Since I'm only on those and the WoW forums yes. Honestly i dont care what the other forums some of you keep bringing knew 3 years ago. Especially since not a single link has been posted to prove that anyone actually thought or felt differently and I can't find any post on our own forums in the numerous monk threads where anyone has disputed 1 weapon flurry until recently.
Since devs/authors/players/PFS judges/VCs all have been letting monks 1weapon flurry for 3 years I figure if we were all doing it wrong someone would have caught it sooner and said something.
EDIT: Sorry that was way to harsh the first time around and do not want anyone offended.
|
Please stop inserting things arbitrarily into what I've posted for the purposes of creating an argumentative point, thank you. I said, by the text that you've provided, a character with a monk dip using Two-Weapon Fighting (not Flurry of Blows) would not receive his or her full strength bonus because the wording provided by Unarmed Strike is no longer available.
[Edit]
To Talonhawke:
Wait, what? A majority of the very people who tried to raise flags concerning the mechanics of multiple classes (not just monks) were, for the most part, banned from this forum. In any case, I'll give you two:
To further complicate matters, there is no indication that any individual creature has or even can possess more than one "unarmed strike" - the designation of an unarmed strike as a light weapon notwithstanding, nothing defines what kind of object an "unarmed strike" is, just that all unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage based on size, unless one has Improved Unarmed Strike, and unless one is a Monk of sufficiently advanced level. Inasmuch as nothing identifies any means by which a differentiation can be made to identify multiple Unarmed Strikes a creature might possess, it seems impossible to conclude that any creature possesses more than one "unarmed strike" regardless of how the creature implements the unarmed strike.
(The reasoning behind this conclusion is clear: regardless of how the unarmed strike is delivered (punch, kick, headbutt, knee-to-groin, elbow-to-solar-plexus, bodyslam, etc.) the damage that results is always between the same values (determined by Size and Monk level) and is of uniform lethality (nonlethal, unless the creature takes a -4 penalty, or, possesses the IUS feat and decides to deal lethal damage). As an object, therefore, the unarmed strike is a singular object possessed by or inherent to all creatures.)
This being the case, it should also be clear that in order to flurry in accordance with the TWF rules, since the Unarmed Strike is a singular object, it cannot be wielded both in the primary hand and in the off-hand, and therefore Monks *must* use some sort of weapon in their off hand in order to Flurry with Unarmed Strikes.
To further complicate matters, there is no indication that any individual creature has or even can possess more than one "unarmed strike" - the designation of an unarmed strike as a light weapon notwithstanding, nothing defines what kind of object an "unarmed strike" is, just that all unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage based on size, unless one has Improved Unarmed Strike, and unless one is a Monk of sufficiently advanced level. Inasmuch as nothing identifies any means by which a differentiation can be made to identify multiple Unarmed Strikes a creature might possess, it seems impossible to conclude that any creature possesses more than one "unarmed strike" regardless of how the creature implements the unarmed strike.
(The reasoning behind this conclusion is clear: regardless of how the unarmed strike is delivered (punch, kick, headbutt, knee-to-groin, elbow-to-solar-plexus, bodyslam, etc.) the damage that results is always between the same values (determined by Size and Monk level) and is of uniform lethality (nonlethal, unless the creature takes a -4 penalty, or, possesses the IUS feat and decides to deal lethal damage). As an object, therefore, the unarmed strike is a singular object possessed by or inherent to all creatures.)
This being the case, it should also be clear that in order to flurry in accordance with the TWF rules, since the Unarmed Strike is a singular object, it cannot be wielded both in the primary hand and in the off-hand, and therefore Monks *must* use some sort of weapon in their off hand in order to Flurry with Unarmed Strikes.
And in the text for the monk flurry of blows and unarmed strike, unless it is referring to multiple attacks unarmed strike is always singular, not plural. Good catch, Doskious Steele.
Master Arminas
Please stop inserting things arbitrarily into what I've posted for the purposes of creating an argumentative point, thank you. I said, by the text that you've provided, a character with a monk dip using Two-Weapon Fighting (not Flurry of Blows) would not receive his or her full strength bonus because the wording provided by Unarmed Strike is no longer available.
[Edit]
To Talonhawke:
Wait, what? A majority of the very people who tried to raise flags concerning the mechanics of multiple classes (not just monks) were, for the most part, banned from this forum.
