RAI = rules as interpreted
both are interpretations
thus, both are rai.
That is not what RAI means.
RAI = rules as intended
without clarification on intent
both are equally valid possibilities.
This is. But what you said before was that both are RAI, not that they both could be RAI.
To be fair, the monk was built using the same guidelines as the archer fighter.
To be fair, no he wasn't. I was told "No buffs with a duration less than hours per level". Enlarge person is minutes.
An argument about permanency being dispelled is similar to an argument about a magical weapons bonuses being suppressed, or the weapon being sundered, or other magical gear being disjunction'd.
Not really, no. All those things are exceedingly rare and suppressed/sundered weapons aren't even permanent. The key thing is that all of them have to be done intentionally. It's trivially easy for a permanencied spell to be destroyed just through collateral damage, with a normal use of dispel magic intended to remove a different spell, especially since dispel magic targets the lowest caster level first, which a permanencied spell will almost always be compared to recently-cast buffs. I've never seen a permanencied spell survive more than one or two fights in high-level combat because dispel magic is just so common.
|
No, Zurai, according to the thread for this, you weren't told that. I posted, and linked, to the entry where you were given guidelines. Those guidelines were wealth by level, 24 point buy, no bane stuff, and you were spotted hour/level cleric/wizard buffs. You can check the link yourself. It's not too far up the thread.
Nothing at all about paying for permanency spells. Nothing against buffs with less than hours/level duration.
Both ARE RAI. Think schrodinger's cat. Until we know the answer, both answers are correct, because neither one can be discounted. The cat is both alive and dead in the box, until we look inside and see what's happened.
Perhaps you think all those things are exceedingly rare, and they probably are in your campaigns. However, an area dispel magic (which is dispel magic, greater)is a level 6 spell, or a lvl 11 or so wizard. Meanwhile, you can start sundering at level 1.
Dispel magic targets the highest caster level first, and goes down. Page 273.
Dispel magic is common. The area version, Dispel Magic, Greater is much more rare. The point stands.
Speaker, apologies, I hope you'll do me the courtesy of averting your eyes while I pull my foot out of my mouth :p Mmm... salty...
Zurai ran the crit numbers for the archer, so I'm assuming he did. When folks are more or less satisfied with the monk, I'll run through fightermans stats and abilities and see what comes up, assuming that Zurai doesn't have an issue with it. The fighterman build wasn't dpr-built, but put together instead for a balor. We'll keep the 36 ac as the target shot, but otherwise reformulate where we can to increase dpr.
No, Zurai, according to the thread for this, you weren't told that. I posted, and linked, to the entry where you were given guidelines. Those guidelines were wealth by level, 24 point buy, no bane stuff, and you were spotted hour/level cleric/wizard buffs. You can check the link yourself. It's not too far up the thread.
The entire premise of the challenge was "without magic, how can a Fighter kill a flying enemy?". Furthermore, I was the one actually participating in the challenge, thank you. The intent of MiB's guidelines were clear (and were made clearer in FighterMan's thread); the only buffs allowed were those that could be provided by FighterMan himself through gear, or hours/level buffs provided by theoretical party members that would reasonably be assumed to be up at any given arbitrary combat of the day with no foreknowledge.
Both ARE RAI. Think schrodinger's cat. Until we know the answer, both answers are correct, because neither one can be discounted. The cat is both alive and dead in the box, until we look inside and see what's happened.
You fail to understand Schrodinger's Cat. The cat is only both dead and alive because no one knows its state. That is not the case for a rule written by a still-living and still-lucid author. The Paizo staff do indeed know what the intent of the rule is; thus, no quantum trickery is applicable. Only one way of handling it is the intended way.
Perhaps you think all those things are exceedingly rare, and they probably are in your campaigns. However, an area dispel magic (which is dispel magic, greater)is a level 6 spell, or a lvl 11 or so wizard. Meanwhile, you can start sundering at level 1.
Sundering magic weapons is exceptionally difficult. You need a weapon with equal or higher enchantment to even hurt it, then you need to succeed at a CMB check (which is designed not to work well against similarly-leveled opponents), then you need to beat the weapon's hardness (which increases with each plus), then you need to deal the weapon's hit points in damage to it (which also increase with each plus). Sundering weapons is not something that is going to happen very often at all, especially in high level games.
