Do you get sneak attack with your unarmed strikes if you are a Rogue/ Monk multiclass?
Do you get sneak attack with your unarmed strikes if you are a Rogue/ Monk multiclass?
If the conditions are right (flanking, enemy denied Dex bonus to AC, etc.), why wouldn't you?
Yep, thought they would just wanted to make sure it wouldn't have to be with a weapon that a rogue would use.
If 3.5 material's allowed look at the Aescetic Rogue feat in Complete Adventurer's.
Also, be aware that you can stack FoB with TWF if using unarmed strikes or monk weapons.
If 3.5 material's allowed look at the Aescetic Rogue feat in Complete Adventurer's.
Also, be aware that you can stack FoB with TWF if using unarmed strikes or monk weapons.
No, I don't think those stack. Not in Pathfinder which changed the wording of FOB such that it says that it works just like having TWF. I don't believe you can have it twice.
As i've said in the other thread, where's the ruling on this? It says "as if using TWF", not is the same as TWF.
As i've said in the other thread, where's the ruling on this? It says "as if using TWF", not is the same as TWF.
I dunno.
If I am holding a guitar "as if I am playing it" and then I wish to play another guitar, can I play both of them simultaneously?
If I am sitting in my car "as if I am driving it" and then I wish to drive my wife's car, can I drive them both simultaneiously?
If I am swinging on the parallel bars "as if I am using my gymnastics training" and then I wish to work on the pommel horse, can I do them both simultaneously?
If I am trying to teach semantics "as if I am a learned scholar educating a student" and then I wish...
Well, OK, you get the picture.
Same source issue, I think.
Totally different source. I still haven't seen any RAW or errata backing your arguments. But that's cool, however you guys want to apply it in your games is fine, but this forum discusses RAW. We can interpret this differently all day, but a specific ruling is the only way to resolve this IMO.
The problem that's being stated is that you can't take a feat more than once unless specifically stated.
I'm saying that they're not the same; it doesn't give you the feat, you merely act as if you had it.
sorry for the threadjack btw.
/end threadjack.
|
Funny, because I was making a point through raw. I just didn't think it was necessary to get all explicit with you in particular. So.
Raw *as though using Two-weapon fighting*
That looks like a source to me. You know, two-weapon fighting.
And bonuses of the same type, or from the same source don't stack.
Or, if you prefer, you can use the old virtual feat thing. Class ability that provides the same bonuses as two-weapon fighting, and thus are equivalent to the feat. Since you can't take two-weapon fighting multiple times, the bonuses don't stack.
I prefer the former though, because the latter isn't pathfinder core, and this is the pathfinder rules forum.
A source isn't by raw limited to magical bonuses only. In fact the entry makes reference to the rule applying "more generally". It's page 208. Relevant details are:
"More generally, two bonuses of the same type don't stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above)."
Thus, we know bonuses are not limited to spells only.
"The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack."
"Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source."
Thus, we know bonuses don't stack if they're from the same source.
"As per two-weapon fighting"
Thus we know that the bonus attacks from flurry are the same source type as two-weapon fighting.
Thus they don't stack.
Now please point out where this is wrong, citing specific elements from the book please :)
p.208 is regarding bonuses and magic effects - not feats/class abilities, the bit that you bolded is talking about type of bonus (dodge etc.). This is a quantifiable modifier to either AC or to attack. Not an extra attack or other non-quantifiable effect or ability.
p.182 states: all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed
strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. It then goes on to say that feats such as Two Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
This clearly differentiates having the feat and acting 'as if' you have the feat.
As for the 'same source' argument; the extra attacks are derived from different sources (feat v class). Unlike other extra attacks (haste, speed property) nothing specifically says they don't stack.
*edit* yeh, we'll go to the other thread.
/end threadjack
|
|
Well, that's why I bolded the section about effects from other spells. Do you have a specific entry that specifies that bonuses are specifically only dodge ect? Or that feats specifically aren't included? Anything that specifies what's included in the term bonus?
It differentiates having the feat and *as if*, and at the same time provides support that the bonus is the same bonus from the same source.
Argument one needs backing from the book to support your claim. Argument two doesn't invalidate my original argument.
Also, the section you're referring to on page 182 was clarified as an error by James Jacob from the bestiary to the combat chapter. The very bottom of the pathfinder faq on the d20 site covers it. Basically, everything from "In addition", to the end of the paragraph is gone and replaced by the bestiary page 302 entry.
So that one doesn't really count :P
Page 11 of the Core Book
Happy gaming.
Barator
Well, that's why I bolded the section about effects from other spells. Do you have a specific entry that specifies that bonuses are specifically only dodge ect? Or that feats specifically aren't included? Anything that specifies what's included in the term bonus?
yeh, the whole entry for 'Bonus Types'. Specifically: "With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works".
It differentiates having the feat and *as if*, and at the same time provides support that the bonus is the same bonus from the same source.
Also, the section you're referring to on page 182 was clarified as an error by James Jacob from the bestiary to the combat chapter. The very bottom of the pathfinder faq on the d20 site covers it. Basically, everything from "In addition", to the end of the paragraph is gone and replaced by the bestiary page 302 entry.
So that one doesn't really count :P
So instead of -2 to all attacks, now natural attacks incur a -5 penalty whilst weapons attack normally. Seems fair.
As far as backing up my argument with RAW all i can say is why does Haste and the Speed property both specify that they don't stack? If extra attacks never stacked, there'd be no need.