What?
Look, you asked me to tell you what I think about a character with the TWF feat chain multi-classing into monk. I did. I wasn't trying to twist your words, I was exploring what that would imply. Chill out, dude, no one has made a personal attack on you here.
Master Arminas
Please stop inserting things arbitrarily into what I've posted for the purposes of creating an argumentative point, thank you. I said, by the text that you've provided, a character with a monk dip using Two-Weapon Fighting (not Flurry of Blows) would not receive his or her full strength bonus because the wording provided by Unarmed Strike is no longer available.
I believe that in the event the dipped (dippy? ;) character was using an Unarmed Strike as a component of the TWF sequence, the Unarmed Strike would receive the character's full strength bonus. In the event that the character was not employing an Unarmed Strike, and was not executing a Flurry, then the character would not benefit from their full Strength bonus to off-hand attacks.
Of course, if you accept my logical conclusion that an Unarmed Strike is singular to a character and for a Monk cannot be used as an off-hand attack, the character with a dip in Monk would be unable to use the Unarmed Strike as an off-hand component of TWF and would therefore always benefit from the full Strength bonus anyway, when including an Unarmed Strike as a component of TWF (because it will necessarily be the Primary Hand component).
|
|
What?
Look, you asked me to tell you what I think about a character with the TWF feat chain multi-classing into monk. I did. I wasn't trying to twist your words, I was exploring what that would imply. Chill out, dude, no one has made a personal attack on you here.
Master Arminas
I'm not...? I simply said "what would happen in such a scenario?," provided you with the answer, and then asked if that was correct. In my response to your response, I then asked that you not add extra things (mostly, the stuff concerning Flurry of Blows).
You might want to bold the "allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon" section as well.Yes, it is the Feral Combat post/errata from UC, originally found by Talonhawke (whose search-fu exceeds my own greatly).
Feral Combat Training (page 101): What does “with” in the Special line for this feat mean for monks making a flurry of blows?
Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows (Core Rulebook 57). Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.
—Sean K Reynolds, 02/15/12Master Arminas
Done! Thank you WWWW.
Master Arminas
Please stop inserting things arbitrarily into what I've posted for the purposes of creating an argumentative point, thank you. I said, by the text that you've provided, a character with a monk dip using Two-Weapon Fighting (not Flurry of Blows) would not receive his or her full strength bonus because the wording provided by Unarmed Strike is no longer available.I believe that in the event the dipped (dippy? ;) character was using an Unarmed Strike as a component of the TWF sequence, the Unarmed Strike would receive the character's full strength bonus. In the event that the character was not employing an Unarmed Strike, and was not executing a Flurry, then the character would not benefit from their full Strength bonus to off-hand attacks.
Of course, if you accept my logical conclusion that an Unarmed Strike is singular to a character and for a Monk cannot be used as an off-hand attack, the character with a dip in Monk would be unable to use the Unarmed Strike as an off-hand component of TWF and would therefore always benefit from the full Strength bonus anyway, when including an Unarmed Strike as a component of TWF (because it will necessarily be the Primary Hand component).
Agreed.
MA
You might want to bold the "allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon" section as well.Yes, it is the Feral Combat post/errata from UC, originally found by Talonhawke (whose search-fu exceeds my own greatly).
Feral Combat Training (page 101): What does “with” in the Special line for this feat mean for monks making a flurry of blows?
Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows (Core Rulebook 57). Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.
—Sean K Reynolds, 02/15/12Master Arminas
Done! Thank you WWWW.
Master Arminas
possibly also the bit that says "apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack"
Note, if the conclusion I reach about each creature possessing only one Unarmed Strike is valid (which it logically is), that would be the explanation about why this feat identifies the natural attack as a monk weapon rather than as an Unarmed Strike, as the latter identification would shatter the singularity and uniqueness of the Unarmed Strike as a concept.
So the whole point is that you now can use TWF feats with regards to the monk and his unarmed attacks, flurry etc...?
No, the point is that Sean clarified flurry to say that if you were using two different types of attacks (i.e. a weapon and an unarmed strike, or two unarmed strikes that somehow how an enhancement on only one), then you must follow the Two-Weapon Fighting division of attacks between your primary hand and your off-hand weapons and/or unarmed strikes. You can still make all of your flurry attacks with an unarmed strike (or a natural weapon with Feral Combat Training) if you have an equal enhancement bonus on all of them (and special weapon properties), but you can't take all of your flurry attacks with a weapon.
