I wont go as far as to say retcon. More like completely unconsidered until know as it pertains to this specific subsection of the rules.
I think it went like this...
Rule was written with intent of clarification and simplification.
Nobody at that time considered the ramifications of grafting 2wf on to FoB when it comes specifically to what weapons are used in itterative attacks.
prestige classes were written, modules were written, stat blocks filled out, all with the best of intentions, and not seeing the contradiction.
People got their hands on the final product, and the evidence overwhelmingly supported using the old version of the rule, and the rule itself at first blush is a little vague...so most do not notice.
Some one who does notice asks pointedly how the rule works. The devs read the rule they wrote and recall their intent when it was written and realize the error, but rather then retcon the rule, invalidate a lot of their own released material...as that the rule was intended to work a certain way from the start.
Now we are here at modern day with a rule that most dont want or like, that probably we would have gotten past by now if the stream of products we know and love since werent invalidated.
just my 2cp..but Paizo always asks our opinion and has our interest in mind, not just because its their buisness to, but also because they love the game as much as we do. If the majority opinion is that we want it the old way...odds are it will eventually end up the old way, provided we all remain civil and respectful to the designers and the community,
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It's telling that Mark Moreland and Mike Brock, the PFS organized play people are allowing REBUILDS because of this clarification.
Clearly that wouldn't be the case if they thought FoB = TWF was intended from day 1.
Unless people believe they would cave into public outcry that easily. Believe me, they don't.
The wording always left me confused to be honest, I was never certain if you could flurry with a single weapon, and had it squarly in the ask your dm category. Since the wording gave me pause to think about it, I consider this a clarification not a retcon/errata.
It never came up for real consideration in my group, because the one monk that did turn up used unarmed strikes with an amulet. So nothing really lost or gained here for us, it's just clearer then it was.
I have to admit I find the whole thing very interesting. There have been a bunch of things in the 3.x ruleset that my group has played wrong for a really long time that have turned up in pathfinder. I think any minor revision in a ruleset is going to create 'system confusion'. This is just a really big case of it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, wall-of-text incoming. Just my two cents.
I know this is a hotly debated topic (and one I'm extremely interested in), but I think as a community, we've put Paizo in a somewhat awkward position to come back with an official answer. I know everyone is passionate about the game and its components, but through the constant "discussion" (more often than not, complaining), we've painted them into a bit of a corner in my mind.
Let me explain...Whatever answer they come back with now will be received poorly or set a bad precedent. If they say, "It is exactly like two-weapon fighting," they will be criticized for being hard-nosed jerks who aren't willing to examine the facts (though we all know they do throughout their game designs - everybody misses something from time to time). This will be received poorly and the vocal posters (whom I love, btw. Questioning and challenging "the system" is what leads to continual growth and allows things to evolve into something truly great!) will make sure that the entirety of the Paizo boards knows how ridiculous this ruling is.
If, however, the devs come back and say, "No, you're right. It shouldn't function like two-weapon fighting. Our bad," then the precedent is set that if we, as a community, just b!+c# about something long enough, we'll eventually get our way. Again, the vocal posters will sing the praises of "Revolution!" from the mountaintops, proclaiming how we should fight every rule we don't like (a gross exaggeration, I know; but not by much). This is not a precedent that anybody, let alone a company should set with their customers, peers, or acquaintances.
I know we like to discuss, debate, and d...argue our points on the forums, but if we just give Paizo a little time to work this out and come up with a reasonable solution, I think we can all (or the vast majority of us) be happy in the end. And if you're not happy, I hope that you can find a group that will allow you to use a houserule that allows you to play the game you want.
In the end, it's all about having fun. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Timothy, I think the cautiousness about what kind of precedent this sets is certainly well-warranted.
I hope we can have the mental and emotional werewithal to accept this is a very specific circumstance and whatever is decided, it does not mean that a series of absolutes are determined (either Paizo doesn't listen at all to feedback or that it bends to the will of the public too easily, neither of which I think will ever be true).
This very specific issue DOES need an answer because it
1. Involves a core rulebook mechanic, and thus affects EVERYONE who plays the game.
2. Is addressed inconsistently within Paizo's own publications. The inconsistency needs to be cleared up, because otherwise GMs do not have a solid precedent on which to make their own rules calls.
3. Creates a situation where specifically at least two class archetypes published in the APG and Ultimate Combat no longer work as written because of the clarification (see also #2). Which has been acknowledged by Jason Buhlman himself.
