|
Until you get to that one particular little line of text:
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
In addition to what Neo2151 stated, the Monks base unarmed attack (Medium) does 1d6
The typical "Unarmed Strike" does 1d3, sounds as though the Monk already does a Left-Right Combo, so how does one give TWF when it already appears the Monk does just that?
Any claim that "Monks know how to punch better" may be true at higher level but I can't see how a neophyte 1st level Monk knows how to hit better than a neophyte 1st level Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike as the Feat. The Monk, IMO, already hits with both hands (or one really good knee)
At a higher level, I can see how the Monk learns to hit more sensitive locations, but the 1st level Monk isn't that much better with their naked fist than a 1st level Fighter's (Improved Unarmed Attack) naked fist
Show me where he says you must use the weakest options you have. He says you can't use your best weapon (singular) for all your attacks. Nothing about using your best weapons (plural) for them all.
From Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows
1) If all of his potential attacks are identical (for example, all he's doing are unarmed strikes and none of his unarmed strikes are enhanced by magic fang or any other effect that would give it a different attack bonus or damage value, it doesn't matter if you justify all six of those as punches, all six as headbutts, all six as kicks, or three as kicks and three as punches, or punch kick knee elbow elbow headbutt, because those attacks are identical in terms of attack and damage. That's what the "any combination" text in the flurry rule means--the difference between the attacks is just flavor and has no game effect, so you can use them in any combination because what you call it has no effect on the dice.
(Just like if you have a TWF fighter using two identical +1 short swords with identical attack and damage bonuses, it doesn't really matter for each individual attack if he's using the left shortsword or the right shortsword, declaring it doesn't affect the dice, he can roll all his attack dice at the same time and doesn't have to call them out separately.)2) If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others, such as using a special monk weapon with an attack bonus or damage different than his unarmed strike, or having magic fang on one hand but not any other body part, now the order and identity of each attack matters, and you have to specify what you're attacking with and you have to abide by the TWF rules because your decisions affect the die rolls. In other words that monk15 is actually making attacks with two weapons, one with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3, and another with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3. So if you have a +5 sai in your left hand and a normal sai in your right hand, you can't say you're using the +5 sai for all six of your attacks, you're doing +13/+8/+3 with the left hand (adding the sai's +5 enhancement bonus, of course) and +13/+8/+3 with the right hand.
Jason says that in this situation, the "any combination" text means you can swap in a regular unarmed strike in place of any of those attacks (though that's not clear in the text). (Doing so affects the attack and damage rolls for that attack, of course.) So you could swap out your left-hand +8 attack for an unarmed strike such as a kick or elbow (losing the +5 enhancement bonus to that attack because you're not actually using the +5 sai to make that attack), swap out all of the right-hand sai attacks for unarmed strikes, and so on, but you're still abiding by the TWF setup in that you have a series of attacks with one weapon and a series of attacks with your other weapon.
There you go, Talonhawke.
I know people have made the argument that a monk's unarmed strikes (everyone's unarmed strikes) is two weapon, thereby allowing him to TWF with them, with a primary hand and an off-hand. The problem here is two-fold: first, a monk fighting unarmed has no such thing as an off-hand attack, and second, SKR doesn't say if your primary and off-hand enhancements are different, then you must split your attacks; he says if even one body part is enchanted differently, you have to split your attacks.
Which brings us back to the question: how many 'body parts' have to be enchanted?
This is why I, personally, myself, hold that unarmed strikes are a single weapon, that one cannot two-weapon fight ONLY with unarmed strikes, and that flurry IS NOT two-weapon fighting.
Because that is the only answer that makes sense for the rules set. In my opinion.
MA
Nothing in that says if you have two identical unarmed strikes with gmf that you still make half your attacks with something other than a fist.
|
|
Not everybody says that Unarmed Strike is two weapons, not even all Monk's attacks need to be from 2 weapons
A Monk's Attacks could be Knees, Kicks, Elbow, Back fist, Fists, etc and they could be a single or a combo of blows
Take the 1st Level Monk who does 1d6 with "Unarmed Attack" when the "Unarmed Attack" as per Weapons does 1d3. How do they they do that? When we can agree a mechanic that satisfies 95%, then we can really get on going on how to add TWF that doesn't turn the Monk into a melee machine far outshining the fighter
I know people have made the argument that a monk's unarmed strikes (everyone's unarmed strikes) is two weapon, thereby allowing him to TWF with them, with a primary hand and an off-hand. The problem here is two-fold: first, a monk fighting unarmed has no such thing as an off-hand attack, and second, SKR doesn't say if your primary and off-hand enhancements are different, then you must split your attacks; he says if even one body part is enchanted differently, you have to split your attacks.
Meaning you can't make all the attacks with one single weapon, not that you must attack using your weakest tool available. If you have GMF of different levels on two fists, you can use those two fists, you just have to keep track of the order. If you have a foot and a hand with different levels of GMF, you can attack with the foot and the hand, you just have to keep track of the order. If you have GMF on three bodyparts, you can elect to attack with the two strongest, if you're TWF, or you can flurry and use a combination of them, just keeping track of the order. If the argument is even a Monk during FOB can't attack with that many weapons, fine - choose two and make sure you keep track of the order. It's really not all that complicated as far as that issue goes.