Confusing, ain't it?
Master Arminas
When was Treantmonk banned?
I was about to ask the same thing. Didn't he post just a few weeks back?
Master Arminas
The other reason that the change is viewed as "not how it always was" by some is that without exception, whenever there's Paizo material depicting NPC monks with one (non-double) weapon, their attack routines are given as though they're allowed to make their entire flurry with the one weapon. Obviously NPC stat blocks are not a rules source, even the ones in the Gamemastery Guide, but it suggests that even among Paizo authors the belief that Flurries could be made with all one weapon may have been widespread. In contrast, there are no NPC monks in any Paizo material that have a weapon and don't make their entire flurry with it; 100% of the examples use the single-weapon-flurry reading. Granted, the sample size is something like five, but you'd figure that it wouldn't be wrong in every single monk Paizo's ever printed that didn't fight barefisted. Errors happen, but systematic errors that all point in the same direction are less common.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most annoying part of this entire situation isn't even the rules change/clarification, it is the attitude adopted by many that if you interpreted the rules under the less restrictive form, that somehow the person that did so was clearly not paying attention/comprehending how Pathfinder works/trying to game the system.
Given the number of people that seem to have interpreted the rule in it's less restrictive form, it would be nice if people would simply acknowledge that perhaps the rule, if intended in the stricter form from the beginning, was not as clear as it could have been.
Shouldn't that be reflected in a change to the actual feat?
Not that I can see. The feat tells you that for the selected Natural attack, you can make use of any feat that has IUS as a prerequisite in conjunction with that attack. (For example, Elemental Fist or Scorpion Style could be used by a Dragon with Feral Combat Training (claw) with either claw attack.) The feat also tells you that any effects that augment an unarmed strike can also augment the selected natural attack (so if that Dragon was also Monk 8, his claws could deal 1d10 damage if he were medium sized). Finally, the feat (and associated errata/FAQ/clarification) tells you that if you are a Monk, you can use the designated natural attack as a monk weapon incorporated with FoB.
Nowhere does the feat identify the selected natural attack as an unarmed strike, it merely indicates that features that are used with an unarmed strike can be used with the selected natural attack as well. (Much like the acquisition of an adapter for my phone that allows it to use an iPod charging cable does not turn my phone into an iPod, but merely allows it to use the same charging cable as an iPod.)
Possibly also the bit that says "apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack"
Note, if the conclusion I reach about each creature possessing only one Unarmed Strike is valid (which it logically is), that would be the explanation about why this feat identifies the natural attack as a monk weapon rather than as an Unarmed Strike, as the latter identification would shatter the singularity and uniqueness of the Unarmed Strike as a concept.
Done, DS. Thank you for pointing that out.
Master Arminas
Please stop inserting things arbitrarily into what I've posted for the purposes of creating an argumentative point, thank you. I said, by the text that you've provided, a character with a monk dip using Two-Weapon Fighting (not Flurry of Blows) would not receive his or her full strength bonus because the wording provided by Unarmed Strike is no longer available.
[Edit]
To Talonhawke:
Wait, what? A majority of the very people who tried to raise flags concerning the mechanics of multiple classes (not just monks) were, for the most part, banned from this forum. In any case, I'll give you two:
Once again maybe I just can't read neither of those guides brings up any mention of possibly not being able to one hand flurry or that you have to split attacks if using weapons.
Please if you could cite a passage or link to a relevant post it would help but otherwise I still see nothing saying that this magical super restricted TWF existed.
I just started digging into the discussion threads, Talonhawke, but so far I haven't found anything either.
The Guide to the Guides and here is the link to the discussion pages.
Master Arminas
|
The most annoying part of this entire situation isn't even the rules change/clarification, it is the attitude adopted by many that if you interpreted the rules under the less restrictive form, that somehow the person that did so was clearly not paying attention/comprehending how Pathfinder works/trying to game the system.
Given the number of people that seem to have interpreted the rule in it's less restrictive form, it would be nice if people would simply acknowledge that perhaps the rule, if intended in the stricter form from the beginning, was not as clear as it could have been.