Instead it specified when they don't synergise which implies that normally it's fine.
Instead it specified when they don't synergise which implies that normally it's fine.
Uh, no.
Haste and Speed are two different sources. All the "stacking" bits in the RAW say that untyped bonuses stack unless they are from different sources. Since the extra attacks from Speed and Haste are untyped, they should stack - except that those special abilities explicitly say that they don't.
That's why they say what they say, and you're right, without that bit of text, those abilities would stack.
Flurry of Blows and Two-Weapon Fighting are the same source. FOB works "as if it is TWF". It doesn't say "as if it is TWF except not the same source". It only says "as if it is TWF." Period. Ergo, they are the same source and therefore do not stack, and therefore they do not need the extra text that you can find for Haste/Speed.
[FOB works "as if it is TWF". It doesn't say "as if it is TWF except not the same source". It only says "as if it is TWF." Period. Ergo, they are the same source and therefore do not stack, and therefore they do not need the extra text that you can find for Haste/Speed.
This i think is the crux of the issue. That's your interpretation that 'as if' means 'the same as'. It's my interpretation that 'as if' means 'superficially'.
The same way that Displacement means that the wearer has a miss chance 'as if' they had concealment, but they actually don't.
The same way that Displacement means that the wearer has a miss chance 'as if' they had concealment, but they actually don't.
Though Displacement points out how it is not concealment in its own description.
The problem that's being stated is that you can't take a feat more than once unless specifically stated.
I'm saying that they're not the same; it doesn't give you the feat, you merely act as if you had it.
sorry for the threadjack btw.
/end threadjack.
I don't think anyone is saying that you can't take TWF as a monk. A fighter/monk, for example certainly might take TWF so that he or she could dual wield while wearing armor.
The issue is whether a monk's flurry of blows and TWF would stack, granting, at first level, three flurry of blows attacks.
I'd also have to say "no."
The same way that Displacement means that the wearer has a miss chance 'as if' they had concealment, but they actually don't.Though Displacement points out how it is not concealment in its own description.
That actually reinforces my point.
Displacement says: as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the
creature normally.
It specifically says that it acts 'as if' it grants concealment, then goes on to say how it's not actually concealment. If 'as if' signified equality, then it wouldn't be different at all.
|
|
Thanks.
Fixed the link for you.
Nice, but the board's software seems to insert a space for some reason. I just tried pasting in a fixed URL and it broke that with a space, too. Sigh.
Edit 1: Maybe just plain text: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/olderProducts/pathfind erRPGBeta/generalPrerelease/monkPathfinderPreview9&page=2#58
Edit 2: Nope, there's still a space in the middle of "pathfinderRPG" for me. I'm running FF 3.6 on OSX 10.6 -- anyone else having the same problem? I'm beginning to think it's a FF issue...
Thanks.
Fixed the link for you.Nice, but the board's software seems to insert a space for some reason. I just tried pasting in a fixed URL and it broke that with a space, too. Sigh.
Edit 1: Maybe just plain text: LINK
Edit 2: Nope, there's still a space in the middle of "pathfinderRPG" for me. I'm running FF 3.6 on OSX 10.6 -- anyone else having the same problem? I'm beginning to think it's a FF issue...
Try now both of them... however it's true that there was an additional space in the first link which would not allow it to work. Dunno why, sorry :( , IE8 on XP SP3 here...
EDIT: I tried both the links on FF 3.5.8 and they work after being 'fixed' under IE8. Again, dunno if they work under FF 3.6 on OSX, though...
Cool, i sit corrected. That's why i like official rulings, it clears up any interpretative confusion.
btw DarkReignfall, TWF does give you an extra attack at -2 penalty.
|
|
Cool, i sit corrected. That's why i like official rulings, it clears up any interpretative confusion.
btw DarkReignfall, TWF does give you an extra attack at -2 penalty.
Actually, he has a good point. Two Weapon Fighting, the feat, doesn't give you any extra attacks. The feat kind of implies you do, but if you check the section on Two Weapon Fighting in combat, you'll see that you can actually do two weapon fighting without the feat at all. The table lists the various penalties if you have the feat or don't. Possessing the feat merely reduces the penalties.
Yeh, you're right. I guess i just don't think of it that way as you'd have to be crazy to do it - or you're fighting someone that's helpless.
But yeh, conceeded.
I think you all are overlooking the biggest change in flurry of blows. If a monk attacks with a one handed melee weapon or two handed melee weapon, that happens to be a monk weapon, he would have a penalty of -4/-4.
You know this thread is from two years ago?
Casts Necromancy: Animate thread
So from what i gather, you CAN use sneak attack with a monk/rogue's flurry of blows?? Is the sneak attack damage added to each successful strike then? Also what's "RAW" stand for? And where's the nearest tavern? I need a drink!
|
Goblin Mob, RAW means 'Rule as Written'
So I came across this thread because I was searching google to make sure that sneak attack + flurry of blows worked, and I'm glad to see it does; that being said, every rogue/monk build that I came across in my endeavors seemed to be splash of monk on a rogue, but my idea was more along the lines of lvl 3 rogue, then monk all the way out. Sorry for resurrecting a thrice-dead thread, but does anyone see something that I don't and can tell me why nobody seems to think about having a 7-strike 2d8 FoB with 2d6 sneak attack damage on each blow?
Thanks for your input!
