And if so can he dip a level of fighter or take heavier armor prof feats, so as to flurry in full plate?
And if so can he take the close weapon group at lvl 6 and flurry with a heavy shield weilded 2 handed in full plate while still keeping the shield AC via improved shield bash?
Thoughts?
Yes to all.
|
There is still some argument about this. It is obvious that the Sohei archetype adds to and does not replace the base monk stuff that it does not call out as replaced. See this thread: Click here
Here is what I had to say about it though many did not agree:
The armor proficiency text does not supersede the base monk text unless is specifically calls out that the sohei can flurry in armor. The archetype never mentions flurrying with armor. It does call out flurrying with non-monk weapons at 6th level and with a certain set of weapons. To get flurrying with non-monk weapons the sohei gives up purity of body, diamond body, quivering palm, timeless body, and tongue of sun and moon. But somehow to flurry in armor the sohei gives up nothing. Give me a break.
So why even give the Sohei armor? It provides the option to create a monk with less than ideal monk scores. WIS provides a nice armor bonus and affects your stunning fist DC. If you happen to have a bad wisdom then the Sohei, who gives you light armor and drops stunning fist for Devoted Guardian, is a good option. You could still flurry if you took off your armor. You could also flurry with a bow at 6th level. Not quite as well as a zen archer but the possibility exists.
edit: Notice that the sohei has several abilities that make it better with mounts (Handle Animal skill an Monastic Mount ability). People usually prefer charge as an attack action when mounted. The cavalier/sohei would be great for that. He still cannot flurry in full plate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why anyone says the sohei can flurry in armor of any type. There simply is nothing in the description of the archetype that says so. The archetype gets light armor proficiency, but nowhere does it say that the armor restrictions of flurry are changed. This is another case of "if you infer, you are wrong."
I find people's interpretation of this archtype strange. as several posters have pointed out it doesn't change flurry at all. it would be reasonable to assume the Sophie can flurry in light armor as a RAI but that nor the prevailing flurry in full plater are mentioned nowhere.
I believe it went like this:
When a character selects a class, he must normally choose to use the standard class features found in the class's original source—the exception is if he chooses to adopt an archetype. Each alternate class feature presented in an archetype replaces a specific class feature from its parent class.
All of the following are class features of the monk.
<snip>Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.
Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields.
When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.
Get's replaced by:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
A sohei is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor.
Thus the restriction is gone. RAW if not RAI.
except the restriction has nothing to do with the monks armor proficiency. it's connected to f.urry of blows and the Sophie specifically modifies that for non monk weapons but does not address armour.
that said it looks like the Sophie might get its ac and wis to ac bonuses in light armor as a rai at least.
This is not RAW, this is RAA (Reducto ad Absurdum). You are making the assumption that because the restriction is directly below the weapon and armor proficiency listing, that it is part of the weapon and armor proficiency listing. This is wrong, not RAW. The restriction is placed there for easy reference, so it does not need to be restated in 3 different ability descriptions.
Medium and Heavy load restrictions have nothing to do with being proficient with armor or weapons, but they are in that paragraph also. Does this mean that a sohei can flurry while carrying any amount of weight also?
Note: While I see little harm in letting them have it, I have no stake in this argument and I do not nor will I play a Sohei until an errata clarifies the RAW better. I just posted what I remember to be the original argument for it. :)
except the restriction has nothing to do with the monks armor proficiency. it's connected to f.urry of blows and the Sophie specifically modifies that for non monk weapons but does not address armour.
And that's where you are wrong. Every Monk Class Ability spells out that it can't be used in armor, except one. Monk proficiencies is the only part of the Monk Class Description that nixes FoB in armor, and that part is _replaced_ in the archetype.
RAW, they can. RAI? Who the f!!% knows, ask your GM.
This is wrong, not RAW. The restriction is placed there for easy reference, so it does not need to be restated in 3 different ability descriptions.
You mean, like they restate it for Fast Movement and AC Bonus?
