Skylancer: I don't think the FAQ isn't meant as explanation of the current RAW, it's meant to explain how Flurry is (now) meant to work, and the RAW of Flurry will be updated in a future Errata... along with other changes to the Monk.
I don't know the exact RAW that Flurry will have in the future, but I don't feel that 2WF will be very involved, beyond saying you can't also combine Flurry bonus attacks with 2WF bonus attacks (maybe). I do expect that just like normal non-2wf full attacks, you will be able to use any weapons available to do any iterative attack, just without any bonus 2wf 'offhand' attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, flurry is still TWF by a diffent name, eh? Except that you don't get bigger penalties for using a non-light weapon in your off-hand . . . flurry always stays at -2. Except that unlike TWF, you apply your full Strength bonus on off-hand attacks, and even if you use a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands), you still get only your full Strength bonus, not 1.5x your Strength bonus. And you are restricted to a set list of weapons, instead of being able to TWF with what you choose. Oh, and you can use 1 weapon for your entire flurry . . . not two weapons like in two-weapon fighting. Except you can replace any attack in a flurry with an unarmed strike. And you cannot benefit from any of the TWF chain because you don't actually have the feats. And don't forget, you substitute a disarm, sunder, or trip combat maneuver for any of your attacks; does TWF allow that? Not sure. And you can get one additional attack at your highest attack bonus by spending ki; that stacks with haste.
Otherwise it is just like TWF and we should treat it as such.
Right?
MA
So you have a problem with the fact that they explicitly say use TWF(and the later feats in the chain) with these exceptions*? Because that is exactly what the rules state.
*The entire game is based on general rules, with stated exceptions. This is no different, there just are a few more exceptions on this subject. The game typically uses existing rules and modifies them to various purposes. It simplifies things as well as streamlines them.
You don't like the rules, but at least you could make the distinction between what you want them to be, and what they are. Flurry is TWFing, go to your book, go to the PRD or any other official rules location. It is right there in the ability description along with the exceptions it allows for, to which we can add the two new exceptions from the FAQ.
It never ceases to amaze me how people try to cheese and pretend like the rules aren't clear.
You get your STR bonus when flurrying. No 1.5x the rule is clear.
Power attack with 2 hands still gets 1 for 3, it's not modified anywhere.
How anyone can pretend like this is unclear baffles me
The question isn't whether the rules are clear as they're written. The question is whether the intention was to give monks a huge incentive to use power attack. As the rules are written, a monk can get the 1 for 3 power attack boost by using two hands on a single weapon while flurrying - nobody is questioning that. Compare this mechanic with any other class (using manufactured weapons & iterative attacks) which has to settle for +2/+1 on the same number of attacks or +3 on half as many attacks.
So you have a problem with the fact that they explicitly say use TWF(and the later feats in the chain) with these exceptions*? Because that is exactly what the rules state.
*The entire game is based on general rules, with stated exceptions. This is no different, there just are a few more exceptions on this subject. The game typically uses existing rules and modifies them to various purposes. It simplifies things as well as streamlines them.
You don't like the rules, but at least you could make the distinction between what you want them to be, and what they are. Flurry is TWFing, go to your book, go to the PRD or any other official rules location. It is right there in the ability description along with the exceptions it allows for, to which we can add the two new exceptions from the FAQ.
I suspect that what Arminas is trying to get at in his post is that with that many exceptions, it's no longer anything like TWF, apart from the overall -2. It breaks every other aspect.
But that isn't true, the general rule still is being called into effect and for certain situations restrictions on what you can do are still there. As brought up by the poster questioning the swapping of monk weapons (2 kama to be exact). Those two weapons are NOT interchangeable in a flurry.
Except it breaks them with 'conditions', the core is still there and must be observed RAW. Whether it looks like the same thing 'in game' is irrelevant, how it gets there in a metagame fashion is still relevant. It doesn't matter if there is one exception or seven, the same rule set is being used, one situation is just more convoluted than another mechanically.
How we get to 'someplace' matters mechanically. That is why the rule set, and exceptions, are there in the first place.
No longer being TWF, is not the same as TWF with a ton of exceptions...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He said it was a specific type of standard. It's not just any attack made as a standard action. There are some abilities that make you attack during a standard action, but that is not an attack action. That's a standard action that has an attack. Jason has been saying attack action is a type of standard action since the start of PF RPG. I guess it's true that that's a change from 3.5, but it's not a change within PF.
