I have always interpreted it that you could flurry with a single weapon for all of your attacks. In fact, I have never played with anyone to interpret it another way. Before this clarification came out, it was a non-issue. The only debate I have seen is whether a monk could have the TWF fighting feats and use them in combination with flurry. GM's I've played with have been split on this last question.
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.
That is...genius.
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.That is...genius.
I really like that too.
What about this: revert them to medium BAB when flurrying, give them the old 3.5 flurry as a full round action, and give them the option of making a regular full round attack (no flurry) as a standard action (can only be done with unarmed strikes and monk weapons).
TWF feats can be taken in addition to the above, but would require the monk to actually use two weapons. Unarmed Strike would count as a single weapon for this purpose.
The result:
A mobile fighter who at 15th level can do up to 9 attacks as a full round action or 6 attacks as a standard action if you go TWF, or 6 attacks as a full, and 3 as a standard if you don't. Note that the extra 3 attacks for the full round action would be at the monk's highest attack bonus, as per 3.5 flurry rules and the extra attack ki power (which can only be combined with a flurry).
Pros: Lots of attacks, high mobility
Cons: Lower chance to hit then full BAB classes, somewhat compensated for by the sheer number of attacks, and the unbelievable mobility.
EDIT: Actually, 6 as a standard seems like too much even though they'e mostly going to miss. Still, I think I'm on to something here…
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.That is...genius.I really like that too.
What about this: revert them to medium BAB when flurrying, give them the old 3.5 flurry as a full round action, and give them the option of making a regular full round attack (no flurry) as a standard action (can only be done with unarmed strikes and monk weapons).
TWF feats can be taken in addition to the above, but would require the monk to actually use two weapons. Unarmed Strike would count as a single weapon for this purpose.
Nah, not for me. The monk has enough problems connecting at high level with FoB as it stands, TWF with the old BAB and, well, it wasn't called flurry of misses for nothing. No point in twenty attacks that can never connect, three that will are preferable.
I like the 'attack as a standard action on full BAB as an alternative because it emphasises the monk's mobility, and synergises well with it. It still doesn't help the fact that the AoMF is crap, though it's just an interesting alternative to FoB.
If I was rewriting the monk (and I have made some proposals elsewhere) then that isn't how I would do it because it requires too much redesign of exiting builds. Instead I'd add a 'short flurry' option (maybe on spending a ki point) and keep the FoB as everyone interpreted it to be.
Chun Li, Bruce Lee, and Jet Li aside...
One Weapon Flurry is how it's always read. And it's one of the very few advantages Monk has going for it when it comes time to actually fight something.
Now they just need to fix the enhancing unarmed strike silliness.
One weapon flurry is not how it's always read and more importantly is not HOW it reads nor is it the intention of flurry of blows. It says it's as TWF. Crystal clear.
I wonder when people will stop being in denial and actually read the ability.
One weapon flurry is not how it's always read and more importantly is not HOW it reads nor is it the intention of flurry of blows. It says it's as TWF. Crystal clear.
I wonder when people will stop being in denial and actually read the ability.
It puts it will TWF 'as if', not as a this = that. The wording is vague enough that neither side can truly make a "this is what it says" comment. The devs admitted as much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One weapon flurry is not how it's always read and more importantly is not HOW it reads nor is it the intention of flurry of blows. It says it's as TWF. Crystal clear.
Right next to "any combination", also crystal clear, and making all attacks with one weapon is a valid combination of "any combination" of one's weapons. As it does not explicitly state that this is changed from the 3.5 mechanics of flurry save in the attack bonus used and that it cannot be combined with TWF, the default is that it works as the 3.5 flurry in all terms not stated otherwise.
Just to end any doubt, you can look up the examples of monks in the official releases, and how they flurry - and they all flurry with one weapon.
It may not be what they meant at the time, but it is a valid interpretation of what they wrote and it's how everything has been interpreted by official sources for the last few years. The devs themselves have admitted that they did not make their intent clear, and they are reviewing whether the Rules-as-Interpreted by what appears to be the majority of posters here and their own staff should replace the Rules-as-Originally-Intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One weapon flurry is not how it's always read and more importantly is not HOW it reads nor is it the intention of flurry of blows. It says it's as TWF. Crystal clear.
