|
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Sean K Reynolds or Joshua Frost, issue a LONG overdue FAQ ruling on this topic! 400 pages of posts? In that FAQ, please directly address usage of the temple sword as an example.
I play a monk with temple sword, and one tablemate thinks "combination" means I can't attack twice with a temple sword, because that is not a combination by definition. The definition of combination needs clarifying for FoB. Is the same thing added to itself truly a combination? If the relevant text said "combination of unarmed strikes *AND* monk weapons", I'd agree. But it says "may" and "combination of US *OR* monk weapons", which is more vague, and could allow two TS strikes.
FoB states: "When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."
"As if using the TWF feat" refers only to a feat that lessens penalties for fighting with a weapon in each hand.
The rules for fighting with a weapon in each hand are as follows: "Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon...If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light." However, following normal rules for fighting with a weapon in each hand limits the temple sword to one attack, as it is held in one hand. The monk has unlimited "off-hands" to fill the second "weapon" attack. Or even if you treat the unarmed strike as primary, and the temple sword as second weapon.
However, again, the combination definition, and the word "OR" versus the use of "AND" applies now. Also, "may" is in question too.
I much prefer the 3.5E description of FoB: "She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired." Much clearer, and I think the intent of the PF monk FoB too. Maybe we just need to look to the past to see what the intention is.
My suggestion: ""When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). A monk may flurry an unarmed strike with a monk weapon, flurry two monk weapon strikes, or flurry two unarmed strikes."
Sean has ruled that you can't use the same weapon for all of your attacks.
Actually, because the rules say a monk's flurry is as if he's using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can't simply declare that he's using the same fist seven times. So there is something stopping him from hitting someone seven times with his left fist or a +2 flaming kama: the rules for how flurry works.
They also don't answer post just because people call them out by name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go, go, go. Pretty soon every thread on the front page will be on monks and flurry of blows. And then we will rule the universe! Mu-hahahahaha.
Master Arminas
And it's Sunday. I imagine the Paizo staff is home with their families and loved ones.
Master Arminas
Go, go, go. Pretty soon every thread on the front page will be on monks and flurry of blows. And then we will rule the universe! Mu-hahahahaha.
Master Arminas
Such is the ways of the cabal of pointy hat wearing gnome wizards!
:D
Sean has ruled that you can use the same weapon for all of your attacks.
Actually, because the rules say a monk's flurry is as if he's using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can't simply declare that he's using the same fist seven times. So there is something stopping him from hitting someone seven times with his left fist or a +2 flaming kama: the rules for how flurry works.They also don't answer post just because people call them out by name.
Your statement and his don't exactly match up...
|
|
Just imagine what it is gonna be like on Monday. Whole new wave of work-only forum types finding the thread and posting their variations of "this sux, the devs are fools!" "That's how I always thought it was, I'm the GM with the mostest!" and variations of the same. (Not making fun of people, rather providing humor in the spirit of lightening the mood.)
This is an issue that is under scrutiny. It is developing news. Nerd rage is fun on a Sunday afternoon. What scrutiny means isn't clear. I think it's gonna be a tough job to errata 3 years of monk statblocks, feats, styles, archetypes, etc. I'm not gonna be surprised if this one results in errata to the CRB to conform to the 3.5 variation that has been what most of the developers and authors had internalized and have used for the past three years. I guess it depends on how strongly the developers feel about the CRB text in comparison to how the game has actually developed and been reinforced over the last few years.
Your statement and his don't exactly match up...Sean has ruled that you can use the same weapon for all of your attacks.
Actually, because the rules say a monk's flurry is as if he's using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can't simply declare that he's using the same fist seven times. So there is something stopping him from hitting someone seven times with his left fist or a +2 flaming kama: the rules for how flurry works.They also don't answer post just because people call them out by name.
What is the difference? He is basically saying you have to use more than one weapon.
edit:I see. I meant to type "can't", not "can". I will edit it.
Your statement and his don't exactly match up...Sean has ruled that you can't use the same weapon for all of your attacks.
Actually, because the rules say a monk's flurry is as if he's using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can't simply declare that he's using the same fist seven times. So there is something stopping him from hitting someone seven times with his left fist or a +2 flaming kama: the rules for how flurry works.They also don't answer post just because people call them out by name.
What is the difference? He is basically saying you have to use more than one weapon.
edit:I see. I meant to type "can't", not "can". I will edit it.
The world is right side up again! Well... except for monks and their flurries :,(