|
The sohei monk archetype retains the AC Bonus monk class feature, and gains light armor proficiency. These two abilities can never work together. Does the sohei keep the AC Bonus class feature just so he can give it to his mount? Or was it intended for the two abilities to function together?
I notice the sohei gets a lot of love from monk fans, even more than the zen archer. Is this because of the (admittedly-good) Weapon Training and Devoted Guardian class features, or is there something going on with the sohei that I'm not picking up on?
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Sohei absolutely does not get the AC Bonus class feature when wearing armor. However, depending on whether you consider the proficiency text to alter or replace the standard monk text, it MIGHT allow the sohei to flurry while wearing armor. The author of the class said this was not correct, and that the proficiency was only given to allow "options." As this option is as ridiculously awful as giving a wizard heavy armor, it is routinely ignored by all sides in the debate.
The Sohei love comes from the above possible-flurry-in-plate, as well as the lack of certain language in its weapon training/flurry ability. You see, a Zen Archer is prohibited from combining flurry with Rapid or Manyshot. The Sohei has no such restriction. This allows more arrows than any other (already powerful) archer can dish out. You could also Flurry with a Falchion or other awesome weapon, though this seems to have been a less popular option.
Also, this was all changed by the recent flurry "clarification." Now flurry is impossible with bows, or making all attacks with any single two handed weapon, causing the Sohei to be less awesome and the Zen Archer to be totally nonfunctional. But again, as the clarification seems to be ignored by many people, this may or may not be an issue for your individual group.
IMO, Soheis CANNOT flurry in armour. Twisting RAW to allow soheis to flurry in armour requires the use of logic which, if applied consistently to other class features of the sohei would lead to ridiculous and clearly unintended outcomes. For instance, the sohei would be restricted to ONLY choosing mounted combat feats as bonus feats, and the sohei would also lose the improved unarmed strike feat.
While the logic used to conclude that soheis can flurry in armour makes sense in isolation, it falls apart when you apply it to other class features of the sohei. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; you can't cherry pick rules interpretation like that. You have to go with the rule that consistently makes the most sense, and apply it in ALL cases.
For more info, see the arguments I make in the following links:
Here is a list of class features the sohei would lose if you follow the logic that would allow them to flurry in armour:
–EVERY CLASS SKILL, (they instead gain handle animal as their ONLY CLASS SKILL)
–Proficiency with monk weapons
–The improved unarmed strike feat
–The ability to do lethal damage with unarmed strikes
–The ability to apply their full strength modifier on "offhand" unarmed strikes
–The ability to select bonus feats other than mounted combat feats
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, Soheis CANNOT flurry in armour. Twisting RAW to allow soheis to flurry in armour requires the use of logic which, if applied consistently to other class features of the sohei would lead to ridiculous and clearly unintended outcomes. For instance, the sohei would be restricted to ONLY choosing mounted combat feats as bonus feats, and the sohei would also lose the improved unarmed strike feat.
The difference is that the "Weapon and Armor Proficiency" section is, in and of itself, a complete section. Even if it is just an addition to the Sohei's proficiency, it could be read as the full proficiency section of a theoretical class write up. The Bonus Feats and Unarmed Strike sections, on the other hand, are nonsensical on their own. They don't define themselves, and Unarmed Strike says nothing except that it doesn't increase after at 4th level and beyond. They can be nothing but modifications, because there is no way in which they could be taken as complete sections on their own.
We also cannot assume that just because a section is not explicitly marked as a complete replacement that it isn't one. There are inconsistencies in these things. For example, if we assume everything is by default a modification, Dervish Dancers get both Battle Dance and Bardic Performance (as the section never talks about Bardic Performance itself being replaced). One can safely assume this is supposed to be the case, but there is room for argument. Likewise, there exists room for argument for the Sohei flurrying in armor based on how it is written. While the original intent has now been made clear by the author, that doesn't change an argument based strictly on the text. I do not think people are not necessarily being disingenuous rules abusers, they are just trying to figure out a way to reconcile a bizarre archetype ability.
|
|
Alternate Class Features
The primary way in which archetypes modify their corresponding base classes is via the use of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must normally choose to use the standard class features found in the class’s original source (typically the Core Rulebook or the Advanced Player’s Guide)—the exception is if he chooses to adopt an archetype. Each alternate class feature presented in an archetype replaces a specific class feature from its parent class.
