want to make a case, go for it. If you want to make accusations against the character and intent of those who disagree with you, then please flag the OP for FAQing and move on. Thanks.
@Cheapy: Ah, I see what you mean now! Interesting indeed. I don't suppose you could pull a string or two to get him to talk about the MM, couldja? ;)
My case is exactly what I wrote. If it hurts a bit because you feel I'm calling you disingenuous, then perhaps there is truth to the statement.
The point being, just because it doesn't say you can't do something, doesn't automatically mean you can.
You can't read these things out of context of the entirety of the game system.
Purposefully reading the exact written word, while ignoring what the intent is, is the exact definition of disingenuous.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My case is exactly what I wrote. If it hurts a bit because you feel I'm calling you disingenuous, then perhaps there is truth to the statement.
The point being, just because it doesn't say you can't do something, doesn't automatically mean you can.
You can't read these things out of context of the entirety of the game system.
Purposefully reading the exact written word, while ignoring what the intent is, is the exact definition of disingenuous.
What's disingenuous is assuming what the intent is and then accusing others of "ignoring" it.
And if it hurts a bit because you feel I'm calling you disingenuous, then perhaps there is truth to the statement.
In any case, if you've said your piece and have nothing further to add to the discussion than to assert moral high ground, please just FAQ the OP and move on.
I don't ask them questions privately :)
|
Going back to the Sohei, IIRC, the author said that although his intention was to not allow a Sohei Monk to flurry in armor, he didn't think it'd be broken if it was house-ruled that way.
That being said, and as I mentioned in another thread, in a PFS environment, I'd go with the RAW with the Maneuver Master Monk and allow it to use Flurry of Maneuvers in armor. RAI, it probably wasn't meant to; or at the very least, RAI as far as I can figure. :)
I doubt that helps you out, Jiggy. I'm afraid the only way to settle this would be to get official clarification.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's been said by Paizo in another thread that sometimes they mark something as "Answered in the FAQ" if they just need to clear it out of the queue because there wasn't a clear question asked. However, that doesn't look like the case here.
Thus, my best guess is that "Answered in the FAQ" in this case means "answered in the rules", and therefore things work like they say they work: Flurry of Maneuvers says nothing about not functioning in armor, and it replaces (rather than merely modifying) Flurry of Blows so existing references to negating FoB do not apply.
On the other hand, if you like you could always start a new thread with a single, clear question (and nothing else) and see if you can get people to click the FAQ button. The folks at Paizo have been much more vigorous in FAQing lately, so it might be worth a try.