To prove that point: the Balor has to roll a natural 20 to equal FighterMan's CMD vs sunder while he's wielding a bow, and even if it did, FighterMan's bow is a +5 weapon, while the balor's sword and whip are only +1, meaning it is literally impossible for it to sunder his bow. He's also immune to disarming. Even if the "equal or higher enchantment" rule wasn't in place, the balor would need to overcome hardness 15 and 60 hit points; considering that its average damage is only 20, that's going to take approximately 240 sunder attempts (20 attempts per success, 12 successes to deal 60 points of damage).
You fail to understand Schrodinger's Cat. The cat is only both dead and alive because no one knows its state. That is not the case for a rule written by a still-living and still-lucid author. The Paizo staff do indeed know what the intent of the rule is; thus, no quantum trickery is applicable. Only one way of handling it is the intended way.
Zurai, how can you know what the author intended?
You fail to understand Schrodinger's Cat. The cat is only both dead and alive because no one knows its state. That is not the case for a rule written by a still-living and still-lucid author. The Paizo staff do indeed know what the intent of the rule is; thus, no quantum trickery is applicable. Only one way of handling it is the intended way.Zurai, how can you know what the author intended?
Non sequitur much? I never claimed to know what the intent was, merely that there is an intent and that it is known to at least one living, lucid person, thus collapsing the quantum state.
Zurai, how can you know what the author intended?
I'm not Zurai, but my own method isn't so much about "knowing intent" as it is looking at all other similar cases in the book for precedent.
The established precedent is (paraphrased) something like the following IF/THEN conditional statement: "IF there is some source of power (magic/psionic/what have you) granting an extra attack action at a full bab, THEN it is limited to a single +1 attack action and it will NOT combine with other, similar extra attack granting effects/abilities/powers/what have you."
It's firmly rooted in MANY places in the game rules defaults so much that to ignore it for one case based upon *fuzzy* wording (using "fuzzy" VERY loose here as that's what you NEED to do to ignore both the description itself looking to limit actions, and the system precedents that exist in numerous places otherwise) is blatent rules-manipulation at best. At worst, it's the *worst* kind of rules-lawyering in that it's all about getting the "boons" (+1 attack that can *maybe* stack w/Haste since it's not saying you *can't* stack w/haste specificially, though it *does* mention limitations) and avoiding the "limitations" (ie: that +1 attack from haste never stacks with any similar effects at all - in multiple places throughout the rule-set) in this case.
|
|
You fail to understand the proper application of the cat. The intent is not necessarily even known to the devs. It's an assumption that you can't prove as true. If they are, in fact, attempting to determine what they want to happen, then the intent is unknown even to them :p Seeing as they haven't weighed in yet, it's more likely they're not sure what to do with it themselves.
It has often been the case on these boards that the management per say has taken the time to read both sides of an argument and determine from there what they want to do.
When they don't know the intent, then there isn't just one intent, and all options are correct until they have been determined. Since both are valid options, both are correctly labeled as intent until such time as the devs decide on the intent.
I read the thread. Fighterarcher didn't get any spells because he wasn't a spellcaster. The argument took place here:
"Without spells, how are you killing monsters that fly?
Not every class needs to fight with save-or-die effects. By high levels, every class needs to be able to participate in fights where the pace is set by save-or-die effects. This means damage-per-round in excess of 100 or 150, if not higher, by very high levels, or some way to make sure that you are not the target of save-or-die effects and also survive enemy attack routines that do that kind of damage.
PF fighters, as written, can't quite do that. (BTW, that is a challenge; if you can make a fighter who can two-round a balor then I will cheerfully eat my words.)"
The setup took place here:
"WBL, 24 point-buy, kindly no bane shenanigans, you're spotted hour/level cleric or wizard buffs if you want them. It'd probably be best if we did this in another thread."
The argument you're attempting to present here actually stems from spellcaster versus fighter for high level play. Paying for a permanent magical effect is no different than paying for a permanent magical item. Unless you're going to argue that you weren't supposed to use magical items, a similar effect which you paid for out of your wealth by level, and has a permanent duration, is certainly a viable option according to the rules you were under.
The argument was against spellcasters, or picking up abilities that allowed the fighter to cast spells. Nothing has been violated here, according to the rules of the match as specifically detailed by A Man In Black.
Sorry.
Fighterman is immune to disarming due to his capstone ability, which will come into play only at the very last level of the game. They way the game is *supposed* to run, fighterman would either be a few levels lower with party members, or a similar level against a higher cr balor.