sohei
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
A sohei is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor.
replaces
monk
Armor and Shield Proficiency: Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields. When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.
it replaces normal monk armor stipulation because it replaces it
|
|
Read this post, and his other posts in the same page, to find out what Jason Nelson (who wrote the archetype) has to say about all of this.
and thats RAI, but untill it officially gets fixed its not RAW
Read this post, and his other posts in the same page, to find out what Jason Nelson (who wrote the archetype) has to say about all of this.and thats RAI, but untill it officially gets fixed its not RAW
The whole game breaks if you use your version of RAW. At some point, common sense has to temper and inform one's interpretation of RAW.
Having run a mid level game with a flurrying sohei in medium armor, it hasn't broken anything in my game. So I personally don't have an issue with it flurrying in armor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Read this post, and his other posts in the same page, to find out what Jason Nelson (who wrote the archetype) has to say about all of this.and thats RAI, but untill it officially gets fixed its not RAW
[rant]Ya know this kind of attitude irks me.
How much more official can you get than the writer flat out telling you how the ability is supposed to work?
Does it absolutely have to be a special pdf wherein the writer attempts to convey to you why your insane interpretation of RAW is in fact not what was intended? Does he need to make errata that expands the paragraph an additional 300 words in order for you not to find some ridiculous loophole? Do you need a full reprint of the entire book to make it "official"?
You know what official means in the games I run?
Official is whatever I allow. Not RAI not RAW but GM.
If I say no your four armed full plated archer sohei cannot exist. He simply does not.[/rant]
The whole game breaks if you use your version of RAW. At some point, common sense has to temper your interpretation of RAW.The game is not that fragile. And common sense is not common.
Sadly the latter is so true sometimes :/
|
|
My version of RAW is.... RAW. Rules As Written. I don't know whats so fancy about that. Abilities works exactly like they say the do on the tin.
sometimes its stupid, yes (camel animal companions sickening dragons with their spit attack that allows no save), but when you opt to use all the rules s they are written you dont pick and choose some not to, or some to change.
How much more official can you get than the writer flat out telling you how the ability is supposed to work?
I don't know.. the writer of boon companion said he would have included Eidolons if they existed.. does that mean it includes them?
Really what we have here is more an issue of sloppiness when writing archetypes. Paizo's been fairly good in places, so giving them a heads up on being more careful here likely won't fall on deaf ears like it would with say WOTC back in 3e/3.5.
The sohei just seems a bit badly designed with built in self-conflict. It reminds me of the 3e bard in that way.
-James
There's a lot more to it than just "sloppiness" though. The game is rife with contradictions like this. Furthermore, in the normal course of playing there are dozens of scenarios that present themselves for which there is no strict RAW way to play out.
In this environment, it doesn't make sense to use "RAW" as a shield to justify a silly interpretation of a rule, especially when it's perfectly possible to read the rule in a more harmonious fashion. As I pointed out earlier, the same "RAW" logic that says sohei's get flurry in armour, if consistently applied, also restricts them to only selecting mounted combat feats an bonus feats, and also makes them lose the improved unarmed strike feat.
My version of RAW is.... RAW. Rules As Written. I don't know whats so fancy about that. Abilities works exactly like they say the do on the tin.
sometimes its stupid, yes (camel animal companions sickening dragons with their spit attack that allows no save), but when you opt to use all the rules s they are written you dont pick and choose some not to, or some to change.
I'm sorry but text is just text. There's no such thing as a rule as written without someone interpreting it to say "that's what it means". It's possible to have different interpretations of text that have nothing to with an interpretation of the intention behind the text. That's one way in which different courts can interpret the same law differently.
EDIT:
Also, is this the text you're relying on? Cause I see nothing here that's black and white about replacing similarly named entries. If that text was in an earlier version of the APG, it appears to be gone.
Specifically, I'm looking for the text that says similarly named abilities replace each other, rather than modify each other. The above link only mentions abilities that specifically replace each other. Certainly, it could be interpreted as you say, but I see no need to do so.
|
|
As I pointed out earlier, the same "RAW" logic that says sohei's get flurry in armour, if consistently applied, also restricts them to only selecting mounted combat feats an bonus feats, and also makes them lose the improved unarmed strike feat.
whats the problem with that? a mounted specialist monk, who can slap a little harder than most?