I wonder when people will stop being in denial and actually read the ability.
It is not crystal clear, that is not what the language actually states, and you can say this same statement in every thread like you have for the past month...and you still won't be right. Especially since the survey is massively against what you're saying it says. The vast majority of the playerbase interpreted it the way the vast majority of posters have said, and the vast majority of voters disagree with your statement.
I'm sorry Cheapy. But seriously, you're beating an skeletal horse with a slashing weapon, and you're just not piercing it's DR.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of voters disagree with your statement.
I'm sorry Cheapy. But seriously, you're beating an skeletal horse with a slashing weapon, and you're just not piercing it's DR.
Last published results I saw, a claim of "The vast majority of voters .." couldn't be justified - there were a significant number of votes cast either way.
And, in any case, you can't really put much faith in a self-selected survey. You're always going to get far more votes from those who are dissatisfied with the status quo, just as you'll get far more complaints on a forum than posts saying "everything is fine". That's just human nature.
Finally, the survey itself was pretty flawed. There wasn't any way to say "All our monks flurry unarmed, not with weapons, so it just isn't a big issue" - a viewpoint that has been expressed multiple times by different posters on the forum.
Edit: fixed quoting
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One weapon flurry is not how it's always read and more importantly is not HOW it reads nor is it the intention of flurry of blows. It says it's as TWF. Crystal clear.
I wonder when people will stop being in denial and actually read the ability.
Let's take a look at the Class Feature in question, shall we:
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the rerequisites for the feat).
At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the rerequisites for the feat).
The first bolded part of that quote shows the problem with this 'clarification' being crystal clear. Any combination means . . . any combination. For example, an 8th level monk attacks at +6/+6/+1/+1 in a flurry of blows. He can make all four attacks with his unarmed strikes. He can make all four attacks with a single weapon. He can make three attacks with unarmed strikes and one attack with a single weapon. He can make one attack with unarmed strikes and one attack with a single weapon. He can make two attacks each with unarmed strikes and a single weapon. He can make two attacks with unarmed strikes and one attack with two seperate weapons. He can make one attack with unarmed strikes, two attacks with one weapon, and one attack with a second weapon. He can make two attacks with one weapon and two more with a second weapon. He can make three attacks with one weapon and one attack with a second weapon.
That covers all combinations of weapons and unarmed strikes available to him (unless he spends one or more attacks on shuriken, which opens upon still more options). Further, he can substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for any of this unarmed strikes in his flurry of blows.
If a monk cannot do this, then why on earth were the words in any combination included?
The second, third, and fourth bolded phrases show these additional attacks are as if the Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain. Meaning your first attack is equal to your BAB-2, your second additional attack is at your BAB-7, and your third additional attack is equal to your BAB -12. We know that is indeed the case, because the text specifies
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level.
whereas the table shows flurry BAB is indeed at monk level -2.
And since the monk has virtual Two-Weapon Fighting feats, that also prevents him from actually taking those feats and stacking them for additional attacks. That is how many of us read the critical sections of the text on flurry of blows, Cheapy.
If, if what the developers intended to do was to have flurry of blows equal Two-Weapon Fighting, why in the name of God didn't they just use the already existing mechanic from the Ranger class ability and give the monk those feats? It would have been easy to do.
Starting at 1st level, a monk gains the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat) although it can only be used when monk is using unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). He may use this feat only when he is unarmored, is not wielding a shield, and is carrying no more than light load. For the purpose of these attacks (hereafter referred to as flurry of blows), the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk gains the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using flurry of blows (even if the monk does not meet the rerequisites for the feat).At 15th level, the monk gains the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using flurry of blows (even if the monk does not meet the rerequisites for the feat).
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. A monk may substitue disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows.
That would have made it crystal clear, Cheapy. Not so much the way it was written.
