Flurry as TWF: how I kinda like it

[glandis]

Or at least one way of interpreting it. As context, I'm a long-time D&D player, but have just recenly started PF - I was looking at creating a monk, and so I've followed the recent threads. My opinion is that 1) there are clearly some contradictions that need resolving, 2) most of the actual positions on the subject I've seen are supportable. I'll not comment on the attitudes and personalities except to say I have seen some clearly incorrect claims made. A big one for me is that "Flurry has NOTHING to do with TWF" - reading the class description makes clear the devs made a connection. The nature of that connection is, granted, VERY uncertain (and contradicted by some published monk examples)- but saying there's no connection is just not reading, IMO. Another I saw too often is the claim that Magic Fist works with all your unarmed blows - I really don't see now people could read it that way.

Also, one of my favorite D&D monk characters back in the day wielded a pair of sai: one enchanted with fire-based stuff, and one with cold-based stuff. I always played him as getting half his flurry-strikes with fire, and half with cold. It frankly never occured to me to flurry with just the cold sai vs. a (say) fire elemental - that just wasn't the way flurry worked. My monk had flexibilty over the flaming-sword wielding paladin, but against the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) opponent, yeah, he was less effective. And, he was Master of Fire and Ice! I mean, that's more important than some average damage calculation, right?

Anyway, I wanted folks to know where I'm coming from, but I'm not looking to re-debate all that's gone before. I want to express what I like about the Flurry/TWF connection.

Short version It boils down to "I VASTLY prefer the flavor it gives the monk."

What do I mean by that? I see a flurry as representing a monk's ability to use "alternate" types of strikes in a way that the standard fighter class does NOT (or at least, the monk does so more effectively). Frankly, a "flurry" of (say) conventional slashes with a single kama is, to me, boring. It's obviously more efficient (in terms of magic item focus & etc.), but - bleh. When a monk flurries (in my vision), it's because half the blows are something different, and perhaps unexpected - a kick, a push, a smack with the haft of the (again, e.g.) kama. Or from the other hand - which could also hold a kama, obviously, but if you wanted it magic you'd have the burden of enchanting it seperately. And the opportunity to enchant it differently.

Even outside the traditional double and/or paired weapon, this works for me. I like the vision of a flurrying monk with a sword in one hand doing unarmed strikes with his other fist/feet/whatever (and per his unarmed damage stats/enhancements) for half his flurry. Just gaining extra iterative attacks with a single weapon doesn't say "flurry" to me. Or for two-handed/reach weapons, I can see half the attacks coming from a smash or thrust from the haft of the weapon, or even from a reach-kick using the haft as a lever (and thus not leaving your square). Again, I'd do half the attacks per his unarmed strike/damage, unless he had a double weapon. I might even let him turn a (e.g., for a sohei) halberd into a double weapon and enchant the haft/spear differently than the axehead.

Between flexibilty and flavor, I prefer this kind of approach (details might vary, but this spirit works for me). I doubt it over-gimps the monk, but I confess I'm not overly concerned with absolute equity amongst characters, and I value situational flexibilty quite highly (I found it totally worth it that my two-sai monk had some extra-effective attack twice as often vs. a super-effective attack half as often). And I value flavor over all. Flavor with a connection to mechanics, especially.

What's left of the problems created by varied interpretation of TWF-Flurry (unless I missed something) is the Zen Archer, who can't reasonably "half unarmed" or "double/paired weapon" flurry with a bow (firing half the arrows as per his unarmed damage is a bit too wierd for me). A new solution would be needed there. Is there a PF feat to injure multiple opponents with a single arrow? That'd work for me - bow-flurry is attacking 2 foes (within what, 10'? 30'? of each other?) with a single arrow for each normally-paired flurry-BAB. You get the "one item" synergy, but have to spread it across 2 bad guys. And (big bonus, for me) be different from a fighter/archer with bow feats.

So, there you go. I entirely understand that other people may have different priorities, and prefer flurrying away with a single weapon at regular-for-that-weapon-everything. I just wanted to express how I'm against that not so much for power reasons as for flavor reasons (and "inside my head" logic - I understand that "inside your head" may vary).

Anyone else?

[wraithstrike]

Flavor does not keep characters alive, and weakening an already weak class is not helping anyone. I already have to go out of the way to help the monk as is in my games. This is one rule I won't be enforcing.

[Jared Rascher]

All I can say is that it is kind of ironic that back in 3.x, where you didn't need two weapons, there was a lot of art with monks wielding two weapons, as opposed to Pathfinder, which apparently requires monks to have two weapons, and most of the monk art shows monks with but one.