Indeed. Calling out the bile from some that are unhappy about this turn of events is fair enough, but hot damn there's a good amount of that flowing from the other camp as well. But it's easier to see those one disagrees with as powergamers/min-maxers/cheaters/whatever than people with a legitimate beef for some, I suppose.
Restating from the other thread: Monks just can't seem to catch a break for very long.
Well I've "attempted" to read every post in the 3 threads.
I failed.
Flurry of Blows used to be easier to adjudicate than TWF.
The new ruling means it isn't. Or at least all of these rule interactions everyone have brought out lead to a more complicated version of TWF. That's just bad.
I also think that SKR's ruling is in light of the new Monk weapons and their cleanup for UEquipment.
Seriously a full flurry with a RopeDart was potentially a disaster.
Is a Sansetsukon a double weapon?
Are Nunchucks?
This is going to get MORE complicated.
Well I've "attempted" to read every post in the 3 threads.
I failed.Flurry of Blows used to be easier to adjudicate than TWF.
The new ruling means it isn't. Or at least all of these rule interactions everyone have brought out lead to a more complicated version of TWF. That's just bad.I also think that SKR's ruling is in light of the new Monk weapons and their cleanup for UEquipment.
Seriously a full flurry with a RopeDart was potentially a disaster.
Is a Sansetsukon a double weapon?
Are Nunchucks?This is going to get MORE complicated.
I fear you are correct. But luckily I don't play PFS and so I shan't be using the ruling in my game.
Master Arminas
|
|
So the whole point is that you now can use TWF feats with regards to the monk and his unarmed attacks, flurry etc...?No, the point is that Sean clarified flurry to say that if you were using two different types of attacks (i.e. a weapon and an unarmed strike, or two unarmed strikes that somehow how an enhancement on only one), then you must follow the Two-Weapon Fighting division of attacks between your primary hand and your off-hand weapons and/or unarmed strikes. You can still make all of your flurry attacks with an unarmed strike (or a natural weapon with Feral Combat Training) if you have an equal enhancement bonus on all of them (and special weapon properties), but you can't take all of your flurry attacks with a weapon.
Confusing, ain't it?
Master Arminas
But it specifically states that as long as you are using monk weapons then you can use your flurry which in turn means you have no primary hand nor an off hand. I thought "shoulders, elbows, knees and toes" were all considered to be used in a flurry. A monk could use normal weapons with his normal BAB and take TWF but that would really be a waste.
I'm hoping that this actually leads to the real underlying issue of the monk being addressed.
The magic item Slot Handicap.
They've addressed the crappy weapon issue or at least have acknowledged that its an issue.
|
|
So the whole point is that you now can use TWF feats with regards to the monk and his unarmed attacks, flurry etc...?No, the point is that Sean clarified flurry to say that if you were using two different types of attacks (i.e. a weapon and an unarmed strike, or two unarmed strikes that somehow how an enhancement on only one), then you must follow the Two-Weapon Fighting division of attacks between your primary hand and your off-hand weapons and/or unarmed strikes. You can still make all of your flurry attacks with an unarmed strike (or a natural weapon with Feral Combat Training) if you have an equal enhancement bonus on all of them (and special weapon properties), but you can't take all of your flurry attacks with a weapon.
Confusing, ain't it?
Master Arminas
But it states that as long as you are using monk weapons, you can use your flurry which in turn means you don't have a primary hand nor an off hand. I always thought a flurry wasn't just the hands but could be your "shoulders, elbows, knees and toes".
You could use non monk weapons, use the monk's regular "cleric" based BAB and take TWF but why would you? Flurry has always been it's own thing and has never been associated with TWF.
It is now man.
Its True now if you have anything going on that makes the attacks different then you can't take them all with the same weapon.
Got one sword? 1/2 your attacks max with your sword.
Got a Spear? 1/2 your attacks max with your spear.
Got a crossbow? 1/2 your attacks max with your crossbow.
Got just your body nothing else? you can use it for all your attacks.
Got MF cast on just your right fist? 1/2 of your attacks max with your right fist.
Page 2 of the discussion on Treantmonk's Guide shows that Treantmonk believed that the as if TWF meant standard TWF rules. But there was one question on page 3 that hasn't been answered yet that showed a different belief, that flurry was flurry and could be done with a single weapon.