As I pointed out earlier, the same "RAW" logic that says sohei's get flurry in armour, if consistently applied, also restricts them to only selecting mounted combat feats an bonus feats, and also makes them lose the improved unarmed strike feat.whats the problem with that? a mounted specialist monk, who can slap a little harder than most?
Nothing at all, except:
1) it's not the intended result
2) it's not the most obviously intuitive result
3) it's not the only way to read the RAW, so why not go with the more sensible interpretation?
EDIT: Also, please point the precise text on which you are relying out to me, as I'm unable to find anything that is as black and white as you claim (see the edit to my previous post)
|
Read this post, and his other posts in the same page, to find out what Jason Nelson (who wrote the archetype) has to say about all of this.and thats RAI, but untill it officially gets fixed its not RAW[rant]Ya know this kind of attitude irks me.
How much more official can you get than the writer flat out telling you how the ability is supposed to work?
Does it absolutely have to be a special pdf wherein the writer attempts to convey to you why your insane interpretation of RAW is in fact not what was intended? Does he need to make errata that expands the paragraph an additional 300 words in order for you not to find some ridiculous loophole? Do you need a full reprint of the entire book to make it "official"?
You know what official means in the games I run?
Official is whatever I allow. Not RAI not RAW but GM.
If I say no your four armed full plated archer sohei cannot exist. He simply does not.[/rant]
i would think a writer doing his job right the first time would be much better then any post on any forum. i go off what is written in the book, until an official errata is posted to prevent that from working.
|
|
3) it's not the only way to read the RAW, so why not go with the more sensible interpretation?
and this right here is where you stop talking. how is a dragon bigger then my house shooting death rays out of its nostrils SENSIBLE?
how can you even use that as a basis of arguement seeing asthough the entire game is based off things you cannot do in reality?
you cannot fly in real life, without an airplane, so the sensible thing is to take it out of the game, unless you use an airplane!! right AM I RIGHT?
3) it's not the only way to read the RAW, so why not go with the more sensible interpretation?and this right here is where you stop talking. how is a dragon bigger then my house shooting death rays out of its nostrils SENSIBLE?
how can you even use that as a basis of arguement seeing asthough the entire game is based off things you cannot do in reality?
you cannot fly in real life, without an airplane, so the sensible thing is to take it out of the game, unless you use an airplane!! right AM I RIGHT?
Sigh… not "sensible" as in grounded in reality. I see no problem from that perspective for the Sohei flurrying in armour. I think that's what plate mail clad TWF fighters do every day, anyways. I fully understand that we're playing a fantasy game where crazy s*+@ happens.
No, I mean "sensible" as in an interpretation of the rules that:
1) most accurately reflects what was intended,
2) engenders internal consistency, and
3) is intuitively easy to grasp at first glance.
I believe my interpretation succeeds on all three counts without flying in the face of the RAW*
* Unless, of course Name Violation points me to the text that I've somehow missed that SPECIFICALLY says something like "class features with the same or similar names, that don't explicitly replace each other, nonetheless DO replace each other, unless otherwise mentioned…"
Does that sound like something you can get behind?
raw is raw, rai can go somewhere else. if my gm decided to agree with you then oh well, that the way the cookie crumbles. but thats not how i read the rules, and i dont go out of my way to "break the game" or twist the wording to fit what i want it to.
as written, sohei can flurry in armor.
Ok, so where's the text that specifically says similarly named class features replace each other even they don't explicitly say so? Because it's not in the PRD under Archetypes.
I see some ambiguous text that one could interpret that way, but it's far from black and white, and IMO more easily lends itself to my interpretation.
Unless there's something else that I've missed.
|
|
Class Features
The following are the class features of the oracle.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Oracles are proficient with all simple weapons, light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields). Some oracle revelations grant additional proficiencies....
as stated here ^ armor profeciency IS a class feature. as stated in the archetype section of the APG
"Alternate Class Features
The primary way in which archetypes modify their corresponding base classes is via the use of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must normally choose to use the standard class features found in the class's original source—the exception is if he chooses to adopt an archetype. Each alternate class feature presented in an archetype replaces a specific class feature from its parent class. For example, the flowing monk archetype's redirection class feature replaces the Stunning Fist feature of the standard monk class.