I know people have made the argument that a monk's unarmed strikes (everyone's unarmed strikes) is two weapon, thereby allowing him to TWF with them, with a primary hand and an off-hand. The problem here is two-fold: first, a monk fighting unarmed has no such thing as an off-hand attack, and second, SKR doesn't say if your primary and off-hand enhancements are different, then you must split your attacks; he says if even one body part is enchanted differently, you have to split your attacks.Meaning you can't make all the attacks with one single weapon, not that you must attack using your weakest tool available. If you have GMF of different levels on two fists, you can use those two fists, you just have to keep track of the order. If you have a foot and a hand with different levels of GMF, you can attack with the foot and the hand, you just have to keep track of the order. If you have GMF on three bodyparts, you can elect to attack with the two strongest, if you're TWF, or you can flurry and use a combination of them, just keeping track of the order. If the argument is even a Monk during FOB can't attack with that many weapons, fine - choose two and make sure you keep track of the order. It's really not all that complicated as far as that issue goes.
But that was not how SKR phrased it, Fretgod99. He said potential attack. That encompasses a lot more than just the primary and off-hand. And besides, the monk doesn't have an off-hand with unarmed strikes.
MA
Okay my question was answered you can all go home now. or read about a kung-fu werewolf master that was real.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/taidjin.html
|
I know people have made the argument that a monk's unarmed strikes (everyone's unarmed strikes) is two weapon, thereby allowing him to TWF with them, with a primary hand and an off-hand. The problem here is two-fold: first, a monk fighting unarmed has no such thing as an off-hand attack, and second, SKR doesn't say if your primary and off-hand enhancements are different, then you must split your attacks; he says if even one body part is enchanted differently, you have to split your attacks.Meaning you can't make all the attacks with one single weapon, not that you must attack using your weakest tool available. If you have GMF of different levels on two fists, you can use those two fists, you just have to keep track of the order. If you have a foot and a hand with different levels of GMF, you can attack with the foot and the hand, you just have to keep track of the order. If you have GMF on three bodyparts, you can elect to attack with the two strongest, if you're TWF, or you can flurry and use a combination of them, just keeping track of the order. If the argument is even a Monk during FOB can't attack with that many weapons, fine - choose two and make sure you keep track of the order. It's really not all that complicated as far as that issue goes.But that was not how SKR phrased it, Fretgod99. He said potential attack. That encompasses a lot more than just the primary and off-hand. And besides, the monk doesn't have an off-hand with unarmed strikes.
MA
What point are you trying to make by saying monks don't have off hand unarmed strikes. There is no debate about that. Perhaps we should refer to off hand attacks as extra attacks instead.
Here is my final CHaracter I am going to go with the Claw attack form beast totem and elemental rage and elemental fist. let me know what you think.
Mwangi Mauler
Male Human (Mwangi) Barbarian (Brutal Pugilist, Urban Barbarian) 5 Monk (Martial Artist) 5
CG Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +6; Senses Perception +21
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 30, touch 25, flat-footed 24 (+5 armor, +5 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 92 (5d12+5d8+20)
Fort +12, Ref +11, Will +14
Defensive Abilities Evasion; Immune fatigue
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 40 ft.
Melee Claw x2 (Beast Totem, Lesser) +11 x2 (1d8+4/x2) and
Unarmed Strike +10/+5 (1d8+2/x2)
Special Attacks Beast Totem, Lesser, Elemental Rage, Lesser (1/rage), Flurry of Blows +3/+3
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 14, Dex 17/21, Con 15, Int 11, Wis 20/26, Cha 11
Base Atk +8; CMB +12 (+16 Grappling); CMD 35 (37 vs. Grapple)
Feats Dodge, Elemental Fist (1d6) (6/day), Improved Grapple, Improved Natural Attack (Claw x2 [Beast Totem, Lesser]), Improved Unarmed Strike, Monk Weapon Proficiencies, Rending Claws, Stunning Fist (6/day) (DC 24), Weapon Focus (Claw), Weapon Specialization (Claw)
Traits Freed Slave (Katapesh), Veteran of Battle
Skills Acrobatics +18, Climb +15, Perception +21, Swim +15
Languages Common, Polyglot
SQ AC Bonus +9, Controlled Rage, Controlled Rage: Constitution, Controlled Rage: Dexterity, Crowd Control +2, Exploit Weakness +13, Fast Movement (+10'), High Jump (+5/+25 with Ki point), Improved Savage Grapple, Ki Defense, Maneuver Training, Pain Points, Pit Fighter +2 (Grapple), Rage (14 rounds/day), Stunning Fist (Stun, Fatigue), Unarmed Strike (1d8)
Other Gear Bracers of Armor, +5, Cloak of Resistance, +1, Headband of Inspired Wisdom, +6
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
AC Bonus +9 The Monk adds his Wisdom bonus to AC and CMD, more at higher levels.
Beast Totem, Lesser (Su) Gain 2 d6 claw attacks while raging
Controlled Rage (Ex) May gain lesser bonus split as desired, but without normal drawbacks.
Crowd Control +2 (Ex) If 2+ foes adjacent, +1 to hit & AC. Unslowed by crowds & bonus to intimidate.
Elemental Fist (1d6) (6/day) You can add 1d6 energy damage to an attack.
Elemental Rage, Lesser (1/rage) (Su) 1/rage, attack deals +1D6 energy damage.
Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead.
Exploit Weakness +13 (Ex) At 4th level, as a swift action, a martial artist can observe a creature or object to find its weak point by making a Wisdom check and adding his monk level against a DC of 10 + the object's hardness or the target's CR. If the check succeeds, the mar
Fast Movement (+10') The Monk adds 10 or more feet to his base speed.
Flurry of Blows +3/+3 (Ex) Make Flurry of Blows attack as a full action.
High Jump (+5/+25 with Ki point) (Ex) +5 to Acrobatics checks made to jump.
Immune to Fatigue You are immune to the fatigued condition.
Improved Grapple You grapple at +2, with no attacks of opportunity allowed.
