Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows


Homebrew and House Rules

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,667 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

The alternative is to say nothing and get nothing.

The only reason the topic is a topic is because...well...it is a topic of discussion.

@Cheapy - The question is what do the Devs think the problem is, and my question for you is what do you think the monk was supposed to me.

I think it was meant to be a mobile melee class with some spell-like abilities.

Compare to the Ranger, which is a skill/melee class with minor spell abilities, or to the Bard which is a skill/casting class with 3/4 spell abilities.

The monk shouldn't damage with the big boys, and it will never have spell like abilities that even reach bard level.

There are currently strong monk builds. They aren't unarmed.


I dunno, I posted a strong unarmed monk build earlier. But in order to do so, he couldn't be entirely Monk to do it. Entirely unarmed pure Monk builds? I haven't really seen one yet. I've tried too. The best I could come up with, was a guy with something like AC 60. Sure, he'll never get hit, but he'll never hit anyone either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
The alternative is to say nothing and get nothing.

There are three options:

1) Gripe and moan (and annoy the devs, achieving less than nothing)
2) Say nothing (and get nothing, as you say)
3) Offer constructive ideas backed with solid reasoning

Forgive me if I prefer option (3) as the one that has any hope whatsoever of achieving the results I want. We have the acknowledgement from the devs that the monk needs fixing, which I consider a major step forward. Complaining that they aren't going to fix it to our satisfaction when they haven't given any hint of what they are considering is about as useful as shooting yourself in the foot.

The net result of that will be that rather than ask our opinions on potential fixes, the devs will simply keep things to themselves on the basis that it's not worth the grief and flak they will take because some posters here have made clear that whatever is proposed will never be good enough. It may not be what you meant by all those negative posts, but it's sure as hell how it will be received. They won't read these threads to see what we think should be included, because who wants to read fifty posts about how useless somebody else thinks you are?

Hence we could get the fix the devs think the monk needs without consultation or testing. Of course this will likely lead to another stream of "I told you so" from the nay-sayers who all but guaranteed this course of events with their attitude in the first place. In fact I am starting to think that this will happen regardless of what the devs do, as some people seem to be here just to complain.

ciretose wrote:
The only reason the topic is a topic is because...well...it is a topic of discussion.

I agree, but griping constantly about how the developers who gave us a game we love and prefer to play are going to drop the ball on this one subject is not discussion, it's just bad-mouthing for the sake of it.

Lantern Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16

Dabbler wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

Hell, I felt the need the apologize on behalf of monk fans when I ran into SKR at GenCon.

I want the monk to be good. I want the monk to be easier to play well. I want monks to be less of a headache to make feel like a monk and be good at it. But that isn't helped by keeping up a pestering assault 24/7.

I know the feeling! I also know I haven't been perfect myself but some people seem to gravitate here just to tell us how disappointed we will be and how the devs will never fix anything to our satisfaction...seriously guys, don't you know that listening to complainers is bad for your brain? All this negativity is just going to encourage a bad result, not a good one. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

I actually did apologize to SKR at GenCon 'for all of the monk players'. Got a chuckle and an autograph out of him :P


Yeah, I've apologised to him too. I just wish the doom-sayers would go doom and gloom some place else, because if they don't there's no way we can have any input into what changes are introduced.


I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but I am not expecting anything resembling what we here have discussed as solutions. There is a difference between that and actually encouraging a bad result. Still, I will wait and see what happens when they actually do begin talking about it and decide on what to do.

MA


Dabbler wrote:
Yeah, I've apologised to him too. I just wish the doom-sayers would go doom and gloom some place else, because if they don't there's no way we can have any input into what changes are introduced.

So basically you believe the developers are so thin skinned that they're going to ignore all input about the real problems of the monk because there are people who think they're going to ignore all input about the real problems of the monk? That sounds like Doom and gloom to me.

Liberty's Edge

I don't think I'm saying they will drop the ball as much as I am asking them to identify what they think the problem is before they try and "fix" it.

At this point, I know what I think the problem is, I know what MA and you think the problem is, I have no idea what the Devs think the problem is.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Yeah, I've apologised to him too. I just wish the doom-sayers would go doom and gloom some place else, because if they don't there's no way we can have any input into what changes are introduced.
So basically you believe the developers are so thin skinned that they're going to ignore all input about the real problems of the monk because there are people who think they're going to ignore all input about the real problems of the monk? That sounds like Doom and gloom to me.

Well SKR has already sworn off this thread for just that reason, so go figure. Not every company's developers talk regularly with their fan base, and I think it's discourteous to subject the Paizo guys to the level of griping that this issue has generated in places when they are taking the effort to listen - after all, they are only human.