The 3.5 SRD also lists "attack" as a type of standard action, so I am not sure what Malachi is talking about--I've never seen of heard of this clarification made by Skip, regardless of how long I've been playing 3.5, and I can't assume everyone is aware of that "change," if Malachi's memory of it is correct. And IIRC in 3.0 and in d20 Modern, "attack action" was in fact the actual term for standard action. Some references to "Attack action" actually go back to this--it was just never edited out, and/or some designers who go back to that time still think of the action as "attack" rather than "standard."
(Why they could not phrase Vital Strike to simply say "you make a vital strike as a standard action" is utterly beyond me.)
The thing is, it is very easy to confuse the term "attack action" with the term "in place of an attack."
"Attack action" is short hand for taking a standard action to make a single attack.
But we also have just the term "attack" meaning "any time you make an attack roll." Which is not the same as the term "attack action." "In place of an attack" means "any time you make an attack roll" not "as an attack action."
Really, if there is ever a future edition of Pathfinder, I hope the phrase "attack action" is completely eliminated. It does nothing but confuse things.
I've heard rumors from some of the freelancers that Paizo is recommending not to use the "attack action" terminology just because it does confuse some people. In this case, they recommend just making it a standard action as the attack action is a type of standard action anyways, and the main change between the two is that you can't combine it with vital strike or any other of the abilities that were written to use the attack action.
But that isn't true, the general rule still is being called into effect and for certain situations restrictions on what you can do are still there. As brought up by the poster questioning the swapping of monk weapons (2 kama to be exact). Those two weapons are NOT interchangeable in a flurry.
Except it breaks them with 'conditions', the core is still there and must be observed RAW. Whether it looks like the same thing 'in game' is irrelevant, how it gets there in a metagame fashion is still relevant. It doesn't matter if there is one exception or seven, the same rule set is being used, one situation is just more convoluted than another mechanically.
How we get to 'someplace' matters mechanically. That is why the rule set, and exceptions, are there in the first place.
No longer being TWF, is not the same as TWF with a ton of exceptions...
It was the original intent of the designers and developers, in their own words, to make Flurry of Blows the same as Two-Weapon Fighting. BUT, that led to many problems, as Flurry in 3.5 (which Pathfinder is based upon) did NOT work in such a fashion. Flurry as TWF prevents the Zen Archer and Sohei archetype from working, and the writers for Paizo have constantly published, in every monk NPC to date, the use of a single weapon in Flurry of Blows.
Now, you say that Flurry = TWF with the listed exceptions. There comes a point when the exceptions become so great that you simply have to say that the two are not the same thing. And I think that Jason and the developers have recognized that, hence the change to where you can Flurry with a single weapon. That makes the Zen Archer and the Sohei work AND prevents having to eratta every last single monk published to date in modules and adventure paths.
Should Flurry of Blows be rewritten in the more comprehensive changes yet to come? Certainly, if only to prevent this type of an argument. We are going to have to wait and see what the full changes to the monk are. Myself, I think they are going to remove the TWF language to avoid just this type of discussion.
MA
Sorry... Super long thread..
Where are these changes announced?
I feel lucky to be one the boards today and see them.
How can I learn of these, and upcoming changes, in the future?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That, and the fact that one of PF's most major faults as a system is that it leaves out a great deal of the reasoning and logic/unofficial rules from 3E which is it directly derived. I mean, to this day I still see people (and myself) learning something new about the game (core book) that is significantly changed (usually due to a lack of another rule somewhere else or something minor not being included in PF) and more than a few times people without some 3E exprience interpreting things drastically different (sometimes correctly, but often incorrectly) because PF in a way cut corners with the rules, or sometime I think maybe didn't realize how certain things would be altered by other changes that where made.
The fact that people sometimes also use RAW/RAI as if to mean Rules as I Intend them, or pretend to have a special inisight into what the Devs wanted (that also coincides with their goal/arguement) desn't help ease the confussion.
|
|
Sorry... Super long thread..
Where are these changes announced?
I feel lucky to be one the boards today and see them.How can I learn of these, and upcoming changes, in the future?
They do not tend to post that the updates are out so much, but you can usually catch wind of it by scanning through the forums.
They can be found Here
and occasionally news bout them can be found in the Blogs.
I would say this should be proof enough for them to go back and reevaluate the rules for the monk in its entirety.
Screw proof, they already said they are working on (have completed?) further changes to the Monk which will be revealed in due course - perhaps they're waiting for the next CRB printing, but they've said they will be releasing 'fixes' for multiple issues with the Monk. I'm sure many people would like them to rebuild the Class from scratch, but they have a great deal of auxiliary material they need to keep compatable... I'm confident that whatever they release will be an improvement on the whole. I'm hoping for single-'weapon' UAS enhancements (which may well also work on single natural weapons) as well as supporting wording so that choosing to Flurry with multiple weapons isn't inferior to Flurrying with one (potentially 2Handed).