I absolutely hope Paizo takes the time they need to make a clear call on this, and issue any errata necessary with as widespread distribution as possible. I completely agree with you that the call they make needs to be made with great care.
Whatever they decide, I do not think it has to set a precedent for anything however, except hopefully to establish that if they note a vast inconsistency that crosses class builds across books, they will take their time to correct the issue properly. (And regardless, gamers will always self-entitledly demand more and more, no matter what happens. It's in our blood. Really that any developer allows us message boards on which to express our opinions and "demands" always amazes me. ;) )
just my 2cp..but Paizo always asks our opinion and has our interest in mind, not just because its their buisness to, but also because they love the game as much as we do. If the majority opinion is that we want it the old way...odds are it will eventually end up the old way, provided we all remain civil and respectful to the designers and the community,
This, plus what Timothy and DeathQuaker said.
We need to be clear this is not 'b1tching' but reasoned argument, as DQ makes clear above. I think it's too much to ask for a new monk, at least at this stage, but some provision really needs to be made for the monk to be viable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Timothy, DeathQuaker, Dabbler, you're all wonderful.
At the end of the day, most of us are doing this because we love this game, and we love this class. As much as I've ragged on the cumbersome nature of Monk as of late, it's because I just want it to be as awesome as it can be.
My first character was an AD&D Thief at summer camp when I was 12. When I was old enough to understand the game and actually play with my own group, my first character was a 3.5 Monk who suspiciously tended to speak poorly dubbed, with his words not synching up with his mouth. I've grown up a lot since then, but my desire to bring Wuxia Shenanigans to the gaming table has not changed. Because running around and beating people up with your bare hands or the 18 weapons of Kung Fu is just plain fun!
I don't want to spend hours debating who was right first or what rules went where. I just want to have fun, and I want the rules to make my favorite class and concept viable. I don't want to talk about if it IS or IS NOT a Retcon. I just want everyone to ask themselves: "WWBD". What Would Bruce Lee Do? And if your answer is to make a really weird noise followed by kicking someone through a wall, you've got the right idea! Although, that leaves us with the actual question of: "Where do we go from here?" If nothing else, because where DO you go after you've kicked someone through a wall? Or determined that everything we think we knew could get swapped around. :(
Thank you ReconstructorFleet.
Yes, my first 3.5 character (when I finally got to put down the DMG) was a monk also. To be fair, monks are pretty effective at low level. Once the fighter gets his first magic weapon, though, is the start of the decline and you need to get VERY imaginative in order to keep functioning.
WWBD. What Would Bruce Lee Do?
+1. Great post :D
...
The good news is, the purely unarmed version of the monk is unaffected by recent rulings/clarifications. And I think in terms of DPR, unarmed is the way to go from level 10ish onward (I've done some mathcraft in another thread on that). Weapons work better for specific mechanical tricks (like having a bigger crit-range for the hungry ghost monk).
Stuff about vow of poverty
To be honest, I've build a monstrously dangerous NPC monk that uses vow of poverty. He's part of a "rival" group for the PCs - I'm not part of the game, but their GM asked me to create a suitably challenging "finale". Until that happens I can unfortunately not detail the monk on the forums. Suffice it to say he uses an underutilized archetype or two, uses the vow of poverty, is build for support, and is going to make the final encounter really hard for the PCs ;)
(To be fair, the vow doesn't specifically make him stronger than he'd be without the vow, but the really big amount of extra ki come in very handy for this monk. Expensive gear would make him differently dangerous - but in this case the vow goes really well with his modus operandi.)
The good news is, the purely unarmed version of the monk is unaffected by recent rulings/clarifications. And I think in terms of DPR, unarmed is the way to go from level 10ish onward (I've done some mathcraft in another thread on that). Weapons work better for specific mechanical tricks (like having a bigger crit-range for the hungry ghost monk).
No, the purely unarmed monk is no more gimped than normal, which is bad enough. His enhancement options are the AoMF or nothing, and if he takes it he loses out in AC because he can't use an amulet of natural armour at the same time.
There are some really interesting dissertations here. I hope this thread continues to produce such interesting points while also keeping to a calm, cool environment.
There are some really interesting dissertations here. I hope this thread continues to produce such interesting points while also keeping to a calm, cool environment.
Hmmm. *eyes RD suspiciously* How... out of character...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's rather simple.
A) It's a retcon. In this case, the devs need to state it's a retcon, and then they have to retcon all Monk Archetypes that modify flurry of blows to ensure they work with the retcon. They also need to retcon all published material via errata to fix monk stat blocks, etc.
