Zen Archer and Bowstaff Interaction

[Alwaysafk]

Could a Zen Archer Flurry with a quarterstaff if the quarterstaff was actually a longbow?

Flurry of Blow:

Starting at 1st level, a zen archer can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action, but only when using a bow (even though it is a ranged weapon). He may not make a flurry of blows with his unarmed attacks or any other weapons. A zen archer does not apply his Strength bonus on damage rolls made with flurry of blows unless he is using a composite bow with a Strength rating.

Bowstaff:

The bow that is touched takes on the rigidity and toughness of forged steel, allowing it to be used as a melee weapon. The spell allows a shortbow to be used as a club or a longbow to be used as a quarterstaff, although the bow retains its normal hit points and hardness. The bow’s enhancement bonus, if any, applies on melee attack and damage rolls. Additional weapon special weapon qualities also apply to melee attacks if such qualities can be added to a melee weapon.

[Kelsey MacAilbert]

This requires GM interpretation. I wouldn't allow it do to the fact that it is not being used as a bow and do to the fact that a Zen Archer is not supposed to be able to flurry with a melee weapon.

[Interzone]

I would think that the 'used as a quarterstaff' line in bowstaff would mean to treat it for all rules purposes as a quarterstaff when using it that way....

Then the Zen Archer, choosing to make melee attacks asks:

"is this a bow"?
and the rules answer:
"No, it is a quarterstaff"

[Alwaysafk]

Hehe, I'm really just doing this post to point out a interesting loophole in the text. I doubt my DM would allow it either, as he often uses his brain over arguing about RAW. However playing devil's advocate, a bow being used as a quarterstaff is still a bow. And the Zen Archer never says using a "bow to fire arrows". The spell also doesn't say you can't use said bowstaff as a bow as well...

Are their any other instances of something similar that have been faq'd?

[wraithstrike]

No. The devs know that loopholes exist in the game. They often recommend one to use "common sense". I am not saying your question is a bad question. I think it is a good one because it is a perfect example of when people should follow the intent of rules as opposed to the letter of the rules.

My favorite example:The "dead" condition does not state that you can not continue to take actions, while other conditions do, but you try to tell a GM that you are dead but still adventuring because the book does not forbid it, and he will still give you a brand new character sheet.