Master Arminas
I get what happened to FoB, but I'm not entirely clear on what the clarification was on AoMF. What happened there? Did they say it only applied to one fist or something?
|
|
haha, i actually made a post about this lack of clerity in rule discriptions, be it that i made it in a sneaky way. the lack of ability to be concise in intention with skills feats ect.. has made 3.5 ,in general, a headach for most people. if they ever make a new 3.5 paizo second edition then they need to use examples like what Master Arminas used as an example rewrite for the ability.
"Starting at 1st level, a monk gains the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat) although it can only be used when monk is using unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). He may use this feat only when he is unarmored, is not wielding a shield, and is carrying no more than light load. For the purpose of these attacks (hereafter referred to as flurry of blows), the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk gains the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using flurry of blows (even if the monk does not meet the rerequisites for the feat).
At 15th level, the monk gains the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using flurry of blows (even if the monk does not meet the rerequisites for the feat).
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. A monk may substitue disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows."
i mean i asked in the forums if dispellmagic could be used to counter spell SLA's. the lead designer posted a quote from the CRB, then later say in a post
"i just want to be clear, a SLA can not be countered by anything"
he used fewer words then the quote from the CRB and was 100% clear with no potential for misintrepertation.
I get what happened to FoB, but I'm not entirely clear on what the clarification was on AoMF. What happened there? Did they say it only applied to one fist or something?
No further clarification was issued about AoMF AFAIK. AoMF affects all your natural/unarmed strikes. It was clarified that greater magic fang is cast on a single limb, rather than on your unarmed strikes in general. Thus, an unarmed fighter with magic fang on one fist could only get its benefits for half his attacks when flurrying.
Yar!
... explanation of FoB text ambiguity...
This. OMG so much this.
That is also the exact same point that has been raised in previous (pre-clarification) monk FoB rules question threads since the dawn of Pathfinder, been used as the crux for pro-single weapon flurries, and has never before been truly contested or shut down, and generally agreed upon to be how it works (from what I've seen, both on the forums and in my personal real life experience).
~P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was in the dicussion on the new items we want to see in Ultimate Equipment. People kept asking for a cheaper way for enhance a monk's unarmed strikes: something that doesn't apply to natural weapons, but is only for unarmed strikes. Sean K. Reynolds didn't seem to get what we were asking for, and he said that he could design something of that nature--but that it was 'megagamey'. After all, he can't see how some that enhances unarmed strikes wouldn't also work on natural weapons.
He then went on to say that Pathfinder would not have an item that render the Amulet of Mighty Fists obsolete. It being a core book item and all. BUT, that he was willing to include an item that would enhance one (1) unarmed strike. By which he meant 'right fist', 'left foot', etc., etc. For 1.25 times the price of a standard weapon. Which means two would cost the same as an amulet of the mighty fists, but only effect two 'unarmed' strikes and not everything.
Now, understand that I am paraphrasing here. That was when it was pointed out that monks are stuck with the very costly amulet of mighty fists, and no easy way to get an enhancement bonus on their unarmed strikes. SKR said that was the way it was designed to be because a monk's unarmed strikes deal more damage than any other weapon, they cannot be disarm, they cannot be stolen, and they cannot be sundered. You cannot make a monk leave them behind when they visit the throne room and see the king, for example.
Well, it was quickly pointed out that no, that is not the reason why the AoMF is so highly priced, Mr. Reynolds; the reason it is so expensive is because of critters with multiple natural weapons who gain the bonus on all their natural attacks. At which point, he just kept repeating the amulet is a monk item, not one for a druid or summoner or monster and the there would not be anything included that rendered the AoMF 'obsolete'.
Which led to the talk of weapons in a flurry, and how a monk can use a single weapon to avoid paying the cost of the AoMF. At first he said that he didn't see anything inherently wrong with that, but it was kind of unfair to the two-weapon fighter who has to pay for both his weapons.
At that point, he came back with the 'clarification' to flurry of blows and said, no you cannot flurry with a single weapon because it has been this way since we wrote the game.
