|
what i'm curious about, for all the players/gm's that say they're just going to house rule it in their games no matter what the developers say.
How many of you are out there?
I don't know if its a faux pas, but instead of chiming in,
can you take this one question survey of how you use two weapon fighting or plan to use two weapon fighting.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HN3B9VW
Linkified :)
Since the change from 3.5 to PF, we've done it like TWF in the few times it came up. Most of our players didn't play much of 3.5, so they just saw the PF Monks rules which specify they work like TWF. At least according to our GM.
Always ran it like two-weapon fighting, but will change it to whatever the clarification is once it happens.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never played 3.0 or 3.5 - but in every statblock I've seen, it's been apparent that you could use one weapon for all attacks, if you so chose. So that's how we've always played it - and the same goes for everyone else I've been in contact with.
But since I play PFS, I'll go by whatever the FAQ will say.
Always played it as TWF.
I've always viewed the "any combination" verbage as granting the ability to make all attacks with a single weapon. I figured the worst case scenario of that wording was that you could make your very last attack with a different weapon to fulfill the "any combination" part.
I interpreted "as if using the two weapon fighting feat" as referring to the fact that you take reduced penalties to each attack, since the two weapon fighting feat doesn't actually grant you that attack, it just reduces the penalties significantly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never even thought about the possibility of forcing a monk player to use two separate weapons when using flurry of blows (until the recent debacle, that is). It will be interesting to see the results.
In my group, the 3-4 monks played (going all the way back to 3.0) always used unarmed strikes (or shuriken for ranged attacks), so it never actually came up. If I ever play another monk, I'll stick with that format, and as such, it still won't be an issue. :P
All monks in my games used Unarmed Strike as their primary weapon, but we also reduced the cost of Amulet of Might Fists (and upped the maximum bonus). They usually had a backup weapon or two to overcome DR and we let them flurry with that single weapon for all attacks. That was the way it was handled in 3.0 and 3.5 when we played those and it never occurred to us to play it any other way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We use single weapon is allowed.
If they really intended it to be always like TWF, they would have worded it much better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with limiting it is that the example given is that a monk can always make his or her full attacks regardless of how many of her limbs etc. is impaired/unavailable. If that is true, how can it not be all the attacks with any of the monks many weapons...I always thought of it as monk hits you with numchuks, swaps them to other hand and hits you with that hand, rinse repeat...it fits the genre of the kung fooey classic imo.
|
|
adjusted the text from "exactly like two weapon fighting" to "like two weapon fighting". figured y'all would know what i mean.
so far of 47 responses
like two weapon fighting 31.9% (15)
one weapon can be used for all attacks 55.3% (26)
i'm waiting for the FAQ and will use however it is clarified 12.8% (6)
just a reminder: i'm not tabulating these based on your post in this forum. to chime in with how you play, click over to the survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HN3B9VW
Like twf
Yar!
I've always viewed the "any combination" verbiage as granting the ability to make all attacks with a single weapon. ... I interpreted "as if using the two weapon fighting feat" as referring to the fact that you take reduced penalties to each attack, since the two weapon fighting feat doesn't actually grant you that attack, it just reduces the penalties significantly.
This.
Vote for "One-Weapon-Flurry regardless of ruling" submitted.
~P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Single weapon.
Queston for those of you who use it like two-weapon fighting: exactly how many weapons comprise a monk's unarmed strikes? I mean, I have always thought that a creature (or character) has but a single unarmed strike, regardless of which limb or portion of a limb he makes the attack with. But SKR (based upon the description of the magic fang spell) believes that you enhance a single limb--and that if you limbs feature a different enhancement you have to divide your unarmed attacks (ala two-weapon fighting). So how many 'weapons' do unarmed strikes actually represent? Two (right arm, left arm)? Four (add your legs). Five (head, too)? Nine (elbows and knees)? How many magic fang/magic weapon/greater magic fang/greater magic weapon spells does it take to make ALL of a monk's unarmed strike enhanced?
Master Arminas
My preference when making decisions like this is: what is the simplest way to run something that isn't broken in mechanic or flavor?
So. I don't see any benefit in denying a monk the ability to flurry with one weapon. It's not a huge thing, but it's simpler to me to just treat flurry as extra attacks, much like iteratives or haste attacks. Just... play the game, roll some dice, and I'll tell you what hits. I don't see the need to treat a flurry like TWF in this regard.
Sure, when someone rolls up a character whose theme is fighting with two (or more) weapons, I'm going to expect that they use two (or more) weapons. That may impose mechanical penalties (having to enchant two or more weapons), but that's the price of doing literal TWF.
A monk? Not so much. Go ahead and head-butt your flurry, or elbow the bad guy five times. Whatever. Kama-to-the-head. The only reason it says flurry = TWF is arbitrary. It's not important. So we simplify our lives at the table.