@Ciretose - I'd like that too. How likely is it if they think they'll get subjected to a massive chorus of "You're wrong!" "You suck!" "You have it in for the monk!" drowning out the genuine, reasoned and well-constructed feedback?


Dabbler wrote:
The net result of that will be that rather than ask our opinions on potential fixes, the devs will simply keep things to themselves on the basis that it's not worth the grief and flak they will take because some posters here have made clear that whatever is proposed will never be good enough.

I agree with what you're saying, up until this part.

Personally, I believe you're kidding yourself if you think whatever fix is applied to the class is going to be at all discussed with forum-goers.

We'll find out how they want to fix it when they tell us how they fixed it, not a moment sooner.

Liberty's Edge

Dabbler wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Yeah, I've apologised to him too. I just wish the doom-sayers would go doom and gloom some place else, because if they don't there's no way we can have any input into what changes are introduced.
So basically you believe the developers are so thin skinned that they're going to ignore all input about the real problems of the monk because there are people who think they're going to ignore all input about the real problems of the monk? That sounds like Doom and gloom to me.

Well SKR has already sworn off this thread for just that reason, so go figure. Not every company's developers talk regularly with their fan base, and I think it's discourteous to subject the Paizo guys to the level of griping that this issue has generated in places when they are taking the effort to listen - after all, they are only human.

@Ciretose - I'd like that too. How likely is it if they think they'll get subjected to a massive chorus of "You're wrong!" "You suck!" "You have it in for the monk!" drowning out the genuine, reasoned and well-constructed feedback?

If the fix of their diagnosis doesn't fix the same diagnosis of the community, they will get that anyway.

The beginning of the discussion should be agreeing on what the problem is. 4 years ago Jason said:

"The monk has access to some of the same bonuses as a rogue (to hit at any rate), but the monk has quite a bit more defenses (good saves, some immunities, and, in the right build, a better AC)."

I don't know if he still feels this way. I don't agree with him at all, as a rogue is going to have a higher attack bonus than a monk 9 times out of 10 since the rogue isn't MaD and he can get two +1 weapons for 4,000 while the monk has to spend 5,000 and a slot to do the same thing.

If sneak attack, rogue talents, and 4 skills per level are equal to the monk special abilites, fine. But then give the monk some equality in being able to increase attack bonus at least.


Neo2151 wrote:


Personally, I believe you're kidding yourself if you think whatever fix is applied to the class is going to be at all discussed with forum-goers.

We'll find out how they want to fix it when they tell us how they fixed it, not a moment sooner.

Which statement is, by it's negative nature, a self-fulfilling prophecy and a great example of what I'm pointing out that we DON'T need here.

Ciretose, I agree with you completely. Thing is, they aren't going to consult the community if the community just slags them off for things they have not yet done or failed to do before they get a chance to do it.

And I agree, the rogue has a better chance to hit because of cheaper enhancement and less MAD requirements. Also the rogue is not meant to be a pure combat class, his role is as the scout and trap-springer as well. The monk's role IS combat, he's meant to be a commando who surprises the enemy and disrupts their strategies - yet the rogue can actually do this better than the monk can!


Dabbler wrote:

Thing is, they aren't going to consult the community if the community just slags them off for things they have not yet done or failed to do before they get a chance to do it.

The community is slagging them off because they haven't done anything.


Axl wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

Thing is, they aren't going to consult the community if the community just slags them off for things they have not yet done or failed to do before they get a chance to do it.

The community is slagging them off because they haven't done anything.

Yet. Exactly as they said they wouldn't until after the Cons.


Dabbler wrote:
Exactly as they said they wouldn't until after the Cons.

And the community doesn't like it.


Axl wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Exactly as they said they wouldn't until after the Cons.
And the community doesn't like it.

And members of the community who went to the conventions wouldn't have liked it if the convention materials weren't ready, either.

THAT is the point you are trying to ingore. They simply don't have the time and reosurces to make everybody happy, so somebod's going to be disappointed. The louder and angrier those disappointed choose to get, the more the Paizo crew HAVE to not care for the sake of their own health and well being.

So, go ahead, be as angry and as loud as you want, but realize that doing so marginalizes your concerns faster and more effectively than eaything else could.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That's interesting logic.

Do you work for WotC?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

That's interesting logic.

Do you work for WotC?

No, but I have spent decades supervising people and have a couple of full-time months (as in 8 hour days, not a handful of college courses) of in-class time discussing motivating people and trying to get them to do what you want when you have nothing that you can provide them in thanks except a kind word.

People have limits to what they can do.

People have to obey the priorities given to them by the guy who signs their paycheck, or risk losing the paycheck.

