Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows


Homebrew and House Rules

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,667 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>

I remember those feats from Complete Warrior.

In general by the time you got them, they weren't worth having, which is kind of sad really. At least the Style feats from Ultimate Combat are worthwhile spending featy goodness on.


Well, some of them :)


Yes, their only problem is they address everything except the monk's core problem of enhancement.


The Style feats aren't bad, but they just reinforce the entire idea of the monk as a kung-fu master don't they? And some of them are weak for what they deliver.

MA


I was asked to put my monk redesigns up here.
(Greetings @ Dabbler)

So here they are:

The Fighting Monk

The Contemplative Monk (Beta)

Feedback as always welcomed.


I'm too lazy to go through this post and it's predecessor. So I ask why was the fob=twf ruling made again?


Apparently it was always that way, but nobody realised because of the wording and the precedent from 3.x.

Then they realised that almost everyone (including their own writers) hadn't realised that, and they had a lot of material out there refering to non-TWF flurries, and withdrew the clarification, and are thinking about it and the monk in general.

Interesting designs, I think the defensive bonus is a bit steep though. I agree with the ki-strike enhancement - it's pretty much what I used.

What I DID like was the path to perfection. Not as is presented, but as a means of giving the monk some kind of additional boost. I was toying with the idea of giving the monk a +1 inherrent bonus to a score at 2nd level and every four levels after that. In effect, it saves the monk the cost of manuals or tomes and gives them a bonus earlier, helping to combat MAD. Not sure if it would be unbalancing though.


Yea I just noticed that. Well since the concept of two weapon fighting in pathfinder assumes you have an off-hand this poses a problem to a monk that uses nothing but unarmed strikes as a monk who uses unarmed strikes has no off-hand. And thus he doesn't gain the extra attack from the off-hand nor does he gain any of the bonus off-hand attacks granted by the twf feat line. Then again that's the way I understand it.


The Contemplative Monk:

What I like:
- Path of Perfection idea but not as presented (makes all monks similar over time) but more like Dabbler suggested.
- monk disciplines in general (some are quit weak, though, e.g. Weapon training (especially as the monk is no proficient with any weapon), Slow metabolism)
- cat's eyes
- uncanny dodge
- clarification of abundant step (does not end turn)
- see the unseen (should be available earlier)
- feast of the stars (should be available earlier)
- spending ki to ignore hardness points equal to monk level

What I don't like:
- no flurry
- hit bonus is worse than for the core monk even with ki strike bonus
- bad saves (and divine grace is no compensation IMO)
- nerfed disciplines (denying stance, still mind,
- no fast movement (fleet of foot doesn't compare)
- no extra attack for 1 ki
- no bonus feats
- no weapon proficiencies
- healing others with lay on hands (I see the monk's powers turned inward on himself)
- slow fall as feather fall (too much like a magic spell). I'd prefer cat's fall which just lets ignore 10 feet per level or something like that.
- no stunning fist with additional conditions

I'd group the disciplines into at least 3 groups (level 1, 6, 11).

All in all the core monk gets more feats and class features, although some are weaker and not everyone likes the fixed selection.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
Apparently it was always that way...

"Legally" speaking, "it" is a matter of what is written in black and white on a page, and as far as flurry goes what was written was simply not concise and could be legitimately interpreted in more than one way. Multiple legitimate interpretations are the bane of any law or rule system for obvious reasons. I mean no disrespect to Paizo by saying that they might actually benefit from hiring a specialist legal consultant to comb this stuff - I bet there have to be at least a few professional law specialists who enjoy PnP, since rule sets are essentially law code.


BadBird wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Apparently it was always that way...
"Legally" speaking, "it" is a matter of what is written in black and white on a page, and as far as flurry goes what was written was simply not concise and could be legitimately interpreted in more than one way. Multiple legitimate interpretations are the bane of any law or rule system for obvious reasons. I mean no disrespect to Paizo by saying that they might actually benefit from hiring a specialist legal consultant to comb this stuff - I bet there have to be at least a few professional law specialists who enjoy PnP, since rule sets are essentially law code.

