Ugh. Flame war.
Firstly, on this item. One look at it and I'm thinking it's not so bad. Yeah, so everything doesn't get enhanced, but it means I can estimate which attacks are going to hit so that grapple/stunning fist/whatever will be less likely to be wasted when I need it most. Relax guys, it is useful.
Secondly, and this might need a rule clarification: looks like it might actually stack with AMF, which is an interesting twist.
That said: to those who are angry about the drama: a lot of it is exagerated, but if you want to know why people are upset about the monk and going crazy about this stuff, it's simple: options. Do they need a buff vs. other classes? Yeah, but that's not why there's outrage vs. this new book. The outrage is because essentially everything in this book gives other classes great options, while specifically edging out the monk class.
I do think their level restriction on this item is a bit silly. That's what class restrictions are for. Never seen a sword that says 'can only be used for 1 extra attack using two weapon fighting at level 4, two extra attacks at 8, etc. If anything, it seems like they're trying to use items to nerf monks specifically. If they think flurry or unarmed damage is out of control, they should fix that, not bias items against them.
True the monk needs a rework, but the argument that the full BAB classes can outdamage the monk isn't really a good one. Full BAB classes and should outdamage a monk.
A monk is not a fighter so it gets a lot of other nice stuff. Like 4 skills per level, all good saves, etc.
And Please, reread some of Gorbacz's posts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I am going to bed for the night. See you guys in the morning, I hope.
MA
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
Violets are blue,
Your blood is red,
The window was open,
I'm under your bed.....
While we're complaining though, I just noticed something amusing/frustrating depending on your POV for another class often thought to be weak...
The burglar's buckler seems to be the perfect gift for a rogue...
Except rogues aren't proficient in shields.
(I have nothing else to say on the monk matter that I haven't already said.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I didn't want to post in this thread, (Thanks Ross for making it less fighty) but I honestly have a ton of fun with my Monk, using only Core. I probably won't ever be able to use something from UE at my table for a year or more.
I do love playing my no archetype core monk. Sure, our barbarian and fighter can out damage me. Great! But that is all they can do. I generally come out of every battle only getting hit a few times (and I can spend ki to heal myself, saving the cleric's use) and I generally provide a lot of bonus to the fighter and barbarian by flanking and grappling. Even positioning, since I get 70ft walk at 12th level, plays a large part in our combat scenarios.
Out of combat, if our caster types don't want to expend the slot for flight or levitation, I spider climb or cloud step. I'm almost as sneaky as our rogue. I've got the highest perception, so it's rare that we get caught in a surprise round.
I can't be poisoned or diseased.
I do wish sometimes that I could go toe-to-toe with barbarian guy in damage, but that's not gonna happen without some really lucky rolls.
I would love some more Monk flavored items, but I honestly can't complain too much about the class.
You can "fix" the Amulet of Mighty Fists without obsoleting the originalIt seems weird to the that the Devs prefer to fix the entire monk class instead of a couple of items.
Why is that weird? Why would you put duct tape on your hot water faucet in the bathroom when the source of your plumbing issue is a valve in the basement? Why would you take Tylenol for a slipped disc rather than get a professional health expert to realign your spine and give you PT? Maybe it's the cheap or quick way out, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem.
The monk's problems are inherent in the class design. If you fix the class by only adding gear--or tweaking existing gear, then you simply add another problem to the class, by making it unnecessarily gear reliant. Sure, all classes are gear reliant to an extent, but if every monk by a certain level looks like it has the same equipment set or will only work well with a certain equipment set... the problem isn't the equipment.
You can "fix" the Amulet of Mighty Fists without obsoleting the originalIt seems weird to the that the Devs prefer to fix the entire monk class instead of a couple of items.Why is that weird? Why would you put duct tape on your hot water faucet in the bathroom when the source of your plumbing issue is a valve in the basement? Why would you take Tylenol for a slipped disc rather than get a professional health expert to realign your spine and give you PT? Maybe it's the cheap or quick way out, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem.
The monk's problems are inherent in the class design. If you fix the class by only adding gear--or tweaking existing gear, then you simply add another problem to the class, by making it unnecessarily gear reliant. Sure, all classes are gear reliant to an extent, but if every monk by a certain level looks like it has the same equipment set or will only work well with a certain equipment set... the problem isn't the equipment.