Improved Savage Grapple (Ex) Grapples always provoke AoO from you, no grapple penalties, grapple at +1 size.
Improved Unarmed Strike Unarmed strikes don't cause attacks of opportunity, and can be lethal.
Ki Defense (Su) A monk can spend 1 point from his ki pool to give himself a +4 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round.
Maneuver Training (Ex) CMB = other BABs + Monk level
Pain Points (Ex) At 3rd level, a martial artist's advanced knowledge of humanoid anatomy grants a +1 bonus on critical hit confirmation rolls and increases the DC of his stunning fist and quivering palm by 1. This ability replaces still mind.
Pit Fighter +2 (Grapple) Selected combat maneuver gains +1 CMB or +1 CMB (+2 if not wearing armor)
Rage (14 rounds/day) (Ex) +0 Str, +0 Con, +2 to Will saves, -2 to AC when enraged.
Rending Claws If you hit an opponent with 2 claw attacks in a turn, add 1d6 precision damage to the second hit.
Stunning Fist (6/day) (DC 24) You can stun an opponent with an unarmed attack.
Stunning Fist (Stun, Fatigue) (Ex) At 1st level, the monk gains Stunning Fist as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. At 4th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the monk gains the ability to apply a new condition to the target of his Stunning Fist. This conditio
Unarmed Strike (1d8) The Monk does lethal damage with his unarmed strikes.
Veteran of Battle +1 Initiative, draw a weapon as a free action during the surprise round.
Hero Lab® and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.
I know people have made the argument that a monk's unarmed strikes (everyone's unarmed strikes) is two weapon, thereby allowing him to TWF with them, with a primary hand and an off-hand. The problem here is two-fold: first, a monk fighting unarmed has no such thing as an off-hand attack, and second, SKR doesn't say if your primary and off-hand enhancements are different, then you must split your attacks; he says if even one body part is enchanted differently, you have to split your attacks.Meaning you can't make all the attacks with one single weapon, not that you must attack using your weakest tool available. If you have GMF of different levels on two fists, you can use those two fists, you just have to keep track of the order. If you have a foot and a hand with different levels of GMF, you can attack with the foot and the hand, you just have to keep track of the order. If you have GMF on three bodyparts, you can elect to attack with the two strongest, if you're TWF, or you can flurry and use a combination of them, just keeping track of the order. If the argument is even a Monk during FOB can't attack with that many weapons, fine - choose two and make sure you keep track of the order. It's really not all that complicated as far as that issue goes.But that was not how SKR phrased it, Fretgod99. He said potential attack. That encompasses a lot more than just the primary and off-hand. And besides, the monk doesn't have an off-hand with unarmed strikes.
MA
Right. So that's different than what I said how? If you have any potential attacks which don't have the same bonuses or enchantments or whatever, you can't just attack willy-nilly. You have to pay attention to order of your attacks. That's pretty much what I just said. It still doesn't necessitate you attacking with your weakest weapon.
Treat it like a quasi double weapon and I'm pretty sure all this goes away.
It does fretgod. If you go with the assumption that you need one fully enchanted strike of some sort for each attack string you can make then all of the corner case need to know exactly how many body parts I can attack with is covered.
|
|
Monks can use TWF when someone explains how a normal Medium Unarmed Weapon does 1D3 but a Monk's Unarmed Attack does 1D6 at 1st level
What part of the body is used?
Is it a hand combo (a quick right-left), or a knee, a snap kick, what?
Like a few things in Pathfinder and its predecessors using multiple definitions or effects of the same word, I think this is really the whole issue.
A Monk's "Unarmed Attack" is their special form of attack that unfortunately shares the name name as basic "Unarmed Attack" all others can do. Perhaps the Monk's "Unarmed Attack" should be renamed "Unarmed Combat Style"
|
|
Well, first of, what a big fuss you mad Lobolusk! But a good one ;)
Second, about unarmed strikes and two weapon fighting, well, two wepon fightning means it strikes with two diferent unarmed strikes (fist/fist/elbow/elbow/head/foot/foot/knee/knee/whatever - or just the slotted body parts, that will depend). An animated cannonball can be ruled tha it can`t have twf (only one body part - body).
Third, about MWF and unarmed strikes, as written, the creature could do as many unarmed stirkes as it whant, but i guess it whas not meant for this. I thought about a solution and house ruled as such; That a creature could mwf with unarmed strikes up to the number of weapon wielding limbs it has - meaning that he could not count with his head to gain an extra attack, because its head cannot wield weapons (boulder helmet is strappable, not wieldable) - althought it could use its head to make an unarmed strike normally.
What you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh...My...GOD!!!
The level of purposeful obtuseness on this thread has reached stratospheric levels.
First, the line "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." clearly refers to the fact that a monk can add his full STR bonus to all of his attacks. It is there because an offhand attack can only apply 1/2 STR bonus. So a monk can add his full STR bonus to all his unarmed strikes because he isn't considered to have an offhand attack for the purpose of determining damage. Period.
Second, a monk's unarmed strike at 1st level does 1d6 damage because it's an effin class ability!! It's meant to reflect the additional training in unarmed fighting that a monk receives vs. your vanilla fighter.
Third, to anyone with a reading comprehension above middle school level, when SKR said "If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others", he was refering to the potential attacks you are going to use that round, NOT all potential attacks you can possibly have. It's ridiculousness of the highest order to even suggest that.
Again, we have people intentionally misinterpreting the rules to justify their position that their favorite class is not the ultimate god of the universe, and actually has some weaknesses to offset their many strengths.