Would they be a.. Rules Lawyer? *rimshot*

Dark Archive

Funny thing worth pointing out, and I don't know if it's been mentioned before:

If it counts like TWF, all your extra attacks have to be made with your off-hand (not the attack you take first with the highest BAB).

Due to another ruling about how TWF works and whether or not you can mix attacks when not using the TWF Feats, all of your non bonus attacks can be made with any attack form you have.

Additionally, any of your attacks can by swapped for a a disarm, sunder, or trip maneuver.

And unless there's a rule against making an attack in a full attack against an inanimate object (I've seen it done many times, I dont think there is) you can also do that.

So if you want to make (almost) all your attacks with one weapon, you can.

Make a combat maneuver, crappy attack or attack on an inanimate object in place of your first attack. Make all other attacks in your attack routine using a single weapon, such as your polearm or temple sword.

So you have to give up your first attack on another weapon or combat maneuver. It's a nerf, but nowhere near as severe a nerf as many people think (half/half).

Dark Archive

What was the official resolution to this whole mess?


Darkholme wrote:
What was the official resolution to this whole mess?

No official ruling has been given, it kind of leaves the status of Monks in PFS up in the air at the moment, but home games have no such issue as the GM can give a ruling anytime he/she wishes.

The Devs have said they'd revisit the issue after Con season (Gen Con is in Augst I believe, so after that). So there won't be any ruling until then. Trust me, some of us are very aware of this issue, and if they are like me, are counting down the days until after Con season.


BadBird wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Apparently it was always that way...
"Legally" speaking, "it" is a matter of what is written in black and white on a page, and as far as flurry goes what was written was simply not concise and could be legitimately interpreted in more than one way. Multiple legitimate interpretations are the bane of any law or rule system for obvious reasons. I mean no disrespect to Paizo by saying that they might actually benefit from hiring a specialist legal consultant to comb this stuff - I bet there have to be at least a few professional law specialists who enjoy PnP, since rule sets are essentially law code.

Isn't that how they created 4e?

Dark Archive

Dabbler wrote:
BadBird wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Apparently it was always that way...
"Legally" speaking, "it" is a matter of what is written in black and white on a page, and as far as flurry goes what was written was simply not concise and could be legitimately interpreted in more than one way. Multiple legitimate interpretations are the bane of any law or rule system for obvious reasons. I mean no disrespect to Paizo by saying that they might actually benefit from hiring a specialist legal consultant to comb this stuff - I bet there have to be at least a few professional law specialists who enjoy PnP, since rule sets are essentially law code.
Isn't that how they created 4e?

Sounds more like Magic the Gathering. http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20120701.pdf

My point on using the same attack for most of flurry is still valid right? Is there anything to contradict it? I'm pretty sure if this goes through the way I suspect it will, 1-weapon builds have to do something nonoptimal with their first attack, and thats the only real change.


Darkholme wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
BadBird wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Apparently it was always that way...
"Legally" speaking, "it" is a matter of what is written in black and white on a page, and as far as flurry goes what was written was simply not concise and could be legitimately interpreted in more than one way. Multiple legitimate interpretations are the bane of any law or rule system for obvious reasons. I mean no disrespect to Paizo by saying that they might actually benefit from hiring a specialist legal consultant to comb this stuff - I bet there have to be at least a few professional law specialists who enjoy PnP, since rule sets are essentially law code.
Isn't that how they created 4e?

Sounds more like Magic the Gathering. Magic: The Gathering

My point on using the same attack for most of flurry is still valid right? Is there anything to contradict it? I'm pretty sure if this goes through the way I suspect it will, 1-weapon builds have to do something nonoptimal with their first attack, and thats the only real change.

LINKIFIED!

Dark Archive

Tels wrote:
LINKIFIED!

Right... {url}http://url{/url} doesn't work here.

But seriously. Have you taken a look at that thing? The comprehensive Magic the Gathering rules have to be one of the most technical documents I've ever read. I'm a programmer. I'm not unfamiliar with technical. lol.