Actually, I'd argue that the problem is that all classes are gear dependent, and Monk's are specifically edged out of most gear. Frankly, I don't think they should be.
Actually, I'd argue that the problem is that all classes are gear dependent, and Monk's are specifically edged out of most gear. Frankly, I don't think they should be.You can "fix" the Amulet of Mighty Fists without obsoleting the originalIt seems weird to the that the Devs prefer to fix the entire monk class instead of a couple of items.Why is that weird? Why would you put duct tape on your hot water faucet in the bathroom when the source of your plumbing issue is a valve in the basement? Why would you take Tylenol for a slipped disc rather than get a professional health expert to realign your spine and give you PT? Maybe it's the cheap or quick way out, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem.
The monk's problems are inherent in the class design. If you fix the class by only adding gear--or tweaking existing gear, then you simply add another problem to the class, by making it unnecessarily gear reliant. Sure, all classes are gear reliant to an extent, but if every monk by a certain level looks like it has the same equipment set or will only work well with a certain equipment set... the problem isn't the equipment.
Emphasis added. And yes, there is a big problem is the game assumes everyone gets item enhancements, but monks can't easily get those enhancements--which is why they end up being limited to certain gear, and then they all look the same, and people complain that the gear doesn't work....
If you redesign the monk to be more effectively ascetic, it becomes less of an issue.
The bodywrap is a nice alternative to the amulet of might fists -- but like the amulet, its ideal user is not a standard monk. There is a monk 4/barbarian 3 (martial artist archetype) that I am developing for my own campaign who would be quite happy with the bodywrap.
I'm a little hesitant to join this one, but I feel that I have to play devil's advocate.
The fighter's damage output may be higher, but they lose out on things like Stunning Fist, Evasion, Fast Movement, Ki Pool, Saves, 2 more skill points per level, etc. etc.
Fighters do one thing and they do it well... they kill things. Just because a monk's usual niche is unarmed attacks doesn't mean that they should be the undisputed champs of unarmed attacks.
And the wraps may seem to fall short when dealing with Flurry and iterative attacks, but if applied to an archetype without Flurry, such as a Maneuver Master or Master of Many Styles, it will appear more powerful. You can apply the bonus to unarmed strikes to a combat maneuver (yes you'll lose the bonus damage, but you'll still gain the +attack), or if you want to be a Master of Many Styles who just runs around provoking AoO's and never taking more than a Standard Action anyway... Obviously these are just rough ideas, I haven't stat'd out character sheets to see if this is a viable idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another fact is that Flurry is TWF. It has been since the start.It was not.
Virtually no one, inside or outside of paizo, apparently read it that way.
Honestly, until me and my friends visited the forums here, all of us though it was like two weapon fighting. I notice a trend actually that the people who don't visit these forums assumed it was TWF and thus were not surprised when it was said that it was.
Mind you, I do accept that Paizo has used this build in their APs and in fact, I do support using Flurry with one weapon.
Unarmed strikes cannot be sundered, or disarmed, Deathquaker, but both the bodywraps and the AoMF can be sundered (maybe even disarmed, but I am not certain of that). And since everyone, player character or NPC has either unarmed strikes or natural weapons, there is no great advantage there!
If a player wants to spend the time, feats, and gold to build an unarmed fighter that is better than a monk, they can. And for cheaper. And that just isn't right.
Master Arminas
If you sunder a magic weapon, you can't use that weapon anymore until it is fixed. If you sunder the bodywraps, you can still use your unarmed strikes.
Do you really think the Devs like taunting a part of their fan base just for fun?
Sure, I think it sucks the monk can't use the Brawling Ability, but I don't think the Devs did that just to spite monk players.
Probably not, but creating items like these (while being aware of the problems with the existing items and the monk class) provokes the question: *why then* did they do it?
Maybe one of the devs might shed some light on this. That would be greatly appreciated.
If it is because it will fit nicely into the planned monk fix, just say so (and maybe give some hints about the planned fix while you are at it :-)
Where are all these monk-nerfing clarifications indexed?
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 (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
how is monk flurry not TWF? other than the "as if using" part?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where are all these monk-nerfing clarifications indexed?