No major clashes on the issue, but I am only 3 pages into 8.
Master Arminas
Unfortunately in SKR's example he points to a Monk with ONE of his unarmed strikes augmented by Magic Fang.......
There is more getting nerfed than one weapon full flurry.
I'm actually surprised no one else jumped on that. The whole body as a single weapon thing is getting nerfed as well. That's potentially painful as well since it takes the option of Permanency+GMW or GMF off the table.
|
|
Unfortunately in SKR's example he points to a Monk with ONE of his unarmed strikes augmented by Magic Fang.......
There is more getting nerfed than one weapon full flurry.
I'm actually surprised no one else jumped on that. The whole body as a single weapon thing is getting nerfed as well. That's potentially painful as well since it takes the option of Permanency+GMW or GMF off the table.
Yep, this came up in response to the request for a way to enhance the entire abstract unarmed strike IIRC.
Which means even bare-handed monks get caught in all of this now.
Unfortunately in SKR's example he points to a Monk with ONE of his unarmed strikes augmented by Magic Fang.......
There is more getting nerfed than one weapon full flurry.
I'm actually surprised no one else jumped on that. The whole body as a single weapon thing is getting nerfed as well. That's potentially painful as well since it takes the option of Permanency+GMW or GMF off the table.
Oh, I gripped about for four pages on the old thread, Zagnabbit. It has been jumped on. And it is opening a can of worms that we thought dead and buried with the 3.0 rules. Maybe next they will bring back Ambidexterity.
Master Arminas
Not only do bare-fisted monks (which is the only way I will play a monk) get screwed over, they get kicked around worse than they already are since they nerfed brass knuckles for no good reason.
It is now man.
Its True now if you have anything going on that makes the attacks different then you can't take them all with the same weapon.
Got one sword? 1/2 your attacks max with your sword.
Got a Spear? 1/2 your attacks max with your spear.
Got a crossbow? 1/2 your attacks max with your crossbow.
Got just your body nothing else? you can use it for all your attacks.
Got MF cast on just your right fist? 1/2 of your attacks max with your right fist.
The interpretation of "just your body can be used for all attacks" may be what SKR *said* but is not at all supported by the rules that he tries to apply to everything else, which clearly call for a different weapon to be wielded in the off hand - for monks, the Unarmed Strike, of which all creatures have but one and cannot therefore be wielded in two places at once, is never an off-hand attack, and therefore cannot be wielded in the off-hand regardless. Thus, without abrogating some of the TWF rules or conjuring previously non-existant rules that define what an unarmed strike is and how a creature can have more than one, some of the Flurry or TWF attacks must be made with some weapon other than an Unarmed Strike.
In connection with this, as there are no rules that provide the ability to distinguish one delivery method for an unarmed strike from another in a mechanically and functionally meaningful way (see my earlier post in this thread - #93), if one has Magic Fang cast upon one's Unarmed Strike, it must necessarily apply to any Unarmed Strike one makes, regardless of delivery method.
I wrote that from the assumed standpoint that the off-hand will be clarified to mean simply that a monk adds full str no matter which attacks are used for unarmed strike.
Yeah after re-reading your post you bring up a weirdly valid point.
It's now worse to attack with a weapon, so the enhancement bonus is needed to achieve parity?
That makes my head hurt.
Unfortunately in SKR's example he points to a Monk with ONE of his unarmed strikes augmented by Magic Fang.......
I've never bought that example as anything close to legitimate, due to the absence of any definition in the rules of what did and did not constitute an Unarmed Strike other than a general definition that provided uniform damage metrics and provided for the uniform determination of the lethality of the unarmed strike. I would be very interested to see a demonstration that a creature possesses more than one Unarmed Strike, though such a demonstration would need to be in a general form rather than in the format of a specific example - a punch or a kick is an example of a descriptive mechanism for delivering Unarmed Strike damage, much in the same way that a lunging thrust or an overhand slice is a descriptive mechanism for delivering Longsword damage. In the end, regardless of how the damage is described as being delivered, you only have one Longsword and you only have one Unarmed Strike.