Whether they agree that a given set of desires should receive a higher priority or not, once they have been told to accomplish something else in an accelerated schedule instead, they have to focus on that something else.

If you stand at their desk, throwing a fit that they aren't doing what you want, that doesn't change the fact that they NEED to do the task they are being paid to do, first. The louder and longer your tantrum takes, the more it prevents them form solving the problem their boss has them accomplishing, and the less time they will get to look at your issue.

You marginalize your issue and yourself when you demand that it is personal. Tantrums ARE inherently personal.


Axl wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Exactly as they said they wouldn't until after the Cons.
And the community doesn't like it.

Speak for yourself. Certainly there are some people in the community who will never be pleased no matter what Paizo do, but I'm not one of them - I want a fix for the problems, and I will be happy with any significant improvement. Those that are never happy can go some place else - in fact I wish they would as I don't want those of us that genuinely want a monk fix confused with those that just want a whipping boy.

I wish it could be done faster but I understand that Paizo have other demands on their time and energy.

Hustonj, I think Kryzbin could have been ninja'd by your post and may have been referring to Axl's post above yours. Well put, though.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No it was in reference to hustonj.

In response to the word tantrum being bandied about. No one here that I am aware of has thrown a 'tantrum' at the monk issue.
People have concerns that the monk, as is, can not do what it's supposed to do. Some of us agree on what that 'do' is, some of us don't. All of us have varied ways on which we'd fix it.
Wanting it to be fixed is not throwing a tantrum. Waiting for it to be fixed after the appropriate party has said they will address it is not throwing a tantrum. Discussing that it still needs to be done is not throwing a tantrum. Having an expectation or faith that folks you trust to put out a good product will address things they have said they will address is not a tantrum.

Being in the field you are in, and the experience you have, you must also agree that it isn't a good idea to refer to your customer's opinion's or desire for your product to be better as a tantrum. This disregard of your customer's desire is dangerous. I'm not talking about potential customers, but customers who have already purchased your products, that have a history of purchasing your products. The faithful customers that contribute to your success as a company.

Paizo does not do this. WotC does. Hence my comment.


Kryzbyn wrote:
No one here that I am aware of has thrown a 'tantrum' at the monk issue.

What term properly describes an emotional response that continues for an extended period of time while the person providing the response demands dedicated attention to their issue before and instead of anything else?

Tnatrum is the wrong word? I don't think so. Is it just too embarrassing? Yep. That's part of the reason for using it.


Question!

Who's throwing a tantrum?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yes, it is the wrong word.

World English Dictionary wrote:


tantrum (ˈtæntrəm)
— n
( often plural ) a childish fit of rage; outburst of bad temper

Emphasis mine. Unless you mean to call a loyal, faithful customer's desire to see the product improved, childish.


hustonj wrote:


Tnatrum is the wrong word?

Yes, yes it is.


Just a quick question. I'm not sure if this has been asked but, would it not be helpful to mitigate the issue of attribute distribution if you just ignored strength altogether and took agile as your first bonus in the AoMF?

Its not going to solve all of the issues you have made, but it does bring the monk into the same area of stat requirements as other classes, and I believe 5000 gold is not too hard to get your hands on. the first few levels don't even require a great deal of output in terms of damage, the only real issue in this build strategy is the weapon finesse feat tax.

I think that an unarmed training progression would be a huge help as well, but we shall have to see what happens in the future.


Trogdar wrote:

Just a quick question. I'm not sure if this has been asked but, would it not be helpful to mitigate the issue of attribute distribution if you just ignored strength altogether and took agile as your first bonus in the AoMF?

Its not going to solve all of the issues you have made, but it does bring the monk into the same area of stat requirements as other classes, and I believe 5000 gold is not too hard to get your hands on. the first few levels don't even require a great deal of output in terms of damage, the only real issue in this build strategy is the weapon finesse feat tax.

I think that an unarmed training progression would be a huge help as well, but we shall have to see what happens in the future.

Using wealth by level guidelines, and not being able to spend more than 25% of your total wealth on a single item, you can't do this until 7th level. Also, you can't get Weapon Finesse as a monk until 3rd level. So, yes, you can dump Strength go the Finesse/Agile route . . . at the expense of hitting and damaging anything at 1st-3rd level, or damaging anything from 4th-6th level. And you are penalizing your own attacks later on, when you are limited to a +4 enhancement bonus, plus agile.

It is doable, but not really all that good. Rogue's can do this because they have that massive damage boost called sneak attack, that doesn't rely on their Strength anyway. But monk's don't have anything similar.

MA


Guys, can we just drop the tantrum issue? We're all agreed we want something done, but frankly I don't see how constantly repeating "The designers will never do it! We want a fix now! It'll never be right! They won't consult us" is going to do anything but annoy the devs that we are asking to do us favour.

