|
High horse lecture.You know, it really does get annoying when people come in trying to lecture one side of a debate as if though we are badwrong players out to ruin the game and nitpick/rulelawyer every word in the book.
I don't think anyone on this thread is actually advocating that Haste must be played according to the RAW that Unarmed Strikes can't be used to make the extra attack. I don't recall a single person saying that's how it should be played.
What I am seeing, is people simply debating both sides of the question. I think we all agree that Haste should apply to Unarmed Strikes, Monk or not, but we're simply debating which side is correct.
Why do we do so? Why to make the game better of course. Every time we get an ambiguous wording like Haste fixed, the Developers get that much better, and so less and less mistakes appear.
We're not going to tell you that you can't play a game in one way, we're simply telling you what we believe the rules are saying. We believe the rules are saying that Haste doesn't work with Unarmed Strikes. We've given our examples why, and it's all down to the wording, but all we can get from others is that "haste is a spell, therefore it works" even though it's ignoring the actual rules of the spell itself.
Technically speaking Haste and Unarmed Strikes don't work. Realistically speaking I doubt there's a person alive that would actually enforce the RAW and play it that way.
High-horse lecture aside, you make some good points.
I'm new enough on these threads that I can't quite divorce the 'making sense' concept from the 'debate' concept. The idea that we can use these threads to invite dev input is great!
The reality is less great. I love it when the devs post, but it seems so rare. Having been involved in threads that approached and even exceeded 1000 posts, it's very frustrating that these threads remain 'un-dev'd' dispute the obvious need!
I know human nature is against me here, but I wish that just laying-out a rule absurdity would be enough. What bothers me is the times when posts are advocating a viewpoint that even the poster thinks is absurd, so hard!
Speed wouldn't work either, since by RAW, if you apply a Speed effect to the AOMF, you only get an extra attack using that Amulet (which is the "weapon" the effect is applied to), and not the Unarmed Strike.
Methinks Paizo's best bet is to just outright remove the Monk class, since all they get is screwed, screwed, and screwed. I'll never play one, and now I'll tell my brother to never play one because of Paizo's Anti-Monk rules.
You don't apply the speed special ability to the Amulet of Mighty Fists. Amulet of Mighty Fists applies the speed special property to your unarmed strikes.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.
Yet the Speed property only works on the weapon it's applied to, and the most important part is the bolded section.
You cannot apply special abilities to Unarmed Strikes with Magic Item creation directly to unarmed strikes, which is what the bolded part says must be applicable in order for the effect to be applied. This even holds true for the Speed Property, and just about every other property listed.
This is why people don't play Monks, and that there is all the Monk rage. Because their mechanics are garbage and get completely screwed over because of it. It's a better idea to just toss these clowns out the window than to bother with them.
|
|
Upon mental review of my reply to Tels, I realise that the RAW of my opening line could be taken two ways.
Although it could be read as, 'You make some valid points, but calling my post ''high-horse'' it not one of them', is not what I meant at all!
When I said, 'High horse lecture aside,' I meant 'Although my previous post was very definately fairly described as ''high horse'', I stand by the content. But putting that to one side for the moment, your point about debating those matters here is partly to influence the devs to intervene is a good one'.
See how easily RAW and RAI can get confused? When a writer tries to find the words to articulate an idea, he writes and then checks the words; if they mean what he meant then he moves on to the next part.
Unfortunately this does not make his words immune to being understood in another way; this is why we have so many threads like this!
So, yes, it was a high horse lecture, and yes, I stand by it's content, but Tels also makes an important point! : )
The reality is less great. I love it when the devs post, but it seems so rare. Having been involved in threads that approached and even exceeded 1000 posts, it's very frustrating that these threads remain 'un-dev'd' dispute the obvious need!
Just because the devs don't post doesn't mean they don't read. When you're a developer your coming out and saying something on the matter is taken with a lot of weight and often (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) criticism beyond what other posters experience. If I discuss a rule with someone then it more or less probably ends here with only Ciretose badmouthing me. If Sean K. discusses a rule with someone, it could result in messageboards across the internet saying things like "Paizo hates monks" or "Paizo ruins D&D" or some other nonsense to that extent.
Looking at some of the past threads where some of the devs have been more vocal or talked about stuff, many of the posters here often give them reason to not discuss rules very much. Some of them don't even seem to fully grasp how the rules work themselves (as is evident with the many feats, class features, archtypes, and other things that don't work, don't work as intended, or actually do nothing; or in cases with different members of the staff having no idea how flurry or unarmed strikes work, or suggesting that you have to greater magic fang each individual section of your body you plan to use to make your "unarmed strike" which by definition is independent of body location).
