I am disheartened that the Devs seem to be planning on returning to increased weapon power ... as a "fix" when that makes the unarmed issue significantly worse.Uh... what is your evidence that this is the plan?
Jason said
"We will be looking into a few fixes in the coming months, one of which will probably involve reevaluating the previous ruling regarding flurry of blows."
and you have said in other threads that taking back the ruling was a likely outcome.
So, no evidence at all that the Devs are planning on returning to increased weapon power, which is what you claimed.
Altering how flurry of blows works doesn't seem to correlate to "increased weapon power" to me. I just correlates to "flurry is messed up and needs to be fixed," with no data about unarmed vs. weapon.
I'm not trying to be snarky. It's just that there is a LOT of speculation in this thread, and I'd rather not have speculation turn into "it seems this is their plan" turn into "well they SAID they would do this."
So, no evidence at all that the Devs are planning on returning to increased weapon power, which is what you claimed.
Altering how flurry of blows works doesn't seem to correlate to "increased weapon power" to me. I just correlates to "flurry is messed up and needs to be fixed," with no data about unarmed vs. weapon.
I'm not trying to be snarky. It's just that there is a LOT of speculation in this thread, and I'd rather not have speculation turn into "it seems this is their plan" turn into "well they SAID they would do this."
Wanting to keep people from reading too much into an ambiguous statement is certainly a valid concern.
If it is always better for a Monk to use a single weapon rather than two weapons, a double weapon or unarmed strikes, then there is something wrong. An ideal fix would allow a Monk to chose any one of those options (not all of them simultaneously!) and be effective.
In my opinion, any fix that does not increase the Monk's chance to hit, will not actually fix the problem at all. Just my opinion, but I wanted to get that out there.
Long ago, back when 3.0 was first released, I wanted to recreate a 1st edition AD&D monk, who used a weapon in one hand and unarmed strikes in combination. The sheer expense involved makes that prohibitive in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
The Amulet of the Mighty Fists costs 5,000 gp x bonus squared (it cost even more in 3.5!); a magic weapon costs 2,000 gp x bonus squared. To have both of them, at the same bonus is 7,000 gp x bonus squared.
Two weapons of the same bonus is 4,000 gp x bonus squared. Fighting with one weapon and your unarmed strikes (which monks do in film all the time) is 175% more expensive than fighting with two weapons: at the same level of bonuses.
And that comes from the belief that "oh, that scaling monk unarmed damage is too much; he has to pay more for it. Oh, he cannot be disarmed or sundered; he has to pay more for it. Oh, we are going to let critters use this too, so everyone has to pay more for it."
I don't know how you are going to solve this problem, let along the others. I hope that you do. But somehow, I seriously doubt that anything meaningful will be done.
Master Arminas
So, no evidence at all that the Devs are planning on returning to increased weapon power, which is what you claimed.
Altering how flurry of blows works doesn't seem to correlate to "increased weapon power" to me. I just correlates to "flurry is messed up and needs to be fixed," with no data about unarmed vs. weapon.
I'm not trying to be snarky. It's just that there is a LOT of speculation in this thread, and I'd rather not have speculation turn into "it seems this is their plan" turn into "well they SAID they would do this."
I am somewhat at a loss for "increased weapon power" - but I suspect this might be a round-about way to refer to single-weapon flurries. As you can flurry with a single +3 weapon instead of two +2 weapons. Maybe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Long ago, back when 3.0 was first released, I wanted to recreate a 1st edition AD&D monk, who used a weapon in one hand and unarmed strikes in combination. The sheer expense involved makes that prohibitive in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
The Amulet of the Mighty Fists costs 5,000 gp x bonus squared (it cost even more in 3.5!); a magic weapon costs 2,000 gp x bonus squared. To have both of them, at the same bonus is 7,000 gp x bonus squared.
Ironically, the Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes (or whatever it is called) that everyone is complaining about is perfect for this build. Use the bonus from the bodywrap for the unarmed strikes, use a weapon for everything else.