SKR's original post noting that "as TWF" means "no single weapon flurry":
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5ld7y&page=6?Ultimate-Equipment-Wha ts-Missing#283Original discussion thread clarifying the clarification:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5drg?Attacking-with-a-weapon
Another clarifying post from SKR in that thread, repeating what Jason Buhlman told him:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5drg?Attacking-with-a-weapon#19
Jason Buhlman's response in that same thread:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5drg&page=3?Attacking-with-a-weapon#144
Current discussion thread:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5ec0?Flurry-of-Changes-to-Flurry-of-Blows
Also, Sean commenting on the fact that the monk needs to be addressed, not items the monk uses:
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8dmf/discuss&page=13?Pathfinder-Player-Co mpanion-Adventurers-Armory#627
And if you scroll down and read that last conversation from there, you'll see where he says the design team is discussing the issue.
O.o
You can not TWF with any combination of weapons. And how is that a zen archer flurry? does he needs two bows?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 (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
how is monk flurry not TWF? other than the "as if using" part?
zen archer has a class ability that allows you to bend the rules for flurry so thats a different subject.
but the TWF feat says nothing about having to use the same weapon so i dont see how you CANT use any combination of weapons. you just take negatives depending on what types of weapons you are using.
And Nicos says it!! The crux of the entiire flurry argument! The definition of "combination" is to "combine" two (or more) separate things. TWF is by definition the combination of fighting with two weapons.
And then the phrase is modified by the adjective phrase "as if using the Two Weapon Fighting Feat". For the grammatically challenged, that means the "any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with special monk weapons" phrase must be read as it relates to the TWF feat. Therefore, any combination of two different attacks. I.E. a head butt and your temple sword, a right hand and a left hand, a kick and a punch, etc.
Then to make it clearer, they mention TWF twice more, and tell you you have to use the TWF negatives to hit.
Now come back with the "well, NPCs that Paizo published had it wrong too." Yes, I agree, but that still doesn't make your interpretation right, as SKR has since clarified for the entire community, including the contributors who had it wrong too.
As for the Zen Archer, yes the description could have been clearer, but it is obviously intended to allow the ZA to gain the extra attacks from FOB with his bow.
Dang!! Ninja'd
thats why when i posted my other statement i included this part:
"zen archer has a class ability that allows you to bend the rules for flurry so thats a different subject."
but i wasnt questioning flurry with a bow, i was questioning how FOB for a core monk is NOT like TWF as some people have stated earlier in this thread when it clearly states in the rules that it does.
as for my 2cp, i think the core monk is just fine, seeing as how he was outdamaging our parties barbarian/fighter (which is understandable seeing as how that player is a dumba**) and no one in the party could hit him. needless to say, he was broke, and if you can break that class, i dont see much of a problem.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just on base unarmed damage, where monks 'appear' to have an advantage (at cap, when monks have their best damage), a Brawler has a d3+11 built into the class (includes weapon spec and a free +5 to attack rolls), which is better than the 2d10 monks get by far.
Monks are not going to beat fighters at DPR. The class is not meant to be the king of DPR. They dodge bullets, leap 80 feet, zip across the battlefield at mach 7, ties the enemy wizard in a knot, trips 8 guys in a round, is immune to tons of stuff, has awesome saves, etc, etc... If those things sound cool then play a monk. If you want DPR... then play a an unarmed fighter because the unarmed fighter is going to win at DPR. All that cool stuff costs something in game terms.
I GM a lot of PFS and I see monks regularly marginalize encounters and bypass hazards that stump fighters and most martial classes. Their abilities are amazingly cool in game, but their strength is not DPR and when you use that as a yardstick all you demonstrate is that you place no value on the things that makes the monk cool and fun and really should be playing a fighter.
The expectation seems to be that monks should be everything they are and as good as the fighter at dishing out damage and that's just not a reasonable point of view. Fighters dish out damage, it's what they do and they do it well.
BTW...Thanks MA!! I guess I never progressed the unarmed fighter enough to see where it became a feasible option! :-)
the thing about the unarmed fighter that a lot of people dont see but what i see is that they wont be able without the amulet of mighty fists, be able to get bonuses to get through damage reduction. theres a reason that monks can spend ki to get through certain types of DR. thats because they couldnt in 3.0. i know because i had that problem.
the thing about the unarmed fighter that a lot of people dont see but what i see is that they wont be able without the amulet of mighty fists, be able to get bonuses to get through damage reduction. theres a reason that monks can spend ki to get through certain types of DR. thats because they couldnt in 3.0. i know because i had that problem.