Also, 2010+ edition magic the gathering core rules got rid of alot of the intricacies that I really liked in the game; and while I dont play frequently anymore, I find it annoying that I have to now state (when someone wants to play) that I'm not interested in the 2010 changes, and if I play it will be with the rules that were there from like, 2009 and before; so you can float mana between steps, mana burn is still a thing (Its something I have decks built around!) There is no cap on life, tokens are owned by the creating player, not the controlling player, etc. *shakes fist*

As for my question: That IS how it would work with these "clarifications" (errata, nerfs, or whatever else you may want to call them), right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heh, go ahead and take shots for the whole 'lawyer' thing... I probably would. At the end of the day though, all rules systems use a 'legal' framework; the only difference is that you can write them clearly and concisely, or you can not - and then have endless ambiguity and unclear 'clarifications'. Someone who had a solid understanding in logic and legal/rules systems would have seriously red-flagged flurry of blows as something that needed a better rules write-up. Overly technical systems are usually an indication that there was a massive failure to develop a concise system right from the start.

Dark Archive

BadBird wrote:
Someone who had a solid understanding in logic and legal/rules systems would have seriously red-flagged flurry of blows as something that needed a better rules write-up.

You don't need to have experience in law for these, just have an understanding of how the rules of logic work and apply them when writing and interpreting so that things are clear. In some cases you also want to have experience with either D&D munchkins or M:tG, as it will let you see the sorts of things people will come up with a bit easier.


You don't need to hire a lawyer specifically, no. It's just a natural place to start if you're trying to find a professional with that kind of practical experience to do a disinterested audit of whether what you're writing actually holds up. Not that a legal expert with a passion for rules systems and experience in munchkinism is necessarily who you want to spend more time with than necessary...

Dark Archive

lol.

Another set of people would be anyone who went to school for programming, circuits, electronic engineering, software engineering, or philosophy, as they all have required courses on logic and deductive reasoning.


Pretty much. The important thing, though, is whoever reviews a document should never be in the team that wrote it. This way, they have a fresh view on it and do not make the same assumptions that the writing team may have made.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darkholme wrote:


But seriously. Have you taken a look at that thing? The comprehensive Magic the Gathering rules have to be one of the most technical documents I've ever read. I'm a programmer. I'm not unfamiliar with technical. lol.

Star Fleet Battles.

I've seen it take 2 hours for people to just agree on which sub-sections of the rules they're going to play with. Nobody plays with all the rules. I've seen people show up with a 2.5 by 1.5 by 1.5 foot box full of books for a Star Fleet Battles game. The box is crammed full of rulebooks.

And nobody has all the books, just a subset of the rules.

Then they mix and match and figure out what they have in common, then which of the common books they want to use. Oh, and which versions of those rule sets, due to updates and errata.

Dark Archive

mdt wrote:

Star Fleet Battles.

I've seen it take 2 hours for people to just agree on which sub-sections of the rules they're going to play with. Nobody plays with all the rules. I've seen people show up with a 2.5 by 1.5 by 1.5 foot box full of books for a Star Fleet Battles game. The box is crammed full of rulebooks.

And nobody has all the books, just a subset of the rules.

Then they mix and match and figure out what they have in common, then which of the common books they want to use. Oh, and which versions of those rule sets, due to updates and errata.

...That's terrible.

Thats not even dealing with the technical nature of rules, thats all about poor game design.

THey should put all of the rules online, with the errata worked in, so everyone can find a common set of rules instead of having to match subsets. It's a boardgame, not an RPG where house rules are basically a constant throughout an ongoing campaign.


Darkholme wrote:
mdt wrote:

Star Fleet Battles.

I've seen it take 2 hours for people to just agree on which sub-sections of the rules they're going to play with. Nobody plays with all the rules. I've seen people show up with a 2.5 by 1.5 by 1.5 foot box full of books for a Star Fleet Battles game. The box is crammed full of rulebooks.

And nobody has all the books, just a subset of the rules.

Then they mix and match and figure out what they have in common, then which of the common books they want to use. Oh, and which versions of those rule sets, due to updates and errata.

...That's terrible.

