Removed some posts. Please post civilly!
Retcon.
"Any combinations of attacks" means that if you have 5 attacks, you can do 4 with a kama and 1 with your unarmed strike, 3-2, 2-3, or 5-0, becouse 5-0 is a combination too. They are retconing this becouse they think AoMF is well priced (which I think it's not)
Retcon.
"Any combinations of attacks" means that if you have 5 attacks, you can do 4 with a kama and 1 with your unarmed strike, 3-2, 2-3, or 5-0, becouse 5-0 is a combination too. They are retconing this becouse they think AoMF is well priced (which I think it's not)
AoMF is not overpriced when a druid's pet lion can wear it, it's just that monks need a cheaper option to enhancing unarmed strike only.
AoMF is not overpriced when a druid's pet lion can wear it, it's just that monks need a cheaper option to enhancing unarmed strike only.Retcon.
"Any combinations of attacks" means that if you have 5 attacks, you can do 4 with a kama and 1 with your unarmed strike, 3-2, 2-3, or 5-0, becouse 5-0 is a combination too. They are retconing this becouse they think AoMF is well priced (which I think it's not)
An option that is cheaper at higher EB would be to buy an allying weapon and choose to transfer its EB to your fist(s).
|
It was merely poor communication, which happens to Paizo a lot.
I am very frustrated with lots of their rulings and balancing. I like the flavor for many of their creations, but the balance is not there.
However, they didn't lie to anybody. They just didn't realize what changed and what made it into the book.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An option that is cheaper at higher EB would be to buy an allying weapon and choose to transfer its EB to your fist(s).AoMF is not overpriced when a druid's pet lion can wear it, it's just that monks need a cheaper option to enhancing unarmed strike only.Retcon.
"Any combinations of attacks" means that if you have 5 attacks, you can do 4 with a kama and 1 with your unarmed strike, 3-2, 2-3, or 5-0, becouse 5-0 is a combination too. They are retconing this becouse they think AoMF is well priced (which I think it's not)
Improved Unarmed Strike should just make Unarmed Strike into d6 damage for all classes, and the character has the option of doing non-lethal or lethal damage. At each step that monks gain more dice, they should just automatically receive unnamed bonuses to Unarmed Strike instead of getting more dice. So +1 to attack and damage at level 4, and again at level 8, and etc. If a monk wants to use weapons, just allow this bonus to be moved to the weapon as a free action or non-action. The weapon is still a mundane item, and does not detect as magic.
It's clean, it's effective, and it actually makes monks better since static modifiers are better than more dice. The monk still doesn't detect as magic unless the are wearing other magic items.
AoMF is not overpriced when a druid's pet lion can wear it, it's just that monks need a cheaper option to enhancing unarmed strike only.An option that is cheaper at higher EB would be to buy an allying weapon and choose to transfer its EB to your fist(s).
I suggested an item that is half the price but takes up two slots (hands and feet) instead. Still makes the AoMF desirable and usable, but allows a cheaper option.
mproved Unarmed Strike should just make Unarmed Strike into d6 damage for all classes, and the character has the option of doing non-lethal or lethal damage. At each step that monks gain more dice, they should just automatically receive unnamed bonuses to Unarmed Strike instead of getting more dice.
It's clean, it's effective, and it actually makes monks better since static modifiers are better than more dice. The monk still doesn't detect as magic unless the are wearing other magic items.
LOL, I just suggested this in another thread, that unarmed damage should have been made into 1d6 + 1/2 monk level damage all the way. No extra dice, just a flat bonus. I also suggested that like the original monk in AD&D, the extra damage should be added to monk weapons as well.
An option that is cheaper at higher EB would be to buy an allying weapon and choose to transfer its EB to your fist(s).AoMF is not overpriced when a druid's pet lion can wear it, it's just that monks need a cheaper option to enhancing unarmed strike only.Retcon.