Because it's one build against one monster, special attacks like sundering and disarming are less effective unless/until the monster in question is built with that in mind.
But every level you knock off fighterman in an actual game is at least a 5% increase in the chance he'll lose against an opponents cmb roll. If the balor in question had the two sunder feats, he'd have a +4 bonus on his roll, or +37. Max roll of 57 vs your cmd of 49.
The issue I have with the IF THEN system is that the attack limitation applies only to magic spells and items created from them. For every magic spell that provides multiple attacks, that spell is listed with the disclaimer of not stacking. However Feats and Class abilities do NOT have the disclaimer and provide additional attacks without being affected by that disclaimer. There are many, many feats which provide additional attacks. A few class abilities, like increasing bab, provide additional attacks as well.
However, those feats, and abilities like the barbarians animal fury bite attack, don't bring up the question of stacking with haste.
|
A hasted monk uses flurry of blows to rapid-shot shurikens. How many attacks?!
Something like 16/16/16/16/11/11/6/6/1 (before bonuses, after penalties), though each attack doesn't do much (1d2 + suck). Good for killing mooks, maybe. Or distributing poison on the first round of combat. 9 doses of any poison is rough even at 20th level.
Seeing as they haven't weighed in yet, it's more likely they're not sure what to do with it themselves.
This is only true if you make an assumption that it is a goal of the devs to respond to every issue brought up on the boards. Since they've explicitly stated that the opposite is true, and that in fact they prefer to let the players answer most questions, I'd say that your evaluation of what is likely is flawed.
As for your argument about the bounds of FighterMan's creation, let me be blunt since you're seemingly immune to anything else: I was there. You were not. I interacted with AMiB to craft the challenge and discuss the results of the challenge. The intent of the challenge was to prevent the use of any short-duration spells or other buffs that could not reasonably be assumed to be always present at any given time of the day. Permanencied spells do not fall under that criterion because they're incredibly easy to get rid of as a side effect of normal gameplay. This is unlike destroying magical gear.
A hasted monk uses flurry of blows to rapid-shot shurikens. How many attacks?!
Something like 16/16/16/16/11/11/6/6/1 (before bonuses, after penalties), though each attack doesn't do much (1d2 + suck). Good for killing mooks, maybe. Or distributing poison on the first round of combat. 9 doses of any poison is rough even at 20th level.
other than the HILARITY of 9 doses of poison as an opener (which is FREAKIN' ridonculous funny), I'm missing the point of this ... ?
Is it the fact that flurry can work w/rapid shot and shuriken and haste, AND ki (only way to get 4 *best* attacks)? Yes - it does so by hitting EVERY attack made in the sequence with a -2 ...
The part in contention is Ki AND Haste at the same time as they provide THE SAME EFFECT that's limited EVERY WHERE ELSE in the game from combining.
Drop off one of the 16's, and keep 3 from EITHER Haste, OR Ki burn, and I'd have no problem with these things all combining.
Feat-based extra hits all come at -X on the "to hit" chance. It's a trade-off and a penalty/balance point/whatever to the whole situation of granting extra attacks. It's clearly NOT a free extra attack at full bab in any way, shape, or form - regardless of what feat you want to point at and use.
:shrugs:
Again, though, as a house rule - knock your socks off. ;-)
Except you can't be sure it's a house rule. The way to look at this that I've always seen used, in messageboards and in play, up until a couple days ago with a few of these threads, is that the stacking restriction on haste isn't restricting because it's an extra attack, it's because haste and speed are both...haste. The requirement to make a speed weapon (or boots of speed) is the haste spell, and the spell doesn't stack with itself in spell form or in magic item form.
Either way though, at the moment, both allowing them to stack and disallowing them to stack are house rule and RAW. Until we get word from on high, anyway.
Same effect =/= same source.
And it isn't even same effect -- it's similiar effect different source, different type.
It's kind of like saying you can't have a resistance bonus to save throws because you have a luck bonus to the save throws already.
Just because you are under the effects of good hope doesn't mean that the effects of other such things don't work even though they "do the same thing".
It has to be:
(Same effect AND same type) OR same source.
Haste and Ki are not same effect and same type.
Hmm ... interesting pulling it out *that* far like a "luck" or "deflection" bonus sort of thing.