Long ago, back when 3.0 was first released, I wanted to recreate a 1st edition AD&D monk, who used a weapon in one hand and unarmed strikes in combination. The sheer expense involved makes that prohibitive in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
The Amulet of the Mighty Fists costs 5,000 gp x bonus squared (it cost even more in 3.5!); a magic weapon costs 2,000 gp x bonus squared. To have both of them, at the same bonus is 7,000 gp x bonus squared.
Two weapons of the same bonus is 4,000 gp x bonus squared. Fighting with one weapon and your unarmed strikes (which monks do in film all the time) is 175% more expensive than fighting with two weapons: at the same level of bonuses.
And that comes from the belief that "oh, that scaling monk unarmed damage is too much; he has to pay more for it. Oh, he cannot be disarmed or sundered; he has to pay more for it. Oh, we are going to let critters use this too, so everyone has to pay more for it."
I don't know how you are going to solve this problem, let along the others. I hope that you do. But somehow, I seriously doubt that anything meaningful will be done.
Master Arminas
Provided you intend to use the weapon for incidental attacks (haste, AOO), then the bodywraps + weapon only total 5000 x bonus squared. Great success!
Depends if you are using the weapon as primary or secondary. Since the extra attack from ki and Medusa's Wrath and haste are all primary, which could give you eight primary attacks and three secondary. It does work if you use your unarmed strike as the secondary weapon, and even allows for one unarmed AoO at 16th level, but not so much for primary.
MA
|
@SKR Respectfully, a return to one weapon being able to be used to complete what norally requires two weapons is by extension going to increase weapon power.
And so if we go back to what was unquestionably a more powerful option which had beeen removed...
I am not saying that is what will happen, as we are all just reading tea leaves and waiting for blue smoke, but it did seem to be in consideration as a "fix". And I don't think it "fixes" anything I find to be a problem.
However I do think it would make it unlikely what I do see as a problem is addressed.
|
|
Ironically, the Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes (or whatever it is called) that everyone is complaining about is perfect for this build. Use the bonus from the bodywrap for the unarmed strikes, use a weapon for everything else.Long ago, back when 3.0 was first released, I wanted to recreate a 1st edition AD&D monk, who used a weapon in one hand and unarmed strikes in combination. The sheer expense involved makes that prohibitive in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
The Amulet of the Mighty Fists costs 5,000 gp x bonus squared (it cost even more in 3.5!); a magic weapon costs 2,000 gp x bonus squared. To have both of them, at the same bonus is 7,000 gp x bonus squared.
I don't think that is ironic, and that worries me.
I don't want the "solution" to be "Flurry is like you thought it was before" and call it a day.
And so if we go back to what was unquestionably a more powerful option
Unquestionably more powerful, but to be fair, the step up in power is subtle rather than dramatic. Mathematically we're talking about a 5% to 20% increase in DPR; that is similar to taking the Improved Critical feat. Also, it really only helps weapon-based monks; as the unarmed monk still is settled with the AoMF.
Maybe a change to the AoMF to work more like the Amulet of Natural weapons from 3.x?
Where you have to pay more for each natural weapon it effects.
Also to the Devs I am repeating this out of sheer hope it gets adressed in the revison/clarifcation/changes to the monk.
1.Is an unarmed strike a single weapon?
1a. If so can you TWF unarmed?
1b. If not how many weapons is it for the purposes of affecting it with spells?
2. What exactly is meant by monks having no off-hand for unarmed stikes?
2a. Is it that monks simply do not have a reduced str for those attacks?
2b. Or is it that monks do not and cannot make off-hand attacks with unarmed stikes?
Maybe a change to the AoMF to work more like the Amulet of Natural weapons from 3.x?
Where you have to pay more for each natural weapon it effects.
Also to the Devs I am repeating this out of sheer hope it gets adressed in the revison/clarifcation/changes to the monk.
1.Is an unarmed strike a single weapon?
1a. If so can you TWF unarmed?
1b. If not how many weapons is it for the purposes of affecting it with spells?2. What exactly is meant by monks having no off-hand for unarmed stikes?
2a. Is it that monks simply do not have a reduced str for those attacks?