And now for the requisite hyperbole, flame on folks:
<Gasp!!> Tell me it isn't true!! It can't be!! The monk is broken I say!!! BROKEN!!!!!! It should have full BAB...and a 50 AC...and all good saves...and 900' of movement per round...and twenty other special abilities...and be able to full attack after teleporting halfway around the world...and be able to do it invisibly...and...and...
Again, we have people intentionally misinterpreting the rules to justify their position that their favorite class is not the ultimate god of the universe, and actually has some weaknesses to offset their many strengths.
While I will agree with much of your rant, I will add that the monk IS an underpowered class. But whether or not unarmed strike is a single weapon or many is not part of the monk's problems, however.
Thanks Dabbler.
I happen to agree that the monk is not the most powerful class when it comes to DPR, but not any worse than a TWF Ranger vs. anything other than their favored enemy.
Every monk I've ever DM'd for has been one of the most productive members of the party due to the plethora of special abilities they have. Not to mention the sheer frustration of not being able to hit them due to their ungodly ACs. Throw in the crane style tree, and It's even worse. And let's not even talk about the caster behind 3 lines of minions who suddenly has a monk standing right next to him, beating the crap out of him.
Do I houserule that an AoMF costs the same as enchanting 2 weapons, not more...yes. Do I houserule a version of Monk's Robes that costs half as much, and only increases the monk's level by 3...yes. The monk does have some problems with the class specific gear costing too much. But underpowered, I don't think so. I think it has more to do with people too much emphasis on the damage output of the monk and not giving enough credit to everything else it gets.
As for the rant, to expect the designers of this game to write the rulebooks, much less a messageboard post, as if they were preparing a brief for the Supreme Court, just so people with a preconceived idea don't read it the way they want to read it, or misinterpret it in the way that fits their purpose, is the height of ridiculousness.
If people weren't continually and purposefully misreading and misinterpreting the rules and clarifications that the designers have spent many, many hours developing and balancing, there would be far fewer of these threads being hijacked into "this class sucks and needs to be fixed the exact way I want it fixed" threads. And probably much more actual information being passed out to people who came on here with legitimate questions.
As for the OPs original question, we play it that you can TWF with unarmed strike at our table. From the rules, comments, and clarifications that we've seen, that seems to be the way it's supposed to be done, and makes the most sense.
Thanks Dabbler.
I happen to agree that the monk is not the most powerful class when it comes to DPR, but not any worse than a TWF Ranger vs. anything other than their favored enemy.
Actually, they are worse than the ranger by quite a significant step.
The ranger gets full enhancement on his weapons and can stagger said enchantment when resources are scarce. Basically, he can always have at least one weapon at the best he can get at his level. This is usually +1 or +2 better than the AoMF the unarmed monk can afford.
Second reason, the monk is usually MADer than the ranger, so his hitting stat is often better by +1 or +2.
Third off, full attacks are not always available, so the ranger there is a big step ahead of the monk.
When full-attacking, said ranger then gets +2-4 better to hit than the monk on average. The monk's weapons do more base damage, but the ranger will likely have better static bonuses from enhancement at the least. More chance to hit always translates as more damage, putting the monk below the 'full BAB, no special factors' baseline for combat classes. On top of that, greater enhancement means greater penetration of DR.
Every monk I've ever DM'd for has been one of the most productive members of the party due to the plethora of special abilities they have. Not to mention the sheer frustration of not being able to hit them due to their ungodly ACs. Throw in the crane style tree, and It's even worse. And let's not even talk about the caster behind 3 lines of minions who suddenly has a monk standing right next to him, beating the crap out of him.
Last few encounters for me have been frustrating. At 10th level my monk failed to achieve anything at all against a devil we had to fight - too high an AC, too much DR, too high a CMD. In spite of everything I did, I couldn't do much other than soak up the occasional hit. I've kept up until this point by dint of good stat rolls, but the other three combat characters (sword & board paladin, archer ranger, bladebound magus) have been ahead of me in damage output for several levels - maneuvers were cool, but have trailed off in usefulness.
Monks have a sweet spot around 3rd-7th level, when maneuvers still work, and the gap in hit bonuses is not too large. Past 7th level, they are into decline without a lot of hard work.
Do I houserule that an AoMF costs the same as enchanting 2 weapons, not more...yes. Do I houserule a version of Monk's Robes that costs half as much, and only increases the monk's level by 3...yes. The monk does have some problems with the class specific gear costing too much. But underpowered, I don't think so. I think it has more to do with people too much emphasis on the damage output of the monk and not giving enough credit to everything else it gets.
Um, no. The monk doesn't hit the baseline other combat classes do. They have some nice abilities but they are largely situational. Some are actually detrimental. Your changes help the monk some, but their abilities are too situational with no fall-back.
Don;'t get me wrong, against some foes, in some circumstances, monks can really shine. But in others, they are cannon-fodder (or would be, if the cannons didn't have bigger fish to shoot at).
As for the rant, to expect the designers of this game to write the rulebooks, much less a messageboard post, as if they were preparing a brief for the Supreme Court, just so people with a preconceived idea don't read it the way they want to read it, or misinterpret it in the way that fits their purpose, is the height of ridiculousness.
If people weren't continually and purposefully misreading and misinterpreting the rules and clarifications that the designers have spent many, many hours developing and balancing, there would be far fewer of these threads being hijacked into "this class sucks and needs to be fixed the exact way I want it fixed" threads. And probably much more actual information being passed out to people who came on here with legitimate questions.
I agree. Rules lawyering is a pain.
Oh...My...GOD!!!
The level of purposeful obtuseness on this thread has reached stratospheric levels.
First, the line "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." clearly refers to the fact that a monk can add his full STR bonus to all of his attacks. It is there because an offhand attack can only apply 1/2 STR bonus. So a monk can add his full STR bonus to all his unarmed strikes because he isn't considered to have an offhand attack for the purpose of determining damage. Period.