B) It's a clarification. In this case, the devs need to state that they missed their own rulings in multiple books, and need to fix this via errata on those books to correct the stat blocks. They also need to fix the archetypes for monks that modify flurry, to modify how they work to fit the intent, rather than the RAW as has obtained (even within their own editing).
In other words, either way it goes, Paizo editing crew has a b*#$* of a job ahead of them generating fixes for a half-dozen books to correct this issue. Either way it goes, they have to fix both the Monk core class wording, and the wording to every monk archetype that modifies flurry.
It's no wonder they are not responding quickly on this, either way it's egg on their face, and they're going to get basted for it either way. So they're going to be very very careful about how they finally decide this.
Don't forget the part where they have to fix every monk stat block that mentions flurrying with a single weapon. Fun times.
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 have no idea how the ball got dropped, but it is very clear that at some point even people are Paizo thought the one weapon flurry was the intent. In any event they need to make "the mistake" the official correct way. Monks are about to become the new 3.5 Samurai class.
Suddenly I am curious, who is responsible for the write-up of Flurry of Blows as it is seen in the CRB, and what were his thoughts on how it was to be taken?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I saw the issue as being about power, I would be nervous. Yes, the monk is one of the less-powerful classes, and yes the clarification weakens some monk builds (or rather costs them extra money) and disables others. But errata isn't a good way to fix that kind of thing. If pathfinder was a digital game where monk fixes could just be patched in and everyone would have them, then sure, but it's not. If the monk has power issues, that's a separate issue. Noting that that monk is a somewhat anemic class is primarily important for dismissing the LSM "whatever, powergamers are just sad that their cheesy OP monk builds were rightly dismissed" line of reasoning about the discussion.
Here's why I'm not concerned about this issue setting a precedent. If the whole thing was a matter of "monks could use some help, let's complain until they errata something", I'd be against it. If there was a movement to help rogues by giving them, I dunno, free Toughness and the ability to feint as a swift action, I'd be in there all like "heck no; errata is not the way to deal with class power issues." Furthermore, if I was advocating for arbitrary rules changes in order to give monks a hand, I wouldn't pick "let them flurry with one weapon", since that does zilcho to help the iconic barefisted monk. (Well, other than making it so that his backup DR-defeating weapons don't need to be purchased and drawn in doubles.)
But that's not what I feel is or should be driving the discussion. If anything, power concerns are a distraction, and one that makes it look like the discussion is about the monk's power level. What's driving the discussion - at least from my perspective - is that the clarification takes us from a world where everything works to a world of completely broken ZAM, Groundkicker Sohei, the monk who wants to fight with one weapon being all but evicted from the game as a concept, monk material that requires a free hand being off-limits to any weapon-using monk, busted stat blocks, previous FAQ rulings where it's now unclear if they're mistakes or exceptions, and so on. There is an extremely simple fix that repairs every single one of those issues, which is to simply reverse the clarification. This has the beautiful side effect that any character that IS built under the clarification is still legal. (Since legal characters and actions under the clarification are a proper subset of legal characters and actions under the old way.)
That's why I'm not concerned about precedent for "if people kvetch about something, they eventually cave", because this isn't arbitrary kvetching. It's kvetching against a clarification that essentially makes the game linearly more broken, unless you think that the advantages of unifying FoB with TWF (except with a jillion exceptions) are worth wantonly breaking a ton of other material. This situation is not analogous to "Let's give a rogue free feats so it's better able to keep up with other classes in similar roles! Errata now!" It's analogous to "What do you mean paladins can't cast spells in armor? That causes so many game problems. Are you sure about that?" If three years from now there's an "Ultimate Equipment II - What's missing?" thread where it comes out that it was never developer intent that paladins could cast in armor, I don't think that it'd be a problem if there was a similar response to what's happening now.
If wanting the game to function instead of not-function makes me a whiner, then I'm a whiner. I don't care about monk power level, I care about playing a game where the rules work.
That is also valid Joyd. Right now the RAW does not work across the board for monks. Giving them the TWF feats as free bonus feats is easier.
Allowing FoB to treat their BAB as their class level when using TWF also makes it so that the stackblock don't have to be changed.
Additionally making errata so that the monk functionally has TWF, even for the purpose of qualifying for additional feats such as two weapon rend is even better. That way they don't have to enter the TWF feats into every monk stat block.
Nicely said Joyd.