I still hold by the notion that if a whole system was revised to specifically re-work the impact of like 1 spell (yes, hyperbole, but 3.0/3.5 Haste change was a big deal), and then everything in the revision goes OUT of it's way to make sure there really *is* only the one source of this effect period (ie: no instances of gaining additional attacks in 3.x w/out POINTEDLY being tied/limited to 1 source) - it tells me something. I tells me the intent is clearly to NOT let *any* more than 1 free, "no strings attached" attack to get tacked onto whatever the base critter is (human, monster, or somewhere in-between).
Now along comes PF - they're lookin' to jazz things up and help monks out (god knows they needed it), but are they *also* looking to create a 1 particular case exception/loophole to allow something that the rules they're basing things off of went SO far out of their way to allow in the first place? Even for the one class?
I just don't buy it. I can't look at that and think that they honestly intended this ONE case to allow/introduce a whole sub-set of rules and circumstances to make the monk far more "outside the rules" than all other characters.
Giving them a boon on the "to hit" is easy enough - but then it's getting worked over by the RAW crew here trying to slip by PA junk (that I'm pretty sure never crossed the minds of the dev's since they clearly stated a line generally about "in all other cases they have normal bab.") It's pretty clear they intended to give a boon (easier/higher hit % for the monk's flurry) and wanted to find some *easy* way to do this, but still limit it. They tossed in the line, but because of the phrasing of this new animal, the lawyers are having a field day with it - leaping FAR beyond the intent.
Same thing w/the Ki business. It's a great, flavorful idea that just makes sense for Monks - really, truly it does and it's great. But it's not from 3.x and didn't have the same sort of vetting to it - it's just been tossed out there, in a similar manner as the above getting better to hit bonus for monks. All effects it grants are clear and easy to follow apply, and then there's the haste-like effect where it's doing everything *just* like haste, but it's a *new* thing called Ki that's "supernatural" and is more or less "magic" and yet again - lawyers are having a field day with something that's pretty much not supposed to be combined with other like-minded effects.
:shrugs:
Until developers arrive, I guess there won't be a solid answer - but man, I'll tell you what - if they *do* intend to make special cases and allowances for the monk, they're breaking the standards *big* time to do so and creating little loop-holes like crazy that make much of the other "non-stacking" junk seem foolish as well. If one case of stacking is being broken, why not another? or another? in fact - why have stacking at all anymore if it's going that far? {mind you, I'm not all that opposed either way, BUT just carrying out the long division here so to speak - if you break *one* stack cap - what's to keep the others in place?)
That *is* a rather different take, though - I'll grant you guys that.
For my $ - I don't care *what* you call it, as long as there's some sort of stack guideline/limits you can't burn Ki to get Haste +1 MORE attack if you're already hasted up.
3.0/3.5 Haste change was a big deal
Yes, it was. It wasn't because people were getting extra attacks though (it was a standard action extra in 3.0 - still only 1 attack). It was a big deal because, in 3.0, haste let people cast 2 spells every round for its duration. Casting haste was "I have spontaneous quicken spell with no level adjustment for this entire combat".
3.0/3.5 Haste change was a big dealYes, it was. It wasn't because people were getting extra attacks though (it was a standard action extra in 3.0 - still only 1 attack). It was a big deal because, in 3.0, haste let people cast 2 spells every round for its duration. Casting haste was "I have spontaneous quicken spell with no level adjustment for this entire combat".
Also true ... I wasn't thinking of magic, w/so much melee-heavy focus.
I still think it's the *same* thing and should be restricted.
|
|
Well, I'll be similarly blunt. It doesn't matter if you two talked about limiting the fighter to poison frogs. What matters is the limitations that were actually posted, agreed with, and expected by the rest of the community for you to fulfill. Trying to claim after the fact that there were additional requirements is just wrong. Also, as a side effect of normal gameplay, just about any piece of equipment is similarly easy to get rid of.
My stoneskin gives me dr 20/facts :)
If the *cough* management is just letting us "players" decide, then again both are just fine as rai since obviously there isn't a specific interpretation they're backing. Which moves right back to the box.
The problem with haste WAS that it granted an extra action, instead of an extra attack. Two or even three spells/round kind of broke the mechanics of spellcasting.
Obviously my opinions on the monk attack are well-known already, as are yours. However, at this point I don't see any need to go and rehash the build over again since the last iteration covered attack chains with and without the extra attack.
Also, the issue you have with the monks enlarge doesn't really matter either, since we'll be rebuilding the fighter anyhow for better dpr if possible. Which will potentially include permanency spells.