From the monk's point of view, and from the direction of complexity (i.e. having to figure out all of the various bonuses individually for your different weapons if you don't have identical weapons), I'm not a fan.

From a purely flavor point of view, some weapons do look better "twinned." Others don't make much sense "twinned." Sai, butterfly swords, escrima sticks, etc. . . . yup, that looks cool.

[CBDunkerson]

The 'flurry = TWF variation' ruling actually makes more sense to me than some concept where Monks can attack with a single weapon twice as much as anyone else. I also don't see it as a significant 'nerfing' because in most cases you just have to pick up a second weapon (if you didn't have one already).

Two handed weapons are the exception, but again I think they SHOULD be. I also don't see Zen archer as a problem because they don't really HAVE FoB. They lose all of the benefits of FoB and get multiple attacks with a bow instead... basically where most Monks get a variation on TWF feats, the Zen archer gets a variation on Rapid Shot and Many Shot (which is why those feats don't stack).

A Sohei can get flurry with a bow (or two handed melee weapon), but the ruling that they can then only make half their attacks with the weapon and the other half are unarmed makes more sense to me than Sohei's being able to get full bow flurry PLUS Rapid Shot and Many Shot... they shouldn't be better than Zen archers with a bow AND retain all the other benefits of flurry too.

[Revan]

glandis wrote:

Short version It boils down to "I VASTLY prefer the flavor it gives the monk."

What do I mean by that? I see a flurry as representing a monk's ability to use "alternate" types of strikes in a way that the standard fighter class does NOT (or at least, the monk does so more effectively)

Except, 'Flurry as TWF' means the monk is making 'alternate' strikes in exactly the same way and less effectively than the fighter, who can take the actual Two-Weapon Fighting feats--and feats like Two Weapon Rend the monk doesn't get with his pseudo TWF--and use them with ANY weapon, and probably at better bonuses given full access to Weapon Focus and Specialization and the Weapon Training class feature.

I mean, I don't see it, but if you find more flavor to the TWF interpretation, that's OK...but if that's the route you go, they should get the actual feats.

[Shifty]

'Flurry = TWF' gimps the monk, straight up and down, mechanically it really weakens the ability, and weakens the class as a result.

I feel great sympathy for Monk players burdened with a decision that links the two.

I happen to be in the camp that thinks monks are a good and effective choice and are perfectly ok, and I will admit that puts me on the outside edge of the debate and in a very small camp, with most accepting the Monk class is actually sub par. Now if I'm on the very edge of the universe in my tiny group of 'Monk is ok' then I am at a real loss as to whoexactly it was thought they were overpowered to the point of needing such a significant mechanical disadvantage lumped onto them.

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

Don't monks still get full str bonus with both hands? That's an advantage over regular TWF.

And don't monks get TWF without a minimum DEX? That's as good as the ranger and better than the fighter.

And why couldn't a monk take those same TWF feats? Sure, they don't have as many feats as a fighter, but it's still more feats than 3.5

[master arminas]

Because the TWF feats don't stack with what they already have, Rkraus2. So, the monk would have to waste three feats (and meet the prerequisites) without being to use those feats, in order to pick up Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Rend, and the rest of the TWF chain.

Double-slice is a feat taken by nearly all TWF-fighters that allows them to get full STR bonus with bonus hands. Monks, on the other hand (pun intended), DON'T get 1.5xSTR when using a two-handed weapon in a flurry of blows.

As good as the ranger who has a BAB 5 points higher, actually GETs the feats and can therefore use them to select other feats, has an animal companion, AND gains favored enemy which can add anywhere from an additional +2 to +10 on attack and damage rolls.

But it's the monk that is getting all the good stuff, right?

Master Arminas

[Dabbler]

Arminas has the right of it.

Glandis, there is nothing in your idea of the monk that is in any way hindered by either interpretation of flurry-of-blows. FoB as TWF or FoB as it's own thing, it doesn't matter for your different-weapon-in-each-hand monk, which is one I like to use sometimes myself.

Where the TWF flurry-of-blows fails is that:
1) It locks out the monk from the other TWF-tree feats, unless as Arminas points out they take a load of feats they will gain nothing from.
2) It reduces the monk's effectiveness in combat in some circumstances, which is something the monk really doesn't need.
3) It's only usable with 'monk' weapons.
4) There's no option to NOT fight with two weapons. A TWF fighter, for example, can opt to not attack with one weapon and his chances to hit improve. If a monk opts to not use FoB, his chances to hit usually decrease.
It's all the downside of TWF with very little of the upside.

When a clarification raises more questions than it answers, it's not a clarification. When a 'fix' leaves things more broken, it's not a 'fix'.