2b. Or is it that monks do not and cannot make off-hand attacks with unarmed stikes?
Yes. These questions need to be answered. Is unarmed strike a single weapon? If not it is two (primary/secondary)? Four (two feet, two fists)? Eight (two feet, two fists, two elbows, two knees)? Nine (two feet, two fists, two elbows, two knees, headbutt)? We keep asking this question and get no official answer.
Master Arminas
I can understand ciretose's concern. We'd need to figure out the math on what is better: A TWF with two light weapons or a monk flurrying with a temple sword two handedly (1.5 strength and Power Attack) with the old FoB rules before SKR's change.
I can understand ciretose's concern. We'd need to figure out the math on what is better: A TWF with two light weapons or a monk flurrying with a temple sword two handedly (1.5 strength and Power Attack) with the old FoB rules before SKR's change.
It would still be 1x strength due to the text of flurry of blows.
In my opinion, any fix that does not increase the Monk's chance to hit, will not actually fix the problem at all. Just my opinion, but I wanted to get that out there.
I have to agree. Hitting targets and getting through DR are the monk's big problem, especially if the monk is not meant to have a high damage output.
An insight bonus to hit for unarmed strike and monk weapons would fix the first.
An ability to bypass DR by expending ki would get you past the second.
Suddenly the monk CAN exploit enemy weaknesses. We just need to fix MAD and a few ability clashes and we're away.
@SKR Respectfully, a return to one weapon being able to be used to complete what norally requires two weapons is by extension going to increase weapon power.
No, it isn't as that's how a lot of people thought flurry worked anyway. It increases weapon power by a small amount compared to TWF flurry. It makes a monk using weapons more viable, certainly, but given that fighting unarmed is not very viable that's not a bad thing, is it?
And so if we go back to what was unquestionably a more powerful option which had beeen removed...
More powerful is relative. Smite evil or favoured enemy or weapon training are more powerful than not having them. This does not make them broken, it does not make them undesirable in the game, it does makes them class features that are balanced for the classes they reside in. I really struggle to see how the one-weapon-flurry in the hands of the monk as is causes any kind of power-balance issue.
Edit: a point to make: Given WBL a monk with a one-weapon flurry may be +1 up on a TWFing combat class, it's true. However, those classes do not lose functionality using a weapon, while the monk cannot apply many abilities through a weapon - unless it's a ki-focus weapon, which is a property worth +1 equivalence. So in fact a one-weapon flurry, far from placing a monk ahead of his peers using TWF, just puts him on an even footing with them.
|
|
I can understand ciretose's concern. We'd need to figure out the math on what is better: A TWF with two light weapons or a monk flurrying with a temple sword two handedly (1.5 strength and Power Attack) with the old FoB rules before SKR's change.It would still be 1x strength due to the text of flurry of blows.
This is still a point of debate. "Full strength bonus" doesn't mean they get less than other classes when they attack two-handed, now does it?
Do does a monk get the same as other classes when wielding a temple sword or quarterstaff with two hands, or do they get a "full strength bonus"?
Text:
"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."
I can understand ciretose's concern. We'd need to figure out the math on what is better: A TWF with two light weapons or a monk flurrying with a temple sword two handedly (1.5 strength and Power Attack) with the old FoB rules before SKR's change.It would still be 1x strength due to the text of flurry of blows.This is still a point of debate. "Full strength bonus" doesn't mean they get less than other classes when they attack two-handed, now does it?
Do does a monk get the same as other classes when wielding a temple sword or quarterstaff with two hands, or do they get a "full strength bonus"?
Text:
"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."
Furthermore, you can still get the 50% extra damage boost from Power Attack.
I can understand ciretose's concern. We'd need to figure out the math on what is better: A TWF with two light weapons or a monk flurrying with a temple sword two handedly (1.5 strength and Power Attack) with the old FoB rules before SKR's change.It would still be 1x strength due to the text of flurry of blows.This is still a point of debate. "Full strength bonus" doesn't mean they get less than other classes when they attack two-handed, now does it?