I respect what Jason and Sean are doing here. I really, really do. They're trying to say "hey, we already have a rule that does mostly-X... why don't we use it for X?" Brilliant thinking. It's just that now I have to think "oh yeah, that martial artist class that's got super-rapid attacks... can't pulse off a bunch of rabbit-punches. 'Cuz."
|
So how many 'weapons' do unarmed strikes actually represent? Two (right arm, left arm)? Four (add your legs). Five (head, too)? Nine (elbows and knees)? How many magic fang/magic weapon/greater magic fang/greater magic weapon spells does it take to make ALL of a monk's unarmed strike enhanced?
Two.
I think of it like an 'orc double axe'... which has a total of four blades, but only has to be enchanted twice. Once for both blades on the left side and once for both blades on the right. Ditto for unarmed strikes... one enchantment for all left side attacks (i.e. fist, kick, elbow, or knee) and one for all on the right side.
Where does that leave the head, CBDunkerson?
Master Arminas
As usual though i like this approach to a degree CB nothing in RAW even comes close to supporting this.
RAW only leaves room for either the all are one approach or the every little part is its own weapon approach. Both have their issues.
|
|
Where does that leave the head, CBDunkerson?
Right where it started... not listed amongst the body parts which Monk unarmed attacks can be made using;
"Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."
Yes, headbutts are listed elsewhere as a type of unarmed attack... they just aren't one of the types which benefit from the special unarmed strike rules for Monks.
So any character--with or without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat--can headbutt someone, but a monk with a class feature that provides increased damage to unarmed attacks doesn't get his damage with a headbutt? Isn't that just a little . . . strange? And he can even flurry with a headbutt (since only unarmed strike, not a monk's unarmed strike is listed under the description of flurry), but it would still deal 1d3 damage when his fists, feet, eblows, and knees deal up to 2d10 points of damage, right?
Master Arminas
Whats strange are the number of things people tend to claim joe the barkeep can do that a well trained monk can't. Such as those who claim the monk can't throw a one two punch since they have no off hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, "any combination" would be any number from any of the various weapons at your disposal, so long as the total adds up to the correct number of attacks. That means all with one weapon, or some with one weapon and some with another, or one weapon and one head butt and one kick and so on, or whatever. ANY combination, in other words.
If it had been meant to work EXACTLY like TWF (i.e., two weapons required), then they should have simply given monks TWF as a bonus feat and been done with it -- there is no need for a "flurry of blows" ability if it works exactly the same as an existing feat.
Compare the following:
Eschew Materials: A sorcerer gains Eschew Materials as a bonus feat at 1st level.
vs.
Shun the Pouch (Ex): A sorcerer not in possession of a materials component pouch can choose to cast certain spells without using the needed material components. An attempt to do so works the same as a normal spellcasting attempt, except that blah blah blah blah... We meant for it to work exactly like the Eschew Materials feat. Ignore the several paragraphs of text we wrote, OK?
|
|
master arminas: Yep, monks can headbutt, but not as part of a flurry and only for normal damage. Their Improved Unarmed Strike bonus feat still applies though. Strange? Maybe, but it is strictly speaking what the rules say and it does nicely avoid the 'which half is the head on' issue you were angling towards.
Talonhawke: Entirely true that 'two enchantments for unarmed strikes' is not hinted at by anything in RAW... but given that RAW is unclear and either 'one' or 'all' body parts "have their issues" why not house rule it to two and thus match the cost every other class pays?
CBDunkerson: why couldn't a monk headbutt as part of a flurry of blows? From the Core Rulebook
When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon
.
It doesn't say a monk's special unarmed strikes, just unarmed strikes. Which we know, from another section of the CRB (Unarmed Attacks in the Combat Section) that 'punches, kicks, and headbutts' are considered unarmed strikes. So only a monk can knee someone in the groin or smash them with their elbow?
Perhaps, just perhaps, the writers didn't confer fully on exactly what limbs a monk or other character can use for unarmed strikes. You reckon?
Master Arminas
One weapon, because any combination is allowed.
This.
Whats strange are the number of things people tend to claim joe the barkeep can do that a well trained monk can't. Such as those who claim the monk can't throw a one two punch since they have no off hand.
Who said that? I don't think it's precluded by 'any combination' - it's just not required that it be one-two, one-one, two-two, or whatever. Oh, and this evening my DM had no problem with my monk head-butting a skeleton in the face after kicking it in the kneecap...
One weapon is fine with me. Also, if it comes up (no monk players at the moment), I'd probably give this a try.
|
|
Perhaps, just perhaps, the writers didn't confer fully on exactly what limbs a monk or other character can use for unarmed strikes. You reckon?
Entirely possible (though, to be hyper technical, head butt is actually listed as a type of "unarmed attack" and Monks are said to be able to flurry with "unarmed strikes", which are defined as the four types listed previously)... however again, there are logical reasons to rule it that way even ignoring the 'RAW support'. Such as keeping the costs / spell coverage consistent.
If it had been meant to work EXACTLY like TWF
As already noted, FoB doesn't work EXACTLY like TWF, under either interpretation. Ergo, they couldn't just say 'it is TWF'... because it isn't. Very similar yes, but not "EXACTLY" the same.