I'm not even going to say what I think. I will just point out that reading through the posts above, most of which claim some form of "It's obviously RAW," or "it's obviously NOT RAW," that the only thing obvious is that's it's not obvious. In fact, I think it takes a somewhat impressive amount of presumptuousness to say your opinion is the clearly correct one when half the people disagree with you.
Bottom line, show your DM both sides of the argument and see which one he/she subscribes to.
so I relooked at the monk. and based on the 'if an archtype modifies a class feature rule' it looks like monks can by raw at least flurry in light armour. I personally don't have an issue with this.
what is making me wonder though is if the same rule would give wis and ac bonuses whil in light armour... which would quickly make it better than plate.
I just think the plate armour flurry bit isn't supported by the rules.
so I relooked at the monk. and based on the 'if an archtype modifies a class feature rule' it looks like monks can by raw at least flurry in light armour. I personally don't have an issue with this.
what is making me wonder though is if the same rule would give wis and ac bonuses whil in light armour... which would quickly make it better than plate.
Nope, wis to AC and speed both state, in their own section, they go bye bye if you wear armor.
I just think the plate armour flurry bit isn't supported by the rules.Sounds more like you just don't like the idea rather than you have any rules proof against it, am I correct?
in regards to the wis/ac if they have their own section then right it isn't supported.
in regarding the armour. my view is the granting of armour proficiency of light does not equal flurry in plate. there is no basis o suggest that light armor equals plate.
in regarding the armour. my view is the granting of armour proficiency of light does not equal flurry in plate. there is no basis o suggest that light armor equals plate.
I would highly recommend actually reading the sections being dealt with, as well as the rules about archetypes. The only question here is "Does the Sohei modify the Weapon and Armor Proficiency section, or replace it entirely?"
If one views it as a modification, then Soheis have standard Monk proficiencies and restrictions. In addition, they gain proficiency in all simple and martial weapons, as well as light armor. Flurry in armor is still prohibited.
If you views it as a replacement, then Soheis are only proficient in simple and martial weapons (rather than the traditional free monk weapons) and light armor. The language relating to use of Flurry of Blows while wearing armor is completely removed, meaning that it can be done in any armor one chooses (as well as under a medium or heavy load, or while wearing a shield).
There is really no interpretation of what is written to say that a Sohei can Flurry in light armor, but not heavy. If is a fine house rule, it would be fine if published as errata. But it doesn't fit with either available view of the section, and as such there is no foundation to argue that this is what the current rules say.
But there is no restriction agaisnt it, at least not a written one that can be cited, right?
maybe I should rephrase my question. why does addnt the ability to use light armour grant the ability to flurry in all armour? the archtype at no time ever addresses flurry other than thevweapon restrictions.
so why does giving the archtype light armour seem to equate to flurry in all armour?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
maybe I should rephrase my question. why does addnt the ability to use light armour grant the ability to flurry in all armour? the archtype at no time ever addresses flurry other than thevweapon restrictions.
so why does giving the archtype light armour seem to equate to flurry in all armour?
Sigh. Please, I directly addressed this. You are correct in that the archetype does not talk about flurry outside of weapons. The issue at hand is the Proficiency section. The section states:
A sohei is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor.
That is all. The question, then, is if this section is an addition to, or a replacement of, the standard Monk section (which, as has been repeatedly established, is the only section dealing with Flurry in armor).
If it replaces it, then absolutely no references exist to Flurry being prohibited in armor (and the other circumstances I have mentioned). None. Nothing about light armor, nothing about heavy armor, nothing. As such, they can as easily flurry in Leather as Plate.
If it modifies the section, rather than replacing it, then all of the restrictions still exist. That includes flurry in light armor, or any armor. That they gain proficiency in the armor is irrelevant. A normal monk is also free to take that proficiency, it is just a terrible option (as, according to the author, it was originally meant to be here). It certainly doesn't change Flurry.
These are the only options that exist. Modification or replacement. Saying that the Sohei can flurry in no armor but light simply isn't an option outside of house rules or possible future errata. If someone asks you "Do you take Door #1 or Door #2?" you can't say "1.5!"