Magical gauntlets?
Where are all these monk-nerfing clarifications indexed?
Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows has the quotes from the original thread and 1,161 posts of discussions on the subject.
MA
magical gauntlets would be a weapon, and although the class allows them to use them, to me thats not an unarmed fighter. a TRUE unarmed fighter uses only his hands. nothing else. thus the term unarmed. and if you go that route, youre f*****!
if you want to use gauntlets, brass knuckles, etc, etc, etc, call the class the brawler and leave it at that. but the last thing he is is unarmed.
Fighters do one thing and they do it well... they kill things. Just because a monk's usual niche is unarmed attacks doesn't mean that they should be the undisputed champs of unarmed attacks.
A few people have said things like this in this thread, and I absolutely have to concur. Wladimir Klitschko should beat Jackie Chan in a fistfight -- but Chan would never be caught in a fair fistfight. As far as personal experience in games goes, I currently play a 3/4 base attack melee'er in a game with a monk, and we both have disadvantages and advantages compared to the fighter. The fighter can do more damage in one swing than we can do with our whole turns, true, but not when he can't actually get to the monster. The monk is incredibly resilient and capable despite being a level or two behind the rest of the party.
I'm not sure how it's supposed to be any kind of fair if monks are better than fighters at fighting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So riddle me this: how does flurry of blows work with the sohei then?
From the sohei:
Weapon Training (Ex): At 6th level, a sohei gains weapon training in one of the following weapon groups, as the fighter class feature: bows, crossbows, monk weapons, polearms, spearks, or thrown weapons. He may select an additional three groups of weapons for every six levels after 6th, to a maximum of three at 18th level. A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training.
Let's say our sohei has selected polearms and is wielding a glaive (a reach weapon). He is 15' from an opponent and takes a 5' foot step and begins a flurry of blows. Does he get his full flurry of blows attacks with the glaive? If not, what happens if there are no opponents within 5' of the monk? Is he forced to kick the ground for one or two or three attacks? Does he lose the attacks?
As I have said before, the phrase in any combination either means nothing and is wasted words, or it means what it says exactly. A 6th level monk has a flurry of blows attack pattern of +4/+4/+1. Let's say he is wielding a quarterstaff (we will designate his unarmed strikes as "A" and the two ends as "B" and "C" for the purpose of this example).
He can attack three times in a flurry of blows in any combination. That means he could do any of the following: A/A/A, A/A/B, A/A/C, A/B/A, A/B/B, A/B/C, A/C/A, A/C/B, A/C/C, B/A/A, B/A/B, B/A/C, B/B/A, B/B/C, B/B/B, C/A/A, C/A/B, C/B/A/ C/B/B, C/C/A, C/C/B/, OR C/C/C.
Any combination must, by the very defination of any include all possible combinations. Two-weapon fighting does not have in any combination as an operative phrase. If the words are to have meaning, then they must mean what they say.
Some folks with argue that because the flurry of blows description says "unarmed strikes and special monk weapons in any combination" that means you must use both. But the developers have already established (and backwards compatibility with 3.5 held this true as well) that a monk can make all of his attacks with his unarmed strikes. And with a natural weapon if he has one and possesses the Feral Combat Training feat (as per SKR's post).
So that interpertation cannot be true, that you must divide your attacks between special monk weapons and unarmed strikes. And since in any combination is not found in any reference to Two-Weapon Fighting outside of the flurry of blows description in the monk class, since flurry of blows is automatically different from Two-Weapon Fighting (otherwise, why didn't the monk just get the feats?), those words must have deliberate meaning. Or the developers and writers screwed the pooch.
And that is why, that I believe that single weapon flurry is the only way in which both the Zen Archer and Sohei monk archetypes are legal.
Master Arminas
2. They acknowledged that the problems with the monk are not so much with monk items than with the monk class itself. Ergo, the one exception they are thinking of making to "updating core" is updating the monk class itself.
I agree with you here, I have to say. However, it's going to have to be one awesome re-write of the monk to make up for the advantages they are giving away to other classes in unarmed combat not to mention everything else.
Yar.
So riddle me this: how does flurry of blows work with the sohei then?