Nagging does not encourage people to do what you want, it encourages them to ignore you. Positive criticism and constructive ideas are encouraging.

Now, back to what this thread is actually about in a constructive manner:

MA, you can take Weapon Finesse at 1st level, the +1 BAB requisite was dropped in Pathfinder. I've found that building a dex-based monk can work; you are damage light, have to rely on maneuvers until you can get that AoMF at higher level, but have a top-notch AC and can at least contribute, especially if you take some skills and traits.

The major problem is that by the time you can get an AoMF the rest of the party have +1 or +2 weapons and your flurry-of-blows tends to miss the higher AC targets more often than not.


Heh. I never saw that. Thank you for pointing it out, Dabbler. That does make it easier, but you still can't agile (or a +1 AoMF) until 7th level.

MA


Oh I agree, that is a problem, but not really a major one IF you take the maneuvers. At low level they are actually still effective much of the time.

What's a problem is that your enhancement is down compared to everyone else, weapon-wise.

Now I have a monk in a party with a magus using the bladebound archetype, and he is performing very much better than my monk in melee in spite of my monk having more attacks etc. and he has a mass of spells on top. Why? Because the bladebound is getting automatic enhancement every level. Net result, he is attacking at +17 to hit base with a 15-20 threat range for 1d6+9, usually +1d6 energy. My monk is flurrying with his highest attack at +14 for 1d10+2. My sole advantage is a lightly higher AC (unless he casts shield).

My point is, the bladebound gets automatic free enhancement and is not considered broken. The monk does not, and yet needs it more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes, it is the wrong word.

World English Dictionary wrote:


tantrum (ˈtæntrəm)
— n
( often plural ) a childish fit of rage; outburst of bad temper
Emphasis mine. Unless you mean to call a loyal, faithful customer's desire to see the product improved, childish.

A loyal, faithful customer's desire to see a product improved wouldn't be childish.

Behavior that makes multiple people feel that they must apologize to the developers on behalf of the rest of the loyal, faithful customers (as was described above), however, IS childish, at best.


Dabbler wrote:

Oh I agree, that is a problem, but not really a major one IF you take the maneuvers. At low level they are actually still effective much of the time.

What's a problem is that your enhancement is down compared to everyone else, weapon-wise.

Not inherently more-so than for any other two-weapon melee combat build.

"Fixes" for the monk that would make the monk a better two-weapon combatant than a dedicated two-weapon style Fighter aren't actually fixes, they are simply buffs that make a monk more powerful than the comparative baseline.

ALL two-weapon fighting options are sub-optimal by the numbers compared to the big brute smashing stuff. If you are comparing a monk's combat capability to that instead of to a two-weapon specialist fighter, you're setting unreasonable goals.


hustonj wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

Oh I agree, that is a problem, but not really a major one IF you take the maneuvers. At low level they are actually still effective much of the time.

What's a problem is that your enhancement is down compared to everyone else, weapon-wise.

Not inherently more-so than for any other two-weapon melee combat build.

Well another two-weapon fighting build can get the enhancement for 20% less initially, and then they can:

* Enhance the two weapons asymmetrically so one weapon will be far ahead of the other (this means it will bypass DR, hit higher ACs etc).
* Attack with only one weapon rather than both to get better chances to hit high AC targets.
* Have weapons made of different materials in order to bypass DR.
* Use a shield (which costs much less) as the second weapon to boost AC as well as get attacks (Shield Master means the half-price enhancement of the shield is now a weapon enhancement, so that's a 40% saving on the monk).

Apart from all that, the TWFing fighter is no better off than the monk...

hustonj wrote:
"Fixes" for the monk that would make the monk a better two-weapon combatant than a dedicated two-weapon style Fighter aren't actually fixes, they are simply buffs that make a monk more powerful than the comparative baseline.

In my humble opinion, the flurry-of-blows shouldn't be TWF at all. It can preclude TWF, allow attacks with weapons held in either hand etc. but I see no reason it should be TWF. The other limitations on it make it hardly broken for the monk to have the advantage of making multiple attacks with one weapon, it's been done for years by assumptiuon and nobody ever claimed it as broken.

hustonj wrote:
ALL two-weapon fighting options are sub-optimal by the numbers compared to the big brute smashing stuff. If you are comparing a monk's combat capability to that instead of to a two-weapon specialist fighter, you're setting unreasonable goals.

The monk's fighting ability compared to the two-weapon fighter like a fallen paladin is sub-standard, that's the problem.


hustonj wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

Oh I agree, that is a problem, but not really a major one IF you take the maneuvers. At low level they are actually still effective much of the time.