But it doesn't mean they don't read them. They acknowledged a while back that haste only legally allowed you to attack with a held weapon, and not natural attacks or unarmed strikes. They changed it, but apparently forgot to include unarmed strikes. Can we truly blame them? Unarmed strikes are relatively rare, very strange in the core, and the Paizo staff doesn't (or didn't) even know how they, flurry, or other things in the system interact with them (at one point they were saying that flurry required you to two-weapon-fight to use it, which also meant that Zen Archers literally couldn't use their bows to flurry without having 4 arms).
And I repeat, once more, that it doesn't mean they don't read them. Many countless people read threads they don't actively post in. Some of those people include the staff at Paizo. Some of them probably joke around at the office about some of the threads. Some of them might be laughing at this thread right now. But it might get added to a list of things to errata the next time they update the PRD, or a list of things to tackle the next time they do a printing run or decide to release a new edition some years down the road. Maybe the next official version of haste will note that can make one extra attack, or one extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon or an unarmed strike.
Even if the devs don't chime in so quick doesn't necessarily mean that these conversations fall on deaf ears. If anything, I believe it means that they aren't rushing into anything and are more likely weighing what they are looking at. Folks like Sean K. Reynolds and James Jacobs are not fools. I've enjoyed a few debates with them and they're smart fellows. I think we should give 'em a little credit and assume they're not ignoring us. ;)
It is not about the spell being smart. The spell follows directions as given by the rules. Either those direction are being followed or they are not.
It does not matter what is a part of the person. The spell as written allows the affect creature to use a natural weapon or manufactured weapon with its benefits. An unarmed attack is neither.
It is as simple as checking the block
Haste affects A and B
Is an unarmed strike A or B?
Yes-Spell benefit is received.
No-It is not.
When arguing RAW you must use what the book says, not what is reasonable, because RAI allows for people to be reasonable, why RAW often doesn't.
Example: RAW=Dead people can take actions.
RAI=The GM is either laughing at you or giving you an evil look for trying to play the letter of the rule vs the spirit of the rule.The thing is what one person thinks is clearly RAW, another person doesn't. There are so many twists, permutations and exceptions to the rules, particularly on aspects of unarmed strikes v/ natural weapons, that either interpretation of the haste issue could be seen as correct.
Trying to claim that "what the book says" proves a point of view is pointless. This whole thread and so many others like it demonstrate that. If it was so straightforward then there would be no dispute/disagreement. Any written document is open to interpretation. You can use precedents and supporting information to argue a case but short of a ruling by the relevant dev, trying to say a particular interpretation is wrong is pointless - especially where both sides are using exactly the same source material to argue their case.
Actually it is not pointless at all. What the book "says" is often clear. What is "means" is something different. If you want to argue that there are "twist and turns" then present them.
Just to be clear I would allow because I think it is the intent, but the book does not agree with me.
When arguing RAW you must use what the book says, not what is reasonable, because RAI allows for people to be reasonable, why RAW often doesn't.
Example: RAW=Dead people can take actions.
RAI=The GM is either laughing at you or giving you an evil look for trying to play the letter of the rule vs the spirit of the rule.I think that's fair enough. If you're playing strictly by RAW, haste doesn't give your monk an extra attack, but at least you can keep attacking after you're dead.
I mean, if you're going to go by one narrow, legalistic interpretation, you might as well use them all.
Who said anything about playing strictly by RAW? I know I didn't. If that was not what you were suggesting could you rephrase what you wrote.?
Once again, just like always, "common sense" is not a good argument when discussing game mechanics.I've always found this to be false. All game systems are based on common sense.
Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.A game system like Pathfinder still requires sound and prudent judgement based on simple perception of the situation or facts.
By dismissing common sense, you're effectively saying good judgement is unimportant |:
This is a silly argument, but it appears to be true due to the way the text reads now. I have enough sound and prudent judgement to know it's a silly argument. I would heavily recommend that people ignore this rule in their games. But I'm not going to argue that the reasoning in the argument is invalid.
He was saying--> RAW is pretty much the letter of the law, while RAI is the spirit of the law.
Nobody is saying dismiss common sense for when you play.
My take is a little different.
A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves.A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.Note that it says enhance or improve, not affects or targets.
Now, does haste enhance or improve a manufactured weapon or natural weapon? A +1 to attack rolls is an improvement. Therefore, the above monk text comes into play and his unarmed strike counts as both a natural and manufactured weapon.
