
![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Jason Bulmahn (lead designer): "As for the Monk issue. We have decided to reverse our previous ruling on using Flurry with one weapon. You can now do so."
There you go. There were other things in his post too (hence providing the link), but that's the part people have been holding their breath about for so long, so I thought I'd share it with the community.
Happy monking!

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

WOoooooOOOOoooooOOOOoooooOOOOooooOOOOOooOOOOOOOooooo

![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

CRobledo wrote:Also a very strict clarification on Vital Strike. VS cannot be combined with charging or Spring Attack.That has been true for a very long time.
Yes, but until now our only "proof" of it was the lead designer saying so over and over and over again, always in the same way, and always giving the same rationale.
But now it's "official".
;)

![]() |

Thanks, Jiggy. I have to be honest- I gave up following that thread a few days ago (almost immediately after starting to follow it...), so it's good to see that it did, indeed, result in some good housekeeping, so to speak.
I feel like this is a good place to mention that I love Paizo for really trying to keep internal consistency and having the patience in the face of an online mob of disgruntled gamers to make well thought out decisions. Thanks, Paizo.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

So I guess by extention, then, that mean that someone can use Two-Weapon Fighting with only a single weapon now?
While I will obviously uphold this rule for PFS play, I have to say this is probably the single ruling that I MOST disagree with out of every ruling I've heard since I started playing this game. I would be more than willing to share my very simple counter-arguement with Mr. Buhlman, if he wanted to hear it. ;)

![]() ![]() ![]() |

Jiggy wrote:I was getting it from the fact that (or at least my assumption that) Flurry of Blows is based on the TWF rules.Seth Gipson wrote:So I guess by extention, then, that mean that someone can use Two-Weapon Fighting with only a single weapon now?How exactly are you getting that?
Well, that's because when PFRPG came out, they were deliberately trying to "marry" (as they put it) FoB and TWF - it was always the intent that FoB worked like TWF except as otherwise noted. So your original understanding was correct.
They've now changed the monk, by re-divorcing it (at least partially) from TWF rules - not changing the TWF rules themselves.

![]() |

Jiggy wrote:I was getting it from the fact that (or at least my assumption that) Flurry of Blows is based on the TWF rules.Seth Gipson wrote:So I guess by extention, then, that mean that someone can use Two-Weapon Fighting with only a single weapon now?How exactly are you getting that?
It's partially based on TWF, but flurry is a different beast. It's a special thing for monks, something that sets them apart.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

Jiggy wrote:I was getting it from the fact that (or at least my assumption that) Flurry of Blows is based on the TWF rules.Seth Gipson wrote:So I guess by extention, then, that mean that someone can use Two-Weapon Fighting with only a single weapon now?How exactly are you getting that?
Flurry of Blows is based on Two-Weapon Fighting, not the other way around.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Seth Gipson wrote:Flurry of Blows is based on Two-Weapon Fighting, not the other way around.Jiggy wrote:I was getting it from the fact that (or at least my assumption that) Flurry of Blows is based on the TWF rules.Seth Gipson wrote:So I guess by extention, then, that mean that someone can use Two-Weapon Fighting with only a single weapon now?How exactly are you getting that?
That's what I said...

![]() ![]() ![]() |

@Chris Bonnet: That credit actually goes to Cheapy. I never followed that thread, but then I saw it in the recent activity sidebar with the last post being from Cheapy. It occurred to me that I hadn't seen that thread in that sidebar in a while, and also that Cheapy isn't the sort to engage in endless debates, so I figured something must be up and I clicked it.
That's how I found out about it.
So thanks, Cheapy!

![]() |

What do you need to know about your TWF unarmed characters?
Fists count as light weapons... Math is easy from there.
But can you 2 weapon unarmed strike and unarmed strike? Several things make it sound like i could but it never says clearly yes or no that i can see. i need it official because it is for PFS

Cheapy |

Jiggy wrote:Jason BulmahnJason who?
You might know him from his work on Dungeonscape, the 3.5 book.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

lantzkev wrote:But can you 2 weapon unarmed strike and unarmed strike? Several things make it sound like i could but it never says clearly yes or no that i can see. i need it official because it is for PFSWhat do you need to know about your TWF unarmed characters?
Fists count as light weapons... Math is easy from there.
There's nothing that needs to be specifically said as far as I can see. Unless you're playing the Black Knight from the Holy Grail you should have at least two limbs to perform a unarmed strike from and therefor have "two light weapons"

![]() |
Seth Gipson wrote:Flurry of Blows is based on Two-Weapon Fighting, not the other way around.Jiggy wrote:I was getting it from the fact that (or at least my assumption that) Flurry of Blows is based on the TWF rules.Seth Gipson wrote:So I guess by extention, then, that mean that someone can use Two-Weapon Fighting with only a single weapon now?How exactly are you getting that?
As of the new ruling, neither are based on each other. They are totally separate mechanics.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Seth Gipson wrote:So can you stack them now that they are separate mechanics? If not, then why not?Rules debates don't belong in the PFS forums.
I havent done any debating in this thread, thank you very much. I have asked questions, stated opinions (mostly in the negative about my feelings towards this ruling) and made sweeping generalizations, but no debating.