Well, let's take a look at that shall we? From the Core Rules Document:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Hmmmmm? The sentence about no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed comes FIRST. Which means that the following sentence, starting with THUS, is merely expanding upon the first sentence. Nowhere does it say 'there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed for the purpose of determining damage.'
Either the words as written mean something, Thurin, or the writers were just wasting valuable space by stating the exact same thing twice. (Three times actually, because a monk's full damage (not half, not 1.5 times) is already covered in the flurry of blows section which comes FIRST. And since you can only use an off-hand attack when making a full-attack (and it would be idiotic for a monk to NOT flurry when making a full-attack with unarmed strikes), then the words either mean more than you give them credit for, or the writers were extremely sloppy at making their point.
Third, to anyone with a reading comprehension above middle school level, when SKR said "If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others", he was refering to the potential attacks you are going to use that round, NOT all potential attacks you can possibly have. It's ridiculousness of the highest order to even suggest that.
And you gathered that how? From what he actually wrote? As I said above, it pays to be precise in your terminology. Potential attack, must, by its very defination, mean any possible type of attack that the character can make. Your interpretation is an inference, not based in what was actually said.
Again, we have people intentionally misinterpreting the rules to justify their position that their favorite class is not the ultimate god of the universe, and actually has some weaknesses to offset their many strengths.
Please. When all else fails, you turn to accusations that those of us who like monks are power-gamers and munchkins. I read the text of the abilities, and if that text doesn't match what the designers intended that is the fault of the writer. Not the reader. Quit making excuses for them. And definately quit leveling accusations against me and others, questioning our literacy, our comprehension, and our motives.
I do not want the monk to be the king of DPR, but I want a monk who is the BEST unarmed fighter in the game. Fighters who pick unarmed combat should not be better at it than a monk . . . because that is the monk's role in D&D; oh, wait, Pathfinder. It has been since the beginning of the game.
I will await your apology, sir, for your baseless and slanderous words.
MA
Here's my 2 cents:
If you have no weapon equipped and have IUS, you can deliver a single attack per iteration and gain no bonus from TWF (even as a monk). Think of a boxer just delivering Right-Left-Right jabs with 3 iterative attacks because it takes body balance to properly execute unarmed fighting moves.
If you have a weapon equipped and have IUS, you can deliver a single attack with either Unarmed Strike or your weapon as "primary" and an off-hand attack with the other per itteration, benefiting from TWF and taking penalties as per normal. This is like a combat fighter Slashing with his sword and following up with a kick or a jab; it throws him a little off balance (the TWF accuracy penalty) and (if not a monk) the unarmed strike will get half strength bonus if it's the off-hand attack.
If you are a Monk with a weapon equipped, you can also deliver a single attack with the weapon followed by an unarmed strike with normal TWF penalties but the off-hand gets full strength bonus. If you Flurry, however, any attack you could do can freely be replaced by an unarmed strike. Think of Bruce Lee just rapidly wailing on you. It takes specialized monk training to be able to throw that many punches/kicks/headbutts, etc. all in succession. But if you're a Monk and not using flurry (ie. not trained in it) you can't say, "Ok, I'll do normal full-action fight at 3/4 BaB but I'll use Unarmed Strike as both main and follow-up attack still at -2 each" because no one else could feasibly and effectively do that lacking the proper training.
Exactly, almost. This is pretty much my viewpoint in a nutshell: unarmed strikes are ONE weapon, that can be fluffed as fists, feet, elbows, knees, and headbutts. They are not a double weapon, they are not two (or more) weapons. I don't allow people to use Two-Weapon Fighting only with unarmed strikes (monks use flurry of blows, which is not the same).
Your third paragraph is the only one that have any problems with. A monk should not be using two-weapon fighting instead of his normal flurry of blows. Why? Because he doesn't get the feats. Without the TWF, he takes larger penalties and uses his normal 3/4 BAB, not his higher flurry BAB. Since the two do not stack, and since each can only be used on a full-attack, it never makes any sense for a monk to TWF instead of using flurry of blows. NEVER.
Overall, though, I quite agree. Well said, Kazaan.
MA
Aspect of the Monkey: The monk's face becomes that of a monkey, and he grows a prehensile tail. The monk can pick up objects and make unarmed attacks with his tail (though the tail does not grant additional unarmed attacks or natural attacks). In addition, the monk gains a climb speed equal to his land speed. The monkey is a creature of whimsy and a lover of pranks—a monk of any alignment can take on the aspect of the monkey.
For what it's worth, this language pretty strongly implicates that you can't simply make an unarmed attack with whichever limbs you might have available. If that's the case (and I believe it is), the whole "How many weapons are available to make an attack?" issue shouldn't be a problem.
I don't allow people to use Two-Weapon Fighting only with unarmed strikes (monks use flurry of blows, which is not the same).
Eh, Flurry of Blows functions as if the Monk were using TWF. That implies, to me anyway, that's it's basically the same thing. It just uses different rules for BAB and the penalty normally associated with TWF.
I don't allow people to use Two-Weapon Fighting only with unarmed strikes (monks use flurry of blows, which is not the same).Eh, Flurry of Blows functions as if the Monk were using TWF. That implies, to me anyway, that's it's basically the same thing. It just uses different rules for BAB and the penalty normally associated with TWF.
The designers (Jason Bulmahn) said that he intended for flurry of blows to be exactly the same as Two-Weapon Fighting. The problem is, that the description of flurry of blows (and unarmed strike) in the monk class did not convey that intention. And since the wording was very similar in 3.5, and in 3.5 flurry with a single weapon was completely legal, it has been read as such by many people.