Thats not even dealing with the technical nature of rules, thats all about poor game design.

THey should put all of the rules online, with the errata worked in, so everyone can find a common set of rules instead of having to match subsets. It's a boardgame, not an RPG where house rules are basically a constant throughout an ongoing campaign.

I think I've heard of a company that did something like that before.

Didn't they put all their material on a reference document for free, with all the errata, FAQs, changes and clarifications in easy to find locations?

Hmmm, I think it's called.. peezo? Paazo? Pazuzu? Ah, it'll come to me. :P

Dark Archive

And WotC did it for 3.5 (for the main books anyways) and for M:tG, and other companies do it too.

But again, thats less about the technical nature of good rules design, and more about making sure all the players have access to the rules.


Here is the latest of my updates/rewrites to the monk class:
New Model Monk.

Enjoy!

MA


I wouldn't call it a model, but it does look pretty good. Only complaint is that after all the discussion about attack enhancement, it offers nothing I could see in that department.

Dark Archive

I think if I were to remake the monk, I would start with the fighter or ranger, and then change them to be more monklike, while maintaining overall effectiveness as best as possible.

In the end it wouldn't look like a fighter or ranger, but it would be on the same powerlevel.


Any word from the devs yet?

MA


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nope,
I put up a very polite request for them to remember the FAQs, but nobody posted to the thread, so it quietly slipped down into oblivion. Hopefully they don't take that to mean nobody cares about the FAQs.


We have to wait until after Gen Con. They said they wouldn't be doing anymore FAQs or Erratas until Gen Con was done and over with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what would be a useful but simple change? Allow you to drop your next attack in FoB to make a further 5' step. So if you have attacks at, say, +6/+6/+1 and your enemy is ten feet away, you could make one 5' step (as standard) then drop the first attack, 5' step again and attack at +6/+1.


That's actually a very interesting mechanic Dabbler, although I think I would prefer to see the Monk able to make a number of 5-foot steps equal to their Flurry of Blows attacks. If they've got 6/6/1, they can take three 5-ft steps. Tie it into Fast Movement for limitations and the like.


Just chucking it out there. I think you should have to pay some kind of penalty for moving more than 5' in a full attack, but the monk is meant to be mobile, so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
Just chucking it out there. I think you should have to pay some kind of penalty for moving more than 5' in a full attack, but the monk is meant to be mobile, so...

Pay 1 ki point per 5-ft step? Or per round using that feature?


Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Just chucking it out there. I think you should have to pay some kind of penalty for moving more than 5' in a full attack, but the monk is meant to be mobile, so...
Pay 1 ki point per 5-ft step? Or per round using that feature?

Ouch. 1 ki per 5-ft step is really steep. I could live with 1 ki per round that lets you take a 5-foot step between attacks (as a swift action, so you can't spend ki to get an extra attack as well).

Master Arminas


Honestly? I really don't see anything wrong with allowing a Monk, and Monk only, to make a 5-ft step between each Flurry of Blows attack. It's not like he's going to become gamebreakingly powerful, he'll just be highly mobile, as he should be.

As long as it's simply limited to attacks granted by BAB and Flurry of Blows, not attacks from Haste, Medusa's Wrath, or other such abilities it should be fine. There are a number of influences where a martial artist wades into a group of enemies and making a bunch of lightning fast blows while moving between each attack.


Darkholme wrote:

I think if I were to remake the monk, I would start with the fighter or ranger, and then change them to be more monklike, while maintaining overall effectiveness as best as possible.

In the end it wouldn't look like a fighter or ranger, but it would be on the same powerlevel.

Were I king for a day, there would be EXACTLY 4 core classes, and everything else would be a product of multi-classing and Prestige classing.

Grunt.
Skill.
Devout.
Arcane.

Paladin? Devout & Grunt.

Monk? Grunt & Skill.

Ranger? As we know it is Grunt, Skill, & Devout.

Gunslinger and Barbarian would both be Grunts with some specific added options (ala feats) and Prestige class material with specific requisites.

Sorcerer would be a similar build on Arcane instead.

Not that I'm going to have an audience like Paizo does.