..."
so if it isn't clear by now i will post the sohei class feature:
"Weapon and Armor Proficiency
A sohei is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor."
according to the above you may as well copy/paste over the origional section from the CRB.
there is not mention of "In addition to normal monk bonus feats, a maneuver master may select any Improved combat maneuver feat " as a maneuver master monk details in its monk feat class feature.
for it to work how you want it to it would have to read something like
" In addition to normal weapon and armor profeciencies..."
Class Features
The following are the class features of the oracle.Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Oracles are proficient with all simple weapons, light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields). Some oracle revelations grant additional proficiencies....
as stated here ^ armor profeciency IS a class feature. as stated in the archetype section of the APG
"Alternate Class Features
The primary way in which archetypes modify their corresponding base classes is via the use of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must normally choose to use the standard class features found in the class's original source—the exception is if he chooses to adopt an archetype. Each alternate class feature presented in an archetype replaces a specific class feature from its parent class. For example, the flowing monk archetype's redirection class feature replaces the Stunning Fist feature of the standard monk class...."
so if it isn't clear by now i will post the sohei class feature:
"Weapon and Armor Proficiency
A sohei is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor."according to the above you may as well copy/paste over the origional section from the CRB.
there is not mention of "In addition to normal monk bonus feats, a maneuver master may select any Improved combat maneuver feat " as a maneuver master monk details in its monk feat class feature.
for it to work how you want it to it would have to read something like
" In addition to normal weapon and armor profeciencies..."
Ok, I've already seen this text. Frankly, to interpret it in the way you're attempting to is, IMO, reaching. I see nothing about similarly named class features replacing each other. I see only an instruction that alternate class features replace core class features. The example it uses to illustrate this point is the maneuver master, which explicitly replaces stunning fist, as can be seen here:
Now from that, you're extrapolating that because the Sohei class feature and the Monk class feature have the same name, the Monk class feature must replace the Sohei class feature, instead of simply modifying it, or instead of creating a parallel class feature of the same name. However, that's not what the above text says, nor does that match the example provided (the maneuver monk).
Besides, the basic rule that alternate class features replace core class features isn't even universally applied. Case in point: the plethora of archetypes whose class features seem to replace nothing at all, such as (to name only one, because I've got to run right now, but I assure you there are others )
Tea ceremony and Scribe scroll on the Geisha
Additionally, look at what it says under Weapon and Armour Proficiencies on the Geisha. Notice the similar text missing from the Sohei?
---
The point is, you're inferring the existence of a rule that isn't in the plain text that you've just quoted. The text you've quoted is silent on whether alternate features which don't explicitly replace core features actually do so when they are similarly named. It's tempting to say that they do, because that has a neat sort of logic to it. However, it makes MORE sense to not infer the existence of a rule that is not explicitly written down. Certainly, inferring a rule where none is WRITTEN as you and name violation have done is NOT RAW.
As I pointed out earlier, the same "RAW" logic that says sohei's get flurry in armour, if consistently applied, also restricts them to only selecting mounted combat feats an bonus featsYou mean they're not?
Heck I thought it was sloppy enough that they didn't specify what mounted combat feats were as it's not a category. I never considered that it might be in addition to the normal monk bonus feats (other archetypes give new lists, why not the sohei?).
But what is the definition of 'mounted combat feat' anyway? Does it include anything to do with mounted combat or just anything that has mounted combat as a feat (along with that feat of course)?
It's badly written which is the problem. It's also badly designed. Two separate things but its important to notice both.
Let's see you have a monk that gets to wear armor but according to the author afterwards lose out by doing so. Mind you he says it doesn't really matter one way or the other.. just he didn't think about it that way. They get mounted combat feats as their only bonus feats (at least how I read it) and a mounted combat ability but nothing to give them a mount of their own (unlike multiple other classes). That's expressly by design to 'be different'. And then there's a 'weapon enchantment' use of ki but it lasts for just a single round???
It's over the top in places and doesn't mesh anywhere. And that's before you have to guess what it is supposed to augment vs replace.
Sorry, it's just badly done.
-James
You're right, it is.