Including, every single writer for Paizo who has statted out a monk NPC using a weapon and flurry of blows.
Using flurry of blows and the concept of unarmed strikes as multiple weapons also plays havoc with several published monk archetypes, including (but not limited to) the sohei (using two-handed reach weapons) and zen archer.
As written, the class doesn't work the way that the designers intended.
Now, I see people using the argument that flurry is two-weapon fighting all the time. Except for this, and except for that, and except for the third thing over here (don't look behind the curtain!). Those exceptions make it something completely different, however. And if backwards compatability was indeed the goal of Pathfinder, making flurry of blows indentical to two-weapon fighting breaks that paradigm. Because it changes builds that were perfectly legal in 3.5 and makes them illegal, i.e., the monk using single weapon flurry.
MA
|
|
Actually, FoB has essentially worked like TWF since 3.0.
One weapon makes the primary attack iterations. A different weapon makes the extra/off-hand/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-to-differentiate-it-from-the-pr imary-attack attack. It has NEVER been the intention for the monk to be able to make every attack of FoB with the same weapon that some people cried about when SKR announced the rules clarification.
|
|
Furthermore, the assertion that "unarmed strike plays havoc with archetypes/prestige classes/whatever" is a bogus argument, because in those cases, the archetypes/prestige classes would be considered exceptions to the rule (zen archer specifically).
And if the paradigm back in 3.5 was that every FoB attack could be made with one weapon, this paradigm would be wrong.
Actually, FoB has essentially worked like TWF since 3.0.
One weapon makes the primary attack iterations. A different weapon makes the extra/off-hand/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-to-differentiate-it-from-the-pr imary-attack attack. It has NEVER been the intention for the monk to be able to make every attack of FoB with the same weapon that some people cried about when SKR announced the rules clarification.
Ahem. From pages 18-19 of the D&D FAQ v.3.5
Exactly how often can a monk attack with a single manufactured weapon when using the flurry of blows ability. For example, if I have a +1 alchemical silver dagger, and I'm allowed three attacks in a flurry, how many of those attacks can be dagger attacks? What if I have two dagger? How about with natural weaponry, such as a claw or bite? For example, if I have a vampire monk, can I flurry with a slam attack and drain energy multiple times from one living foe? It natural weaponry doesn't work with a flurry, why not?
You can't use a dagger with a flurry of blows at all. When you use the flurry ability, you must attack with either unarmed strike or with special monk weapons. Only six of the latter are included in the Player's Handbook (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). A natural weapon (any natural wepaon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you can't use it along with a flurry.
If you have one (or two) special monk weapons, you can freely substitute attacks with those weapons with unarmed attacks in the flurry (see the flurry description on page 46 in the Player's Handbook). If you're allowed three attacks in a flurry, and you have a +1 alchemical silver sai (or other special monk weapon), you could use the sai up to three times in the flurry. The examples given in the flurry of blows entery don't make that completely clear because they don't cover all of the combinations of weapon attacks and unarmed strikes that are possible.
If you have two special monk weapons to use, you can use either or both of them in the flurry. For example, if you're entitled to three attacks using flurry of blows, and you're armed with a +1 alchemical silver sai and a cold iron sai, you can make three attacks with one sai and no attacks with the other, two attacks with one sai and one attack with the other, one attack with each sai and one unarmed attack, or any other combination of three attacks. Note that having a sai in each hand won't prevent a monk from making unarmed attacks. A monk with her hands full can still make her full complement of unarmed strikes (see the unarmed strike entry on page 41 of the Player's Handbook.
It might seem a tad strange that you cannot use a natural weapon, such as a slam or a claw when you can use a monk weapon such a sai or a kama. However, natural weaponry isn't as handy as manufactured weaponry. You never get extra attacks from a high base attack bonus with natural weaponry, and the monk's flurry ability is another way to get extra attacks from your base attack bonus. Please note that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy.
And yes. I shot, I scored. You are mistaken, Hangerflyer. AGAIN.
MA
Furthermore, the assertion that "unarmed strike plays havoc with archetypes/prestige classes/whatever" is a bogus argument, because in those cases, the archetypes/prestige classes would be considered exceptions to the rule (zen archer specifically).
And if the paradigm back in 3.5 was that every FoB attack could be made with one weapon, this paradigm would be wrong.
So a sohei with a two-handed reach weapon (with which he can flurry) therefore does not have to alternate between weapons when he is attacking a foe 10' away? Pray tell, where did you gain that nugget of information?
MA
I won't bother to post the rest of the 3.5 FAQ, but back in those days, flurry of blows was NOT two-weapon fighting. The two could be used together and STACKED, with all applicable penalties stacking as well, according to the FAQ.
But read it for yourself, at the link two posts above.
MA
Actually, FoB has essentially worked like TWF since 3.0.
Er, no. In 3.0 and 3.5 you could combine TWF with flurry of blows, so it cannot have been like TWF in any way shape or form.
Right. But FOB operates differently in PF. In fact, the rule for FOB says the Monk attacks "as if using the two weapon fighting feat". So, there's really not much to discuss on that regard. Of course people come in and say, "It operates like TWF except ..." because that's precisely what it does. It operates like TWF, except the relevant BAB is different. The ordinary penalty provision for TWF is different. Other than that, it's pretty much the same. You have to assign your moves, but that only really matters if you have different damages/bonuses/etc. to different weapons which could possibly be used during a Flurry. Furthermore, off-hand weapons actually are relevant for a Flurry, but only insofar as assigning which attacks go when are concerned. How do we know? It tells us in the rule. "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." There. For the purposes of Flurry of Blows, Monks can have an offhand unarmed strike. The strength modifier is no different, you just have to know the order for the purposes of bonuses/damage/etc.