The +1 is to his ability to attack as a character. It has no clause calling out a weapon. The sentence about the extra attack does, and that is why the extra attack is not gained RAW.
You know, I actually made a thread about this last month, but I guess it got skipped over.
Per RAW, Haste doesn't grant an extra attack. If any GM tried to rule that way though, I'd leave the table and talk everyone else into leaving with me.
Sometimes it is all about timing. Your thread had some good points in it.
Just going to try a logic chain. As I start, I have no clue what my conclusion will be. I'd like it to be that monks gain an extra attack with haste. For this purpose, I am going to refer only to "natural weapon", with the explicit note that where appropriate I am consciously skipping references to manufactured weapons.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
Does the haste spell result in "a spell or effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon"?
Haste does not have an "Effect" line, so the following passage is relevant:
Descriptive Text
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description includes “see text,” this is where the explanation is found.
The relevant portion of the haste spell is:
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon.
By equivalence, we know that a monk's unarmed strike is considered by the haste spell to be a natural weapon, which leaves only the question of whether the haste spell is "enhancing or improving a natural weapon".
Is the haste spell, for this specific effect, enhancing the monk overall? It would not be globally enhancing a non-monk, since we know that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. The rules of the spell itself does not care whether the target creature is using a natural weapon, but any natural weapon the target creature is using may be the subject of the extra attack granted by haste. Since this effect of the spell requires a natural weapon to function, this effect is selective based upon the weapon being used.
Does this constitute an effect that is improving the weapon, or an effect that is improving the character?
It is not improving the character, because if it were, it would not make a distinction...
The spell gives the target the ability to get an extra attack with certain weapons. IUS is not one of those weapons.
Hitting FAQ to try and move this along a little...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it is not pointless at all. What the book "says" is often clear. What is "means" is something different. If you want to argue that there are "twist and turns" then present them.
We are just going around and around on opposite sides of a merry-go-round. Again, the very fact that this thread even exists shows that what the book "says" is not clear and therefor it is up to us to work out what it "means". I think enough people have illustrated the "twists and turns" in the form of the logical arguments they have presented to make their particular case to not warrant further pursuit.
Malachi wrote a very well-structured post (which I don't think was at all high horse) presenting one side of the argument, other people have written well-strucutred posts arguing the opposite. None of us are defintively right, just as none of us are definitively wrong (even if the general consensus is RAW right-or-wrong, RAI is pretty clear) - until Sean or someone comes down and lays down the Paizo version of a Supreme Court ruling in an appeals case :)
I have seen people argue with me about things the books says in specific detail, and SKR had to come in and say "the exact same thing I said".
Someone disagree does not equal "not clear".
I am not saying the rules are always clear per RAW. I was just saying they often are.
Someone is definitely wrong. We just have not had a dev say who it is yet. As an example if you argue that a fighters have poor base fort saves, and it led to a 1300 post thread then you would be wrong well before a dev stepped in to say the chart was correct.
Of course I think most of us agree on the RAI, so it does not really matter all that much. Personally I just wish unarmed strikes were natural attacks.
|
|
The reality is less great. I love it when the devs post, but it seems so rare. Having been involved in threads that approached and even exceeded 1000 posts, it's very frustrating that these threads remain 'un-dev'd' dispute the obvious need!Just because the devs don't post doesn't mean they don't read. When you're a developer your coming out and saying something on the matter is taken with a lot of weight and often (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) criticism beyond what other posters experience. If I discuss a rule with someone then it more or less probably ends here with only Ciretose badmouthing me. If Sean K. discusses a rule with someone, it could result in messageboards across the internet saying things like "Paizo hates monks" or "Paizo ruins D&D" or some other nonsense to that extent.
Looking at some of the past threads where some of the devs have been more vocal or talked about stuff, many of the posters here often give them reason to not discuss rules very much. Some of them don't even seem to fully grasp how the rules work themselves (as is evident with the many feats, class features, archtypes, and other things that don't work, don't work as intended, or actually do nothing; or in cases with different members of the staff having no idea how flurry or unarmed strikes work, or suggesting that you have to greater magic fang each individual section of your body you plan to use to make your "unarmed strike" which by definition is independent of body location).
But it doesn't mean they don't read them. They acknowledged a while back that haste only legally allowed you to attack with a held weapon, and not natural attacks or unarmed strikes. They changed it, but apparently forgot to include unarmed strikes. Can we truly blame them? Unarmed strikes are relatively rare, very strange in the core, and the Paizo staff doesn't (or didn't) even know how they, flurry, or other things in the system interact with them (at one point they were saying that flurry...
