Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows


Homebrew and House Rules

701 to 750 of 1,667 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Mikaze wrote:
Haven't monk fans waited long enough?

No.


Our seven hundreth and first post! TOZ is the winner! Terms and conditions apply to the contest eligability, and by winner we actually mean he receives a congratulations and no prize or other item of monetary value.

Master Arminas


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's awesome that you guys are willing to read the massive amount of discussion we've had about all of this, address it directly, face down the internet trolls (CR 20+ on a good day), AND say: "Yeah. It's a problem, and we want to fix it."

My hat is off to you, Mr. Reynolds.

Whatever else, I love Pathfinder, and I totally want to make Bruce Lee noises as I roll d20s, and know that the mechanics have my back. I just hope you guys can find a way to make it possible.

No matter what, I'll still be playing this game. The vast majority of players know that you guys put up with a LOT, and do a lot of work to make this game awesome.

I can't wait to see what happens next. Thank you for taking the time to address the boards and our concerns.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:

I just want to be able to play a monk that feels like a monk.

I get that there's a lot of frustration at inflammatory comments from the fanbase, but not a small amount of fan frustration stems from how a lot of the issues with the monk have been handled. From the "armchair developer" crack and getting lectured about how wanting VoP to work closer to something like the original VoP was wrong to this flurry clarification coming out three years after everyone else was taking it for granted on the boards and in the books that it worked another way, it just doesn't feel good to me a monk fan most days. This doesn't excuse bad behavior from some fans, but it does account for the why of some of it, and certainly accounts for the frustration even more fans that are posting civilly feel.

Right now I think most of us just want some hope that the monk is going to get better, and will be better able to live up to its flavor and, hopefully, less of a headache to make.

With so many possibilities put forth on the boards by monk fans on these very boards, there has to be something that can be put out in some form that could work. Make it a blog post. Make it an "alternate" monk write-up. Just something. At this point, many of us are probably willing to take a patch because an actual fix for the core class just seems to get further and further away every time a mention of it comes up.

Haven't monk fans waited long enough?

At this point, I'm beginning to think that a complete re-write of the Monk would be a good idea.


Mikaze wrote:

I just want to be able to play a monk that feels like a monk.

I get that there's a lot of frustration at inflammatory comments from the fanbase, but not a small amount of fan frustration stems from how a lot of the issues with the monk have been handled. From the "armchair developer" crack and getting lectured about how wanting VoP to work closer to something like the original VoP was wrong to this flurry clarification coming out three years after everyone else was taking it for granted on the boards and in the books that it worked another way, it just doesn't feel good to me a monk fan most days. This doesn't excuse bad behavior from some fans, but it does account for the why of some of it, and certainly accounts for the frustration even more fans that are posting civilly feel.

...

I think monks, as a whole, have benefited considerably from the Pathfinder releases since Core. Especially Ultimate Combat does a lot to make things interesting for the monk.

The Flurry issue came a little out of nowhere; but it'll be resolved (and odds are that it will be a semantic shift to make it come in line with peoples' expectations).

The vow of poverty (Paizo edition) is perfectly fine for me. I like that being poor sucks but has rewards. With the boost to the VoP that has become a sweet option in the right situation. I use it on an NPC (rivals to the PCs) to great effect (it goes very well with the Sensei archetype).

Silver Crusade

LoreKeeper wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

I just want to be able to play a monk that feels like a monk.

I get that there's a lot of frustration at inflammatory comments from the fanbase, but not a small amount of fan frustration stems from how a lot of the issues with the monk have been handled. From the "armchair developer" crack and getting lectured about how wanting VoP to work closer to something like the original VoP was wrong to this flurry clarification coming out three years after everyone else was taking it for granted on the boards and in the books that it worked another way, it just doesn't feel good to me a monk fan most days. This doesn't excuse bad behavior from some fans, but it does account for the why of some of it, and certainly accounts for the frustration even more fans that are posting civilly feel.

...

I think monks, as a whole, have benefited considerably from the Pathfinder releases since Core. Especially Ultimate Combat does a lot to make things interesting for the monk.

The Flurry issue came a little out of nowhere; but it'll be resolved (and odds are that it will be a semantic shift to make it come in line with peoples' expectations).

The vow of poverty (Paizo edition) is perfectly fine for me. I like that being poor sucks but has rewards. With the boost to the VoP that has become a sweet option in the right situation. I use it on an NPC (rivals to the PCs) to great effect (it goes very well with the Sensei archetype).