From the sohei:
Weapon Training (Ex): At 6th level, a sohei gains weapon training in one of the following weapon groups, as the fighter class feature: bows, crossbows, monk weapons, polearms, spearks, or thrown weapons. He may select an additional three groups of weapons for every six levels after 6th, to a maximum of three at 18th level. A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training.Let's say our sohei has selected polearms and is wielding a glaive (a reach weapon). He is 15' from an opponent and takes a 5' foot step and begins a flurry of blows. Does he get his full flurry of blows attacks with the glaive? If not, what happens if there are no opponents within 5' of the monk? Is he forced to kick the ground for one or two or three attacks? Does he lose the attacks?
As I have said before, the phrase in any combination either means nothing and is wasted words, or it means what it says exactly. A 6th level monk has a flurry of blows attack pattern of +4/+4/+1. Let's say he is wielding a quarterstaff (we will designate his unarmed strikes as "A" and the two ends as "B" and "C" for the purpose of this example).
He can attack three times in a flurry of blows in any combination. That means he could do any of the following: A/A/A, A/A/B, A/A/C, A/B/A, A/B/B, A/B/C, A/C/A, A/C/B, A/C/C, B/A/A, B/A/B, B/A/C, B/B/A, B/B/C, B/B/B, C/A/A, C/A/B, C/B/A/ C/B/B, C/C/A, C/C/B/, OR C/C/C.
Any combination must, by the very defination of any include all possible combinations. Two-weapon fighting does not have in any combination as an operative phrase. If the words are to have meaning, then they must mean what they say.
Some folks with argue that because the flurry of blows description says "unarmed strikes and special monk weapons in any combination" that means you must use both. But the developers have already established (and backwards compatibility with 3.5 held this true as well) that a monk can make all of his attacks with his unarmed strikes. And with a natural weapon if he has one and possesses the Feral Combat Training feat (as per SKR's post).
So that interpertation cannot be true, that you must divide your attacks between special monk weapons and unarmed strikes. And since in any combination is not found in any reference to Two-Weapon Fighting outside of the flurry of blows description in the monk class, since flurry of blows is automatically different from Two-Weapon Fighting (otherwise, why didn't the monk just get the feats?), those words must have deliberate meaning. Or the developers and writers screwed the pooch.
And that is why, that I believe that single weapon flurry is the only way in which both the Zen Archer and Sohei monk archetypes are legal.
This.
~P
Just on base unarmed damage, where monks 'appear' to have an advantage (at cap, when monks have their best damage), a Brawler has a d3+11 built into the class (includes weapon spec and a free +5 to attack rolls), which is better than the 2d10 monks get by far.Monks are not going to beat fighters at DPR. The class is not meant to be the king of DPR. They dodge bullets, leap 80 feet, zip across the battlefield at mach 7, ties the enemy wizard in a knot, trips 8 guys in a round, is immune to tons of stuff, has awesome saves, etc, etc... If those things sound cool then play a monk. If you want DPR... then play a an unarmed fighter because the unarmed fighter is going to win at DPR. All that cool stuff costs something in game terms.
I GM a lot of PFS and I see monks regularly marginalize encounters and bypass hazards that stump fighters and most martial classes. Their abilities are amazingly cool in game, but their strength is not DPR and when you use that as a yardstick all you demonstrate is that you place no value on the things that makes the monk cool and fun and really should be playing a fighter.
The expectation seems to be that monks should be everything they are and as good as the fighter at dishing out damage and that's just not a reasonable point of view. Fighters dish out damage, it's what they do and they do it well.
I think you misunderstood my post. Someone else had noted they had had difficulty making unarmed characters of other classes, and I was noting that if unarmed fighting is what you want, its easily had elsewhere.
I've also GMed for monks, and watched them trivialize encounters; nothing quite like working up a complex chess-room with death floors and such only for the monk to ask, "So wait, its only how far across? I jump it."
So I'm not saying there is no point to monks, as it stands... but they're presented as a combat class. If they're a combat class, they should be good at combat.
Certainly, while they get cool monk tricks, I don't think they get more cool tricks than Rangers or Paladins, who get GREAT spell lists (at least, they're great relative to what they are) on top of powerful class features which are more than equal to a lot of what monks get.