I still don't think it's particularly complicated.
I won't bother to post the rest of the 3.5 FAQ, but back in those days, flurry of blows was NOT two-weapon fighting. The two could be used together and STACKED, with all applicable penalties stacking as well, according to the FAQ.
But read it for yourself, at the link two posts above.
MA
That is very true. And this would all be very relevant and helpful if this were actually a discussion about how FOB and TWF operate together in 3.5. But it is not.
That is very true. And this would all be very relevant and helpful if this were actually a discussion about how FOB and TWF operate together in 3.5. But it is not.I won't bother to post the rest of the 3.5 FAQ, but back in those days, flurry of blows was NOT two-weapon fighting. The two could be used together and STACKED, with all applicable penalties stacking as well, according to the FAQ.
But read it for yourself, at the link two posts above.
MA
I know right! this used to be my thread!
MA was directly replying to the misinformation that HangarFlying was providing. Pretending otherwise isn't helpful to any discussion.
MA was directly replying to the misinformation that HangarFlying was providing. Pretending otherwise isn't helpful to any discussion.
Aside from the part where he responding to my post above discussing 3.5 rules for Flurry and TWF.
|
|
Unarmed Strike: Flurry of Blows - The monk must use the full attack action (see page 124) to strike with a flurry of blows. A monk may also use the flurry of blows if armed with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, or siangham). If armed with one such weapon, she makes the extra attack either with that weapon or unarmed. If armed with two such weapons, she uses one for the regular attack (or attacks) and the other for the extra attack. In any case, her damage bonus on the attack with her off hand is not reduced.
So, 3rd Edition says that you are not allowed to use one weapon for all attacks for Flurry of Blows. My assertion that FoB has always intended to be operated like TWF since 3.0 is correct.
And yes. I shot, I scored. You are mistaken, Hangerflyer. AGAIN.
MA
If I make a statement about 3.0, don't come back with information about 3.5. Here is a rag to wipe that egg off your face.
Now, having said that, I wasn't aware of the 3.5 FAQ, thank you for bringing that to my attention. Without that, the 3.5 CRB example of the quarterstaff (each end counting as a separate weapon) makes it appear as though the 3.5 monk operated in a similar fashion to 3.0.
So, as far as the PF monk is concerned, it appears as though they have gone back to the 3.0 roots by not having all of the attacks to be made with the same weapon.
But Hangarflying, it says in the line just before that "If armed with one such weapon, she makes the extra attack either with that weapon or unarmed."
Which is to say, if you're wielding a single weapon, you could make all your normal attacks, plus your extra attacks, with that one weapon. When you picked up another weapon, you had to alternate.
The Devs realized this was bad/wrong, and changed it when they updated the edition in 3.5. Because let's remember, 3.5 is not a separate edition from 3.0 - It's an update.
|
|
It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWF
As I don't think anyone really wants to explain the FoB is and how to tell if it's a combo, knife hand, etc
Here's my compromise I made with my players:
Weapon FOB__Med/Lt____Med/Med____Hvy
# Attacks_____-1________-2*_______-3*
To Hit Mod____-2________-3________-5
Damage Bonus_1/4 lvl___1/3 lvl____1/2 lvl
* Minimum 1 attack
They must split up their attacks between their two weapons evenly with any odd attacks going to whatever weapon they wish.
So the FoB for a 9th Monk's BAB and FoB are +6/+1 and +7/+7/+2/+2 if using Med/Med weapons, for FoB it'll be +4/+4 - slightly better than the standard attack bonuses but each weapon gains +3 damage but if they took TWF they'd +2/+2/-3 with the Medium/Medium Weapon Combo.
It is up to the player if that is worth the cost. It also makes staying with the Monk class better over time instead of just giving it to them
The 9th level Monk using the Med/Lt Weapon, for FoB it'll be +5/+5/+0, TWF would be +4/+4/-1, still better than TWF, but it is due to their fighting style and adds +3 Damage for the Medium Weapon and +2 Damage for the Light Weapon
As the Monks in my world are not just Eastern Style, unless the region is Eastern, and those in the area they are in are cloistered brothers of western world, I allow for different weapons to match the western world (or whatever regional type they are)
It makes the Monks' special attacks Special without really unbalancing the game, IMHO
Oh yes, the Monk must have individual proficiency in the Weapon (they can't take "Martial Weapons" and gain the ability. They can take Martial Weapons but that doesn't qualify the Monk to use that weapon in FoB) and the Weapon must be a Masterwork or better
What that does is make the Monk very specific in what weapons they can use to get the benefit
It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWF
No, it could be that, or it could be something else. The decision in Pathfinder has not been made, and in 3.X it wasn't. Indeed in 3.5 you could take TWF AND FoB and attack with two monk weapons in truly awesome display of missed attacks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWFNo, it could be that, or it could be something else. The decision in Pathfinder has not been made, and in 3.X it wasn't. Indeed in 3.5 you could take TWF AND FoB and attack with two monk weapons in truly awesome display of missed attacks.
Which is more cheese than is in the States of Wisconsin, California and Oregon combined
(The awesome display of missed attacks, not your post)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWFNo, it could be that, or it could be something else. The decision in Pathfinder has not been made, and in 3.X it wasn't. Indeed in 3.5 you could take TWF AND FoB and attack with two monk weapons in truly awesome display of missed attacks.
But in PF, the rule says it works like TWF. So, considering it a highly stylized form of TWF actually seems to be pretty fitting.
|
|
It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWFNo, it could be that, or it could be something else. The decision in Pathfinder has not been made, and in 3.X it wasn't. Indeed in 3.5 you could take TWF AND FoB and attack with two monk weapons in truly awesome display of missed attacks.