Do does a monk get the same as other classes when wielding a temple sword or quarterstaff with two hands, or do they get a "full strength bonus"?
Text:
"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."
If that were the case, his 'full-Strength bonus' for the off-hand would be one-half his Strength bonus, Ciretose. It is clear from the text what the intention is: normal Strength modifier whether the weapon is wielded in one hand or two-hands, or an off-hand, or is light, or whatever. Perhaps I joined these boards too late (just last year), and missed the grand arguments over this, but I have NEVER (until now) seen anyone argue that full-Strength bonus for a monk means 1.5x Strength bonus; because it is clear from the context it does not mean that.
Master Arminas
Furthermore, you can still get the 50% extra damage boost from Power Attack.I can understand ciretose's concern. We'd need to figure out the math on what is better: A TWF with two light weapons or a monk flurrying with a temple sword two handedly (1.5 strength and Power Attack) with the old FoB rules before SKR's change.It would still be 1x strength due to the text of flurry of blows.This is still a point of debate. "Full strength bonus" doesn't mean they get less than other classes when they attack two-handed, now does it?
Do does a monk get the same as other classes when wielding a temple sword or quarterstaff with two hands, or do they get a "full strength bonus"?
Text:
"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."
Yes, yes, you would. If you were willing to sacrifice your attack bonus still more; which I have seen almost never in a monk (or rogue or bard or any other 3/4 BAB class). Even Lorekeeper's Tiger style hurts because it drops AC by as much as six points. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I for one have never seen it tried.
MA
@MA - I've seen quite a few people make this argument. And it isn't unreasonable given the wording if you assume you are wielding a single weapon two handed.
The "full strength bonus" for a two handed weapon would be strength and a half.
This would be a valid argument if it stated that you used the full strength bonus for the weapon. However, it is written as "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows..." There's a big difference.
Power attack probably would still give you the +3/-1 progression.
|
|
@MA - I've seen quite a few people make this argument. And it isn't unreasonable given the wording if you assume you are wielding a single weapon two handed.
The "full strength bonus" for a two handed weapon would be strength and a half.
This would be a valid argument if it stated that you used the full strength bonus for the weapon. However, it is written as "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows..." There's a big difference.
Power attack probably would still give you the +3/-1 progression.
What would you apply strength and 1/2 to other than damage?
You know, it's rather amusing to me that every time Master Arminas makes a Monk thread, it reaches some ungodly number of posts in a relatively short amount of time.
I think he's using mind control! :P
It isn't deliberate! :)
MA
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand ciretose's concern. We'd need to figure out the math on what is better: A TWF with two light weapons or a monk flurrying with a temple sword two handedly (1.5 strength and Power Attack) with the old FoB rules before SKR's change.
It's not my "change," it's how Jason intended it to work.
What would you apply strength and 1/2 to other than damage?@MA - I've seen quite a few people make this argument. And it isn't unreasonable given the wording if you assume you are wielding a single weapon two handed.
The "full strength bonus" for a two handed weapon would be strength and a half.
This would be a valid argument if it stated that you used the full strength bonus for the weapon. However, it is written as "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows..." There's a big difference.
Power attack probably would still give you the +3/-1 progression.
"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."
I don't see how you can say that a monk's full strength bonus is something that changes based on the weapon he's holding. A two handed weapon does generally add a 1.5x modifier to your bonus damage from strength, but it doesn't change what your strength bonus is. That modifier for two handed weapons is superseded in the case of flurry of blows.
I can understand ciretose's concern. We'd need to figure out the math on what is better: A TWF with two light weapons or a monk flurrying with a temple sword two handedly (1.5 strength and Power Attack) with the old FoB rules before SKR's change.It's not my "change," it's how Jason intended it to work.
I think he called it that because it's the most concise way to refer to the ruling in question. Nobody's burning effigies of you. (Anymore.)
Depends if you are using the weapon as primary or secondary. Since the extra attack from ki and Medusa's Wrath and haste are all primary, which could give you eight primary attacks and three secondary. It does work if you use your unarmed strike as the secondary weapon, and even allows for one unarmed AoO at 16th level, but not so much for primary.