[TheSideKick]

glandis wrote:

Also, one of my favorite D&D monk characters back in the day wielded a pair of sai: one enchanted with fire-based stuff, and one with cold-based stuff. I always played him as getting half his flurry-strikes with fire, and half with cold. It frankly never occured to me to flurry with just the cold sai vs. a (say) fire elemental - that just wasn't the way flurry worked. My monk had flexibilty over the flaming-sword wielding paladin, but against the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) opponent, yeah, he was less effective. And, he was Master of Fire and Ice! I mean, that's more important than some average damage calculation, right?

in 3.5 you didnt need to do that, flurry was done with a single weapon if you so chose to do it that way, you could then stack twf on top of flurry of blows to max at 11 attacks in 3.5 at 20. which was insane.

pathfinder makes you treat it as TWF for the sake of preventing that as well as what ever other choices influenced that change to the ability.

just remember that RAI is not RAW. RAW will make the game RAI lets you "fluff" how ever you want to.

[Brother Sapo]

Master Arminas:
Double Slice is implicit in FoB (assuming FoB requires 2 weapons) without the need for another feat, at first level.

Your reference to 1.5x STR bonus on damage is not relevant, unless your character can combine TWF with a two-handed weapon.

A ranger using TWF has the same BAB as a flurrying monk, if the ranger's off-hand weapon is light.

Yes, the ranger gets lots of good class features, but so does the monk. The 4/4 BAB vs. 3/4 BAB does not equal 5 until 17th level. At that level, the monk has: 5 bonus feats, 17 uses of stunning fist, 2d8 damage on unarmed strike, improved evasion, maneuver training, still mind, +50 feet speed, +4 AC, the ability to ignore DR/magic, DR/lawful and DR/adamantine, high jump, slow fall 80', poison and disease immunity, spell resistance 27, dimension door, immunity to aging, quivering palm, ki, the abillity to heal himself as a standard action, and tongue of the sun and moon. Not too shabby.

[Dabbler]

TheSideKick wrote:

in 3.5 you didnt need to do that, flurry was done with a single weapon if you so chose to do it that way, you could then stack twf on top of flurry of blows to max at 11 attacks in 3.5 at 20. which was insane.

Yes it was. Of course you weren't going to actually score many hits with those attacks - 3/4 BAB at -2 and with sub-standard weaponry meant that you would do less DPR than a well-built fighter with a greatsword, but I will concede it looked impressive.

[TheSideKick]

dpr is an idiotic system. in 3.5 with trip and stunning fist you could easily land all but 2 consistantly, assuming you wernt hitting a dragon or balor/pit fiend. i know i had monks down to science lol.

monks were all i played for the first 2 years of my d&d play.

[The Drunken Dragon]

Where is everyone getting this update...is this part of the errata?

Anywho...I don't see it too much of a nerf, since using two-weapons is something most monks end up doing. I actually always ran under the assumption that flurry was two-handed fighting...I thought that was why you took the penalties...

[master arminas]

Brother Sapo wrote:

Master Arminas:

Double Slice is implicit in FoB (assuming FoB requires 2 weapons) without the need for another feat, at first level.

Your reference to 1.5x STR bonus on damage is not relevant, unless your character can combine TWF with a two-handed weapon.

A ranger using TWF has the same BAB as a flurrying monk, if the ranger's off-hand weapon is light.

Yes, the ranger gets lots of good class features, but so does the monk. The 4/4 BAB vs. 3/4 BAB does not equal 5 until 17th level. At that level, the monk has: 5 bonus feats, 17 uses of stunning fist, 2d8 damage on unarmed strike, improved evasion, maneuver training, still mind, +50 feet speed, +4 AC, the ability to ignore DR/magic, DR/lawful and DR/adamantine, high jump, slow fall 80', poison and disease immunity, spell resistance 27, dimension door, immunity to aging, quivering palm, ki, the abillity to heal himself as a standard action, and tongue of the sun and moon. Not too shabby.

Yes, Brother Sapo. I mentioned Double Slice to show that the fighter/ranger/rogue/bard TWF-fighter can match the monk's ability to apply full STR bonus to both weapons.

The Sohei archtype, can flurry with a two-handed weapon, using his unarmed strikes as his off-hand; but there are problems. However, even when using a two-handed weapon for his flurries, he can't ever get the 1.5x STR mod; that is a disadvantage.

And the ranger can wear light or medium armor giving him at least 1 point more AC than the monk before magic (and the monk's WIS bonus). He gets four bonus feats, five favored enemies, track, four favored terrains, an animal companion (okay, okay, hunter's bond), SPELLS, track, swift tracker, evasion, improved evasion, woodland stride, quarry, improved quarry, camoflague, hide in plain sight (!!), and master hunter. Oh, and he has a bigger hit die.