I dont think its out of line at all to want the monk to be at least as valid a combatant as they are.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can probably thank the lack of playtesting lately to much of the vitriol you saw in the forums during said playtests. People seem to be unable to give feedback and criticism without insulting each other and the devs.No, Zark.
Paizo used to do long, involved public playtests of new material. That's one of the primary reasons this community was created. Problems like this were quickly found and dealt with.
The less public playtesting Paizo does the more problems arise with how new material interacts with old material.
nope.
There's no new rules content that needs playtesting in Ultimate Equipment. No need to artificially complicate a product we already know how to make by adding in a playtest cycle to it.
(Waits for someone snarky to post, "Well, Paizo DOESN'T know how to make magic items and here's my list of 20 published magic items that prove that, so maybe they SHOULD have playtested Ultimate Equipment." Said post being a sterling example as to why a playtest of a big book of magic items that don't really add any new types of rules to the game (no more so than a Bestiary adds) would be a bad idea.)
So riddle me this: how does flurry of blows work with the sohei then?From the sohei:
Quote:
Weapon Training (Ex): At 6th level, a sohei gains weapon training in one of the following weapon groups, as the fighter class feature: bows, crossbows, monk weapons, polearms, spearks, or thrown weapons. He may select an additional three groups of weapons for every six levels after 6th, to a maximum of three at 18th level. A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training.
Let's say our sohei has selected polearms and is wielding a glaive (a reach weapon). He is 15' from an opponent and takes a 5' foot step and begins a flurry of blows. Does he get his full flurry of blows attacks with the glaive? If not, what happens if there are no opponents within 5' of the monk? Is he forced to kick the ground for one or two or three attacks? Does he lose the attacks?
As I have said before, the phrase in any combination either means nothing and is wasted words, or it means what it says exactly. A 6th level monk has a flurry of blows attack pattern of +4/+4/+1. Let's say he is wielding a quarterstaff (we will designate his unarmed strikes as "A" and the two ends as "B" and "C" for the purpose of this example).
He can attack three times in a flurry of blows in any combination. That means he could do any of the following: A/A/A, A/A/B, A/A/C, A/B/A, A/B/B, A/B/C, A/C/A, A/C/B, A/C/C, B/A/A, B/A/B, B/A/C, B/B/A, B/B/C, B/B/B, C/A/A, C/A/B, C/B/A/ C/B/B, C/C/A, C/C/B/, OR C/C/C.
Any combination must, by the very defination of any include all possible combinations. Two-weapon fighting does not have in any combination as an operative phrase. If the words are to have meaning, then they must mean what they say.
Some folks with argue that because the flurry of blows description says "unarmed strikes and special monk weapons in any combination" that means you must use both. But the developers have already established (and backwards compatibility with 3.5 held this true as well) that a monk can make all of his attacks with his unarmed strikes. And with a natural weapon if he has one and possesses the Feral Combat Training feat (as per SKR's post).
So that interpertation cannot be true, that you must divide your attacks between special monk weapons and unarmed strikes. And since in any combination is not found in any reference to Two-Weapon Fighting outside of the flurry of blows description in the monk class, since flurry of blows is automatically different from Two-Weapon Fighting (otherwise, why didn't the monk just get the feats?), those words must have deliberate meaning. Or the developers and writers screwed the pooch.
And that is why, that I believe that single weapon flurry is the only way in which both the Zen Archer and Sohei monk archetypes are legal.
Master Arminas
Again, your not taking the whole sentence, just the part you want. The sentence is "When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."
The adjective phrase "as if using the TWF feat" modifies the phrase "any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with special monk weapons". Therefore, the phrase means any combination of two different attacks "as if using TWF". I.E. a head butt and your temple sword, a right hand and a left hand, a kick and a punch, etc.
For the Sohei, as the GM, I would say that if you were using a reach weapon, you would get your regular iterative FOB attacks with the polearm, and any additional attacks would have to be unarmed strikes (like kicks or headbutts). If there was no one within reach, then you lose those additional atacks, but if another foe was within your unarmed strike reach, then you could attack both targets. The Sohei works perfectly well within the rules, as long as you realize that, for the monk, any body part is usable for an unarmed strike, not just the hands. Under the unarmed Strike section it says:
"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes."