MA
Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.
Plus I recall that it was said somewhere that you could replace any attack in Flurry of Blows with an unarmed strike. So if you attack with Haste, Ki, Medusa's Wrath for a base attack of +14/+14/+14/+14/+14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4/-1 any of those can be unarmed strikes. But which could you use your kama with? Any of them? Some of them? If so which ones? If I use unarmed strike for the first three can I use the kama for the rest? Or just three or four? Which three or four? If I only attack with unarmed strike three times and then get an AoO later that round, can I still use my bodywraps? Or not because now my BAB is only +12?
It is so much easier if you just let the "using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon" rule just let you attack with any combination.
@ Dabbler - I don't think the math agrees with you, but feel free to show me how I am wrong by comparing the two with same level builds.
You don't have to compare the builds, just the weapon. For any weapon enhancement +x equivelant of 2 or greater, the cost of two weapons of +(x-1) equivelant enhancement is roughly equal to one weapon of +x equivalence.
So the one-weapon flurry only gives you a weapon the equivelant of +1 better than the TWFer. However, a monk using a weapon is giving up on some of his other class features like quivering palm or stunning fist, which is like a paladin giving up his smite or the ranger giving up his favoured enemy. So the monk gains +1 at the cost of not being able to use some of his class features, which is a reasonable exchange. If he wants to use those class features with a weapon, he has to take the ki-focus feature, which wipes out his +1 'advantage'.
Hence it balances out.
@MA - I've seen quite a few people make this argument. And it isn't unreasonable given the wording if you assume you are wielding a single weapon two handed.
The "full strength bonus" for a two handed weapon would be strength and a half.
It also means half strength bonus for offhand attacks. Yet the monk does not take half strength bonus for off-hand attacks, flurry of blows attacks are never treated as off-hand. The implication of this line, therefore, is that they are never treated as two-handed either.
So single weapon flurry is not a particularly great advantage even with a two-handed weapon (actually it's a disadvantage using a two-handed weapon as you lose out on damage). It isn't any advantage at all without Power Attack, which is of questionable value to a monk in any event - chances to hit are low enough, and while you can take Furious Focus, you are gaining a penalty on more attacks than otherwise negating the advantages of doing so.
Depends if you are using the weapon as primary or secondary. Since the extra attack from ki and Medusa's Wrath and haste are all primary, which could give you eight primary attacks and three secondary. It does work if you use your unarmed strike as the secondary weapon, and even allows for one unarmed AoO at 16th level, but not so much for primary.
MA
Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.
Plus I recall that it was said somewhere that you could replace any attack in Flurry of Blows with an unarmed strike. So if you attack with Haste, Ki, Medusa's Wrath for a base attack of +14/+14/+14/+14/+14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4/-1 any of those can be unarmed strikes. But which could you use your kama with? Any of them? Some of them? If so which ones? If I use unarmed strike for the first three can I use the kama for the rest? Or just three or four? Which three or four? If I only attack with unarmed strike three times and then get an AoO later that round, can I still use my bodywraps? Or not because now my BAB is only +12?
It is so much easier if you just let the "using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon" rule just let you attack with any combination.
Oh, I quite agree, Lord Twig. However, as per the 'clarification' that SKR and JB made on how it has always been intended to be (and what road is paved with good intentions, by the way? hmmmmm?), that you have to split up the attack exactly as TWF says. I just used the words primary and secondary to differentiate between the attacks.
I don't think it should be that way, but until they retract that statement (which has not been done), that seems to be the way they want it.
MA
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I quite agree, Lord Twig. However, as per the 'clarification' that SKR and JB made on how it has always been intended to be (and what road is paved with good intentions, by the way? hmmmmm?)
Unnecessary snark is unnecessary.
*shrug*
Sean while your here could you possibly if even unoffically weigh in on my above questions if there is anything you could enlighten us on at this time.
Oh, I quite agree, Lord Twig. However, as per the 'clarification' that SKR and JB made on how it has always been intended to be (and what road is paved with good intentions, by the way? hmmmmm?)Unnecessary snark is unnecessary.