EDIT: Although, I think the author of this particular archetype is an awesome guy who generally does fantastic work, and I certainly don't begrudge him anything. Besides, as was pointed out below, it could well have been an editing hatchet job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i would think a writer doing his job right the first time would be much better then any post on any forum. i go off what is written in the book, until an official errata is posted to prevent that from working.
Which is why a good editor is worth his weight in cheetos. While I do not disagree with this first point it's the second point that produces rules lawyering in all the worst possible ways.
It takes more than one person to write these things. And their understanding of it does not necessarily match yours. A lot of people here for example don't have english as a first language. Yet invariably all the writers are primarily english speakers (correct me if I'm wrong). Many of these writers are proficient enough in the rules that they know exactly what they mean when they say "mounted feat" but you might not. That's what good editors are for. To take these streams of thoughts and ensure they convey what the writer precisely means to those who don't spend 40 hours a week immersed in the rules.
I've no doubt that James knew exactly what he wanted to write and did so to the best of his bleary eyed coffee lacking ability at the time. Obviously there were glaring problems in the editing of the book you find them all over the place.
Generally this means that players with a lick of common sense will sit down and go "well perhaps it's supposed to work like *blank*". Sometimes on these forums the writer will pipe in and say "In truth I meant for it to work like *blank* but given the language I can understand how you might interpret it to work as *blank* however I would like to point out that in truth it works like *blank*."
What's going on here is "Well Mr. Writer I must respectfully ignore your intent as that is not advantageous to me therefore I'm interpreting this paragraph the complete opposite of your intent even if RAW can go either way. Perhaps if you were not so disgustingly bad at your job Mr. Writer my GM would not be forced to do violence on my person. Shame on you Mr. Writer shame on you."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we all just agree that the class write-up is sloppy and needs editorial attention? This is a silly argument.
2weapon fighters flurry in plate every day, why can't a sohei?
i also beleive a flurry should be capable of being done with a single weapon. so that Zen archers can actually function.
the big class ability of the monk is to do 2WF with a single weapon. just like the rangers is to B SAD with 2WF.
2weapon fighters flurry in plate every day, why can't a sohei?
I think the issue may come from their ability to flurry with bows and reach weapons.
From my experience, it hasn't really been a big deal. Your mileage may vary as per the usual. Admittedly I'd feel a little sad if you couldn't flurry with the armor on.
2weapon fighters flurry in plate every day, why can't a sohei?I think the issue may come from their ability to flurry with bows and reach weapons.
From my experience, it hasn't really been a big deal. Your mileage may vary as per the usual. Admittedly I'd feel a little sad if you couldn't flurry with the armor on.
Flurry with a bow?
you might benefit from "full bab" but you have several other downsides.
combining rapid shot and manyshot stack additional -2 each. for -4. and you don't get staple archery feats as bonus feats. you are also more MAD than your traditional archer. Wis for Ki, Dex for hit, Str for Damage, Con for HP, and (maybe) Int for Skills and combat expertise.
for the purpose of reach weapons, it's not a big deal, you aren't much bigger than medium without magical help. and the traditional monk feats are rather unsynergistic.
either way, your ranged accuracy is reduced compared to a fighter in ecxhange for a handful of extra shots.
I personally do not care about armor/no armor debate. The writer cleared it up, that's good enough for me. What I don't like it the fact that the Sohei is a better archer than the Zen Archer. With MS/RS with his flurry, he trumps it. The writer said nothing about this. So I assume that he was OK with this. So why would anyone play a Zen Archer over Sohei then?
The Zen Archer does get more archery feats less attacks. The Sohei gets weapon training. The more attacks seem better to me.
Unless an archetype feature esplicity calls out to replace one other ability, it's just in addition. In the case of the sohei, you can see that Devote Guardian explicity call out to substitute Stunning Fist. Bonus Feat instead doesn't substitute nothing, it merely states in addition to the normal text of the ability that a sohei can also chose Mounted Combat feats as bonus feats. Otherways, if it was a replacement, Sohei would lose the ability to have any kind of bonus feat in the first place. Same goes with the proficiency.A sohei is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor in addition to the normal proficiency of the monk (monk weapons, kama ecc.) includin the normal restriction stated by the line "When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities"
I personally do not care about armor/no armor debate. The writer cleared it up, that's good enough for me. What I don't like it the fact that the Sohei is a better archer than the Zen Archer. With MS/RS with his flurry, he trumps it. The writer said nothing about this. So I assume that he was OK with this. So why would anyone play a Zen Archer over Sohei then?