So, to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a 'clarification' on the amulet of mighty fists, except that it is an item designed for monks, the cost is simply because of the monk's unarmed damage dice and because he cannot be sundered, disarmed, or stolen, and that it is really not an item for druids, animal companions, special mounts, familiars, summoners, edilons, and critters after all. And that Pathfinder will not be errating the AoMF, or introducing any item which renders it obsolete.
Master Arminas
Good stuff
You're on a roll, sir.
|
Let's not even enter the topic of the magus's spell combat :
"At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
I keep asking and don't get any answer : is the off-hand considered as free then ? Because by RAW, Dervish Dance doesn't work for a magus using Spell Combat, since your off-hand begins free but then is not from the moment you start spell combat.
If the monk's writing was to be taken litterally, then the magus's should be even more enforced officially, as it is way clearer.
And sorry Cheapy, but reading the rules makes not one a slimy munchkin.
If anyone wants to read all of the relevant quotes, they are included on the first post in this thread: Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows. I may have missed a few, but the meat and potatoes of the comments that started this are there, generally in context.
Master Arminas
It was in the dicussion on the new items we want to see in Ultimate Equipment. People kept asking for a cheaper way for enhance a monk's unarmed strikes: something that doesn't apply to natural weapons, but is only for unarmed strikes. Sean K. Reynolds didn't seem to get what we were asking for, and he said that he could design something of that nature--but that it was 'megagamey'. After all, he can't see how some that enhances unarmed strikes wouldn't also work on natural weapons.
He then went on to say that Pathfinder would not have an item that render the Amulet of Mighty Fists obsolete. It being a core book item and all. BUT, that he was willing to include an item that would enhance one (1) unarmed strike. By which he meant 'right fist', 'left foot', etc., etc. For 1.25 times the price of a standard weapon. Which means two would cost the same as an amulet of the mighty fists, but only effect two 'unarmed' strikes and not everything.
Now, understand that I am paraphrasing here. That was when it was pointed out that monks are stuck with the very costly amulet of mighty fists, and no easy way to get an enhancement bonus on their unarmed strikes. SKR said that was the way it was designed to be because a monk's unarmed strikes deal more damage than any other weapon, they cannot be disarm, they cannot be stolen, and they cannot be sundered. You cannot make a monk leave them behind when they visit the throne room and see the king, for example.
Well, it was quickly pointed out that no, that is not the reason why the AoMF is so highly priced, Mr. Reynolds; the reason it is so expensive is because of critters with multiple natural weapons who gain the bonus on all their natural attacks. At which point, he just kept repeating the amulet is a monk item, not one for a druid or summoner or monster and the there would not be anything included that rendered the AoMF 'obsolete'.
Which led to the talk of weapons in a flurry, and how a monk can use...
(jawdrop.jpg)
Thanks for the summary. The threads on the subject were getting way too long to parse.
Fortunately, I'm not in PFS and can cheerfully ignore most of this--especially the idea that unarmed strikes are "fists" but "not fists" and thus require two enchantments instead of one.
Oh they never specified how many enchantments it takes, they just made clear it was more than one. I feel for the devs, they are in a no-win situation, they either:
Rule flurry as it has been played, and they are saddled with the issue that the AoMF is overpriced and underperforming. This will lead to even more calls for a decent item to replace it for the monk
Or:
Rule flurry is TWF and nerf the monk even more than it currently is, and alienate a lot of players who will ignore the ruling anyway. This will lead to even more calls to redesign the monk from scratch.
Either way, they are faced with the unpleasant fact that the monk and associated items missed out on the big upgrade to Pathfinder and needs to be caught up somehow, and the issue just isn't going to go away.
|
If, if what the developers intended to do was to have flurry of blows equal Two-Weapon Fighting, why in the name of God didn't they just use the already existing mechanic from the Ranger class ability and give the monk those feats?
As has been pointed out repeatedly the 'clarified intent' FoB is not "equal" to TWF. It is similar, but not the same.
You can substitute an unarmed strike for any attack in a FoB sequence... but not a TWF sequence. You can use a two-handed weapon with a FoB sequence... but not a TWF sequence. You can use TWF while wearing armor or encumbered... but not FoB. They are NOT the same.