Not too shabby. LOL

Master Arminas

[master arminas]

The Drunken Dragon wrote:

Where is everyone getting this update...is this part of the errata?

Anywho...I don't see it too much of a nerf, since using two-weapons is something most monks end up doing. I actually always ran under the assumption that flurry was two-handed fighting...I thought that was why you took the penalties...

The full discussion is here: Flurry of Changes of Flurry of Blows, which itself links back to the original thread which is now locked. Which links back again to the original post made by Sean K Reynolds that started the furor. However, the linked thread has SKRs and Jason Bulmahn's quotes.

Master Arminas

[wraithstrike]

TheSideKick wrote:

dpr is an idiotic system. in 3.5 with trip and stunning fist you could easily land all but 2 consistantly, assuming you wernt hitting a dragon or balor/pit fiend. i know i had monks down to science lol.

monks were all i played for the first 2 years of my d&d play.

DPR is not a system. It is just a way to measure potential damage, and it could be measured in 3.5 also.

As for monk hitting things as much as you say I am sure they were no better in 3.5 without splatbooks. The AC's of many of the monsters did not change a whole lot so if they could hit in 3.5 they should still be able to hit now.

In 3.5 high level monsters still had high fort saves meaning stunning fist often did not work.

[Darkwing Duck]

The flavor is the number one reason I hate the rule. In my view, the monk's weapon is his body. A flurry may include a kick, hip strike, finger jab, knee, head butt, etc. and its all with the same weapon (the monk's body). TWF implies two weapons. What is the second weapon if the monk is fighting unarmed? His other fist? So, if the monk want to do a kick-kick-back fist-elbow combo is that four weapons? Is he going to need to enchant each part of his body seperately? Its just stupid. The sane call is that the monk is using one weapon, not four, not even two. So, if he's not using two weapons, then flurry should not be confused with TWF.

[glandis]

TheSideKick wrote:

in 3.5 you didnt need to do that, flurry was done with a single weapon

Heh, when I say "back in the day", I mean "far enough back that I can't tell you what edition." Maybe 3.0. Maybe AD&D. Not OD&D - I didn't play no stinkin' monks back then.

I been at this hobby on and off a long time . . . My point was simply that my base assumption from way back was that a dual wielding monk would work kinda like the devs seemed to be saying. Since many folks found that idea alien, I thought it worth mentioning at the start of my post.

[glandis]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

A flurry may include a kick, hip strike, finger jab, knee, head butt, etc. and its all with the same weapon (the monk's body).

For entirely unarmed strikes, that's all just fine, right? The only issue there is enchantments, and the rules seem pretty clear (if not entirely satisfying) there: you can Magic Fang and get one "fist" enchanted, Greater Magic Fang and get everything enchanted at +1, or Amulet of Many Fists and get 'em all enchanted to whatever the amulet is.

I guess I'd rephrase the "fist" as "up to half your flurry" for monks, at which point two Magic Fang's could cover your whole flurry, but - I'm less interested in the rule details than the feel of VARIETY on a monk when you apply enchantments/magic weapons/etc. I see the balance-desire to keep Magic Fang and Magic Weapon equivalent, so I'd just say half your flurry gets the enchantment, the other half doesn't. Which would let you take that other half with a (possibly differently enchanted) sai. Or just two differently enchanted sai, just like "the old days" (which may have not followed the rules for all I know, but that's how I remember it).

[glandis]

Speaking of DPR . . . pardon the length of this bit, but given how sure some folks seem to be that a monk loses out vs. a TWF I thought I'd try some analysis. I'm not always inclined to do numerical analysis (and thus may have made some big mistake here), but - here goes.

I tried a couple test cases at level 8. I figured stats (STR, primarily) would equal out (Monk multiple-attribute (Str & Wis) needs balanced by TWF multiple-attribute (Str & Dex) needs), and any magic would equal out (both would need to enchant 2 "items"). The fighter has a 2 bonus feat advantage on the Monk (5 vs. 3), so he gets 2 more feats (one of which, obviously, will have to be TWF). Plus his Weapon Training. Any other feats could (fundamentally) be equal between the two, it seems to me.

First, I went sword & spike-gauntleted fist vs. sword & monk strike:

Monk Flurry 4 attacks
Temple Sword +6/+1 d8 19-20x2
Unarmed +6/+1 d10 x2

TWF Fighter 3 attacks
Weapon Training (+1/+1)
Feats needed to make the comparison possible: Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Unarmed Strike

Longsword +7/+2 d8+1 19-20x2
Spiked Gauntlet +6 d4 x2 w/half strength

So, to hit is +6/+6/+1/+1 vs. +7/+6/+2. Looks like the fighter might average a bit more likely to hit at all, but the monk has (obviously) an extra die roll and more multi-hit potential.