I agree with this! : )
I can imagine that certain combos throw up some unintended consequences that the devs are wise to consider carefully.
The kind of things that got me frustrated include:-
• What action type, standard, move, full-round, free, swift or immediate, is used to change grip on an already drawn weapon, or is it a no-action-part of the attack?
• Does the 'Deciding Between an Attack or a Full Attack' really mean that you first attack without knowing the action type your using, or must you first use the full attack action to even get the chance to benefit from this paragraph?
• Does the phrase 'attack action' really mean that it must be a standard action, or does it refer to whatever action type used by a weapon-like 'attack' as defined under 'Attack'?
These things are basic to the combat chapter, and it'd surprise me that the devs don't know the answer certain enough to quickly tell us.
On second thoughts, given the obvious inconsistencies in different feats/abilities/whatever, maybe they do need to consider it carefully...!
The kind of things that got me frustrated include:-
• Does the 'Deciding Between an Attack or a Full Attack' really mean that you first attack without knowing the action type your using, or must you first use the full attack action to even get the chance to benefit from this paragraph?
According to the combat section of the rules you can convert a full-attack into a normal attack and then move. It's weird, and it interacts with two-weapon-fighting and flurry of blows in very strange ways.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
|
|
The kind of things that got me frustrated include:-
• Does the 'Deciding Between an Attack or a Full Attack' really mean that you first attack without knowing the action type your using, or must you first use the full attack action to even get the chance to benefit from this paragraph?
According to the combat section of the rules you can convert a full-attack into a normal attack and then move. It's weird, and it interacts with two-weapon-fighting and flurry of blows in very strange ways.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Although we agree on this, please, I BEG you, don't re-open this particular can of worms on this thread!
We have to discuss it Malachi right now.
Just joking. :)
So if anyone's waiting on Sean or Jason to step in, I wouldn't hold your breath.
The OP decided to use the word "Monk" in his title, and the Devs seem to be avoiding any Monk discussions like the plague.
Now, we know that RAW doesn't allow Haste to grant an additional UAS (and Monks are not an exception). We know this because it was asked, and SKR himself said it needed an errata to allow for Unarmed Strikes to receive an extra attack. He said this sometime in October of 2011 (I can't find the link, but I've seen it posted elsewhere).
So we know the RAW.
We know the RAI.
The only thing we don't know is why it hasn't been officially updated.
Thanks Jeff. I understand the comment now. :)
Who would that be?
The person who started the derail by saying that was the rule.
I would assume if you say it is the rule and say it effects play, it is because it effects play in your games.
Right?
No, that's not right. I myself stated that the Rules say that Haste doesn't work with Unarmed Strikes. Doesn't mean I play that way. The best I can tell, you're trying to imply Ashiel actively supports that Haste should be played, RAW, in games. Yet he hasn't said that. He's arguing the rules, but that doesn't mean he plays it that way.
I tried reading through this thread, but couldn't get through more than a dozen posts before rage consumed my being.
I suppose if I posted what I *really* thought of any DM that actually ruled this way and how I would probably react, it'd just get deleted by the mods, so why bother?
|
Quite. About the only time a GM is mandated to follow RAW is when judging a PFS table. But even there the GM is also supposed to follow rulings from the PFSGtOP, published errata on the Paizo site, FAQ entries on the PFS forums, and postings from the developers.
So even if a GM chooses to interpret the rules to prevent Haste granting the extra attack (which, IMO, is by no means the only way to interpret RAW) they are still bound to accept the statement in the posting by SKR that this is not RAI, and that it will be fixed in a future FAQ or errata. They do have to be aware of the posting, of course, so if you are worried that you'll run into a GM who'll rule against you simply print out the relevant post (quoted somewhere upthread, I believe), and have it with you at the table.
So an unarmed strike is either a natural or manufactured weapon or neither depending on whatever is the least effective?
Everybody is arguing RAW on a point that nobody enforces?
And we're waiting on a DEV to comment knowing that they won't?
Thanks thread, that was a good use of my time. Thank you very much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So an unarmed strike is either a natural or manufactured weapon or neither depending on whatever is the least effective?
Everybody is arguing RAW on a point that nobody enforces?
And we're waiting on a DEV to comment knowing that they won't?
Thanks thread, that was a good use of my time. Thank you very much.
No, a Monk's Unarmed Strike is either natural or manufactured if an ability enhances natural or manufactured weapons. All other characters are screwed out of such abilities, because they're Unarmed Strikes are simply Unarmed Strikes.