Post-Core releases have felt like a very mixed bag. Besides brass knuckles, an actual nice mechanical thing for monks(but unfortunately flavor breaking for many) that was yanked back then seemingly given back then yanked back again almost a year later, a lot of the archetypes have been nice to specific flavors of monks. But it's still hard as hell to actually make them. Much harder than making any other class actually resemble the character one wants at the very least. And the core elements that need help still haven't been addressed.

I'm glad someone actually likes the VoP, but that doesn't change the fact that things were rather nasty for those of us that hoped it would be something that could make gearless monks workable in standard adventure paths, something closer to the spirit of the original VoP. Our disappointment got us all labelled "powergamers" or "armchair developers" and remarks about how the VoP shouldn't be good for gearless monks because "Poverty sucks", as if any of us were unaware of that.

Spoiler:
I spent most of my childhood in just that. It doesn't get any less insulting or condescending when that quote gets trotted out as a dig against anyone unhappy with the UM VoP and who actually like the idea of supernaturally gifted ascetics again and again.

The point is, there's been plenty of vitriol thrown at every camp from every camp in this whole mess.

All that said, I want to be hopeful. It's just that after getting burned so many times, it's a bit harder to stay that way. But I'm trying anyway. After all, the Flowing Monk exists and Blood Crow Strike just got fixed recently. Jason Nelson and whoever made that latter decision have my sincere gratitude.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The PF VoP was horribly designed. What good is it to put new options into the game which suck on purpose?

The 3.5 VoP had the right idea, although it lacked in its details ( restricted to LG, too many bonus feats, no way to hit incorporeals ).


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

You are mistaken as to who is responsible for "every negative change" to the monks since they came out.

I am not functioning alone. The design team works together on these things. And before it goes to print, Jason reads all the rules content as a last-minute check.

How brass knuckles interact with monk attacks was a decision the design team reached after discussing it.

Monk vows were a decision the design team reached after discussing it. (Mind you, in the design turnover for the vow, the benefit was you got +1 ki for every 5 monk levels. So it's not like I took what was presented and nerfed it, I felt it needed more of a boost than as it was originally written. Clearly most people think it deserved more, but don't paint this situation like I did this to punish anyone or that I hate monks or vows.)

The wording for flurry of blows in the Core Rulebook was written by Jason (and as that TWF reference isn't in the Beta, it was probably added very late in the design process for the Core Rulebook). At the time, Jason felt his intent was clear. The blog preview for PFRPG monks shows flurry-as-TWF was his intent. "Sean's ruling" on how flurry works isn't my personal belief (derived independently with no input from Jason) of how the rule should work, it's the result of me checking and re-checking with Jason about it over the course of the boards discussion to make sure I understand what he meant by the text in the Core Rulebook.

As it turns out, the rules for the monk flurry aren't clear. I got it wrong when answering an earlier FAQ (perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough to Jason when addressing that FAQ issue, perhaps Jason misrembered that he changed how flurry works in PF). Other people on staff got it wrong when they built or developed stat blocks. Freelancers got it wrong when they wrote archetypes for the monk. Like much of the rules text in the Core Rulebook, the flurry text could really benefit from being rewritten and reworded. The design team hasn't...

Linkified so I can use it as a reference to rude people.


Alouicious wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I'm sorry, but you cannot blame freelancers for writing material that your company went on to publish in your official splatbooks. That's what playtesting and editing is for! If it were one or two whoopsies that would be fine, but nearly all monk material outside the Core book is suddenly being changed and disfigured.

Like I said...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Flurry... is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.

Most people who read it interpreted it wrong, and based their development and editorial decisions based on that wrong interpretation.

...which you then published in official books, despite being based on a faulty reading of the rule?

Hmmmmmm.

Yeah Paizo messed up. You can stop rubbing it in now. Maybe we can get FAQ's back.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

SKR reminds me a lot of Morello over at the League of Legends forums. Morello is the head (IIRC) of the Design and Balance team and with a competitive game, you'll see a lot of nerfs and buffs. When the nerfs come out, nobody likes it and there are plenty of "Morello Sucks" threads. This is despite the fact that he is just in charge of the team and doesn't make the full decisions, the team does. This whole "don't put your name on a brand" is a lame excuse to vent out frustration and I'd like to think our mothers also taught us about basic human decency. Someone has to let us know about the changes and there's really no reason to crucify someone over a game. It's a great game, yes. But still, when you step back into the grand scheme of things... there's very little reason to not approach these things with reason and levelheadedness instead of anger and passion.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Funny how one SKR's post gets more favorites than some of his "critics" have accumulated over their entire posting career.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Does {...stuff...} hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with {...other stuff...}.
[...]
I don't want the monk merely patched, I want it fixed.