For example, the Sohei with a quarterstaff can attack with both ends of the staff, using one end twice, or with each end and an unarmed strike, or one end twice and an unarmed strike, or with one end and two unarmed strikes. It doesn't matter what the unarmed strikes are unless you have one body part enhanced with magic differently than all the rest, say by the magic fang spell.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So I'm not saying there is no point to monks, as it stands... but they're presented as a combat class. If they're a combat class, they should be good at combat.
Being able to trip/ ki throw 6 guys in a round isn't "good at combat"?
If wizard is on the other side of a 20' ravine. Who is better at combat, the guy who can jump the ravine and grapple the wizard, or the guy who spent his entire round pulling out a potion of fly and drinking it?
If there is a symbol of sleep and the two characters who are good at DPR are laying on the floor snoozing while the monk ignores it, uses evasion to ignore a blade barrier, and kills the cleric. Is that good at combat?
DPR is not the only part of combat. Mobility, defenses against magic, and a ton of other things play a huge factor as well.
I dont think its out of line at all to want the monk to be at least as valid a combatant as they are.
I guess I have a different idea of what 'valid' is. Monks are not "King 'o DPR", but they do Ok with DPR and often end encounters where the DPR guys are flailing around ineffectively.
Yar.
... any combination of two different attacks ...
Why are you adding this? Nothing in the definition of "Combination" dictates that it must be two unrelated things. Can you not combine two eggs?
Also, my first punch is not the same punch as my second punch, just as my first swing/attack with a glaive is not the same swing/attack as my second swing/attack with that glaive, so even if we use the "two different attacks", it is still a valid combination, as they are still two different attacks (with the same weapon).
You cannot claim that "two different attacks" is a part of the "as if two-weapon fighting" as those are words that you added yourself. The text does not include those words, but it does say "any combination of attacks", which, as MA described, CAN include them all coming from the same weapon. To me (and many) "any combination" is an exception to the two-weapon rules, which is what makes Flurry of Blows a Flurry of Blows and not two weapon fighting.
~P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, your not taking the whole sentence, just the part you want. The sentence is "When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."
The adjective phrase "as if using the TWF feat" modifies the phrase "any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with special monk weapons". Therefore, the phrase means any combination of two different attacks "as if using TWF". I.E. a head butt and your temple sword, a right hand and a left hand, a kick and a punch, etc.
For the Sohei, as the GM, I would say that if you were using a reach weapon, you would get your regular iterative FOB attacks with the polearm, and any additional attacks would have to be unarmed strikes (like kicks or headbutts). If there was no one within reach, then you lose those additional atacks, but if another foe was within your unarmed strike reach, then you could attack both targets. The Sohei works perfectly well within the rules, as long as you realize that, for the monk, any body part is usable for an unarmed strike, not just the hands. Under the unarmed Strike section it says:
"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes."
For example, the Sohei with a quarterstaff can attack with both ends of the staff, using one end twice, or with each end and an unarmed strike, or one end twice and an unarmed strike, or with one end and two unarmed strikes. It doesn't matter what the unarmed strikes are unless you have one body part enhanced with magic differently than all the rest, say by the magic fang spell.
I am not taking the entire sentence? Please. I am parsing the sentence in the only manner it makes sense! The phrase in any combination is without any meaning if it simply means what you say it does. I.e., alternating between a primary and an off-hand weapon, as per the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. Monks do not have off-hand attacks with their unarmed strikes! So how exactly are they supposed to use their unarmed strikes for off-hand attacks? If they cannot, they must use their monk weapons, right?
But hang on! Monks have always been able to make all of their flurry attacks with unarmed strikes. Even though they do not have an off-hand and even though unarmed strikes are a single weapon. You do not have a right unarmed strike or a left unarmed strike, you simply have an unarmed strike.
That one spell, magic fang, is the ONLY place that references, anywhere in Pathfinder, that unarmed strikes might be multiple weapons. Unfortunately, it is referring to both natural weapons and one unarmed strike and is less clear than it might otherwise be.
If unarmed strikes are multiple weapons, then tell me: how many does a monk have? How many magic fang, greater magic fang, magic weapon, or greater magic weapon weapon spells does it take to enchant every single piece of a monk's body that can be used in an unarmed strike? One? That's what I think. Two? Four? Two arms, and two legs. Eight? Add knees and elbows. Nine? Can't leave out that headbutt! I have asked that question for months and never once gotten anything resembling an offical answer. Why? Because when 3.0 transitioned into 3.5, they dropped it. BECAUSE IT WAS A BAD IDEA. Which is why I think the reason that the one line in the magic fang spell is an error, because it has not been corrected from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder.