"Any combinations of attacks" means that if you have 5 attacks, you can do 4 with a kama and 1 with your unarmed strike, 3-2, 2-3, or 5-0, becouse 5-0 is a combination too. They are retconing this becouse they think AoMF is well priced (which I think it's not)
Improved Unarmed Strike should just make Unarmed Strike into d6 damage for all classes, and the character has the option of doing non-lethal or lethal damage. At each step that monks gain more dice, they should just automatically receive unnamed bonuses to Unarmed Strike instead of getting more dice. So +1 to attack and damage at level 4, and again at level 8, and etc. If a monk wants to use weapons, just allow this bonus to be moved to the weapon as a free action or non-action. The weapon is still a mundane item, and does not detect as magic.
It's clean, it's effective, and it actually makes monks better since static modifiers are better than more dice. The monk still doesn't detect as magic unless the are wearing other magic items.
You make me think of how d20 Modern manages unarmed attacks.
d20 Modern's version of Improved Unarmed Strike, Combat Martial Arts, increases unarmed damage dice to 1d4, in addition to its other effects.
They also have a separate feat called Brawl which does NOT work like Improved Unarmed Strike/Combat Martial Arts in that it does not allow unarmed strikes to be treated as armed, but it increases the nonlethal damage dealt by unarmed strikes to 1d6 (and also grants a +1 to attack to unarmed attacks). The feats don't stack.
That system's "monk," the Martial Artist advanced class, then gets a similar improved advancement of damage dice so they still stand out in terms of damage, but other characters can deal a little more damage with unarmed strikes, and unarmed fighting generally becomes a more viable thing, as opposed to the big weapon/gear reliance in Pathfinder/d20 fantasy (now, mind, in d20 Modern they wanted to encourage that--in fact you could knock someone out if you dealt their Constitution in nonlethal damage and they failed a saving throw, so it was a much bigger deal).
Lets leave Politcal and moral issues in their own section of the forum. This is about monks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is only an issue if you accept the ruling... which I do not.
Count me among those that choose to stick their head in the sand and blissfully ignore the gimping of an already underpowered class.
Have they come back with an official final rule yet? The last I'd read SKR's was the standing rule but they were still looking into it.
Has that changed? (if so where, I can't find it anywhere)
-S
This is only an issue if you accept the ruling... which I do not.
Count me among those that choose to stick their head in the sand and blissfully ignore the gimping of an already underpowered class.
It's not under powered. It is perfect. My games rely heavily on humanoid enemies and low levels. Characters are often without armor and skills are important.
The problem with Pathfinder is its players try to bang square pegs into round holes. God knows I did it for years.
I think wizards are over powered. Others think the monk is under powered. It isn't exactly a perception thing. It is play style.
As far as the new ruling, it is basically just a stupid ruling. I'll stuff that in the box of crap I never use, like transmuting gold into magic items and negative channeling.
Once again if the monks is good only because the games you run are benefical to it, then its cleary not good.
If I run any AP or Published modual the monk is bottom of the totem pole most of the time.
Have they come back with an official final rule yet? The last I'd read SKR's was the standing rule but they were still looking into it.
Has that changed? (if so where, I can't find it anywhere)
-S
They're still looking into it. I think the wait is chill; I'd rather they handle this right, rather than end up in a situation where everything gets further muddled because things remain broken and they have to keep issuing fixes to the fixes. As the clarification completely breaks (renders essentially non-functional, not simply weakens) a popular archetype, I don't think there's too much danger of the issue simply fading away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Luckily, the clarification is toothless at this point. I doubt anyone will play with a clarification that breaks stat blocks and archetypes alike. All the better if they just keep quiet about any further changes to the monk.
I don't mind the wait, I was just makin sure I didn't miss it somewhere.
-S
While I am NOT in a hurry to buy new stuff, it is errata like this that does sorta point to the need for a 2nd Ed. Clean the slate so to speak.
Honestly, I think PF should do their own version of the 3.5 update.
There's just so many tiny rules inconsistencies (most of which are no where near as significant as the FoB issue, and are easily GM-ruled) that were guaranteed to happen. Guaranteed because Pathfinder isn't an original work - It's an update project.They need to go through every single page (of the CRB at least) several times with a fine-toothed comb and clear things up. If that means we have to buy a new CRB with a 'v1.5' tag, I think most people would be okay with it.