We're arguing the RAW, so we can get it fixed.
You read the thread, you could have stopped or ignored it at any time. Thank yourself instead.
|
No, that's not right. I myself stated that the Rules say that Haste doesn't work with Unarmed Strikes. Doesn't mean I play that way. The best I can tell, you're trying to imply Ashiel actively supports that Haste should be played, RAW, in games. Yet he hasn't said that. He's arguing the rules, but that doesn't mean he plays it that way.
Who would that be?
The person who started the derail by saying that was the rule.
I would assume if you say it is the rule and say it effects play, it is because it effects play in your games.
Right?
Why would you bring the argument to a debate about gameplay if the argument you were bringing wasn't the way you play?
I can think of reasons, but none of them are particularly favorable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, that's not right. I myself stated that the Rules say that Haste doesn't work with Unarmed Strikes. Doesn't mean I play that way. The best I can tell, you're trying to imply Ashiel actively supports that Haste should be played, RAW, in games. Yet he hasn't said that. He's arguing the rules, but that doesn't mean he plays it that way.
Who would that be?
The person who started the derail by saying that was the rule.
I would assume if you say it is the rule and say it effects play, it is because it effects play in your games.
Right?
Why would you bring the argument to a debate about gameplay if the argument you were bringing wasn't the way you play?
I can think of reasons, but none of them are particularly favorable.
I didn't read the thread where this started, so I don't know. Nor am I going to read that thread (I think it's the Monks Hitting one), as I have no desire to go wading into a discussion, I could really care less about.
However, your logic seems to be that if you are arguing on a side of a debate, you must therefore actively support that argument in your life.
That's crappy logic, to tell you the truth. In this very thread, I am arguing that Haste doesn't allow Unarmed Strikes to be a viable weapon for the extra attack. But I don't play my games that way. I am currently apart of 3 campaigns, one of which is my own, and one of which I am (sort of) the Co-GM. The third one, I offer advice and help the GM with rules, tactics and tricks to challenge the party. In none of those games, do we exclude Unarmed Strikes from Haste.
Why? Because it's dumb. It's an oversight in the language in the rules, nothing more.
As far as I can tell, Ashiel is not advocating that Unarmed Strikes must be excluded from Haste in normal gameplay, nor has he stated that in his games, Unarmed Strikes are excluded from Haste.
Again, I am assuming that you are trying to subtly refer to Ashiel in your posts, but you refuse to confirm or deny my assumption. Based on your history, he is the only person I can think of that you so adamantly seek to slander and insult on the boards.
So, since Ashiel seems to be the person that brought up the oversight in Haste/US, that automatically means, in your mind, that Ashiel enforces the oversight in his games. This is odd, because the first I time I was made aware of the oversight via Haste, was from Lord Wraithstrike who pointed it out to me a long time ago, and I think he was the one who pointed it out to Ashiel too.
Since Lord Wraithstrike pointed it out to me, does that mean he enforces the oversight too?
Master Arminas and Dabbler have also both brought up the Haste issue on more than one occasion in the past. I guess they enforce the oversight as well.
Funny, how the people that are most active advocates of the Monk, are the ones bringing up the issue that, arguably, hurts the Monk the most of all the classes. But you could careless about anyone else, other than Ashiel.
I swear, your obsession with Ashiel just grows stronger by the day.
Again, since you refuse to indicate just who exactly you keep referring to, and based on your history, the only person I can think of that you keep talking about is Ashiel. So I'm going to go ahead and put myself out on a limb, possibly making an ass of myself, and submit this post.
I really hope this thread gets a reply.
Preferrably, this reply should come in the form of a 'no response needed' flag.
You cannot apply special abilities to Unarmed Strikes with Magic Item creation directly to unarmed strikes, which is what the bolded part says must be applicable in order for the effect to be applied.
So, you're saying that the amulet of mighty fists text is lying?
|
|
My arguement is if you wade into a thread about monks with a comment about haste being a problem, it is either
a) Because that is how you play in your game and it is a problem in your game, and you feel it is relevent to the topic.
or
b) Because you are trying to derail the thread into a discussion about a quirk in the RAW that doesn't match the RAI, presumably so everyone will pay attention to you and think you are clever, as it certainly doesn't actually matter if no one plays that way, as you assert.
I'm not saying engaging in the debate in this thread, is the problem.
I am saying derailing another thread for a ruling that, you say, no one actually uses, is a dick move.
Edit: Or that is how the person actually plays, in which case your assertion that no one plays that way is wrong.