To be fair, I do not think it is unreasonable to restrict casters from applying Magic Fang to just a Fist as opposed to the whole of the Unarmed Strike; in the case where Magic Fang is applied to the fist alone, the fist is clearly treated as a Natural Attack, and in the absence of Feral Combat Training (fist), the creature would be unable to make use of the enchanted fist in a Flurry of Blows attack in accordance with the way that FoB and Natural Attacks interact. Contrariwise, if the creature *does* have Feral Combat Training, he can apparently (according to SKR, quoted above) use his natural attack for all of his Flurry attacks.
<.< Or so the dictates of logic tell me.
I wrote that from the assumed standpoint that the off-hand will be clarified to mean simply that a monk adds full str no matter which attacks are used for unarmed strike.
Such a clarification further erodes any relevance of the TWF feat to the Monk's Flurry, as the TWF feat clearly requires an off-hand weapon distinct from the primary hand weapon. Given the adamance displayed by certain developers regarding the application of TWF restrictions to Flurry, I feel that your assumption my regretfully be optimistic. (Certainly I think that the affirmation of your assumption would highlight the irrationality inherent to the situation.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The entire system has been built around the more common reading of the FOB rules: NPCs, feats, archetypes, and monk weapons. Just make the common reading official, and nerf whatever equipment it was that was going to rock the boat.
The entire system has been built around the more common reading of the FOB rules: NPCs, feats, archetypes, and monk weapons. Just make the common reading official, and nerf whatever equipment it was that was going to rock the boat.
+10
That would be so nice!
The entire system has been built around the more common reading of the FOB rules: NPCs, feats, archetypes, and monk weapons. Just make the common reading official, and nerf whatever equipment it was that was going to rock the boat.
The equipment in question is likely the longspear and various other reach weapons.
Reach+Flurry has been a holy grail for monk players for years. Now we have it, and the Devs may not like it's implementation.If it were just the Kyetsushoge I'd be fine with that. The Ranseur wielding Sohei may be the real culprit in this I think, it really is a powerful combo.
There is also a thread about this over in the PFS sub-forum, but nothing really different has been posted there about this. But I did mention one thing in that thread that does not seem to be getting enough attention about what is or is not legal for a flurry. From the 5th printing of the Core Book, bolding is mine:
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.
So regardless of what combination of one-handed weapons and/or body parts you may be able to use, you can also flurry with a two-handed weapon. And I interpret this as using just a two-handed weapon, not a double weapon. That means at 15th level, a monk can get six attacks when flurrying with a quarterstaff, for example, even though there is no true off-hand or secondary attack per the TWF rules.
And whether Paizo wants the monk to look like a martial arts movie or not, I have seen scenes in plenty of them where someone is attacking with a one-handed weapon, and only the weapon, in a way that could only be interpreted as a flurry of blows.
Oh, and while this may not be a popular view, I also see a flurry as being done with either weapons or body parts, not a combination of the two. It is just easier to manage that way to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an odd off the cuff story.
I originally, in 3.5 days, thought the flurry with one weapon was a silly notion. One of my Players disagreed, and showed me.
Her name is Jenifer and she has a day job that involves teaching USMC Aviators basic hand to hand combat and advanced knife fighting techniques for the if/when the have to bail out. She took out 2 rubber Kabars gave one to me and attacked. She stabbed,sliced and pommel whacked me at least 15 times in 10 seconds. Now I'm no martial tank, but I do know how to knife fight. She was a sergeant at the time, so not even 6th level yet : )
Long story short, one weapon full flurry was an accepted house standard and I promptly designed a unique magical dagger that had a familiar name. And daggers are monk weapons.
I know this is hardly useful, but I'm not talking Jet Li or Sammo Hung, a regular NCO in the Marines can do it without any camera tricks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The more common reading overpowers the monk
Most folks have been doing it that way for years. There aren't a lot or overpowered monk threads.
2) The more common reading isn't fair to two weapon fighters.
a) Two weapon fighting isn't fair to two weapon fighters.
b) There's a number of feats that two weapon fighters can take that the monk can't because he doesn't actually have the feats
c) The monk is a better two weapon fighter than the ranger... when unarmored. The ranger is a better two weapon fighter than the fighter...when in light armor.
3) It makes the monk better than the fighter.
POSSIBLY. I'd need to see some excel math, but It think this would be close. The thing that takes this off the spreadsheet completely is that this might be true ONLY IF the monk is making full attacks. This is far, far FAR from a given. Whenever the monk moves his damage potential drops well below that of a fighter.