2d8 + 2d10 + 4xSTR mod damage potential vs. 2d8+2 + d4 +2.5xSTR mod damage potential makes for a pretty big damage advantage to the monk.

Crit chance is the same range, but the monk has that added upside possibilty. With a 14 Str vs. AC 20 my somewhat-rusty stat calcs give me average damage of 12.02 for the monk vs. 9.445 for the fighter. Call it a 2.5 DPR "win"

So to my eyes, that's fine - a flurry is different than a full attack, and has an advantage. By no means does it seem like the TWF is a winner, by the numbers or by style.

But maybe the TWF fighter would get some advantage with an actual WEAPON in the off-hand. He gets double-leverage from the weapon training, and frees up a feat too. The TWF becomes:

Weapon Training (+1/+1)
Two Weapon Fighting (needed to make the comparison even possible) and Double Slice (seems like a good choice to even out the monk damage advantage)

Longsword +7/+2 d8+1 19-20x2
Shortsword +7 d6+1 19-20x2

That ups the slight "hit at all" advantage to the fighter just a touch, bumps his damage a touch, and creates a slight crit advantage. 2d8 + 2d10 + 4xSTR mod damage potential vs. 2d8+2 + d6+1 +3xSTR mod damage potential now. The TWF avg damage becomes 12.5625, .5ish DPR better than the monk. Still, 36 points and an extra STR mod for the monk is a much higher max possible than the 25 for the TWF.

That still feels like a flurry to me, more rolls, higher max potential - different than a full attack, more monk-like. Not remarkably weaker than a TWF. This analysis doesn't disuade me from that opinion.

Obviously, lots of possibilities are ignored in this analysis. The temple sword is a Trip weapon, Long/Shortsword isn't. But the fighter's weapon training advantage goes up. Then again, so does the monk's unarmed damage (by an average of 1.5(d10->2d6), 2(2d6->2d8) and 2(2d8->2d10), better than the +1 each time for the fighter - but the fighter also gets the plus to hit). The monk can get an extra attack with a ki point, the fighter can't. The fighter, on the other hand, will get another feat ahead of the monk at 12th, 16th and 20th levels (so +3, +4, and +5 over the monk), but needs to take Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting to keep up with the monk, so - at lvl 20, definitely a feat ahead. In general, I think the balance is likely to remain. Still, I make NO claims that my analysis holds true at all levels - the two classes are on different progressions, after all.

Still, I have convinced myself not to be too worried about the monk getting uber-nerfed if the TWF ruling goes as the devs (apparently) had originally intended. I can understand if others don't LIKE it, for many reasons (not the least of which being adventure content that assumes otherwise). I can imagine playing with simpler, single-weapons-are-fine flurries. But between my flavor preference and the lack of any significant (to my eye) effectiveness gap, I probably wouldn't do that if it were up to me.

[wraithstrike]

At level 10 the fighter is about 15 points ahead on DPR. As the level go up the gap widens, and that is the core fighter vs the core monk. If the TWF or weapon master is used the gap opens up more.

The monk is not supposed to keep up with the fighter either, and the monk does to decent damage with a strength based build.

The TWF ruling does not hurt unarmed attacks, but it does hurt a monk build based around weapons because it forces him to use more money, when that money could have gone to something else.

[Talonhawke]

It might slightly hurt unarmed attacks.

1. It's been thought that early on you might now need a pair of castings of MW to get your full flurry enchanted.

2.We still are waiting for further clarification on monks having no unarmed off-hand and the TWF implications there of.

[arioreo]

glandis wrote:

What do I mean by that? I see a flurry as representing a monk's ability to use "alternate" types of strikes in a way that the standard fighter class does NOT (or at least, the monk does so more effectively). Frankly, a "flurry" of (say) conventional slashes with a single kama is, to me, boring. It's obviously more efficient (in terms of magic item focus & etc.), but - bleh. When a monk flurries (in my vision), it's because half the blows are something different, and perhaps unexpected - a kick, a push, a smack with the haft of the (again, e.g.) kama. Or from the other hand - which could also hold a kama, obviously, but if you wanted it magic you'd have the burden of enchanting it seperately. And the opportunity to enchant it differently.

Actually, what you describe ain't possible anymre. If you chose two weapons, you can't add a third. So if you start your first two attacks with your kama's, you can't suddenly kick your opponent in the nuts if the occasion comes up as you can't add a third weapon.

You could however do this when you interpret the reference to two weapon fighting simply as a simplification to calculate the BAB bonus used for a flurry and allow any combination of attacks that qualify.