I think there's a lot of bizarrely pedantic rules lawyering going on in all this outrage about the FAQ response for flurry of blows. Sorry to pick on you DeathQuaker, but here we go:
I truly believe Jason Buhlman when he said he always intended it to work like TWF, including all the recently clarified language regarding off-hand attacks.
BUT
The Pathfinder flurry-of-blows entry was, frankly, very poorly written and edited. Furthermore, the lead designer's interpretation was clearly not shared and agreed upon by other developers, writers, and editors.
The original wording of flurry-of-blows in and of itself is inconsistent and unclear. And no, I'm not even talking about the "any combination of" clause, although that's problematic.
Fair enough. I think there are a lot of rules that Paizo could have cleared up better based on confusion dating back to 3e. Plenty of missed opportunities.
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.
If you can flurry with a weapon wielded in both hands, it does not work like two-weapon fighting, or if flurry works like two-weapon fighting, then this clause about a weapon being wielded in both hands should not exist. Because I don't think it's talking about a double weapon here, because double weapons don't need that kind of clarification (not to mention, should have been identified clearly as "double weapons" so as to avoid confusion). And no wonder Zen Archer and Sohei/temple sword monks are confused--it says right there you can have a weapon wielded in both hands, so the comparison to TWF MUST be a loose reference regarding attack penalties only, right? That's a big source of the confusion right there.
I've never really seen this as any source of confusion since unarmed strike could come from any part of the body. Two-weapon fighting with a two handed weapon? Sure - a character can kick and headbutt among other things. None of the specifics matter to unarmed strike... unless there is something special involved that differentiates the attacks. Like magic fang applied to one fist. Monks, with their unarmed strikes being so good, are just particularly adept at mixing parts of the body in any combination.
A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows.
I am assuming that since you can substitute these for unarmed attacks, they can be "primary" or "off-hand" attacks in a flurry, but it can get messy -- if I'm wielding a sai and I already did my primary hand attacks with the sai, can I get my bonus from the sai to disarm or not?
When working with a special weapon and mixing it with other weapons, of course you have to track which one you're attacking with and its specific bonuses. I don't see this as a problem. If I wanted to kick the guy and get my monk damage but also disarm him with my sai for the bonus for doing so, of course I kept track of which one's bonuses was applying and declared the attacks properly to the DM as I rolled them.
If they really meant to change flurry from the get go as drastically as Jason said he intended to, all of this language should have been carefully reviewed, changed, and clarified. In fact, the 3.x wording should have been completely struck and the new flurry should have been rewritten entirely from scratch.
Further, as to not making sure the designers were all on the same page -- this is clear from not only from nearly every monk statblock in most APs and Modules (Ruby Phoenix Tournament, anyone?), but in particular the book designed to teach game masters how to run the game. This statblock and most others feature single weapon flurry.
It may not have been the intention, but it absolutely WAS the execution. So it's less retrocontinuity, and more massive inconsistency and poor editorial control/management in a huge way.
I somewhat agree. It's clear that if the original intention was for flurry to necessarily involve multiple weapons, certain stat blocks in Paizo publications show that wasn't clear to the editors involved. (Though how wide-spread a problem is this really - 2-3 stat blocks in the Ruby Phoenix Tournament are affected, a smaller scattering elsewhere? It's not exactly a huge problem.)
A bigger problem, of course, are archetypes like the zen archer. Clearly, the designer of that and the editor did NOT have this clarification.And for gustavo iglesias, my turn to be pedantic:
No, 5 attacks with one weapon and none with another isn't really a combination. You need to combine things to really have a combination.
It is not 12.5%.
Not one monk thread that is one this board has ever used the new* interpretation. Not one group I have ever gamed with in real life or seen on the PbP boards has used the new interpretation.
Other than Treantmonk, and I guess Jiggy I have never seen anyone suggest otherwise. I take that back. People have asked about it, but when people told them two weapons were not needed they went with the flow.
*I know it is not really new since it is a clarification, but it is new to most of us.
So you are basing your sample on the boards here where the error kept getting passed on by yourself and others that believed as you do and reinforced over and over.
If only one of you that had been preaching the false message so strongly to the "people that asked about it" had thought to get official clarification on it sooner...