The Zen Archer does get more archery feats less attacks. The Sohei gets weapon training. The more attacks seem better to me.
I'm hoping to answer this, and get Mort to stop making this error all over the forums (I have more hope in the former).
Also, this was all changed by the recent flurry "clarification." Now flurry is impossible with bows, or making all attacks with any single two handed weapon, causing the Sohei to be less awesome and the Zen Archer to be totally nonfunctional. But again, as the clarification seems to be ignored by many people, this may or may not be an issue for your individual group.
The part about the Zen Archer is absolutely not true. As written, Zen Archer can, I repeat can flurry with a bow, even with the "clarification". The clarification changes NOTHING on the Zen Archer. If you read the Zen Archer's flurry it says:
Starting at 1st level, a zen archer can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action, but only when using a bow (even though it is a ranged weapon).
That highlighted sentence makes a specific exception to the rules for a Zen Archer using a bow.
I'm hoping to answer this, and get Mort to stop making this error all over the forums (I have more hope in the former).
Wow. I'm terribly sorry you have such a low opinion of me.
Also, looking at my previous posts, I can't seem to find myself making "this mistake" in any posts but the one above. Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else?
Starting at 1st level, a zen archer can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action, but only when using a bow (even though it is a ranged weapon).That highlighted sentence makes a specific exception to the rules for a Zen Archer using a bow.
I'm sorry, but I do not agree. The problem with the bow isn't that it is a ranged weapon, it is that it is two handed. The clarification said that flurry works like two-weapon fighting, precluding taking all attacks with a single weapon. Given that it makes no specific exception for it based on that aspect, it does not seem to work with the clarification. Jason Bulmahn explicitly mentioned it as something that was problematic as written, so I'm not sure what you are on about with this.
One thing this thread has taught me: you can't win an argument against the internet. For every person you successfully convince of your point of view, a new one will spring up who hasn't read the whole thread. Mort, you're absolutely right. Jodokai, please read the whole thread, including the link to Jason Bulmahn's response in which he specifically acknowledges that the intent behind the zen archer violates the rules, and that the zen archer as written is broken.
EDIT: And the monk can already flurry with a ranged weapon anyways. It's called the shuriken, and you don't need to pick Zen Archer to do it. The text you quoted, Jodokai, is absolutely meaningless and redundant, as the basic flurry of blows is not restricted to melee attacks. It's only restricted to monk weapons, most of which happen to be melee, but one of which (the shuriken) is a ranged weapon.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Here's something you probably didn't realize about the sohei--they can take Mounted Skirmisher at level 1 instead of level 14 like everybody else.
Sohei's one hell of a 1-level dip for a martial character: +2 to all saving throws, Improved Unarmed Strike, bonus feat, always act in the surprise round.
Here's something you probably didn't realize about the sohei--they can take Mounted Skirmisher at level 1 instead of level 14 like everybody else.
Sohei's one hell of a 1-level dip for a martial character: +2 to all saving throws, Improved Unarmed Strike, bonus feat, always act in the surprise round.
Depends:
If you go with the "can flurry in armour interpretation" then, no he can't, because his bonus feats class feature REPLACES the regular monk's bonus feats class feature and therefore he
a) has to meet the pre-reqs on all the bonus feats he selects, and
b) can only select mounted combat feats
If you go with the "cannot flurry in armour interpretation" then, yes he can, because his bonus feats class feature is in addition to / modifies the basic monk bonus feats class feature, and so he keeps the text about not having to meet the pre-reqs on any bonus feats he chooses.
EDIT: I'm a fan of the latter version myself, as it's the version the author intended and is more in line with the way I read the RAW
(See some of my earlier posts if you're curious as to what I mean)
EDIT #2: And damn you're right. The Sohei is one HELL of a dip class.
Ok, so lets just drop the whole he can't flurry with bows argument and just go with the Zen Archer and the Sohei can flurry with blows as intended. Now if you don't make this about RAW, then isn't the Sohei a superior class to take than the Zen Archer in terms of damage output? He can take feats to give him more attacks, and he has weapon training. Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I think I would take it over the Zen Archer.