So, I think tomorrow I'll start playing around with the fighter, going for more dpr. I'd still like to base it off of fightermans template though, since it was so well done. It'd make the recalculation go a LOT faster, and I imagine the min/max tweaking will be fairly low level.
Same effect =/= same source.
And it isn't even same effect -- it's similiar effect different source, different type.
It's kind of like saying you can't have a resistance bonus to save throws because you have a luck bonus to the save throws already.
Just because you are under the effects of good hope doesn't mean that the effects of other such things don't work even though they "do the same thing".
It has to be:
(Same effect AND same type) OR same source.
Haste and Ki are not same effect and same type.
One problem with this logical exercise: haste specifically says that it does not stack with SIMILAR effects. Similar is quite a bit different from "(Same effect AND same type) OR same source".
Well, I'll be similarly blunt. It doesn't matter if you two talked about limiting the fighter to poison frogs. What matters is the limitations that were actually posted, agreed with, and expected by the rest of the community for you to fulfill. Trying to claim after the fact that there were additional requirements is just wrong. Also, as a side effect of normal gameplay, just about any piece of equipment is similarly easy to get rid of.
In other words, "I don't care what the actual bounds of the character creation were, I'm going to say they're whatever works out best for me". Gotcha. Also, no, I already covered how difficult sunder/disarm are, and disjunction is the only thing that can permanently eliminate magical items as a side effect (rather than the intent), and it's exceptionally rare.
Non sequitur much? I never claimed to know what the intent was, merely that there is an intent and that it is known to at least one living, lucid person, thus collapsing the quantum state.You fail to understand Schrodinger's Cat. The cat is only both dead and alive because no one knows its state. That is not the case for a rule written by a still-living and still-lucid author. The Paizo staff do indeed know what the intent of the rule is; thus, no quantum trickery is applicable. Only one way of handling it is the intended way.Zurai, how can you know what the author intended?
But how is that useful to our understanding of the rules? I'm not having a go, i just find it unhelpful to say 'as intended' when we've got no way of knowing just what was intended.
|
|
No, more along the lines of I care what the ACTUAL bounds of the character creation were, not whatever you felt like adding later to the formally posted and agreed upon limitations.
Also, no, you gave your opinion that sunder/disarm is hard. I happen to disagree, as it's not terribly uncommon in the games I play in, whereas greater dispels are much more uncommon.
When you look at availability options, stealing/disarming/sundering comes into play a lot sooner than greater dispel, and persists as viable options through the remaining levels of the game.
Separation between personal experience and actual availability/usability in the game.
|
Same effect =/= same source.
And it isn't even same effect -- it's similiar effect different source, different type.
It's kind of like saying you can't have a resistance bonus to save throws because you have a luck bonus to the save throws already.
Just because you are under the effects of good hope doesn't mean that the effects of other such things don't work even though they "do the same thing".
It has to be:
(Same effect AND same type) OR same source.
Haste and Ki are not same effect and same type.
One problem with this logical exercise: haste specifically says that it does not stack with SIMILAR effects. Similar is quite a bit different from "(Same effect AND same type) OR same source".
Well, I'll be similarly blunt. It doesn't matter if you two talked about limiting the fighter to poison frogs. What matters is the limitations that were actually posted, agreed with, and expected by the rest of the community for you to fulfill. Trying to claim after the fact that there were additional requirements is just wrong. Also, as a side effect of normal gameplay, just about any piece of equipment is similarly easy to get rid of.In other words, "I don't care what the actual bounds of the character creation were, I'm going to say they're whatever works out best for me". Gotcha. Also, no, I already covered how difficult sunder/disarm are, and disjunction is the only thing that can permanently eliminate magical items as a side effect (rather than the intent), and it's exceptionally rare.
Rapid shot is a similar effect. It is an ability that grants you 1 extra attack in a full attack at your highest base bonus. Thus, by your logic, does Rapid Fire stack with haste?
|
|
So, I did some digging and here is the closest that I have seen to an "official" answer on this:
Here is what he said:
The haste spell and speed weapon descriptions specifically note that they are not cumulative with similar effects, which seems like it would include the Monk's ki power.
So the most attacks a monk can have is 8: The 7 attacks they have from level 16 or above, plus one additional attack granted by either a spent ki point, a haste effect, or a monk weapon/amulet of mighty fists with the speed enchantment.
so, so far it does appear that I am incorrect and that they would not stack. But Honestly I can see arguments for it going either way (and can many others, otherwise there would not be so many posts on this in the forums). I think that an errata might help this matter along and better dictate what RAI was on this RAW..