[glandis]

arioreo wrote:

Actually, what you describe ain't possible anymre. If you chose two weapons, you can't add a third.

By my understanding, it usually is possible - one weapon (half my flurry) could be "my body and/or my skill with unconventional blows", and the other weapon could be "my temple sword." It usually wouldn't work with your example of trying to mix two kama and a kick, true (unless you treat one of the "kama" as effectively equivalent to your unarmed strike - which if you had a pair of, say, +3 kama, you might not want to do). I mostly see that as an opportunity for an interesting choice - do I choose all-kamas this round, or one kama with some punches and kicks , or possibly all-body, even. Such a choice could be influenced by varied enchantments on the various potential weapons, vulnerabilities of the opponent, or just plain what I think would be cool this round. I like those kinds of choices.

I do see the simplification argument, I just kinda like what's gained by complication in this case. I do think simplification is the most likely reason the devs might NOT stick with the stricter TWF reading.

[glandis]

wraithstrike wrote:

At level 10 the fighter is about 15 points ahead on DPR.

Let's see, at 10th the fighter gets another +1 from Weapon Training, and can "catch up" with Improved TWF. The monk hasn't yet increased his unarmed damage. Does that really change a +.5 DPR advantage into +15? Maybe I'll check that tomorrow, and lvl 12 (when the monk unarmed damage does go up). And check the important (to me, anyway) potential max gap as well.

wraithstrike wrote:

The TWF ruling does not hurt unarmed attacks, but it does hurt a monk build based around weapons because it forces him to use more money, when that money could have gone to something else.

You mean a monk built around A SINGLE weapon, right? I think that's what I'm testing here - one weapon as half the flurry, and unarmed strike as the other half. Keeps the "something else" money just as much as the "real" TWF could. My thought was that it'll balance OK with that TWF, but I'll concede that against a single weapon two-handed fighter, it'll look pretty wimpy. But the TWF looks pretty wimpy versus the two-hander also, right?

[wraithstrike]

The fighter should have at least a +4 total, not to include damage bonuses form feats and abilities.

I think I have a TWF build lying around. If I can find it I will post it and the DPR numbers tonight or tomorrow(actually later on today).

I was saying that monk allowed to flurry with only one weapon only is better than a monk that has to use two weapons because it cost less.

[Talonhawke]

Your forgetting that its not just weapon training at 10 level over the monk the fighter has +2spec +2(+4 with dueling gloves) from Wp training more str (from having less dependancies.) and can power attack for +6 main hand +3 off hand and still have a higher to hit per attack than the monk thanks to weapon traing wp focus and greater focus.

[wraithstrike]

20 point buy
level 12
CRB, UC, UM, and APG. That keep people from trying to use every book available just to get an edge. I will also build a fighter that is expect to see play in a real game.

[Talonhawke]

What point are the builds trying to make so i know what to shoot for If i build one.

[wraithstrike]

Talonhawke wrote:

What point are the builds trying to make so i know what to shoot for If i build one.

I think the fighter is ahead by at least 15 DPR at level 10, and the lead only gets bigger as the levels increase. I believe glandis thinks a monk can keep pace with a two weapon based fighter. He thinks it wont be more than .5, from the way I read it.

[wraithstrike]

I am also assuming this is a build that is used in a real game.

I think the weapon master will do the most damage with the TWF fighter archetype, and the core fighter duking it out for second.

I will probably try all 3.

[Talonhawke]

Maybe I should break out the Titan mauler Cleric of Gorum Martial artist.

[wraithstrike]

You are going to out DPR a monk with a cleric while TWF'ing?

[golem101]

glandis wrote:

... CUT...

Anyone else?

I've kept so far out of the monk flurry debate, mostly because I struggled understanding exactly the point being discussed.

Then it dawned on me that I always envisioned the monk performing a TWF flurry, and never thought of that differently...

[Talonhawke]

Its a build i joked about when it came up that Monk weapons used in a flurry didn't take penalties for being larger than light so with the above mix i can flurry with Greatswords at only a -4 to hit. IF i can find a god that gives bastard swords Titan mauler could be dropped for only the standard flurry penalty.

All assuming flurry penalties remain the same regardless of weapon.

[wraithstrike]

The greatsword is not a monk weapon so they can't flurry with it, not the core monk anyway.

As long as the off-hand weapon is light there should not be any additional penalties. With the new clarification that flurry acts like TWF using a one-handed weapon as an off-hand attack might take penalties to. I guess that is another question that needs to be addressed.

[Talonhawke]

If UC is in then i can take Crusaders Flurry. I mean if im gonna compeate witha fighter i need all the help I can get.