Something that has dawned on me that should probably be kept in mind:
If you're writing up suggestions for how Paizo should fix it's monks, you're practically guaranteeing you won't see those changes as official changes unless you stick a legal boilerplate at the end, giving the rights of your "intellectual property" over to Paizo.

I'm sure the last thing the guys over at Paizo want is an unexpected property lawsuit because they liked what they saw in a player's suggested changes. ;)


Neo2151 wrote:

Something that has dawned on me that should probably be kept in mind:

If you're writing up suggestions for how Paizo should fix it's monks, you're practically guaranteeing you won't see those changes as official changes unless you stick a legal boilerplate at the end, giving the rights of your "intellectual property" over to Paizo.

I'm sure the last thing the guys over at Paizo want is an unexpected property lawsuit because they liked what they saw in a player's suggested changes. ;)

Actually, I was recently made aware that, apparently, anything you post to these forums becomes the intellectual property of Paizo just to avoid that very issue.

Messageboard FAQ wrote:

Who owns my comments?

While Paizo Publishing does not pre-screen message content, Paizo Publishing does reserve the right to edit or remove submitted messages or material at any time. Paizo Publishing is not responsible for the content of messages submitted by users of the site. Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Publishing the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media.

Here's the FAQ about it. This is one of the reasons I stopped posting my own custom items to the board. I'd love to one day publish a little piece of interesting custom items for people to use in their games, but anything I've already posted to this board are now Paizo's to use as they see fit.


The issue, however, is that "forced agreements" like that usually don't end up holding weight in actual court.

Just something to keep in mind. :)


Fine - if Paizo want to use any of my ideas, they are welcome to them and I would be honoured. That should cover it!


Dabbler wrote:
Fine - if Paizo want to use any of my ideas, they are welcome to them and I would be honoured. That should cover it!

Same for me.

I herewith grant Paizo Publishing the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute the contents of postings on the Paizo Messageboards throughout the world in any media.


Well, Ultimate Equipment is now out and according to this post here, there is something for monks in it. But . . . maaaaan. Don't they every listen?

Looks like 3,000 gp x bonus squared for the price, worn on the torso, goes up to +7 (max +5 enhancement), has to have a +1 before special properties . . . and be used on one, that's right one attack each round.

Oh, you get to use it twice a round at BAB +6, three times a round at BAB +11, and four times a round at BAB +16. But any attacks of opportunity? Nope, don't get the bonuses? Well, unless you hold back a use for an AoO. Your flurry attacks? Can't get the bonus on all of them. Medusa's Wrath? Haste? Fa-get-ta-bout-it.

And they didn't put the special weapon property agile in it, apparently.

I . . . I . . . I am speechless.

Master Arminas


Two things MA

1. You choose before rolling so you can save it for AoO(though why you would I don't know)

2. Its only one bonus squared in the formula.

But I'll reiterate my frustration that once again its better for everyone else but the monk. Heck and eidolon can focus on one big attack (expanding as he gets more uses a round) and save over buying a AoMF. The monk is still better off paying for a pair of weapons at only 1/3 the cost more than he is using this item.


Talonhawke wrote:

Two things MA

1. You choose before rolling so you can save it for AoO(though why you would I don't know)

2. Its only one bonus squared in the formula.

But I'll reiterate my frustration that once again its better for everyone else but the monk. Heck and eidolon can focus on one big attack (expanding as he gets more uses a round) and save over buying a AoMF. The monk is still better off paying for a pair of weapons at only 1/3 the cost more than he is using this item.

Fixed, thank you Talonhawke. I meant bonus x bonus and wrote bonus squared (which it is) for EACH. Brain-fart! And I did say "unless you hold back a use for an AoO", or something like it. LOL

Agreed. I well and truly do not know what to say about this item. It just boggles the mind.

Master Arminas


Yeah sorry... I wasn't trolling you guys. That's the real deal. :(


I'm very, very sad. I was really looking forward to Ultimate Equipment, and the preliminary glimpses have just total shot down any chance there was of me purchasing the book.

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,667 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 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.