Ergo, the constant refrain of 'if the developers wanted them to be the same they should have said just given Monks TWF' is proceeding from a false foundation. FoB is NOT TWF. It is a separate ability which works like TWF in some ways and unlike it in others.
If, if what the developers intended to do was to have flurry of blows equal Two-Weapon Fighting, why in the name of God didn't they just use the already existing mechanic from the Ranger class ability and give the monk those feats?As has been pointed out repeatedly the 'clarified intent' FoB is not "equal" to TWF. It is similar, but not the same.
You can substitute an unarmed strike for any attack in a FoB sequence... but not a TWF sequence. You can use a two-handed weapon with a FoB sequence... but not a TWF sequence. You can use TWF while wearing armor or encumbered... but not FoB. They are NOT the same.
Ergo, the constant refrain of 'if the developers wanted them to be the same they should have said just given Monks TWF' is proceeding from a false foundation. FoB is NOT TWF. It is a separate ability which works like TWF in some ways and unlike it in others.
Except you can't. Substitute an unarmed strike for any attack in FoB sequence, that is. Not unless ALL of your unarmed strikes have an exact and identical enhancement bonus and any additional properties. That is part of Mr. Reynold's clarification as well, CBDunkerson. If you have one fist with a +1 enhancement from magic fang, you can get EXACTLY half your attacks (perhaps half +1, depending on level) with that fist and the remainder have to be taken with either another weapon or a different unarmed that doesn't have the enhancement.
You mean much like how the Ranger gets Two-Weapon Fighting feats as part of his combat style, but can only use them when he is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor? He still gets the feats--which make no mention of the fact that they can only be used in light or medium armor--so his Two-Weapon Fighting isn't really Two-Weapon Fighting, right?
That requirement to be wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor is an exception to the normal TWF rules built into the Ranger class. Now, if the developers had intended for the monks to use Two-Weapon Fighting (i.e. alternating attacks between two different weapons and/or unarmed strikes), it would have been simpler, and clearer, and more concise to simply give the monks the feats as part of the Flurry of Blows class feature, and list the exceptions (just like the Ranger class Combat Styles) where it differs from feat in question.
Actually, you can use a two-handed weapon when using two weapon fighting; if you use an unarmed strike (kick) or armor spikes or boot blades as your 'off-hand' weapon. Most people don't, but that doesn't change the fact that they could.
Now, I basically agree that Flurry does not equal Two-Weapon Fighting. I have said that from the beginning. Which is why I support single weapon flurry. But the developers have said that they intended for it to function as Two-Weapon Fighting in the sense of alternating weapons. And if they did intend for that, they should have written it so that there was NO chance for misinterpretation.
Master Arminas
One weapon flurry is not how it's always read and more importantly is not HOW it reads nor is it the intention of flurry of blows. It says it's as TWF. Crystal clear.
I wonder when people will stop being in denial and actually read the ability.
Let's take a look at the Class Feature in question, shall we:
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the rerequisites for the feat).
At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the rerequisites for the feat).
As you itself quoted, you are allowed to make a flurry with any combination of attacks that are legal when you are fighting with two weapon since you are actually mimicking that ability, as the "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" clearly states.
Now, would you allow a barbarian to TWF with his greataxe?
Now, would you allow a barbarian to TWF with his greataxe?
If TWF said something like "You can use a greataxe, or an axe and a boot kick, etc., in any combination," then yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dekalinder; if that was indeed the intent of the developers, than the phrase in any combination is meaningless. It is useless, extraneous words--if it were intended for flurry to be used with alternating weapons. I know people say that those words don't mean what I think they mean; they are supposed to merely mean that you can plug in an unarmed strike as a substitute for a weapon attack.
In which case the text should have read
a monk can make a flurry of blows when he uses unarmed strikes or special monk weapons as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the weapon). When using flurry of blows, a monk may substitute an unarmed strike for any off-hand attack he makes while using this ability, up to the total number of attacks a monk is allowed to make in the round.