I am also basing it on real life gamers, and the fact that the due to the way it is written with the "any combination" quote which was spelled out nicely by another poster. Keep in mind that even Paizo's official products have the same error.
The GMG has good examples of these errors.
The published stuff is boring to me. Just because Piazo wrote it doesn't make it any kind of default. I do not care about how the monk played in the APs because I do not know anyone who plays them. Just because the monk isn't good in the canned railroad you bought at the store doesn't mean it isn't good.This is only an issue if you accept the ruling... which I do not.
Count me among those that choose to stick their head in the sand and blissfully ignore the gimping of an already underpowered class.
It's not under powered. It is perfect. My games rely heavily on humanoid enemies and low levels. Characters are often without armor and skills are important.
The problem with Pathfinder is its players try to bang square pegs into round holes. God knows I did it for years.
I think wizards are over powered. Others think the monk is under powered. It isn't exactly a perception thing. It is play style.
As far as the new ruling, it is basically just a stupid ruling. I'll stuff that in the box of crap I never use, like transmuting gold into magic items and negative channeling.
Once again if the monks is good only because the games you run are benefical to it, then its cleary not good.
If I run any AP or Published modual the monk is bottom of the totem pole most of the time.
The point being made is that you should run a campaign that is not geared to showcase anyone class's skills, and see how it runs without bias.
Nothing has changed of it, no matter what the whiners say. We just all misread it. Except Jiggy and one other guy.
I have a name!
The problem with the "any combination" line isn't that one part of the line by itself. You can argue that, "Any combination means any combination, so 3-2, 4-1, or 5-0, etc," and you'd have a halfway decent argument, but your argument would start to crumble when it's pointed out that you're specifically ignoring the rest of the same sentence. But that's not really the issue...
Taking the entire sentence into context:
When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
One minor problem that I'm noticing is that Two-Weapon Fighting, as described in the book, doesn't allow for "any combination." It specifically calls for Main-hand and off-hand, and the attack bonuses for each follow a pattern: You gain a single extra attack at your current attack bonus, applying TWF penalties. Because attacks are in order from highest bonus first to lowest bonus last, there is no way to have "any combination" following the TWF rules.
But even THAT isn't the big issue:When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
Notice the bold word. Now consider that the TWF feat has nothing to do with attack combinations in any way. The only purpose of the TWF feat is to reduce base TWF penalties. If FoB said "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules," then we'd be starting to get somewhere. But, alas, it doesn't.
So when you get right down to it, whether you agree with Master Arminas and the rest of us who feel one way or JB/SKR and those who agree with the devs, it doesn't really matter, because the way the ability is written neither one can be technically correct because of the problems with the wording.
Sorry if I'm a bit late to the discussion, it only recently came to my attention.
I invite Master Arminas and others to this discussion in which I intend for us to collect evidence in the hopes of determining whether or not the new (old?) ruling is a retcon, or simply something that was overlooked by nearly everyone.
Here is the relevant post for those not in the know: SKR's Clarification/Retcon
The old thread was shut down because it was, technically, off-topic and in the wrong forum. This is meant to be a continuation of that discussion.
Like Master Arminas, I personally believe it IS a retcon of sorts, and will only serve to hurt the game if made an official rule (since it breaks a lot of existing rules, builds, and game mechanics. A new line of errata/FAQs on the matter will only severely complicate an otherwise smoothly flowing system.
Via his many past posts, Sean has made it quite clear that he once believed that you could flurry with only one weapon, just like the rest of us. I strongly suspect that he only changed his tune, because Jason told him to.
In fact since EVERY product EVER printed by Paizo with monk material in them SUPPORTS flurrying with a single weapon, as far as I'm concerned, only Jason and a handful of others actually believed in this new interpretation form the beginning. It's news to everyone else.
We are the 99%.
I don't much care what SKR says on this issue. It's total rubbish that he is attempting to redefine and overcomplicate a simple rule. A monk flurrying can use whatever attacks he wants in whatever combination he wants to use them. If he wants to punch with the same fist seven times or strike with this Temple Sword seven times, that's how I'm playing it.