That is very encouraging! Thanks, Sean!

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

But I don't know that the monk can be sufficiently fixed without requiring significantly more explanatory text in the Core Rulebook--which we can't add without messing up the layout for pages and pages [...].

Like Master Arminas I think that you can fix the rules without breaking the layout.

My proposed changes:

Quote:

Monks should have full BAB.

This would just change the entries in the table and you could drop Maneuver training, saving some space. This would make to hit calculations less complicated and would help with the hitting problem.

EDIT: it might create problems with too high CMD for monks, though. Not sure about that.

Quote:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may only attack with unarmed strike, special monk weapons and disarm, sunder and trip combat maneuvers, using any combination of these. When flurrying the monk uses the flurry BAB listed in the table instead of his normal BAB. For purposes such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class or the effect of feats like the bonus for combat expertise or power attack, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows.

No need to enumerate the special monk weapons. This not only saves space but works with monk weapons added in supplements, too.

No need to describe the attack number progression in words. Just list it in the table. I would suggest the following progression to make it smoother (you might even drop the penalty of -1 I used):

Level Flurry BAB
1 +0/+0
2 +1/+1
3 +2/+2
4 +3/+3
5 +4/+4

6 +5/+5/+0
7 +6/+6/+1

8 +7/+7/+2/+2
9 +8/+8/+3/+3

10 +9/+9/+4/+4/-1
11 +10/+10/+5/+5/+0
12 +11/+11/+6/+6/+1

13 +12/+12/+7/+7/+2/+2
14 +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3
15 +14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4

16 +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5/+0
17 +16/+16/+11/+11/+6/+6/+1
18 +17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2
19 +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3
20 +19/+19/+14/+14/+9/+9/+4

At 4th level, I'd suggest to make the following changes and additions to ki strike and ki pool (suggestions from Master Arminas, slightly reworded to make it shorter):

Quote:
At 4th level, ki strike allows his unarmed strikes to be treated as +1 weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction and affecting incorporeal creatures (he doesn't actually gain an enhancement bonus). At 7th level and every three levels gained thereafter, this 'effective bonus' increases by +1 to a maximum of +5 at 16th level. This lets his unarmed strikes bypass cold iron and silver at 10th level, adamantine at 13th level (ignoring hardness as well), and alignments at 16th level.
Quote:

A monk can spend 1 ki point to gain an additional attack at his highest attack bonus when he charges, uses the Spring Attack Feat, or makes an attack as a standard action.

More text than before but I think with the shortened flurry description and the dropped Maneuver training we should still be on the plus side.

Furthermore I'd like to support the following suggestions from Master Arminas:

Quote:
Reduce wholeness of body to 1 ki and have it heal 2d8+Wis mod+class level as a standard action. OR spend 2 ki to heal as a swift action.
Quote:
Would really like to see abundant step be a true move action that doesn't end your turn.

Actually Master Arminas suggested to change abundant step further so that it "lets the monk take willing creatures with him". While this would be nice I don't think it necessary (as opposed to making it a true move action).

Adding the Greater combat maneuver feats to the monk's bonus feat lists would be great, too.

Some miscellaneous change ideas:
- spend one ki point as a swift action to get +4 to Diamond body (SR) for 1r (11th level)
- add +4 to initiative for 2 ki (7th level)
- add Wis modifier to initiative in addition to Dex modifier (thereby reducing MAD)
- ki pool is equal to monk level + Wis modifier (the Extra Ki feat then would give +4 ki instead of +2)

To fit these into the text without breaking the layout might require to drop redundant text from Unarmed strike like already suggested by Master Arminas.

I would not be averse to a damage bonus (equivalent to the monk's AC bonus) for unarmed strikes and attacks with monk weapons but that's on the bottom of my list.

Thanks Sean, to you and the rest of the Paizo team, for working on a real fix of the monk!
I'm looking forward to it!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

BTW., I am also grateful that the developers are working on this. It has been an issue for a long time.

I'd love to see a "top issue" poll one day, where we can vote on certain controversial topics which we would like to have an open discussion with the designers about the topic of why exactly those aspects of the game are designed that way. I sure as hell would love to hear about the rationale for making Mirror Image even more overpowered and other stuff like no alternatives to the christmas tree problem.