Spes Magna Mark: Nice. I liked that blog posting and I may well use it myself. Thanks for sharing!
Master Arminas
At my table we've never had an issue as like some others have stated our monks typically only used unarmed strikes. However we had a discussion about the current situation and we agreed that you could use a single weapon for all attacks, you would just have to make sure you keep track of which attacks were made with the offhand for damage purposes. Since once you're TWFing you still only get 1/2 str with your offhand and a weapon unless we missed something and monks get full str with monk weapons and offhand attacks.
At my table we've never had an issue as like some others have stated our monks typically only used unarmed strikes. However we had a discussion about the current situation and we agreed that you could use a single weapon for all attacks, you would just have to make sure you keep track of which attacks were made with the offhand for damage purposes. Since once you're TWFing you still only get 1/2 str with your offhand and a weapon unless we missed something and monks get full str with monk weapons and offhand attacks.You missed something, lol. Flurry of blows states
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.And again under the Unarmed Strike class feature of the monk we have
A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Note that his also means that a monk wielding a two-handed weapon in a flurry of blows only gets his Strength bonus, not 1.5x his Strength bonus.
Master Arminas
Spes Magna Mark: Nice. I liked that blog posting and I may well use it myself. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks, Master! That's what I'm here for. :)
Single Weapon because a)that is how every since player of 3.0, 3.5 and PF that I have ever played with does it and b)you can so something resembling that in real life and c)why screw the monk over again for no reason.
i always played it, any number of wielded weapons/unarmed strikes from 1 weapon to however many arms you have, that hold weapons + any amount of unarmed strikes
|
I've been doing it and will continue doing the original way: single-weapon is possible.
This means monks can throw one-two punches, do Chun-li style lightning kicks with one leg, do right punch-to-right elbow-to-left spinning kick-to headbutt, all without being forced to do any of them.
It keeps all the different variations of flavor a monk player might want possible.
The group I am in has always done single-weapon is possible. In fact, when I pointed out it had been clarified the other way the group mostly seemed to make the call that until it was an officially faq'd thing then they weren't acknowledging it. The consensus seeming to be that the phrase "any combination" was there for a reason.
Also, the last monk we had was being played by a less than awesome player, so it needed any help it could get anyway...
I've always done it the way it was written. Given number of attacks, with any number of available weapons. I don't care for "clarification" that defies logic, but if they rewrite the ability, I will follow that.
We just threw out flurry of blows entirely and let Monk full attack with unarmed strikes as a standard action. Meshes better with their absurd amount of movement speed.
This is so simple and elegant that it brings a tear to my eye. Though the balance issues involving standard action full attacks worry me a little bit.
As to the poll: single weapon. Paizo sources support single weapon flurry and two monk archetypes are written assuming single weapon flurry. The original wording may have leaned towards TWF, but no sources that came out afterward brought it up, and some even supported single weapon flurry.
|
|
so far of 100 responses
like two weapon fighting 23.0% (23)
one weapon can be used for all attacks 66.0% (66)
i'm waiting for the FAQ and will use however it is clarified 11.0% (11)
just a reminder: i'm not tabulating these based on your post in this forum. to chime in with how you play, click over to the survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HN3B9VW
so far of 100 responses
like two weapon fighting 23.0% (23)
one weapon can be used for all attacks 66.0% (66)
i'm waiting for the FAQ and will use however it is clarified 11.0% (11)just a reminder: i'm not tabulating these based on your post in this forum. to chime in with how you play, click over to the survey:
Seraphimpunk,
You do realize that you can make your link actually work by clicking the little box 'How to Format your Text' at the bottom of the screen and adding the header and follower listed, right? This board doesn't automatically match your formating or allow links without you plugging them into the text.
Just a heads up.
Master Arminas
Single weapon.
Queston for those of you who use it like two-weapon fighting: exactly how many weapons comprise a monk's unarmed strikes? I mean, I have always thought that a creature (or character) has but a single unarmed strike, regardless of which limb or portion of a limb he makes the attack with. But SKR (based upon the description of the magic fang spell) believes that you enhance a single limb--and that if you limbs feature a different enhancement you have to divide your unarmed attacks (ala two-weapon fighting). So how many 'weapons' do unarmed strikes actually represent? Two (right arm, left arm)? Four (add your legs). Five (head, too)? Nine (elbows and knees)? How many magic fang/magic weapon/greater magic fang/greater magic weapon spells does it take to make ALL of a monk's unarmed strike enhanced?
Master Arminas
In any game i would happen to GM, the monk would have to A. use flurry like twf, meaning two weapons, and B. the enchantment would be on the monk himself, in the case of Magic Fang etc.
Therefore, if he wants to enchant his UAS, it would be one casting of whatever enchantment spell. This seems to be the most common sense approach, rather than having to specify "I cast GMF on my left fist, then my bum and finally my nose hairs"