So, *basically* if the designer is to be taken as "official" (why wouldn't we, though?), then the errata will have a line that adds something stating that the "... ki-attack is not combinable with similar effects such as haste" or something to this effect.
Which, stubborn RAW-types will exploit LIKE CRAZY to try and pull it off until something "official" is released, officially changing the wording, and thus closing the potential for the loop hole to exist.
:shrugs:
Whatever - it's good enough for me to stick to straight comparison rules for the most part as that's *already* implied (to me at least) to be a "similar effect" and so it's not combining/working together.
I'd be JUST AS COOL, however, if a GM decided to make a house-rule exception to the above. It's a house rule, and I'll give the GM the benefit of the doubt every time - his game, his rules (or her - I'm an equal opportunity gamer. ;-) just haven't had the experience of finding a lady w/lot's o'house rules under her belt).
The *only* grating point was that the "house rule" was being held up as an official DPR comparison point - which it's not.
Finding the developer's post would seem to indicate even further that it should *not* be allowed to stack.
:shrugs:
Again - "official" DPR comparison point = terrible to include this for calculations. House-rules active - knock your socks off and go to town!
Big thanks to Happler for the info and legwork!
|
|
Which is why I've made such a big point about looking for the correct answers. Though it looks like according to that post that the monk is capped at 8 attacks total/round, so medusa's strike doesn't work anymore either :P
Also cuts out the crazy shuriken monk too. No rapid shot.
Indeed, thanks to Happler for some excellent detective work :D
Rapid shot is a similar effect. It is an ability that grants you 1 extra attack in a full attack at your highest base bonus. Thus, by your logic, does Rapid Fire stack with haste?
Rapid Shot is not that similar. It is a non-magical, permanent effect that grants you 1 extra attack in a full attack at your highest base attack bonus and penalizes all your attacks in return.
Dissimilarities with haste are noted in italics. The only dissimilarity ki pool has is that it doesn't grant +1 to hit (which most other specifically noted non-stacking extra attacks don't, either).
Which is why I've made such a big point about looking for the correct answers. Though it looks like according to that post that the monk is capped at 8 attacks total/round, so medusa's strike doesn't work anymore either :P
Also cuts out the crazy shuriken monk too. No rapid shot.
Indeed, thanks to Happler for some excellent detective work :D
well, designers can make bad rulings too, or ones they later revise. They are not infallible, like the Pope.
I would think Medusa's is not technically a haste effect, because its conditional, and non-magical, much like rapid shot. Its the monk taking extra advantage on compromised opponent. Thus it stacks with the ridiculous number of attacks monks normally get.
Thing is monks just get lots of attacks. That's their way of doing extra damage, in leu of sneak attack, feats, smite, etc. They can be optimized in ways that begin to wonk the system, but really, is that any different than any other class that gets optimized? A combat rogue (one optimized for combat), with a high strength, sneak attack, TWF feats, and haste does very good damage when they are in conditions that favor them. DMs decide when the rules get borked by optimization, and they can house rule to fix it.
Unless it is stated in the description of ki pool that ki spent on an extra attack is a haste effect, I say its fair game. What's the worst that happens? A monk spends resources to get an extra attack. News at 11...
... rulings too, or ones they later revise. They are not infallible, like the Pope.Yeah guys
Well when I typed that, I was trying to be slightly toung in cheak ...
well, designers can make bad rulings too, or ones they later revise. They are not infallible, like the Pope.
I would think Medusa's is not technically a haste effect, because its conditional, and non-magical, much like rapid shot. Its the monk taking extra advantage on compromised opponent. Thus it stacks with the ridiculous number of attacks monks normally get.
Thing is monks just get lots of attacks. That's their way of doing extra damage, in leu of sneak attack, feats, smite, etc. They can be optimized in ways that begin to wonk the system, but really, is that any different than any other class that gets optimized? A combat rogue (one optimized for combat), with a high strength, sneak attack, TWF feats, and haste does very good damage when they are in conditions that favor them. DMs decide when the rules get borked by optimization, and they can house rule to fix it.
Unless it is stated in the description of ki pool that ki spent on an extra attack is a haste effect, I say its fair game. What's the worst that happens? A monk spends resources to get an extra attack. News at 11...
Yet ... their intent remains quite clear.
Seriously, though ... the pope? game designers? really??