So if anyone's waiting on Sean or Jason to step in, I wouldn't hold your breath.
The OP decided to use the word "Monk" in his title, and the Devs seem to be avoiding any Monk discussions like the plague.Now, we know that RAW doesn't allow Haste to grant an additional UAS (and Monks are not an exception). We know this because it was asked, and SKR himself said it needed an errata to allow for Unarmed Strikes to receive an extra attack. He said this sometime in October of 2011 (I can't find the link, but I've seen it posted elsewhere).
So we know the RAW.
We know the RAI.
The only thing we don't know is why it hasn't been officially updated.
I think you are referring to the link I posted earlier. I think the unarmed strike was forgotten about when the errata was made to include natural attacks, and since the devs did say they would look at the monk again, I am assuming they would rather handle all monk issues at once. That is better than making decisions now, and then having to take them away later, which would just cause more of an uproar.
|
|
I think you are referring to the link I posted earlier. I think the unarmed strike was forgotten about when the errata was made to include natural attacks, and since the devs did say they would look at the monk again, I am assuming they would rather handle all monk issues at once. That is better than making decisions now, and then having to take them away later, which would just cause more of an uproar.
Agree 100%
They learned from the Bodywrap uproar I think, and hopefully putting out a fix is going to come off the backburner. I'm actually pretty optimistic about it, as I've seen some good simple fixes that could be plugged in easiy and fix 99% of the issues I see.
I actually think it will be easier than we expected.
On topic, all of the rest of this "I understand RAW better than you do" is just mental masturbation" until the Devs roll in. It seems like a good chunk of the "Haste doesn't" side are on the "Haste should" side so it is all just annoying to me why this derailed another thread that had nothing to do with it.
At the end of the day, can we agree that the Devs need to simplify and clarify the whole process. If flurry is TWF now, it should work with whatever weapon is being used by the monk just as it would for the druid, etc...
If that is how people are doing it, which seems to be the argument, we are just looking for codification at this point.
If it is a "problem" and you keep it out of your game because you think it causes "problems" say that and show the math.
Otherwise, what are you arguing for?
Heh, still going. Gotta love message boards.
Whenever you read something, you end up interpreting it. Usually, that happens because you know the point of what your reading, be it entertainment, learning, or whatever. Basically, you know the intent, and that alters how you interpret what you read.
So, we know the intent in general of the PF CRB. It is to provide a framework of rules so that people can sit down together and play a game. Even better, we know the intent of the developers in this specific case, because they have stated it.
So, we can either read the rules with that intent in mind to see if they support it as written, or we can read the rules ignoring that intent and then wonder why we end up disappointed.
Ashiel pointed out plenty of places unarmed strikes as a general attack are brought up, with no mention of monks or IUS. Going solely by that, then no, by RAW monks and haste don't play well together.
But hat isn't everything in the rule books. I pointed out a specific place monks unarmed attacks and IUS are called out by name, that then tells you to see natural attacks. Natural attacks pretty clearly state they happen with natural weapons. So, considering the intent of the developers, it is reasonable to conclude that monks fighting unarmed and characters with the IUS feat treat their unarmed attacks as a subset of natural weapons, much like reach weapons, or trip weapons etc are subsets of other kinds of weapons. They follow the rules in general, with their own specific set of rules spelling out how they interact differently with the rules.
So, then it becomes does that conclusion violate the RAW anywhere? Well, not that I have seen. And I have looked. The only place it comes close is one feat, except it was made clear that that feat in no way interacts with monks or IUS.
It is just another way of looking at it. Is it right? Well, I think so but obviously some people don't, which could be for a variety of reasons. Personally, I hope it's just because they are bored and this is just an interesting way to kill time for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My arguement is if you wade into a thread about monks with a comment about haste being a problem, it is either
a) Because that is how you play in your game and it is a problem in your game, and you feel it is relevent to the topic.
or
b) Because you are trying to derail the thread into a discussion about a quirk in the RAW that doesn't match the RAI, presumably so everyone will pay attention to you and think you are clever, as it certainly doesn't actually matter if no one plays that way, as you assert.
I'm not saying engaging in the debate in this thread, is the problem.
I am saying derailing another thread for a ruling that, you say, no one actually uses, is a dick move.
Edit: Or that is how the person actually plays, in which case your assertion that no one plays that way is wrong.
So to clarify, Dabbler, Master Arminas, Lord Wraithstrike, and myself have all pointed out the Haste problem on different occasions and different threads. No problem there.
Ashiel points it out in a thread, now all of a sudden it means that Ashiel forces the Haste problem on his players.