They should never even of opened a can of worms by making it hard to make unarmed strikes magical to begin with. It's a huge pain to make creatures with unarmed strikes have magical attacks and overly expensive. They should simplify that part of the equation rather than complicating how flurry is adjudicated. I hate it when they start doing this kind of rule changing with games, especially to classes that are already offensively weak.
They're still looking into it. I think the wait is chill; I'd rather they handle this right, rather than end up in a situation where everything gets further muddled because things remain broken and they have to keep issuing fixes to the fixes. As the clarification completely breaks (renders essentially non-functional, not simply weakens) a popular archetype, I don't think there's too much danger of the issue simply fading away.
I think so too, it's wise decision to take their time on it - and sample opinions as well!
It is not 12.5%.
Not one monk thread that is one this board has ever used the new* interpretation. Not one group I have ever gamed with in real life or seen on the PbP boards has used the new interpretation.
Other than Treantmonk, and I guess Jiggy I have never seen anyone suggest otherwise. I take that back. People have asked about it, but when people told them two weapons were not needed they went with the flow.
*I know it is not really new since it is a clarification, but it is new to most of us.
So you are basing your sample on the boards here where the error kept getting passed on by yourself and others that believed as you do and reinforced over and over.
If only one of you that had been preaching the false message so strongly to the "people that asked about it" had thought to get official clarification on it sooner...
People did, and everyone thought it worked the way everyone thought it worked, including - in a previous FAQ answer - SKR. What's actually unbelievable is that anyone actually thought it DID work the way the clarification has it, but never mentioned anything in response to the piles of threads where people used the flurry-with-one-weapon interpretation*, previous FAQ answers that involved flurrying with one weapon, Zen Archer, GMG sample monks, etc. That's why people are so surprised that it wasn't until now that the clarification somehow sprouted up. If every single inquisitor thread anyone ever created mentioned that you should stack the Bane class feature with Bane weapons, I'm pretty sure that I'd notice pretty quick and pop in and say "hold up, I'm pretty sure those don't stack, since you're actually just putting the property on the weapon" at some point. I have no idea where the theoretical "I knew you couldn't flurry with one weapon" folks have been all this time, since they don't seem to have existed prior to the clarification.
*Every weapon-using monk thread in the history of the boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People did, and everyone thought it worked the way everyone thought it worked, including - in a previous FAQ answer - SKR. What's actually unbelievable is that anyone actually thought it DID work the way the clarification has it, but never mentioned anything in response to the piles of threads where people used the flurry-with-one-weapon interpretation*, previous FAQ answers that involved flurrying with one weapon, Zen Archer, GMG sample monks, etc. That's why people are so surprised that it wasn't until now that the clarification somehow sprouted up. If every single inquisitor thread anyone ever created mentioned that you should stack the Bane class feature with Bane weapons, I'm pretty sure that I'd notice pretty quick and pop in and say "hold up, I'm pretty sure those don't stack, since you're actually just putting the property on the weapon" at some point. I have no idea where the theoretical "I knew you couldn't flurry with one weapon" folks have been all this time, since they don't seem to have existed prior to the clarification.
*Every weapon-using monk thread in the history of the boards.
You see, strange how this 'clarification' came about when justifying why AoMF costs so much and it just kind of gets mentioned that actually, unarmed strike is multiple weapons. Frankly I think they could have just said 'unarmed strike is multiple weapons' and called it at that. It wouldn't change the fact that unarmed strike is basically gimped next to armed fighting, and the AoMF isn't effective enough for it's cost to make up the difference.
Those are the problems the devs need to be looking at, IMHO. Don't justify to us why aspects of the game are 'sub-optimal' guys - fix them.
I think there's a lot of bizarrely pedantic rules lawyering going on in all this outrage about the FAQ response for flurry of blows. Sorry to pick on you DeathQuaker, but here we go:
Bill, you have taken out of context the fact that I was answering the OP's question -- is this clarification a retcon or not?
My opinion is that it is not a retcon (which is in fact IMO the less-rage-induced reaction to have), but an issue of unclear rules wording and inconsistency in applying the rules.
