|
Hey All,
I read a thread where someone stated "when there is a discrepancy between text and a table, the text always trumps the table".
Or something like that...
Anyhow, while I was re-reading the Monk's Flurry of blows I caught this;
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.
emphasis is mine.
In the table it shows that the monks FoB is not equal to his/her level, it is instead equal to his/her level -2. I've always used the figures provided in the table - have I been doing it wrong?
Thoughts?
The figures on the table include the -2 to hit from dual wielding. I believe, for the purposes of FoB, Monks gain the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, which has a -2 to hit if you're using a light weapon in your offhand.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The figures on the table include the -2 to hit from dual wielding. I believe, for the purposes of FoB, Monks gain the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, which has a -2 to hit if you're using a light weapon in your offhand.
Well, you don't gain the feat, you just have a special ability that functions very similarly - you could choose to also take the feat if you wanted.
But in any case, yes, the table includes the -2 to hit that's also spelled out in the Flurry of Blows ability.
|
|
The figures on the table include the -2 to hit from dual wielding. I believe, for the purposes of FoB, Monks gain the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, which has a -2 to hit if you're using a light weapon in your offhand.
I figured as much. From my perspective this would tend to support the argument that you would not (or should not) benefit from 2-handing a Temple Sword while using Power Attack as part of a FoB to gain the 3:1 return on damage - as the text would seem to indicate that you are (or should be) effectively "dual wielding" when using Flurry of Blows.
Obviously this ruling would be up to the individual GM - as a GM I'd still allow a Monk to 2-hand a 1-handed weapon as part of a flurry and get the 3:1... But I suspect that may be up for debate in a PFS game?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The figures on the table include the -2 to hit from dual wielding. I believe, for the purposes of FoB, Monks gain the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, which has a -2 to hit if you're using a light weapon in your offhand.I figured as much. From my perspective this would tend to support the argument that you would not (or should not) benefit from 2-handing a Temple Sword while using Power Attack as part of a FoB to gain the 3:1 return on damage - as the text would seem to indicate that you are (or should be) effectively "dual wielding" when using Flurry of Blows.
Obviously this ruling would be up to the individual GM - as a GM I'd still allow a Monk to 2-hand a 1-handed weapon as part of a flurry and get the 3:1... But I suspect that may be up for debate in a PFS game?
Actually, that's 100% legit (barring a very understandable houserule, of course).
As for the intent of "dual-wielding", Flurry of Blows does state "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat", and that does require using two different weapons/limbs for the attacks. However, you're also able to make unarmed strikes with any limb (so you could two-hand your sword and then kick) and it's already been well-established that a non-monk can TWF with a 2-handed weapon and armor spikes, the TWF intent doesn't really interfere with two-handing the temple sword for more Power Attack damage.
So in PFS, that's how it works.
What the others said. He only gets 1x str mod to damage from any attack in a flurry, but since PA for the 3:1 ratio only cares if you're using the (2H or 1H, not light) weapon in two hands, he would get the better PA bonus.
This is not overpowered. At all.
|
|
Don't get me wrong - I never thought it would be over powered. I was not aware of the 2-handing + Armor spikes being a legit combo for two-weapon fighting... Which lends further support to the monk gaining the 3:1 from power attack with his sword.
This actually makes the Monk one of the better TWF'ers as I assume there is nothing by RAW that precludes him or her from making every attack in his flurry with the Temple sword 2-handed... This would seem like a very viable strategy until the unarmed attack damage scales enough to tip the balance in their favour (I haven;t done the math but perpahs it never would?). Of course most if not all of the Style feats (many of which are pretty cool and flavourful) require 1 hand free or an unarmed strike (but kicks are good!)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I assume there is nothing by RAW that precludes him or her from making every attack in his flurry with the Temple sword 2-handed...
The Flurry rules state that you can make an extra attack "as though using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat". And the way TWF works is that you only get that extra attack by using a second weapon. So don't be surprised if your GM only lets you use that sword for half the attacks (either main or extra).