I just want to point out that, from now on, anytime you bring up any inconsistency in the rules, it should be automatically assumed you force those rules on players in your games. Regardless of whether or not you were the first person to bring it up, ever, you are a badwrong player because you are talking about it, therefore you are forcing it on your players.
It's one of those leaps of logics that obsessed people make that only make sense to the obsessed person.
I swear, Ashiel had to of murdered a puppy of yours in front of you in a past life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tels, I think is has more to do with Ashiels derailing of threads and attitude towards the derails. Just what it seems like from the other thread.
Not saying either one is right or wrong, just that it has some basis.
And yeah, I do think it seems like for someone to defend a point so vigorously it is either because they play that way (I'm guessing Ashiel doesn't though) or they just have a serious need to win and be right in an discussion/debate (my guess on why Ashiel defends it the way they do.) Either way can rub folks wrong, heck, I took a day off of even looking at the boards just to avoid seeing Ashiels name come up =)
The natural attack still comes up in places where it should not, due to the copy and paste pf 3.5 rules. IIRC the part of the combat chapter that says natural attacks benefit from TWF is still there despite the devs saying it does not work that way.
Unarmed strikes are not natural attacks. I thought they were considered to be natural attacks for "certain things", but that got shot down rather quickly by another poster who had at least 5 citations to back his claim up.
I am sure it will be fixed eventually though. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure it will be fixed eventually though. :)
I think I said the same thing. . . 12 years ago.
Here's my 2 cents.
PRD:
"Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
All of the hasted creature's modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject's normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature's jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don't stack. Haste dispels and counters slow."
The spell target the creature and provides several effects.
The first effect is target the weapon. It effect one single natural attack or manufacture weapon. Since the monk treats unarmed strikes as natural or manufactured weapon for the purposes of applying spells that enhance natural weapons and manufactured weapon this would apply as specifically calls out enhancing the weapon.
Next the spell give you +1 bonus to attack with no restriction. Then you +1 AC and reflex saves along a speed boost to movement. These are why it targets the creature in the spell as it give bonuses that don't only target the weapon but the creature as well.
That's how I see it as written. So Haste would work with Monks unarmed strikes. As for anyone with improved unarmed, that I'm not so sure about.
"Targets one /level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart........
Snip
......The first effect is target the weapon. It effect one single natural attack or manufacture weapon. Since the monk treats unarmed strikes as natural or manufactured weapon for the purposes of applying spells that enhance natural weapons and manufactured weapon this would apply as specifically calls out enhancing the weapon.
Haste targets the creature, not the weapon. You even quoted it. If Haste targeted a weapon, then only the weapon being targeted gains the benefit of the extra attack.
That means, if Haste targeted the weapon, and you were wielding a Longsword at the time, you could make an extra attack with the Longsword. But if you had to draw out your Longbow and shoot something, you couldn't make an extra attack with the Longbow, because Haste targeted the Longsword, not the Longbow.
Haste makes the creature faster. Haste gives the creature +1 to hit, AC and Reflex saves. Haste gives the creature an extra attack with manufactured or natural weapons. Unarmed Strike is neither manufactured nor is it considered a natural weapon. Therefore, Haste does not give an extra attack with Unarmed Strikes.
Haste targets the creature. Period.
|
|
Tels, I think is has more to do with Ashiels derailing of threads and attitude towards the derails. Just what it seems like from the other thread.
Not saying either one is right or wrong, just that it has some basis.
And yeah, I do think it seems like for someone to defend a point so vigorously it is either because they play that way (I'm guessing Ashiel doesn't though) or they just have a serious need to win and be right in an discussion/debate (my guess on why Ashiel defends it the way they do.) Either way can rub folks wrong, heck, I took a day off of even looking at the boards just to avoid seeing Ashiels name come up =)
Exactly.
I think everyone you listed, including you Tels, are trying to find an answer.
I think other people, not just Ashiel, and not always even Ashiel himself (he had actually been much better lately, at times even downright helpful), seem to more want to show you they know an answer.
If that answer is actually relevant to the discussion, or helpful to finding an answer...
This whole topic is legit. Bringing it into the discussion that was going on (along with Genie Binding and Elemental Gems) was a derail.
And when asked, by several people, to move it over to a new thread...well, I'll just point out who didn't start this thread.
From the PRD:
Unarmed Strike:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
From the PRD:
Haste:
The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
Is haste a spell? Yes. Therefore it works.
So, how is it that anyone can read that the monk doesn't get an extra attack with haste?