What's a problem is that your enhancement is down compared to everyone else, weapon-wise.

Not inherently more-so than for any other two-weapon melee combat build.

"Fixes" for the monk that would make the monk a better two-weapon combatant than a dedicated two-weapon style Fighter aren't actually fixes, they are simply buffs that make a monk more powerful than the comparative baseline.

ALL two-weapon fighting options are sub-optimal by the numbers compared to the big brute smashing stuff. If you are comparing a monk's combat capability to that instead of to a two-weapon specialist fighter, you're setting unreasonable goals.

Okay, let's do that. Here is a level 10 vanilla fighter, no archetypes, built on a 20 point buy.

Str 16 (10 pts), Dex 15 (7 pts), Con 14 (5 pts), Int 10, Wis 12 (2 pts), Cha 7 (-4 pts). Put the +2 stat bonus in Str, with the 4th and the 8th level increase both in Dex. Final Stats: Str 18, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 7.

He has 62,000 gp available.

Equipment: +2 mithril breastplate (8,350 gp), +2 ring of protection (8,000 gp), a belt of physical might (Strength and Dexterity) +2 (10,000 gp), an amulet of natural armor +1 (2,000 gp), gloves of dueling (15,000 gp), cloak of resistance +1 (1,000 gp), and two +2 short swords (16,600 gp). Total spent 60,970 gp.

That gives him stats of Str 20, Dex 19, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 7, with an average of 79.5 hit points and an AC of 24 (not counting any feats). Saves are Fort +10, Ref +7, Will +5 (before feats).

He has a BAB of +10. His feats are Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Double-slice, Weapon Focus (short sword), Weapon Specialization (short sword), Greater Weapon Focus (short sword), and Improved Critical (short sword). Plus three more. He selected Light Blades for weapon training 1 (and thus has a +2 at this level).

His attacks are +21/+21/+14/+14 for 1d6+13 points of damage with a critical of 17-20/x2 when two-weapon fighting.

Do that with a monk of the same level. Fighting with weapons or unarmed. Come close to that with a monk of the same level.

MA

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master arminas wrote:
Do that with a monk of the same level. Fighting with weapons or unarmed. Come close to that with a monk of the same level.

This thread is full of Monks that come close or better.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
hustonj wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes, it is the wrong word.

World English Dictionary wrote:


tantrum (ˈtæntrəm)
— n
( often plural ) a childish fit of rage; outburst of bad temper
Emphasis mine. Unless you mean to call a loyal, faithful customer's desire to see the product improved, childish.

A loyal, faithful customer's desire to see a product improved wouldn't be childish.

Behavior that makes multiple people feel that they must apologize to the developers on behalf of the rest of the loyal, faithful customers (as was described above), however, IS childish, at best.

Oh! You're right. Someone in this thread did indeed throw a tantrum.


Gorbacz wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Do that with a monk of the same level. Fighting with weapons or unarmed. Come close to that with a monk of the same level.
This thread is full of Monks that come close or better.

The point being, Gorbacz, ANYONE picking up the game can build that fighter. The monks posted in the DPR olympics take some doing and rather hefty knowledge of the system itself to squeeze each and every possible +1 stackable bonus onto the character. The fighter I did above? He could be optimized far more than I have done. But except for gloves of dueling, everything is core rulebook. You simply cannot do the same with the monk. You HAVE to have access to four or five different books and you MUST have a lot of experience in building your character.

MA


I'm not reading 1,300 posts of Monk diatribes, so someone fill me in. What is the point of this? Is this some argument that a Monk is not as strong as a Monk should be?

If so, how strong should they be? I mean, in the 50+ or so posts I've read all see is a complaint about TWF and not enough bonuses and this and that about needing more. More what? The Monk follows any and all rules for TWF as any other character does, so what is the issue?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master arminas wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Do that with a monk of the same level. Fighting with weapons or unarmed. Come close to that with a monk of the same level.
This thread is full of Monks that come close or better.

The point being, Gorbacz, ANYONE picking up the game can build that fighter. The monks posted in the DPR olympics take some doing and rather hefty knowledge of the system itself to squeeze each and every possible +1 stackable bonus onto the character. The fighter I did above? He could be optimized far more than I have done. But except for gloves of dueling, everything is core rulebook. You simply cannot do the same with the monk. You HAVE to have access to four or five different books and you MUST have a lot of experience in building your character.

MA

Actually, you can screw up a Fighter just as easily. Like any martial class. It's enough that you go sword and broad and you don't need anything beyond CRB to make that mistake :)

But besides. Sure, I'd prefer to have all those options in Core, but I believe that building a valid Monk using 3-4 books is better than not being able to build a valid Monk at all (hello, 3.5).