[Darkwing Duck]

glandis wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

A flurry may include a kick, hip strike, finger jab, knee, head butt, etc. and its all with the same weapon (the monk's body).

For entirely unarmed strikes, that's all just fine, right? The only issue there is enchantments, and the rules seem pretty clear (if not entirely satisfying) there: you can Magic Fang and get one "fist" enchanted, Greater Magic Fang and get everything enchanted at +1, or Amulet of Many Fists and get 'em all enchanted to whatever the amulet is.

I just checked the PRD. Where is the above in RAW? Monks do not have a claw/claw/bite routine. They don't make half their attacks with their left fist. That's not in RAW. At least it wasn't until this new stupid rule.

At least now I've got a way to do a shadow punch taekwondo monk. Half the strikes are with the right fist, half with the left, his devastating kicks are so fast they don't even becomepart of his attack routine!

[glandis]

Talonhawke wrote:

Your forgetting that its not just weapon training at 10 level over the monk the fighter has +2spec +2(+4 with dueling gloves) from Wp training more str (from having less dependancies.) and can power attack for +6 main hand +3 off hand and still have a higher to hit per attack than the monk thanks to weapon traing wp focus and greater focus.

I was carefuly to keep track of the feat advantage the fighter has at 8th, it's two feats and he has to spend one on TWF. Weapon Focus, the monk could get - but yeah, Greater WF, Specialization and Greater Specialization are just not available to the monk, so even though they have the same number of feats, the possible choices might not be equivalent. If I specifically include those for the fighter, though, I'll need to specifically pick something for the monk - anyone have thoughts there?

I'm trying to reduce the variables, so I'd rather let magic items cancel out for now. But if the consensus is dueling gloves are VITAL for a TWF fighter build, I'll take that 15K and buy a Monk's Robe and a +1 weapon.

More Str - since I'm stipulating TWF, I'm assuming equivalent dependencies. Simplify that out of the calculation.

Power Attack - again, complications I'd rather avoid. A monk could take this too, and depending on the test AC, maybe it'd work for them.

I'm looking at this as a "as generalized as I can make it" test, I'm not a Pathfinder uber-optimizer, and I'm not trying to "prove" a monk entirely better than a TWF fighter - just viable, different, and interesting. Still, I'd love to see those builds and see what I end up with. A 10th-12th lvl monk might be as high as I'd usually play in 3.x, but I hear Pathfinder doesn't get quite as wonky at the higher levels.

[wraithstrike]

I was going to handle the fighters, while you handled the monk. I am doing a complete build though, but it will be a fighter that I will use in a real adventure, not just a DPR contest build.

[glandis]

wraithstrike wrote:

I was going to handle the fighters, while you handled the monk. I am doing a complete build though, but it will be a fighter that I will use in a real adventure, not just a DPR contest build.

That's cool, I'm interested in what we end up with, though a bit concerned by my lack of PF experience (and frankly, my distaste for over-optimization - I usually throw at least a few feats at RP-focused stuff. I'll have to try and restrain my urge to round out the character).

The .5 DPR difference was at lvl 8 - I do expect it to go up at higher lvls, 15 just seemed like a big jump at lvl 10.

What lvl are you shooting at, and what is your opinion on the simplification (Str value, Magic items, and ?) issues?

[Talonhawke]

Yes if you take out everything but base class features yeah it doesnt seem to be a big difference. Power attack and dueling gloves are not uber optimizing its standard procedure much like AoMF for the unarmed monk.

[glandis]

wraithstrike wrote:

I was going to handle the fighters, while you handled the monk. I am doing a complete build though, but it will be a fighter that I will use in a real adventure, not just a DPR contest build.

OK I , know I posted a reply to this, and the board even showed it as the last post - but now it seems to be gone. Appologies if this ends up a duplicate.

That sounds fine - I'm prone to throw a feat or two at roleplaying rather than optimization, and I'm no PF expert yet, but it should be intersting to give it a try. The .5 DPR difference was at lvl 8 with a bunch of "all else is equal" assumptions - I expect the difference would increase with levels, 15 just seemed like a big jump at just 2 lvls higher.

What lvl are you looking to build? And what are your thoughts on simplfing assumptions (equivalent STR, magic)?

[glandis]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Where is the above in RAW?

Magic Fang (emphasis added)

Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.

Greater Magic Fang
Alternatively, you may imbue all of the creature's natural weapons with a +1 enhancement bonus.

From what I remember reading in the other threads, most (but not all, I grant) people were able to map GMF onto a monk flurry as I described it. With the all/+1 GMF, it doesn't matter: any monk body strike gets the +1. The "single fist" issue is of course the core of the current controversy, and while I can see it working just find, I'm not looking to have this thread (ANOTHER thread) for that fight. Here, I'm just exploring if a)TWF-flurry can make sense, as I think it's how I've always assumed at least SOME aspects of flurrying worked, and b) is a TWF fighter (as opposed to monk) really that much better than a monk, if we mix a weapon with unarmed strike as the TWF-flurry would seeem to require?