Likewise, Flurry of Blows doesn't have a caveat that states it doesn't work with haste, so why wouldn't that work?
Likewise, Flurry is "effectively" TWF. There is no place in the rules that says that someone using TWF doesn't get an extra attack from haste.
So, without a SPECIAL RULE that states: "Monks cannot use haste with their unarmed strikes or when using Flurry of Blows", there is absolutely NO RULE that prohibits them from benefiting from getting the extra attack from haste.
In fact, if any errata really needs to be put forth, it should be that the text of haste be clarified by including unarmed strike specifically--for those people who are going out of their way to exclude it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tels, I think is has more to do with Ashiels derailing of threads and attitude towards the derails. Just what it seems like from the other thread.
Not saying either one is right or wrong, just that it has some basis.
And yeah, I do think it seems like for someone to defend a point so vigorously it is either because they play that way (I'm guessing Ashiel doesn't though) or they just have a serious need to win and be right in an discussion/debate (my guess on why Ashiel defends it the way they do.) Either way can rub folks wrong, heck, I took a day off of even looking at the boards just to avoid seeing Ashiels name come up =)
I apologize that I was the reason for a vacation from the boards for you Krigare. My insistence is neither fueled by the way I play nor a need to "win". It was fueled -- and you can double check this -- by having to post citation after citation after citation of rules on the matter proving that, like it or not, haste and monks do not get along (it's part of the reason that my non-core monk over in that other thread isn't using Boots of Speed. She's just learning to deal without it.
Why? Because RAW is RAW. It is good etiquette and form to stick to and acknowledge RAW when you are discussing something about the game itself and where things are truly lacking mechanically. Do most groups ignore the rules and allow unarmed strikes via haste? I would be willing to bet most do. But I know that there are also groups that are more strict on the RAW. To give an example, I recently was in a discussion with TriOmegaZero and Cold Napalm (I think) concerning the horrible mechanics for bastard swords and how longswords were everything bastard swords are supposed to be mechanically and historically speaking; and yet even after acknowledging that the rules were bad there was an insistence that those rules be followed without deviation (even if I didn't fully understand this at first).
When we meet to discuss problems and/or strengths that classes have, we are obligated to leave our baggage and modifications at the door as anything beyond anecdotal evidence or comparison fuel. When actually talking about monks vs anything else we must acknowledge that they are indeed not affected by haste in the rules. Anyone who has ruled otherwise in their games is taking the first of many needed house rules to bring the monk back up to par. However, raging about the fact in the rules they cannot and then getting angry at the person who points it out is about as sensible as someone arguing that nothing has problems because everything can be house-ruled (in other words it's not).
I'll say it again. It is not out of a desire to "win". Arguments are meant for sharing information, expanding your mind through rational thought, and working together for the betterment of the subject. It is how rational people exchange thoughts and ideas in a real discussion. It's not about winning. Which is why it begins to grind my gears when I point out something that -- as Tels has pointed out -- is by no means new (and has been pointed out by like 5 other people at different times) only get jumped by what feels like rapid wombat weasels attacking me, my games, my players, my name, my history, my gender, my motives, and accused of derailing by citing the rules as they directly pertain to monks to a bunch of people who plug their ears and scream over and over.
It. Gets. Old.
Ciretose has branded me and already made up his mind. He accuses me of thinking I'm clever for knowing stuff about the rules (oh sure that's fair) or citing rules when I'm talking about things (because that is clearly being cheeky). There's not changing his mind, and he will continue to attack my very credibility as a human being at every opportunity he gets. I would, however, just like to set the record strait for everyone who has not yet made up their minds about me despite Ciretose propaganda.
From the PRD:
Unarmed Strike:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
From the PRD:
Haste:
The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
Is haste a spell? Yes. Therefore it works.
So, how is it that anyone can read that the monk doesn't get an extra attack with haste?
Likewise, Flurry of Blows doesn't have a caveat that states it doesn't work with haste, so why wouldn't that work?
Likewise, Flurry is "effectively" TWF. There is no place in the rules that says that someone using TWF doesn't get an extra attack from haste.
So, without a SPECIAL RULE that states: "Monks cannot use haste with their unarmed strikes or when using Flurry of Blows", there is absolutely NO RULE that prohibits them from benefiting from getting the extra attack from haste.
In fact, if any errata really needs to be put forth, it should be that the text of haste be clarified by including unarmed strike specifically--for those people who are going out of their way to exclude it.
We've been over this. Read the entirety of your own rule.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of that .[
Haste does neither.