Hartbaine wrote:

I'm not reading 1,300 posts of Monk diatribes, so someone fill me in. What is the point of this? Is this some argument that a Monk is not as strong as a Monk should be?

If so, how strong should they be? I mean, in the 50+ or so posts I've read all see is a complaint about TWF and not enough bonuses and this and that about needing more. More what? The Monk follows any and all rules for TWF as any other character does, so what is the issue?

Quick summary.

[DEEP BREATH]

About four and a half months ago, it came to the attention of the developers that people were using Flurry of Blows in a manner which was not consistent with their original intentions. Said intentions were that flurry was to be two-weapon fighting with stated exceptions. And that therefore you can not use a single weapon in a flurry of blows (other than unarmed strikes or natural weapons if you also possess the Feral Combat Training feat). And that you had to have your unarmed strikes 'equally enhanced' or else use your unenhanced uarmed strikes for at least half of your flurry progression, as per the two-weapon fighting rules, even though unarmed strikes are a single weapon.

[DEEP BREATH]

Well, that certainly hit the fan (stirred up a hornet's nest, as Jason Bulmahn said), as people began to point out that Paizo's own writers had since the game began designed archetypes and built monk NPCs using the same single-weapon flurry which the designers/developers said was not legal to use. Drawing upon the practices from 3.5 where it was legal to use a single weapon in a flurry of blows. This thread and others then arose in order to outline what we (the customer fan base) see as the issues involved in the monk class, as a discussion of how these issues can be corrected and fixed in the long-term and short-term alike.

[DEEP BREATH]

Realizing that the effect this inadvertant revelation had upon the community at large, the designers/developers then said they needed to take a look at the monk and fix this, said fix to take place something after the conclusion of GenCon. As of the week before GenCon, no discussions on the monk issues had so far taken place, but we understand that the issue is being looked at and will be fixed sometime in the future (no definate date). Which led to more discussion on the issue as we (the customer fan-base) continued talking about monks and the problems with monk.

[DEEP BREATH]

So far we do not know what is going to happen other than the class as a whole will not be rewritten and that any changes made will be relatively minor to fix existing problems. The problem with that from the standpoint of us as customers is that we do not believe the designers/developers actually understand what we think the problems with the monk class as a whole is. And that the fix/errata/revision that comes down the pike will address a secondary issue while leaving the main problems of the monk unaddressed.

Whew.

That's it in a nutshell.

MA

Paizo Employee Design Manager

I'm a big fan of Agile brass knuckles for the DEX based monk myself:

"Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit
comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

I know that there was a post, once upon a time, where SKR said that the issue with Brass Knuckles and a few other weapons was that they were being classified as unarmed when they should be light weapons and shouldn't be getting all the monks unarmed bonuses (a problem since fixed) but I assume that thread to be outdated since the APG came out 7 months later and included a version of the brass knuckles that specifically allows them to use the monks UAS damage.


Ssalarn wrote:

I'm a big fan of Agile brass knuckles for the DEX based monk myself:

"Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit
comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

I know that there was a post, once upon a time, where SKR said that the issue with Brass Knuckles and a few other weapons was that they were being classified as unarmed when they should be light weapons and shouldn't be getting all the monks unarmed bonuses (a problem since fixed) but I assume that thread to be outdated since the APG came out 7 months later and included a version of the brass knuckles that specifically allows them to use the monks UAS damage.

Nope. To the best of my knowledge, the designers say that brass knuckles, cesti, and other 'unarmed' weapons are light weapons, with their own damage which does not increase, and must be named as the beneficiary of feats such as weapon focus; just having weapon focus (unarmed strike) doesn't translate into a +1 on attack rolls when wearing brass knuckles.

MA

Paizo Employee Design Manager

master arminas wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

I'm a big fan of Agile brass knuckles for the DEX based monk myself:

"Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit
comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

I know that there was a post, once upon a time, where SKR said that the issue with Brass Knuckles and a few other weapons was that they were being classified as unarmed when they should be light weapons and shouldn't be getting all the monks unarmed bonuses (a problem since fixed) but I assume that thread to be outdated since the APG came out 7 months later and included a version of the brass knuckles that specifically allows them to use the monks UAS damage.

Nope. To the best of my knowledge, the designers say that brass knuckles, cesti, and other 'unarmed' weapons are light weapons, with their own damage which does not increase, and must be named as the beneficiary of feats such as weapon focus; just having weapon focus (unarmed strike) doesn't translate into a +1 on attack rolls when wearing brass knuckles.