Actually, SKR's post was a clarification on the official interpretation of the rules. A Monk's FoB does indeed function like TWF and it has always worked as such. I don't think those that assumed that it worked like 3.5 deliberately or maliciously played it incorrectly. In fact, I'm fairly certain that most people did a quick glance at the wording, realized that it was pretty darned close to how 3.5 worded it, and kept going with the 3.5 assumption.
It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWFNo, it could be that, or it could be something else. The decision in Pathfinder has not been made, and in 3.X it wasn't. Indeed in 3.5 you could take TWF AND FoB and attack with two monk weapons in truly awesome display of missed attacks.Which is more cheese than is in the States of Wisconsin, California and Oregon combined
(The awesome display of missed attacks, not your post)
Would have been if it worked, but all those misses added up to nothing so it really didn't make a blind bit of difference. The point is, though, that because you could combine FoB with TWF in 3.X, FoB could not BE TWF. Otherwise how do you combine it with itself?
I think the point of the PF version was to disallow this, which is fine by me as far as it goes.
But in PF, the rule says it works like TWF. So, considering it a highly stylized form of TWF actually seems to be pretty fitting.It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWFNo, it could be that, or it could be something else. The decision in Pathfinder has not been made, and in 3.X it wasn't. Indeed in 3.5 you could take TWF AND FoB and attack with two monk weapons in truly awesome display of missed attacks.
But it also contains the phrase "any combination" while TWF you have to attack with one weapon or the other. With boot-blades this was clarified to mean any of two different weapons that you are holding. So the only way "any combination" makes any sense is if FoB is free of the restrictions of which combinations of weapons you are using - ie, that it can allow the single-weapon flurry. This is also the only interpretation that allows the zen archer and sohei to function properly.
|
|
It was always the understanding, of my fellow players and I, that Flurry was simply a special full attack action, that could not be combined with two weapon fighting.
In this, it was not two weapon fighting, but acted like it in some ways.
In fact, it is much easier to deal with, if see them as they are, two separate things.
From the various archetypes, and AP NPCs, there is evidence that many Paizo employees saw it the same way.
Moving on, the core question is about two weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, not flurry, and there is a big difference there.
|
|
It was always the understanding, of my fellow players and I, that Flurry was simply a special full attack action, that could not be combined with two weapon fighting.
In this, it was not two weapon fighting, but acted like it in some ways.
In fact, it is much easier to deal with, if see them as they are, two separate things.From the various archetypes, and AP NPCs, there is evidence that many Paizo employees saw it the same way.
Moving on, the core question is about two weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, not flurry, and there is a big difference there.
I have no problem with TWF and the Monk's normal unarmed attack, so long as the weapon is 1 handed
It requires the Feat and makes their attack -2/-2 as long as the Monk uses one of their "Monk's Weapons". It also doesn't matter if the "Primary Weapon" is the actual weapon and the Unarmed attack is the Off Handed Weapon
But it also contains the phrase "any combination" while TWF you have to attack with one weapon or the other. With boot-blades this was clarified to mean any of two different weapons that you are holding. So the only way "any combination" makes any sense is if FoB is free of the restrictions of which combinations of weapons you are using - ie, that it can allow the single-weapon flurry. This is also the only interpretation that allows the zen archer and sohei to function properly.But in PF, the rule says it works like TWF. So, considering it a highly stylized form of TWF actually seems to be pretty fitting.It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWFNo, it could be that, or it could be something else. The decision in Pathfinder has not been made, and in 3.X it wasn't. Indeed in 3.5 you could take TWF AND FoB and attack with two monk weapons in truly awesome display of missed attacks.
Makes perfect sense to treat those two a special cases then. If their abilities only function while allowing them to Flurry while using their specialized weapon, it's no skin off my back. If you want to argue RAW that they're broken archetypes because of how the main rules are worded and clarified, fine. But frankly, I don't really care about that all that much. This isn't a monk thread. FOB always gets dragged into these discussions, even though it's simply about unarmed strike and TWF. I see nothing about TWF and unarmed strike that make me think they cannot be done together. Nobody has presented anything to make me think differently, then we got dragged into a discussion about how FOB and TWF were completely different in 3.5.
Like Hangar said, considering how it worked in 3.5 and the inclusion of the "any combination" language, it's certainly understandable how people got this impression (in addition to the difficulties the restrictions place on archetypes as mentioned). However, it's been stated pretty clearly through the rules and clarifications how FOB works. Nothing in the clarifications for FOB say that, if you have multiple weapons available, you get to attack with each one (akin to natural weapons). Nothing in the clarifications for FOB say that, if you have multiple weapons with differing bonuses available, you have to use the weakest one available. They simply say you must assign which attacks go with which available weapons and calculate accordingly, just like you have to with TWF. And no, "any combination" makes sense outside the single-weapon flurry context. You have unarmed strikes and possibly multiple monk weapons. You can combine those in any combination up to your attack limit for FOB - but you can't make all the attacks with one weapon (just like you can't do that with TWF).
So, can you TWF with solely unarmed strikes? I see nothing in the rules saying I can't. If I'm unarmed, I see no reason why I can't use two hands to make an attack on an opponent, utilizing the TWF ability.
And monks do have "offhand" attacks for the purposes of FOB. "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."
But they can still use their full strength bonus. The only point is so that you may keep track of which hands make which attacks. So, while a monk would never need to TWF, particularly with unarmed strikes, I still see no reason why a non-monk couldn't TWF with unarmed strikes - they just won't be as good at it as a monk, fittingly.