Here is a list of class features the sohei would lose if you follow the logic that would allow them to flurry in armour:
–EVERY CLASS SKILL, (they instead gain handle animal as their ONLY CLASS SKILL)
–Proficiency with monk weapons
–The improved unarmed strike feat
–The ability to do lethal damage with unarmed strikes
–The ability to apply their full strength modifier on "offhand" unarmed strikes
–The ability to select bonus feats other than mounted combat featsAnd just so everyone else can be clear on how much your argument is wrong;
** spoiler omitted **
Clearly says that the feature is replaced and you often do not gain access to many familiar standard features.** spoiler omitted **
A Sohei receives something that modifies skills and...
Cool… I'm glad you think you've proved me wrong. I'm curious to know your thoughts on this post I made earlier:
To be absolutely clear:
The text on archetypes ambiguously states that alternate features replace core features.
What it does not say, is WHICH core features they replace.
The logical leap you are making is to infer the existence of an implied rule that alternate features replace core feature of the same NAME.
Note that NOTHING to that effect appears in the text you've quoted.
Don't believe me? Read the text you've quoted again.
Further note that the example in the text you've quoted (elemental fist) is of an alternate feature that EXPLICITLY names the core feature it replaces
Further note that certain 'alternate' class features clearly replace NOTHING, such as certain abilities on the Geisha.
Further note that the Geisha explicitly says under WEAPONS AND ARMOUR proficiencies that "this replaces the bard's normal proficiencies" This is NOT the only archetype to include text to this effect under its proficiency entry.
THEREFORE:
The most reasonable assumption to make is that unless an alternate feature explicitly names the core feature it is meant to replace, it replaces NOTHING.
It's possible to make the interpretation you are making, but as doing so requires one to make an inference that is not expressly written, strictly speaking it's not RAW.
On the other hand, my interpretation requires no inference and no implied rule. It's the simplest, plainest interpretation of the text as it's written, and it also conveniently lines up with the RAI, as was expressly clarified by the Sohei's author.
Do you see my logic now?
EDIT:
Also, does the Cad lose proficieny with all armour and weapons? The features have the same name after all. By your logic, shouldn't the Cad's weapon and armour proficiency feature replace the Fighter's weapon and armour proficiency feature in its entirety? This isn't the only or even the best example of the crazy results that arise when this kind of logic is applied. I advise you to peruse the archetypes for a while and see what you find.
EDIT #2:
Also, I think it's amusing that you're hanging one of your arguments on the placement of a single "s". For all we know, that could be an editing error, or a typo. I'm sure nobody at Paizo parses the language to such a pedantic extent, nor could they reasonably expect their customers to.
This class has technical problems. That is understood by all. It should have been edited better, but it seems that if you use a little reason based on what the writer of the class has posted, then you would apply these 2 rules to the class and it would solve this dispute.
1) The Sohei can't flurry with armor on.
2) The Sohei can flurry with any weapon he has weapon mastery in from his specific list at sixth level. This even includes two handed weapons as an exception to the recent FOB ruling.
This is what was intended. I think we can agree on that. So this will be the errata ruling when they get around to it. So why all the bickering?
Yes archetype's need to be cleaner and better to understand in terms of replacing/adding to the class, but intention does count for a lot.
Maybe someone could answer my previous post about what makes a better archer, a Sohei with the potential for more attacks and weapon training, or the Zen Archer with less attacks but more feats. That's what I'm curious about.
Here is a list of class features the sohei would lose if you follow the logic that would allow them to flurry in armour:
–EVERY CLASS SKILL, (they instead gain handle animal as their ONLY CLASS SKILL)
–Proficiency with monk weapons
–The improved unarmed strike feat
–The ability to do lethal damage with unarmed strikes
–The ability to apply their full strength modifier on "offhand" unarmed strikes
–The ability to select bonus feats other than mounted combat featsAnd just so everyone else can be clear on how much your argument is wrong;
** spoiler omitted **
Clearly says that the feature is replaced and you often do not gain access to many familiar standard features.** spoiler omitted **
A Sohei receives something that modifies skills and...
It seems doubtful that alternate class features are infact features with the same name, I would think it is just the same class feature with a modification for the archetype in question. Ofcourse they would not reprint the entire section every time they modify a class feature.