MA

But Brass Knuckles specifically say they use the monks UAS damage. Granted, feats like Weapon Focus would have to be taken as Weapon Focus (Brass Knuckles) instead of Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), but a Dex based monk can still deal his unarmed strike damage and have a decent (not awesome) to-hit and damage with a pair of Agile Brass Knuckles, with the only penalty being that you'll have no stat mod to damage until you can afford a pair.


Oh.

Really? Huh, this issue always comes up in the game I run when a player is playing a monk. Eventually they point out the wording of the Flurry of Blows section. The conversation goes something like this:

"So I can kama my enemy 4 times, right?"

"No. 'A single weapon' implies a single weapon that is a double weapon. A weapon with two business ends. A quarter staff is a single weapon that acts as two, so you can flurry four times with a quarter staff, but not your kama, sorry. You can punch twice and kama twice if you like."

"Oh, that makes sense. Okay."

Now, mind you, I don't know what Paizo meant when they worded it, but logically, to me, 'a single weapon' implies that a monk using a double weapon can do their stuff proudly. Regardless of how the players read it or the GM reads it, what matters is how you use it.

Should Paizo re-write the entire monk class? No, and good on them for not budging on the issue. If you see it differently, then simply use your method. If you like it better as RAW, then use the RAW method. Paizo shouldn't have to re-write their products just because people can't house rule something.

I really don't see this worth 1,300 posts of angry rants. It's amazing what people find these days to crusade over. Good luck in your struggle though.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

@ Hartbaine

The monk is one of those touchy ones, like the paladin, where they have devoted followers and implacable enemies, so whenever a major change or clarification appears, you'll see some pretty visceral reactions.
A lot of people (including people producing licensed material) were operating under the assumption that Flurry worked a certain way. The clarification not only threw off a lot of people's understanding of the mechanic, it also created a slew of strange issues (how does a monk flurry with a two-handed reach weapon?).
This also helped feed into the fact that many people feel that the monk is an under-powered class as it is. One of the problems, I think, is that there are so many different interpretations of what the monk should be that it's impossible to make everyone happy, particularly when your core monk looks nothing like the modern cultural archetypes people think it should (like Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, etc.).


master arminas wrote:


About four and a half months ago, it came to the attention of the developers that people were using Flurry of Blows in a manner which was not consistent with their original intentions.

I believe that it was in January. Otherwise, a nice summary, Master Arminas. :-)


I'm not sure if I've been accused of throwing a "tantrum", but I will clarify that I am disappointed rather than angry. Emotions don't come across well on the messageboards.


Hartbaine wrote:

Oh.

Really? Huh, this issue always comes up in the game I run when a player is playing a monk. Eventually they point out the wording of the Flurry of Blows section. The conversation goes something like this:

"So I can kama my enemy 4 times, right?"

"No. 'A single weapon' implies a single weapon that is a double weapon. A weapon with two business ends. A quarter staff is a single weapon that acts as two, so you can flurry four times with a quarter staff, but not your kama, sorry. You can punch twice and kama twice if you like."

"Oh, that makes sense. Okay."

Now, mind you, I don't know what Paizo meant when they worded it, but logically, to me, 'a single weapon' implies that a monk using a double weapon can do their stuff proudly. Regardless of how the players read it or the GM reads it, what matters is how you use it.

Should Paizo re-write the entire monk class? No, and good on them for not budging on the issue. If you see it differently, then simply use your method. If you like it better as RAW, then use the RAW method. Paizo shouldn't have to re-write their products just because people can't house rule something.

I really don't see this worth 1,300 posts of angry rants. It's amazing what people find these days to crusade over. Good luck in your struggle though.

And what, pray tell, do the words "in any combination" mean then? See where I am going, Hartbaine. For the words written in the rules to have any meaning, any combination must include all combinations. Which means, as it was in 3.5, single weapon flurries are legal.

EDIT: And the words 'single-weapon' are not to be found in the text of the flurry of blows class ability. It does refer to 'attacks with a special monk weapon' and goes on to list the special monk weapons in the Core Rulebook. Now that could a special monk weapon (singular) or it could refer to a special mong weapon meaning the entire group listed in parentheses. But if you read the text, there is a strong-case for being able to use flurry with just one weapon, or two weapons, or two weapons and unarmed strikes, or one weapon and unarmed strikes, or just with unarmed strikes.

Now, that was not what the designers intended, but even their own writers got it wrong. We will see what happens when the tell us their thoughts on the issue. Until then . . . we wait and we debate and we discuss and we wonder.