A barbarian can already two-weapon fight with a greataxe. If he has improved unarmed strike, a natural weapon and the Feral Combat Training feat, armor spikes, or boot blades. Allowed by the rules.
Any other questions?
Master Arminas
The designers have made it clear that what they wrote isn't what they intended. That's pretty commonplace -- the Paizo rules guys almost never write from a technical/legalistic standpoint; they just chuck down some fluff and enough crunch to get the sense of sort of where they were headed, and call it good. That can be frustrating if for some reason you're obsessed with playing the "right" way. On the other hand, if you don't really care what they intended as long as you find something that works (or if you're houseruling everything else under the sun anyway), then it's not that big a deal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Except you can't. Substitute an unarmed strike for any attack in FoB sequence, that is. Not unless ALL of your unarmed strikes have an exact and identical enhancement bonus and any additional properties.
If a Monk were to take the TWF feats and wield daggers (or whatever) in each hand, they would not be able to swap in a knee, elbow, or foot strike for one or more of the TWF dagger attacks. A Monk using FoB CAN. Ergo, TWF and FoB ARE NOT THE SAME.
The rulings on how enchantments work with unarmed strikes do not change that. What they do is limit you to getting no more than half of your attacks with any single weapon or limb. That is, you can't put a +1 enhancement bonus on just your left foot and then make all of your FoB attacks with that foot... only up to half of them. You can still swap in attacks with that foot in place of attacks with a weapon. I haven't seen anything suggesting that you would then HAVE to make half your attacks with that foot... and indeed that would seem contrary to the whole ability to use fist, knee, elbow OR foot.
You mean much like how the Ranger gets Two-Weapon Fighting feats as part of his combat style, but can only use them when he is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor?
If the armor restriction were the ONLY difference between FoB and TWF then it could indeed have been handled like the Ranger... but THAT IS NOT THE CASE. There are other differences. So why do you insist on keeping making an argument predicated on a situation which does not exist?
Actually, you can use a two-handed weapon when using two weapon fighting; if you use an unarmed strike (kick) or armor spikes or boot blades as your 'off-hand' weapon. Most people don't, but that doesn't change the fact that they could.
Really? Where exactly do you see this in the rules? To me it looks like the text on TWF talks about using weapons in each hand... not one weapon in both. There is text indicating that armor spikes (and unarmed attacks) can be treated a light weapon... but absolutely nothing I am aware of allowing a two-handed weapon to be used with TWF. What kind of weapon penalties would be applied in that case? The text lists penalties for normal one-handed weapons and light weapons... none for two-handed. Are they primary or off-hand weapons? Do they still receive 1.5x Strength bonus even while you are getting attacks with another weapon? Et cetera. The Monk FoB section indicates that they can use a two-handed weapon (and only receive 1x Str bonus when doing so)... TWF does not.
Except you can't. Substitute an unarmed strike for any attack in FoB sequence, that is. Not unless ALL of your unarmed strikes have an exact and identical enhancement bonus and any additional properties.If a Monk were to take the TWF feats and wield daggers (or whatever) in each hand, they would not be able to swap in a knee, elbow, or foot strike for one or more of the TWF dagger attacks. A Monk using FoB CAN. Ergo, TWF and FoB ARE NOT THE SAME.
Prove it.
Prove where you can't wield daggers in each hand and swap a unarmed strke for any character.There is no rule that limits this.
Except you can't. Substitute an unarmed strike for any attack in FoB sequence, that is. Not unless ALL of your unarmed strikes have an exact and identical enhancement bonus and any additional properties.If a Monk were to take the TWF feats and wield daggers (or whatever) in each hand, they would not be able to swap in a knee, elbow, or foot strike for one or more of the TWF dagger attacks. A Monk using FoB CAN. Ergo, TWF and FoB ARE NOT THE SAME.Prove it.
Prove where you can't wield daggers in each hand and swap a unarmed strke for any character.
There is no rule that limits this.
+1. You're absolutely right Starbuck. Any character can do this. It's been clarified in the past. The word "off-hand" is a technical term, but doesn't actually refer to a hand, or even a single, specific weapon.