Does this mean that when a Zen Archer performs a Flurry of blows with his bow and arrow his attack bonus should be higher, as he is using a bow and arrow and not his entire body?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This, however, is not RAW and would be a house rule.I assume there is nothing by RAW that precludes him or her from making every attack in his flurry with the Temple sword 2-handed...The Flurry rules state that you can make an extra attack "as though using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat". And the way TWF works is that you only get that extra attack by using a second weapon. So don't be surprised if your GM only lets you use that sword for half the attacks (either main or extra).
Which part is a house rule?
The Flurry text says it functions like TWF. So that's RAW.
The TWF rules require a second weapon in order to get the extra attack. So that's RAW.
If Flurry works like TWF and TWF requires a second weapon, then Flurry requires a second weapon. How is that not RAW?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You are explicitly allowed to flurry with monk weapons. Not with monk weapons and your unarmed strike, not with monk weapons part of the time. With monk weapons. Period. End of story.
How exactly does anything I said contradict that? Of course you can flurry with monk weapons. You could have a temple sword in one hand and fling shurikens with the other. You could use a sai in each hand. You could two-hand your temple sword, drop it as a free action, quickdraw (via the feat) a second temple sword or other monk weapon, and attack with that.
What in the world did you think I said?
Does this mean that when a Zen Archer performs a Flurry of blows with his bow and arrow his attack bonus should be higher, as he is using a bow and arrow and not his entire body?
The Rapid Shot feat also grants an extra attack and also applies a -2 to all attacks. So it works out to be equivalent to saying the Zen Archer's flurry is based on Rapid Shot instead of Two-Weapon Fighting. Yes, this means that actually taking rapid shot is useless for a Zen Archer even though he can select it as a bonus feat (but it was useless anyway).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The words "any combination" show that a second weapon isn't needed.
Given that the word "combination" requires at least two things by definition, no.
Also, the words "a special monk weapon" indicated only a single weapon is needed, as "a" is always singular.
Not when it's used as part of the direct object of the sentence like that. The article used in identifying one component of the clause does not imply singularity or plurality of the entire sentence's subject. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the phrase "a special monk weapon" is parenthetically defined as "(kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)". "And" means plural. So either the monk weapon option of the flurry has conflicting definitions of plurality/singularity (in which case you'd need to show why the singular article takes precedence over the plural conjunction), or else neither word applies to the sentence in the way that you think it does.
Furthermore; certain variations, notably the zen archer / sohei flat out would not work if you required them to use two weapons to flurry.
The zen archer is the closest thing you have to a real point, but that can just fall under "specific beats general".
The words "any combination" show that a second weapon isn't needed.Given that the word "combination" requires at least two things by definition, no.
If you wanna be nitpicking, you are confusing "combination" with "Permutation", wich is a subcategory of "combination". In "Permutation" you can't replicate more than once a single element, while in an "combination" you can. So, if you have a red and a blu ball, R B and B R are 2 Permutation, while all R R, B B, R B, B R are 4 different combination. In short, a combination can be made with a single element.
I just wish Paizo hadn't related flurry to TWF at all. That wasn't how it worked in 3E, and the dragon magazine Barbarian variant and the Tome of Battle Wolf Fang Strike maneuver both referencing "two weapon fighting with unarmed strike" always annoyed the crap out of me becuase by the rules it's all supposed to be "one weapon" for mechanical purposes, so allowing it to TWF with itself is just weird and confusing.
*sigh*
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I will say that it's very possible ShadowcatX is right and it's not really supposed to require using more than one weapon/vector of attack. I'm just saying that, the way it's phrased, it's executed just like TWF. That's what it says.
Personally (as a PFS GM), I wouldn't investigate a player's announcements of damage totals that closely unless they were pretty crazy, so it's not really a huge deal.
In fact, ShadowcatX, if you want to start a new thread detailing our disagreement, I'd be happy to click FAQ on it. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just wish Paizo hadn't related flurry to TWF at all.