MA


Ssalarn wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

I'm a big fan of Agile brass knuckles for the DEX based monk myself:

"Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit
comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

I know that there was a post, once upon a time, where SKR said that the issue with Brass Knuckles and a few other weapons was that they were being classified as unarmed when they should be light weapons and shouldn't be getting all the monks unarmed bonuses (a problem since fixed) but I assume that thread to be outdated since the APG came out 7 months later and included a version of the brass knuckles that specifically allows them to use the monks UAS damage.

Nope. To the best of my knowledge, the designers say that brass knuckles, cesti, and other 'unarmed' weapons are light weapons, with their own damage which does not increase, and must be named as the beneficiary of feats such as weapon focus; just having weapon focus (unarmed strike) doesn't translate into a +1 on attack rolls when wearing brass knuckles.

MA

But Brass Knuckles specifically say they use the monks UAS damage. Granted, feats like Weapon Focus would have to be taken as Weapon Focus (Brass Knuckles) instead of Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), but a Dex based monk can still deal his unarmed strike damage and have a decent (not awesome) to-hit and damage with a pair of Agile Brass Knuckles, with the only penalty being that you'll have no stat mod to damage until you can afford a pair.

Lot of folks argue that, but the designers/developers have said that it doesn't work that way . . . and that errata will be issued. If you use brass knuckles, you are doing a d3 damage, even if your monk normally does 2d10. I wish it wasn't, but that is the way they want it played.

MA


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hartbaine wrote:
I really don't see this worth 1,300 posts of angry rants. It's amazing what people find these days to crusade over. Good luck in your struggle though.

The thing is, Hartbaine, that this issue touched off a lot of others. The monk has a lot of problems as class that basically make it not fit for purpose. No-one is arguing that the monk could or should be the equal of a fighter in a stand up fight, but the argument is that the monk as a combat class should be able to do something effective in combat situations, and right now it has problems doing this unless you optimise like crazy, and even then you get to be 'average.'

The whole TWF issue was touched off by the inevitable 'why is the AoMF so expensive and so limited?' question.

To summarise:
* The monk lags badly behind other combat classes in enhancement bonus if he fights unarmed, and armed his choices are almost all substandard.
* The monk is MAD to an extent that no other character is. He needs many strong attributes to work rather than just two, the maximum any other class requires - for example, a paladin needs strength and charisma; the monk needs dexterity, wisdom, strength and constitution. This means key attributes will likely be lower reducing chances to hit in combat further.
* The monk has great difficulty overcoming DR if he fights unarmed; he has trouble overcoming it with raw damage, and he cannot bypass it with materials or enhancement.
* The monk's other abilities don't synergise well. Stunning fist requires you to hit and do damage before it has a chance of working and the monk has problems doing this; you can move fast but your main attack form requires you to stand still; wholeness of body costs too much and achieves little; and so on.
* the monk's theme presents one type of character (quick, nimble fighter), but actually making the monk work often requires it's antitheses (hulking brute).

The devs have admitted that the monk is a weak class, and needs fixing. While resolving every problem the monk has is not something we expect, it would be nice if the monk could perform the role laid out for it in the CRB. Aside from the FoB issue, it would be nice if the enhancement/hitting/bypassing DR issue could be resolved - I don't want the monk to be able to deal the damage of a fighter, I just want it to be able to fight on a par with a fallen paladin.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

master arminas wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
master arminas wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

I'm a big fan of Agile brass knuckles for the DEX based monk myself:

"Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit
comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."

I know that there was a post, once upon a time, where SKR said that the issue with Brass Knuckles and a few other weapons was that they were being classified as unarmed when they should be light weapons and shouldn't be getting all the monks unarmed bonuses (a problem since fixed) but I assume that thread to be outdated since the APG came out 7 months later and included a version of the brass knuckles that specifically allows them to use the monks UAS damage.

Nope. To the best of my knowledge, the designers say that brass knuckles, cesti, and other 'unarmed' weapons are light weapons, with their own damage which does not increase, and must be named as the beneficiary of feats such as weapon focus; just having weapon focus (unarmed strike) doesn't translate into a +1 on attack rolls when wearing brass knuckles.

MA

But Brass Knuckles specifically say they use the monks UAS damage. Granted, feats like Weapon Focus would have to be taken as Weapon Focus (Brass Knuckles) instead of Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), but a Dex based monk can still deal his unarmed strike damage and have a decent (not awesome) to-hit and damage with a pair of Agile Brass Knuckles, with the only penalty being that you'll have no stat mod to damage until you can afford a pair.
...

Not to be combative, but can you show me a post, anywhere more recent than SKR's two year old comment from 7 months before the APG released with a version of the Brass Knuckles that specifically states a monk can use his Unarmed Strike damage with them, indicating this? All current Eratta, FAQs, and published materials reflect Brass Knuckles allowing a monk to use his UAS damage in conjunction with them.

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,667 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 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.