Since people on these boards like examples to back up opinion, I provided specific examples based on the wording of the ability. Perhaps my examples were poor, or I explained my position poorly. And of course you are, by all means, welcome to disagree with my interpretation--you think flurry of blows as written is largely clear, I do not. So be it. But with all due respect, I think you kind of missed the point and the intention in which my examples were provided.
Any "rage" expressed is that of an individual (myself) with (a relative modicum of) editing experience being frustrated with seeing what is in my opinion poor editing in a published product that I expect to be high quality. Again, you are welcome to disagree.
I somewhat agree. It's clear that if the original intention was for flurry to necessarily involve multiple weapons, certain stat blocks in Paizo publications show that wasn't clear to the editors involved. (Though how wide-spread a problem is this really - 2-3 stat blocks in the Ruby Phoenix Tournament are affected, a smaller scattering elsewhere? It's not exactly a huge problem.)
In the thread I started about Sean's clarification, many people asked for examples of both A) Statblocks that showed an example of the "wrong" interpretation of flurry (i.e., single weapon flurry), and B) Statblocks that showed an example of the "right" interpretation of flurry.
People were able to provide many examples of A (Ruby Phoenix Tournament and the Game Mastery Guide are only two of them--just easy to cite because one is very recent and the other can be directly linked to in the PRD). Examples from the entirety of Jade Regent and other APs, modules, and Pathfinder Society scenarios were also provided, IIRC. No one was able to provide examples of B, that I can recall.
If you are able to provide examples of B, PLEASE do so. It would be a tremendous help in showing how Paizo has in fact implemented this ruling.
Also, while it may not be a "huge problem" that the statblocks in Ruby Phoenix are wrong, I think my other example--that of the GMG--is a problem. Right now, the only examples of monk statblocks in the PRD are the "wrong" statblocks--the PRD is the official online resource that many people reference for the rules, and furthermore is the resource most new people consult before purchasing the actual rulebooks. If new people look at this site and see: okay, this is how monks are built, it IS--within the context of learning how to play the game correctly--in fact a huge problem.
If you say so, but I have seen more convincing arguments that it requires at least two weapons/unarmed strikes since it must follow the Two-Weapon Fighting rules as noted in the text.No, a combination by definition is composed of more than one option. A combination lock, for example, with four digits for the lock can have any digit represented by 0-9.
However, all four digits can be 9, and it remains a combination lock.
Such as?
This is not a new thing. Even the 3.5 flurry allowed you to flurry with a monk weapon.
So Happydaze how about you answer connerro's question now since you decided not to back then when you made [2] post [/b] and then said nothing more after several posters refuted your arguments.
Yes it would help offical or not the fact remains that over the last 3 years no Dev has bothered to step in on any thread about flurrying with one weapon and say no.
An undeterminded number of monks have not been corrected at various events.
Multiple NPCs have been stated with no offical corrections to their stat blocks.
At least once a dev can be qouted saying that single weapon flurry is possible. And its in the offical FAQ for that matter.
So yes please oh great and mightly omnipotent one show us the error of our ways.
I wouldn't say that everyone thought that it worked the *wrong way* - I myself argued against it last year but no one listened then.
You mean you failed to convince anybody and lost the argument.
To lose an argument, one has to actually engage in it.I wouldn't say that everyone thought that it worked the *wrong way* - I myself argued against it last year but no one listened then.You mean you failed to convince anybody and lost the argument.
You mean you lost the argument. That's what losing the argument means, that you presented your case and they dismissed it. From what I can see you presented, claimed to be right, and they countered, explaining where it didn't apply and that therefore you couldn't be right ... and that was it.
You made no counter-argument to their claims, therefore you lost the argument.
If you read my posts, you can see I really don't give two s#!@s how other people play. However, I do find humor in how seriously people are taking this clarification that corrects them on their error.
If you do not care, you wouldn't find the situation amusing. The fact that you feel the need to post, calling us whiners, and make clear that you are laughing at us makes it very clear that you DO care, and care very much.
Argue all you want.
Thanks, we will - because the decision is not final.
No need for you to check in on this thread, though, as you don't care, right?