Relatedly, I wish they had picked a different name for the Maneuver Master's "Flurry of Maneuvers". People keep trying to apply restrictions from FoB to FoM (armor restrictions, what weapons you can use, etc), and also try to relate it to TWF. Ugh.
You guys can't be serious, can you?
The way you are interpreting these rules, the Monk is a vastly better sword fighter than the Fighter is. You're basically giving the Monk a 2-Handed weapon rapid shot. This is hugely unbalancing.
Flurry of Blows is clearly intended to be for multiple weapon fighting, not for multiple rapid strikes with one weapon. Most "Monk" weapons are one handed weapons specifically intended to be used in pairs, or double weapons like the Quarterstaff. You'll note that you aren't allowed 3:1 conversion from power attack with double weapons, why would they make so glaring an exception for the monk, and only with this one silly weapon?
Paizo was trying to give monks a sword option, not break the game.
|
As much as I would like to use the "two-handed flurry" for my potential future monk cohort, I will not. I am of the opinion that this is an oversight in the FoB description. As I see it, the reference to TWF is no accident. One could not simultaneously use two weapons and a two-handed weapon. I would house rule against "two-handed flurry" if I were the GM, and I will not use it as a player.
So there.
You guys can't be serious, can you?
Yes We Can!
The way you are interpreting these rules, the Monk is a vastly better sword fighter than the Fighter is. You're basically giving the Monk a 2-Handed weapon rapid shot. This is hugely unbalancing.
No, it's not. The Fighter is using a Falchion or Greatsword which are much better weapons, has weapon training, and likely has fighter-only feats like Specialization or Penetrating Strike. Monk hits weakly and less accurately but more often, Fighter hits harder and more accurately but less often. Or he has a reach weapon AoO build and just outshines monk even on attacks/round much of the time, too.
And lots of martial arts focused on sword fighting, there's nothing absurd with a monk who's good with a temple sword.
Flurry of Blows is clearly intended to be for multiple weapon fighting, not for multiple rapid strikes with one weapon.
Umm...the "classic" application is with unarmed strikes. Which is as textbook definition of "multiple rapid strikes with one weapon" as you can get. Since in the rules unarmed strike is one weapon.
Most "Monk" weapons are one handed weapons specifically intended to be used in pairs, or double weapons like the Quarterstaff. You'll note that you aren't allowed 3:1 conversion from power attack with double weapons, why would they make so glaring an exception for the monk, and only with this one silly weapon?
You can attack with one end of a Quarterstaff or any other double weapon and use it as if it were a regular 2H weapon. As can you with most 1H weapons (I think the only exceptions are the finesse ones), like...the club, also on the core monk weapon list.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Paizo was trying to give monks a sword option, not break the game.
Well, they didn't. So good on them.
Nothing prohibits a monk from using one weapon on his flurry or even one limb for those that want to say that an unarmed monk is simply attacking with differing limbs.
Heck a monk could be tied up and hung upside down and still headbut flurry.
As much as I would like to use the "two-handed flurry" for my potential future monk cohort, I will not. I am of the opinion that this is an oversight in the FoB description. As I see it, the reference to TWF is no accident. One could not simultaneously use two weapons and a two-handed weapon. I would house rule against "two-handed flurry" if I were the GM, and I will not use it as a player.
So there.
You're free to not use it, but keep in mind that the only advantage it gives is +1 damage per 4 levels if you're using power attack. That's it. You still do STR damage on each attack normally, not STR*1.5.
I feel like all this does is make the Monk worse than the class already is. First they nerfed brass knuckles, what next? Maybe in ten years when they do Pathfinder RPG 2.0 they'll fix my favorite class... Here's hoping something comes up in Ultimate Equipment.
Nothing prohibits a monk from using one weapon on his flurry or even one limb for those that want to say that an unarmed monk is simply attacking with differing limbs.
Heck a monk could be tied up and hung upside down and still headbut flurry.
I was wrong apparently back to the drawing board.