Basically, as long as you don't use the same weapon for some of both your off hand attacks and main hand attacks, you can use any combination of attacks when using TWF.
EXAMPLE (assume this character has quickdraw and 4 iterative attacks with the Greater TWF feat)
Character begins holding 2 daggers.
1st mainhand attack: throw one dagger
1st offhand attack: throw the other dagger
(draws one shortsword, takes 5ft step)
2nd mainhand attack: attack with shortsword
2nd offhand attack: Headbutt, or kick, or whatever you want
(Provokes AOO, opponent disarms character forcing him to drop shortsword)
3rd mainhand attack: Punch to the face
(opponent drops, character draws javelin and Throwing Axe)
3rd offhand attack: Throw javelin
4th mainhand attack: Throw axe
Except you can't. Substitute an unarmed strike for any attack in FoB sequence, that is. Not unless ALL of your unarmed strikes have an exact and identical enhancement bonus and any additional properties.If a Monk were to take the TWF feats and wield daggers (or whatever) in each hand, they would not be able to swap in a knee, elbow, or foot strike for one or more of the TWF dagger attacks. A Monk using FoB CAN. Ergo, TWF and FoB ARE NOT THE SAME.
The rulings on how enchantments work with unarmed strikes do not change that. What they do is limit you to getting no more than half of your attacks with any single weapon or limb. That is, you can't put a +1 enhancement bonus on just your left foot and then make all of your FoB attacks with that foot... only up to half of them. You can still swap in attacks with that foot in place of attacks with a weapon. I haven't seen anything suggesting that you would then HAVE to make half your attacks with that foot... and indeed that would seem contrary to the whole ability to use fist, knee, elbow OR foot.
As Starbuck and Bardic Dave said, you can already use more than two weapons in two-weapon fighting. What the monk gets is being able to to use unarmed strikes in place of his normal weapons routine. And frankly, if unarmed strike is indeed two (or more) weapons, as per SKR, then once again the developers put wasted words into the flurry description. Because anyone can already switch weapons when they are two-weapon fighting, if they have quickdraw, or are using a weapon that counts as ammunition, or a boot blade, or armor spikes, or etc., etc., etc
You mean much like how the Ranger gets Two-Weapon Fighting feats as part of his combat style, but can only use them when he is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor?If the armor restriction were the ONLY difference between FoB and TWF then it could indeed have been handled like the Ranger... but THAT IS NOT THE CASE. There are other differences. So why do you insist on keeping making an argument predicated on a situation which does not exist?
So, they can make an exception for Ranger having to wear limited kinds of armor for Two-Weapon Fighting. But making an exception for the monk, wearing no armor, having no shield, and being limited to a specific set of weapons is . . . too much? Either it is two-weapon fighting, or it isn't. I personally lean towards flurry is not two-weapon fighting--which means single-weapon flurry. And you will notice that it is SKR and Jason Bulmahn who said that they intended for flurry to replicate TWF almost exactly, including the staggered attack routine.
Actually, you can use a two-handed weapon when using two weapon fighting; if you use an unarmed strike (kick) or armor spikes or boot blades as your 'off-hand' weapon. Most people don't, but that doesn't change the fact that they could.Really? Where exactly do you see this in the rules? To me it looks like the text on TWF talks about using weapons in each hand... not one weapon in both. There is text indicating that armor spikes spikes (and unarmed attacks) can be treated a light weapon... but absolutely nothing I am aware of allowing a two-handed weapon to be used with TWF. What kind of weapon penalties would be applied in that case? The text lists penalties for normal one-handed weapons and light weapons... none for two-handed. Are they primary or off-hand weapons? Do they still receive 1.5x Strength bonus even while you are getting attacks with another weapon? Et cetera. The Monk FoB section indicates that they can use a two-handed weapon (and only receive 1x Str bonus when doing so)... TWF does not.
Man, this has been talked about so many times. I am sure others will post the applicable links and quotes--my search fu is quite limited. But yes, you can two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, or boot blades, or unarmed strikes.