[Darkwing Duck]

glandis wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Where is the above in RAW?

Magic Fang (emphasis added)

Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.

Greater Magic Fang
Alternatively, you may imbue all of the creature's natural weapons with a +1 enhancement bonus.

From what I remember reading in the other threads, most (but not all, I grant) people were able to map GMF onto a monk flurry as I described it. With the all/+1 GMF, it doesn't matter: any monk body strike gets the +1. The "single fist" issue is of course the core of the current controversy, and while I can see it working just find, I'm not looking to have this thread (ANOTHER thread) for that fight. Here, I'm just exploring if a)TWF-flurry can make sense, as I think it's how I've always assumed at least SOME aspects of flurrying worked, and b) is a TWF fighter (as opposed to monk) really that much better than a monk, if we mix a weapon with unarmed strike as the TWF-flurry would seeem to require?

But, like I said, the monk does not have a claw/claw/bite type of attack routine. That's why your interpretation is flawed and not just in error, but problematic. Which of his attacks per round are from his left foot? His right elbow? His head butt? If you want to claim that half his attacks are from his left side and half from his right side, then where do head butts fit in?\

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

master arminas wrote:

So, the monk would have to waste three feats (and meet the prerequisites) without being to use those feats, in order to pick up Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Rend, and the rest of the TWF chain.

Double-slice is a feat taken by nearly all TWF-fighters that allows them to get full STR bonus with bonus hands. Monks, on the other hand (pun intended), DON'T get 1.5xSTR when using a two-handed weapon in a flurry of blows.

I don't buy it. Either flurry of blows is like TWF, or it's not.

If it is, and flurry is just like TWF, then as far as I'm concerned, monks -have- TWF. So, I don't see where the 'waste three feats' comes from. If flurry works like TWF, then it works exactly like TWF, and monks have TWF. Monks also effectively have the Double Slice feat, btw.

Ok, maybe it's limited to monk weapons, but I'm fine with that.

[Brother Sapo]

master arminas wrote:

...

Yes, Brother Sapo. I mentioned Double Slice to show that the fighter/ranger/rogue/bard TWF-fighter can match the monk's ability to apply full STR bonus to both weapons.

The Sohei archtype, can flurry with a two-handed weapon, using his unarmed strikes as his off-hand; but there are problems. However, even when using a two-handed weapon for his flurries, he can't ever get the 1.5x STR mod; that is a disadvantage.

And the ranger can wear light or medium armor giving him at least 1 point more AC than the monk before magic (and the monk's WIS bonus). He gets four bonus feats, five favored enemies, track, four favored terrains, an animal companion (okay, okay, hunter's bond), SPELLS, track, swift tracker, evasion, improved evasion, woodland stride, quarry, improved quarry, camoflague, hide in plain sight (!!), and master hunter. Oh, and he has a bigger hit die.

Not too shabby. LOL

Master Arminas

I am laughing too, Master. A ranger is a powerful character.

And I have to admit that "Wholeness of Body" is pretty shabby.

[glandis]

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Which of his attacks per round are from his left foot? His right elbow? His head butt?

Yes, there's a contradiction between the general "unarmed strike" phrase and the "a [...] fist" phrase in the description. I find it easy to resolve that by saying you get to apply the enhancement from a regular Magic Fang to half your attacks during a flurry - describe a combination of blows as you desire. Which attacks? Half of them. That's compatible with the way I always thought wielding two weapons or a double weapon in a flurry would work, so it makes sense to me. I see that it's unclear in the spell description, but I don't see my understanding as outrageous. It may turn out to NOT be the way the devs and or others decide they want it. In this thread, I'm not trying to fight-out the right answer to THAT question, I'm explaining why I'm OK with the flavor a TWF-focus gives. And now doing a check on the degree of disparity between a TWF fighter full attack and a monk-flurry with half weapon, half unarmed.

[Darkwing Duck]

glandis wrote:

Yes, there's a contradiction between the general "unarmed strike" phrase and the "a [...] fist" phrase in the description. I find it easy to resolve that by saying you get to apply the enhancement from a regular Magic Fang to half your attacks during a flurry

Which is nowhere in the rules.

The way I'd always resolved it was that the monk's -body- is his weapon. So, he needs only to get his body enchanted.

He doesn't have to deal with the nonsense of f getting half his attacks enchanted +2, the other half of his body +3 and then trying to figure out if his head butt is +2 or +3.