*shrug*
Sean, that was not meant to be 'snarky'. That was meant to show that sometimes what you intend may indeed take you to a very different place. Intentions mean nothing (as your own moderators here have told me time and again); only the perception of what has been done or said.
Whether you (or Jason or others) intended the rules to be read in one way no longer matters. Because there was a great divide in how people, including the people who wrote material for Paizo, read that rule. Intention vs. perception; heaven vs. hell.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sean while your here could you possibly if even unoffically weigh in on my above questions if there is anything you could enlighten us on at this time.
We haven't had a design team meeting about this topic, so answering your questions now isn't really going to help, as the answers may change as we work on the problem.
Sean, that was not meant to be 'snarky'. That was meant to show that sometimes what you intend may indeed take you to a very different place. Intentions mean nothing (as your own moderators here have told me time and again); only the perception of what has been done or said.
It also added nothing to the discussion. Your statement I quoted is no more or less true with or without that parenthetical clause. So why include it? You don't need to score points, here.
Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.
Flurry doesn't state that it doesn't have an off-hand, monk Unarmed Strike does. So if you used your unarmed as your primary and a non-light weapon as your secondary (not saying anyone would, but for the sake of an example where it would matter) then you would be at -4 for the primary and -4 for the off-hand.
Plus I recall that it was said somewhere that you could replace any attack in Flurry of Blows with an unarmed strike. So if you attack with Haste, Ki, Medusa's Wrath for a base attack of +14/+14/+14/+14/+14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4/-1 any of those can be unarmed strikes. But which could you use your kama with? Any of them? Some of them? If so which ones? If I use unarmed strike for the first three can I use the kama for the rest? Or just three or four? Which three or four? If I only attack with unarmed strike three times and then get an AoO later that round, can I still use my bodywraps? Or not because now my BAB is only +12?
You don't replace attacks, you declare your primary and secondary attacks first, since it matters for TWF. So you can't simply switch on the fly. TWF requires a single primary weapon and a single secondary weapon and since flurry works just as TWF you would need to figure that out before you make any attacks.
Sean while your here could you possibly if even unoffically weigh in on my above questions if there is anything you could enlighten us on at this time.We haven't had a design team meeting about this topic, so answering your questions now isn't really going to help, as the answers may change as we work on the problem.
Thanks Sean i completly understand that you don't want to say anything that might change in the coming weeks. Thank you again for the time you take both on the products and the time taken to come here and talk to us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why include anything? Communication and speech should not be restricted to the bare bones, but instead it needs to flourish with exposition and hyperbole and metaphor and satire all of the other spices of language that makes the communicating of ideas more than simply programing in a binary computer code.
And as for adding nothing to the discussion, it did . . . you and I are talking and discussing.
Master Arminas
Given how problematic it is, I would actually be willing to get rid of flurry entirely and trade it inherent enhancement bonuses to unarmed strikes as you level.
Maybe I'll try a homebrew archetype that does just that and see how it goes.
BTW I have seen flurry of blows work... but it was with a monk who rolled a natural 18 for Strength.
Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.Flurry doesn't state that it doesn't have an off-hand, monk Unarmed Strike does. So if you used your unarmed as your primary and a non-light weapon as your secondary (not saying anyone would, but for the sake of an example where it would matter) then you would be at -4 for the primary and -4 for the off-hand.
Which actually brings up question 3.
3. Are the flurry penalties always -2/-2 or were those numbers assumed since at the time of writhing core only light weapons could be flurried with?
3.a Also in reference to question 2 above if a monk has no unarmed strike must any weapon attack in a flurry be secondary if mixed with unarmed strikes?
Edit added 3.a
Thanks Sean i completly understand that you don't want to say anything that might change in the coming weeks. Thank you again for the time you take both on the products and the time taken to come here and talk to us.
Thanks for understanding. There has been so much speculation and partial information bandied about in all the monk threads, I'd rather avoid making things more confusing right now. :)
Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.Flurry doesn't state that it doesn't have an off-hand, monk Unarmed Strike does. So if you used your unarmed as your primary and a non-light weapon as your secondary (not saying anyone would, but for the sake of an example where it would matter) then you would be at -4 for the primary and -4 for the off-hand.