Master Arminas
|
so far of 164 responses
like two weapon fighting 19.5% (32)
one weapon can be used for all attacks 72.6% (119)
i'm waiting for the FAQ and will use however it is clarified 7.9% (13)
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
Thanks for the update Seraphimpunk.
Does anyone know if the FAQ on this has been updated yet? I'm not sure where to look to find it.
Thanks for the update Seraphimpunk.
Does anyone know if the FAQ on this has been updated yet? I'm not sure where to look to find it.
It hasn't. You'll know when it does because there will be either a flood of Monk threads complaining about it, or a flood of Monk threads praising it. Either way, the Flood will come. So build your Arc, gather the Chief, and prepare for battle.
It hasn't. You'll know when it does because there will be either a flood of Monk threads complaining about it, or a flood of Monk threads praising it. Either way, the Flood will come. So build your Arc, gather the Chief, and prepare for battle.Thanks for the update Seraphimpunk.
Does anyone know if the FAQ on this has been updated yet? I'm not sure where to look to find it.
Either or? Come on Tels, you know these boards. Some people will fully support the final decision and others will detest it. We won't have threads about the great wisdom of the developers or how it nerfs the monk--we will have both!
Master Arminas
It hasn't. You'll know when it does because there will be either a flood of Monk threads complaining about it, or a flood of Monk threads praising it. Either way, the Flood will come. So build your Arc, gather the Chief, and prepare for battle.Thanks for the update Seraphimpunk.
Does anyone know if the FAQ on this has been updated yet? I'm not sure where to look to find it.
Either or? Come on Tels, you know these boards. Some people will fully support the final decision and others will detest it. We won't have threads about the great wisdom of the developers or how it nerfs the monk--we will have both!
Master Arminas
+1
What, you'r saying this is not the spam section of the forum?
It hasn't. You'll know when it does because there will be either a flood of Monk threads complaining about it, or a flood of Monk threads praising it. Either way, the Flood will come. So build your Arc, gather the Chief, and prepare for battle.Thanks for the update Seraphimpunk.
Does anyone know if the FAQ on this has been updated yet? I'm not sure where to look to find it.
Either or? Come on Tels, you know these boards. Some people will fully support the final decision and others will detest it. We won't have threads about the great wisdom of the developers or how it nerfs the monk--we will have both!
Master Arminas
I can haz some home for the world can't I?! Always crushing my dreams, you big jerk! :P
It hasn't. You'll know when it does because there will be either a flood of Monk threads complaining about it, or a flood of Monk threads praising it. Either way, the Flood will come. So build your Arc, gather the Chief, and prepare for battle.Thanks for the update Seraphimpunk.
Does anyone know if the FAQ on this has been updated yet? I'm not sure where to look to find it.
Either or? Come on Tels, you know these boards. Some people will fully support the final decision and others will detest it. We won't have threads about the great wisdom of the developers or how it nerfs the monk--we will have both!
Master Arminas
Judgement one way will support everything so far published, and prohibit nothing. Judgement the other way will tell a few people they needn't have invested in that second weapon.
|
|
If the flurry acts like two weapon fighting, and uses the monks level as his bab, how come they delayed pseudo-improved two weapon fighting until 8th level? Instead of allowing it at 6th level?
He'd have a +6 at 6th level, instead they wait until the bab equivalent + the -2 TWF penalty totals +6, at 8th level. If it were really a TWF equivalent, he should have a total of four attacks at 6th, and six attacks at 11th. Like real TWF.
Seraphimpunk: any update on the results?
MA
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
even better! figured out how to directly share the results:
that link'll show the results, i hope.
so far of 193 responses
like two weapon fighting 20.2% (39)
one weapon can be used for all attacks 69.9% (135)
i'm waiting for the FAQ and will use however it is clarified 9.8% (19)
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
I think it leans pretty heavily towards people liking the one weapon for all attacks. I wish i could get more responses, to get a better sample of the player base. I think most forum users that are going to respond have, or are awaiting to see how paizo will deal with it.