So when the sohei, in your game, is using a reach weapon that the rules of the class says he can flurry with, he can't, not unless he has a second target he can hit with his body? The designer's intentions aside, as published and played for years now, that is not how flurry works for many of us (perhaps even the majority of us).
Master Arminas
DPR is not the only part of combat. Mobility, defenses against magic, and a ton of other things play a huge factor as well.
And Paladins and Rangers (and some fighters, cavaliers, bards, etc) get a lot of that stuff too... or ways to duplicate/emulate them.
Heck, Animal Aspect (ranger 2) might as well be 'Monkitude - The Spell, now with Versatility!', and Paladins have monks beat hands down in the Saves department, IMO (not to mention the healing, support, and combat departments).
Other classes don't have (quite) everything the monk does, its true (or at least, all at once)... but its also a bad idea to act like monks have a monopoly on anything.
Here's a question: what do monks get that's wholly unique to them, and can't be found on another class, who gets more besides?
Here's a question: what do monks get that's wholly unique to them, and can't be found on another class, who gets more besides?
Honestly, KrispyXIV, had you not noticed that monks can run really fast? No other class can run as fast as them!
Otherwise, they don't have enough skills to be a skills monkey, enough special abilities to rival a caster (and yes, I include the Qigong monk in this, and by caster I do mean paladins and rangers too), or the ability to hit a target consistently.
Sure, they are good defensively, but not so much as a sword & board paladin, and with less hit points. They usually have a decent touch AC, but really, they can't counter a caster as well as another caster can. Monks can be difficult to damage but they really contribute as well as any other class to a party dynamic.
DPR is not the only part of combat. Mobility, defenses against magic, and a ton of other things play a huge factor as well.
And Paladins and Rangers (and some fighters, cavaliers, bards, etc) get a lot of that stuff too... or ways to duplicate/emulate them.
Heck, Animal Aspect (ranger 2) might as well be 'Monkitude - The Spell, now with Versatility!', and Paladins have monks beat hands down in the Saves department, IMO (not to mention the healing, support, and combat departments).
Other classes don't have (quite) everything the monk does, its true (or at least, all at once)... but its also a bad idea to act like monks have a monopoly on anything.
Here's a question: what do monks get that's wholly unique to them, and can't be found on another class, who gets more besides?
Monks can run away better than any other class in the game, at least until casters get teleport spells.
I say run away, because the Monk has Flurry of Misses, barely scratches a creature if he hits (and doesn't scratch at all if he's got DR), and often times can't grapple/trip/disarm, unless the creature is a humanoid wielding a weapon. Preferably not a giant as they get size modifiers.
Here's a question: what do monks get that's wholly unique to them, and can't be found on another class, who gets more besides?
Three Good saves. /trollface.jpg
Save or die attack?
+60' movement bonus?
Wis bonus to AC and CMD?
slow fall?
spell resistance?
DPR is not the only part of combat. Mobility, defenses against magic, and a ton of other things play a huge factor as well.
And Paladins and Rangers (and some fighters, cavaliers, bards, etc) get a lot of that stuff too... or ways to duplicate/emulate them.
Heck, Animal Aspect (ranger 2) might as well be 'Monkitude - The Spell, now with Versatility!', and Paladins have monks beat hands down in the Saves department, IMO (not to mention the healing, support, and combat departments).
Other classes don't have (quite) everything the monk does, its true (or at least, all at once)... but its also a bad idea to act like monks have a monopoly on anything.
Here's a question: what do monks get that's wholly unique to them, and can't be found on another class, who gets more besides?
Monks can run away better than any other class in the game, at least until casters get teleport spells.
I say run away, because the Monk has Flurry of Misses, barely scratches a creature if he hits (and doesn't scratch at all if he's got DR), and often times can't grapple/trip/disarm, unless the creature is a humanoid wielding a weapon. Preferably not a giant as they get size modifiers.
Y'know, people keep going back to 'Flurry of Misses' like some kind of slogan and honestly, unless I'm fighting people constantly in full plate, I haven't had issues hitting creatures.