Which actually brings up question 3.
[b]3. Are the flurry penalties always -2/-2 or were those numbers assumed since at the time of writhing core only light weapons could be flurried with?
Yes, the answer here could make a HUGE difference in some temple sword builds in particular.
MA
Would it help if a thread were compiled with the intent to list the questions such as this to save time on searching?
In fact there may already be one I'll have to look.
Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.Flurry doesn't state that it doesn't have an off-hand, monk Unarmed Strike does. So if you used your unarmed as your primary and a non-light weapon as your secondary (not saying anyone would, but for the sake of an example where it would matter) then you would be at -4 for the primary and -4 for the off-hand.
Which actually brings up question 3.
3. Are the flurry penalties always -2/-2 or were those numbers assumed since at the time of writhing core only light weapons could be flurried with?
I thought it was fairly obvious that the flurry listed in the monk chart is for unarmed/light. I mean, seeing as at the time of printing the only weapons you could use were the listed speical monk weapons, why would anyone assume otherwise?
I thought it was fairly obvious that the flurry listed in the monk chart is for unarmed/light. I mean, seeing as at the time of printing the only weapons you could use were the listed speical monk weapons, why would anyone assume otherwise?Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.Flurry doesn't state that it doesn't have an off-hand, monk Unarmed Strike does. So if you used your unarmed as your primary and a non-light weapon as your secondary (not saying anyone would, but for the sake of an example where it would matter) then you would be at -4 for the primary and -4 for the off-hand.
Which actually brings up question 3.
3. Are the flurry penalties always -2/-2 or were those numbers assumed since at the time of writhing core only light weapons could be flurried with?
The same reason we all assumed that you could flurry with a single weapon it doesn't read that the penalty is for TWF its the penalty for flurrying even if all those attacks came from the same weapon such as thrown shuriken or in the zen archers case a bow.
The same reason we all assumed that you could flurry with a single weapon it doesn't read that the penalty is for TWF its the penalty for flurrying even if all those attacks came from the same weapon such as thrown shuriken or in the zen archers case a bow.I thought it was fairly obvious that the flurry listed in the monk chart is for unarmed/light. I mean, seeing as at the time of printing the only weapons you could use were the listed speical monk weapons, why would anyone assume otherwise?Is there primary and secondary in Flurry of Blows? There isn't in Two-Weapon Fighting. There is a primary hand and off hand. Flurry has no off hand.Flurry doesn't state that it doesn't have an off-hand, monk Unarmed Strike does. So if you used your unarmed as your primary and a non-light weapon as your secondary (not saying anyone would, but for the sake of an example where it would matter) then you would be at -4 for the primary and -4 for the off-hand.
Which actually brings up question 3.
3. Are the flurry penalties always -2/-2 or were those numbers assumed since at the time of writhing core only light weapons could be flurried with?
To be fair, it clearly states that you use flurry as TWF, it can't be helped if a lot of people assumed that it worked like 3.5. If you reverse engineer flurry in the monk class block you can see the penalties come from TWF. I get that even some of the guys at Paizo made the mistake when writing NPC stat blocks, but it doesn't change that as written it is exactly like TWF. I can't even find a way to misinterpret the wording.
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 from his monk class levels 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.
As it reads, you use flurry as TWF. I don't think anyone can argue that. They clearly put that qualifier in there so people couldn't stack it with the TWF feat for more attacks. The zen archer could probably use clarification if so many people misunderstand it. It should probably just state when you get extra attacks and at what penalties. But flurry itself is pretty clear. No where anywhere does it give a "flurry attack penalty" or the like.
I can understand ciretose's concern. We'd need to figure out the math on what is better: A TWF with two light weapons or a monk flurrying with a temple sword two handedly (1.5 strength and Power Attack) with the old FoB rules before SKR's change.It's not my "change," it's how Jason intended it to work.
Sorry I mean no offense with my remark. That's just how everyone knew it as.