To certain others (myself included), I think it's time to stop feeding the troll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If, however, the devs come back and say, "No, you're right. It shouldn't function like two-weapon fighting. Our bad," then the precedent is set that if we, as a community, just b!+c# about something long enough, we'll eventually get our way. Again, the vocal posters will sing the praises of "Revolution!" from the mountaintops, proclaiming how we should fight every rule we don't like (a gross exaggeration, I know; but not by much). This is not a precedent that anybody, let alone a company should set with their customers, peers, or acquaintances....That's not a bad precedent. That's exactly how it -should- work. The client (or customer base) is always right. And, speaking as a professional developer (software, not RPGs), this is the precedent that every company needs to set with their customers, peers, and acquaintances.
Yes, it IS a bad precedent, because then anyone who wants a rule change to the game to support their style (and hurt other peoples') just has to get a bunch of friends together to make long, posts deploring the current state of affairs.
Worse, this can lead to constant changes and retcons as warring groups raise their voices and shout for changes.
That's why our requests to maintain the original FoB "the way we thought it was" system must be couched in reason and logic, and phrased politely on the grounds that it has always been done that way for three years, and it would be harmful to the enjoyment of the game for many players if the original intent is enforced after so long.
We must NOT demand changes to the game 'just because we all say so' - we CAN and SHOULD make constructive suggestions for future consideration, though.
In software you can make changes that everyone(most people) likes. In games, such as this one, where fun is largely based on opinion that idea does not work so well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said "customer base", not each and every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes around.
...and you tell the difference between somebody who bought their books on Amazon and a "non-customer" how, exactly? How exactly do you determine who Paizo 'should' listen to? I guarantee whatever your answer, if it isn't 'every Tom, Dick, and Harry' then it will be divisive and potentially exclude those that have something to say. Still it's not me you have to sell on the idea, it's the Paizo staff.
DD I am still not clear as to how you(Paizo actually) would tell the difference between people being fan boys for their buddy, and someone who is a customer.
There are probably ways to track tendencies by using software, but I don't think Paizo is going to do that just to make sure poster X is not a real customer, just so they can say "ignore his post".
It means that when you stir up a hornets' nest in your message boards, you listen.
Yes, that's exactly what I said was a dumb idea, and exactly why I said it was a dumb idea. You are just encouraging anyone with a beef to create a ****storm on the boards, and soon everyone will be shouting, and when everyone is shouting, NO-ONE will be getting heard.
It means that when you stir up a hornets' nest in your message boards, you listen.Yes, that's exactly what I said was a dumb idea, and exactly why I said it was a dumb idea. You are just encouraging anyone with a beef to create a ****storm on the boards, and soon everyone will be shouting, and when everyone is shouting, NO-ONE will be getting heard.When everyone is shouting something different, NO-ONE will be getting heard. That's a good thing.
When everyone is shouting the same thing (as they are with this recent rule change), they will be heard. That's, also, a good thing.
If you could guarantee the latter, you would be onto something, but we both know that you cannot. By the time everyone agrees on the same thing, the recipients will likely be deaf from the shouting.
Removed some posts. Flag it and move on, please.
I'm merely trying to prevent things like this, Stynkk.
There are some really interesting dissertations here. I hope this thread continues to produce such interesting points while also keeping to a calm, cool environment.Hmmm. *eyes RD suspiciously* How... out of character...
The last thing I want is for my thread to not be taken seriously and summarily closed down due to inconsiderate posters with no manners or self-control.
The last thing I want is for my thread to not be taken seriously and summarily closed down due to inconsiderate posters with no manners or self-control.
Yes, getting attention is good, but not if it's the kind of attention where the mods have to intervene.
I think the developers intended it to work as TWF and were genuinely surprised to find out the rule had misinterpreted.
No, I don't think they intentionally set out to nerf the monk, just consolidate rules.
I understand that many people who have been playing monks the other way were chagrined to find out that they were unwittingly using a house rule and not RAW or RAI. Some people pride themselves on avoidance of house rules and adherence to RAW, so I understand some strong feelings about it.
I also believe that the Flurry of Blows section was not well written and could have been worded so as to make the intention more clear. I believe it was the victim of a hasty rewrite while the Pathfinder rules were converted from 3.5 rules.
I say you just have to house rule it if you don't like the way it is was intended. I really like all the Pathfinder rules, but even I house ruled a few things. For instance, I did away with weapon enhancement equivalents because I want PCs to have different weapons for different kinds of DR (but that's another discussion).
I am going to go with RAW because I want flurry combinations to be not repeat the same attack in a row.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm going to go with a houserule because I want Zen Archer to work at all. (Unless it's supposed to be an NPC archetype for monsters with four arms, in which case carry on.) I also want reach weapon sohei to function normally.