Oh, well, it's a pipe dream of mine. ^^


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
This may seem like an odd question, but why can't the way most people seem to have reading it become the right interpretation? People have been using the wrong interpretation to build feats, class abilities, and a flourishing plethora of archetypes referencing a legitimate interpretation of the rules as they're written (if not intended). The rules and wording in the monk don't have to change at all, just the intent.
I make no promises, but that is a likely possibility.

Yay! I love the old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Flurry of blows isn't broken as interpreted. Lot's of other monk abilities are (and I do not mean that in a good way, they are either useless or require a 'feat tax' to make them in any way viable. This has to be fixed) but FoB isn't one of them. Awkward and confusing, but not broken.

magnuskn wrote:
What good is it to put new options into the game which suck on purpose?

I can't help but second this sentiment. WotC made a big thing out of presenting lots of options and deliberately making some of them bad options - their logic was that system mastery would be rewarded by good feelings. The converse, that the lack of it was being punished, never seemed to occur to them.

There should be good options, and less obvious but maybe slightly better options, but options that deliberately suck shouldn't be there. Everything should have a use, a function, a situation in which it works.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Funny how one SKR's post gets more favorites than some of his "critics" have accumulated over their entire posting career.

Note that some people "favorite" any developer post so they can track it easily by referring to their favorites list later.

(There are certainly posts that I "like" but I do not favorite them because I don't want them showing up in my list later, because I use that for referring back to things later, and posts where I don't necessarily agree with someone, but will favorite for easy tracking. Yes there's listing as an option too but it's easier to get at favorites by a couple clicks.)

I'm not saying that other people should be favorited more, and I am not saying that people don't like Sean or favorite his posts for other reasons than he is a developer. I am saying that number of favorites--especially when looking at the number of favorites on a developer post--isn't really a reliable way of confirming the veracity or popularity of someone's statements.

After all, even MY posts get favorited sometimes.

Now back to your regularly scheduled monk discussion.


My flurry suggestion needs a clarification about BABs from other classes. I am of the opinion that flurry should be tied to monk levels, so I would suggest the following (added in bold):

Quote:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may only attack with unarmed strike, special monk weapons and disarm, sunder and trip combat maneuvers, using any combination of these. When flurrying the monk uses the flurry BAB listed in the table instead of his normal BAB. For purposes such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class or the effect of feats like the bonus for combat expertise or power attack, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus. The BAB from other classes does not change the number of attacks, i.e. a fighter 19/monk 1 would flurry with +19/+19.

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows.

An alternative flurry definition - which I like even better - would be the following (again assuming full BAB):

Quote:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may only attack with unarmed strike, special monk weapons and disarm, sunder and trip combat maneuvers, using any combination of these. When flurrying the monk may make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus.

At 8th level he may make a second additional attack at -5.

At 13th level he may make a third additional attack at -10.

At 18th level he may make a fourth additional attack at -15.

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows.

This would tie the additional attacks nicely to the monk levels (guarding against dips) and result in the flurry BAB listed below. Note that I continued the progression of additional attacks every 5 levels up to level 18 which would result in 8 attacks. This might be too much and could be stopped at level 13 (the regularity of the progression has been broken at the beginning as well, where it starts with level 1 and not with level 3 like it might be expected).

There might be a penalty of -1 or even -2 (like with the current monk) imposed on flurry attacks but for the moment I chose not to do this to fix the "hitting" problem.

Level Flurry BAB
1 +1/+1
2 +2/+2
3 +3/+3
4 +4/+4
5 +5/+5

6 +6/+6/+1
7 +7/+7/+2

8 +8/+8/+3/+3
9 +9/+9/+4/+4
10 +10/+10/+5/+5

11 +11/+11/+6/+6/+1
12 +12/+12/+7/+7/+2

13 +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3
14 +14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4
15 +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5

16 +16/+16/+11/+11/+6/+6/+1
17 +17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2

18 +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3
19 +19/+19/+14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4
20 +20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5

Actually I could even imagine (if using full BAB and no penalty) to gain flurry of blows at level 3 and not at level 1 (so flurry would be like "one additional attack at level 3 and every 5 levels after up to level 18, with penalties of 0, -5, -10, -15"). Maybe the monk should start with a ki pool at level 1 in that case as well, so he could still make a second attack. I would increase the ki pool by 2 points in that case (2 + half monk level + Wis modifier).

Quote:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may only attack with unarmed strike, special monk weapons and disarm, sunder and trip combat maneuvers, using any combination of these. When flurrying the monk may make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. For every five additional monk levels he may make another additional attack at a progressive -5 up to 18th level where he may make a fourth additional attack at -15.

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows.