The argument seems to be that the entire thing about monk restrictions is being replaced by this new one in the Sohei description, which doesn't say anything about restrictions for flurrying.
While it is probably more reasonable to cut half way and allow it in light armor, it really only goes one way or the other. Full plate or no armor.
I'm not even going to say what I think. I will just point out that reading through the posts above, most of which claim some form of "It's obviously RAW," or "it's obviously NOT RAW," that the only thing obvious is that's it's not obvious. In fact, I think it takes a somewhat impressive amount of presumptuousness to say your opinion is the clearly correct one when half the people disagree with you.
Bottom line, show your DM both sides of the argument and see which one he/she subscribes to.
Its not opinion, nor is it arrogance, when it is RAW. RAW, archetypes replace any ability they list. Sohei lists proficiencies. And proficiencies is the only place where it is stated that a monk may not flurry while wearing armor. It may not be clear, but that's the rules.
However, as has been pointed out by myself, the designer has said that this is not RAI. It should be errata'd or faq'd at some point.
Yes, it is arrogance, because everyone else is speaking from their interpretation of RAW, not what they consider to be opinion. "Your opinion is your opinion, but mine is the right one." I didn't say it's wrong, in fact I agree with your reading. All I said was presumptuous was the state that it's "clear" when an approximately equal amount of people feel one way vs. the other. That's sort of the definition of "unclear."
Yes, it is arrogance, because everyone else is speaking from their interpretation of RAW, not what they consider to be opinion. "Your opinion is your opinion, but mine is the right one." I didn't say it's wrong, in fact I agree with your reading. All I said was presumptuous was the state that it's "clear" when an approximately equal amount of people feel one way vs. the other. That's sort of the definition of "unclear."I'm not even going to say what I think. I will just point out that reading through the posts above, most of which claim some form of "It's obviously RAW," or "it's obviously NOT RAW," that the only thing obvious is that's it's not obvious. In fact, I think it takes a somewhat impressive amount of presumptuousness to say your opinion is the clearly correct one when half the people disagree with you.
Bottom line, show your DM both sides of the argument and see which one he/she subscribes to.
Its not opinion, nor is it arrogance, when it is RAW. RAW, archetypes replace any ability they list. Sohei lists proficiencies. And proficiencies is the only place where it is stated that a monk may not flurry while wearing armor. It may not be clear, but that's the rules.
However, as has been pointed out by myself, the designer has said that this is not RAI. It should be errata'd or faq'd at some point.
I don't think that it's arrogant to assume that the most reasoned explanation (that takes into account all of the official text) is the correct one, but maybe that's just me.
If the only place that mentioned that monks can't flurry in armor is in the armor proficiency section, and that section is replaced by text that *lacks* that stipulation, it seems pretty cut and dry. The only text that mentions not being able to flurry in armor is no longer part of the class.
That's why the terms RAW and RAI were coined, after all. If one is going to make an argument that ignores some of the text, it can't rightfully be called RAW, as it's ignoring what that W stands for.
If the line under the rules for archetypes was less explicit in what it said it replaced, I could see it being less clear.
Or if people are actually making up the lines from the text they are quoting, as I haven't fact-checked any of it, but I'd assume somebody else would have called them on it by now.
RAW is kind of irrelevant, as it doesn't fully exist.
Interesting. I agree it feels like something's missing, but that's flowing into RAI territory, as it's based off of intuition instead of what's actually down on paper. It feels like this argument is trying to use RAI to invalidate RAW, which makes it a bit messy if you're trying to come to a consensus.
Whether there were words that should have been put in that weren't is definitely an issue, but RAW is interpreting the rules using only the rules we have. After we settle on the RAW at my table, then we get down to what actually makes sense and pull out Rule 0 if need we it.
But for the record, I believe I agree with you in that I would appreciate a line from the developers modifying it.
I have a follow up question for you, though: If you believe the RAW is "irrelevant," and thus could not use that section of the rulebook at all, how do you come to a conclusion as to how it will be played at your table (if it comes up)?