Resulting in the following nice progression:

Level Flurry BAB
1 +1
2 +2

3 +3/+3
4 +4/+4
5 +5/+5

6 +6/+6/+1
7 +7/+7/+2

8 +8/+8/+3/+3
9 +9/+9/+4/+4
10 +10/+10/+5/+5

11 +11/+11/+6/+6/+1
12 +12/+12/+7/+7/+2

13 +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3
14 +14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4
15 +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5

16 +16/+16/+11/+11/+6/+6/+1
17 +17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2

18 +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3
19 +19/+19/+14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4
20 +20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5


Welcome back, Sir Reyolds!

I have sorely missed you and your FAQ's.

Thank you for yours and the other developers and moderators time and consideration on this matter. The support you and everyone else at Paizo supplies for the Pathfinder system is greatly appreciated by both myself and my players.


A lot of people got the intention of the developers on FoB.

I would suggest changing the wording from "any combination" to "any evenly chosen combination".

Simplicity itself.

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

And since I stopped posting rules clarifications and FAQs, there have been zero new FAQs posted.

Take that as you will.

You realize, some people will take that as a win?

Honestly, having been away from this discussion for a while, I think there's a few important things that have come out. All this is just my opinion but here goes:

1) Paizo needs to pay more attention to what they publish and try to catch mistakes like this before they get printed, and especially before they're printed in every product for years.

1a) Fans need to realize that no matter how much attention gets paid to stuff like this, mistakes happen and further realize that many more mistakes do get caught on the editing floor, mistakes that we never see.

2) Referencing things by page number for the core rule book is bad if that means you can't update the core rule book as needed. Surely there could be a fix to this, insert a page that simply isn't numbered, or just a note saying that everything past page X is moved back 1 page.

3) When you get a large enough group of people, something will upset someone, no matter what that something is. There's nothing to be done about that.

3a) When something upsets virtually everyone, something needs to be done about that.

4) When you're the face for a company and that company does something to upset people, you will take backlash for it.

4a) Just because someone is a face for a company doesn't mean he controls everything about that company or that he deserves to take a backlash for their decisions.

5) While the backlash here has been very bad for the Paizo staff, there might be a silver lining to that backlash. People only get upset over things that matter to them. Judging from appearance you have put out a product that matters quite a lot to quite a lot of people. Congratulations on that.

But anyways, that's what I see in all this. As to the actual thread topic? Its already house ruled and hasn't been an issue to me and the group I'm working with.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The devs write the product well enough that we pay for it. The occasional mistake is going to happen, and generally they make an effort to fix them quickly and fairly.

This will be less frequent if you are a jackass to them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
The devs write the product well enough that we pay for it.

Well, y'all do anyway. :)


You also have to remember that we are a small minority on the forums and I doubt paizo makes business decisions based on forum complaints i still plan to buy there products. in reality they are under no obligation to fix anything.


Weslocke wrote:
A lot of people got the intention of the developers on FoB.

This is true. It is also true that a lot didn't. Some that did then looked at what was published after and thought they must have had it wrong and changed it.

Just changing the wording doesn't help those that built their monks on the assumption that (as proven, so they thought, by examples in other books) FoB was NOT like TWF save in the final attack bonus and number of attacks. They now have to change their character design for the worse.

Changing the intent to the interpreted version that any combination really does mean any combination (including one weapon for all attacks) does not make a jot of difference to those that used the TWF interpretation save that they now have more options available.

If it isn't broken to use the single-weapon-flurry interpretation (and I have seen no actual evidence that it is), and when using that interpretation causes the least disruption to the various players everywhere, it makes sense to use it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
The devs write the product well enough that we pay for it.
Well, y'all do anyway. :)

Complaining about product you spend no money on is so un-American. ;-)


I *DO* buy all the setting-neutral books (Core Rulebook, APG, UC, UM, Bestiaries, etc).

For myself, I made a simple rule that Monks cannot use the same attack twice in a row. So they have right/left hands, elbows, knees, feet, and headbutt as Unarmed Attack choices (but they all have the stats mechanically). They can mix these with weapon attacks as they see fit, except they can't repeat the previous attack.

For example, you can have left hand/right foot/kama. Or Kama/Right Foot/Kama/Right Foot.

Dark Archive

Like I said, item fix.

They can't change the BAB because HD is married to it.


"Least disruption" among players on this forum?
Quite possibly.

"Least disruption among players everywhere?"
As you said, Dabbler, I have seen no actual evidence of this.

The forums cannot and will never represent an accurate crossection of Pathfinder players.

701 to 750 of 1,667 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.