Sorry... Super long thread..
Where are these changes announced?
I feel lucky to be one the boards today and see them.How can I learn of these, and upcoming changes, in the future?
They do not tend to post that the updates are out so much, but you can usually catch wind of it by scanning through the forums.
They can be found Here
and occasionally news bout them can be found in the Blogs.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for :)
That point, isn't up to your or any of us scrubs on the boards to determine. The writing on the page/FAQ determines it.
If I go trick out my car, with new body work, swing up doors, new exhaust, and engine & tranny work it is still the same make and model. When I get a ticket, it is listed as that make and model. When I insure it, it comes up as the original make and model. Does it look anything like it did? No, nor does it run like it did. That doesn't change what it actually is at its core.
The FAQ made it so some troublesome archtypes(optional material) works with the PFCRB rules. They could have just as easily added 'unarmed and monk weapons can be interchanged with any attack in a flurry of blows action.' You'll notice the italicized part doesn't exist. What they did do is make another exception so the archtypes work with the exisiting rule set. They didn't change the rule set, they made it so the problem children worked with in the rule set.
We are all entitled to our opinions, I'd just suggest you make an effort to point out that it is your opinion next time you state something works a certain way, when it isn't how it actually works. Not doing so just confuses the issue more which is to no ones benefit.
I'm not saying they aren't going to change it, I am saying the rules stand as they are written until further changed by the Paizo crew. You are on the boards a lot, but you aren't part of the inner circle who make those decisions, so you don't know what is going to happen either. And that leaves us with RAW, and your opinions. At this point, they aren't the same, so please try to make that clear in your posts.
Many of the changes here have been in the works for a few months now. We had planned on announcing them soon, but recent events have moved up that time table.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Thank you for your hard work!
That point, isn't up to your or any of us scrubs on the boards to determine. The writing on the page/FAQ determines it.
If I go trick out my car, with new body work, swing up doors, new exhaust, and engine & tranny work it is still the same make and model. When I get a ticket, it is listed as that make and model. When I insure it, it comes up as the original make and model. Does it look anything like it did? No, nor does it run like it did. That doesn't change what it actually is at its core.The FAQ made it so some troublesome archtypes(optional material) works with the PFCRB rules. They could have just as easily added 'unarmed and monk weapons can be interchanged with any attack in a flurry of blows action.' You'll notice the italicized part doesn't exist. What they did do is make another exception so the archtypes work with the exisiting rule set. They didn't change the rule set, they made it so the problem children worked with in the rule set.
We are all entitled to our opinions, I'd just suggest you make an effort to point out that it is your opinion next time you state something works a certain way, when it isn't how it actually works. Not doing so just confuses the issue more which is to no ones benefit.
I'm not saying they aren't going to change it, I am saying the rules stand as they are written until further changed by the Paizo crew. You are on the boards a lot, but you aren't part of the inner circle who make those decisions, so you don't know what is going to happen either. And that leaves us with RAW, and your opinions. At this point, they aren't the same, so please try to make that clear in your posts.
EDIT: No, I am not going to respond like that. Look man, this is General Discussion, not Rules Questions. Opinions are offered here and RAW isn't the cardinal law of canon. I have, and will continue to, express my opinion on how I see the rules; I am sorry if you do not like that. It is not my intention to provoke you or anyone else. However, I will continue to voice my opinions and how I hope that the changes turn out. We this in either the Advice or Rules Questions sub-forums, I would use a different approach, but this General Discussion.
MA
If you read my previous post I acknowledge this isn't the Rules forum as well as why it is beneficial to state clearly when it is opinion in even forums of this type (as evidenced by the recent post asking there the new FAQ was.) My hackles aren't up, I'm just clearing up the murkiness of a new ruling people such as yourself are anxiously stirring with opinions. There is a difference between discussing RAW and what it should be and stating your opinion as if it were RAW...
The confusion of mixing up the two doesn't help resolve the issues, it makes them worse as people read posts by others who are supposedly well versed in the rules and vocal about them. Someone reads your opinion because you stated it as fact, goes to play the game and is told it isn't actually fact and now has a character based on opinion that doesn't work the way you think it should have. You would feel a tad bit disappointed or upset?
Again I don't care about just your or my own opinion, I care about making sure the RAW is known so people can make their own well informed opinion on the facts and how things actually work. If eveyone knows the RAW real issues can be resolved, not just the perceived ones based on opions of rulings.
If anyones 'hackles are up' they are apparenly yours. I've done nothing but point out what RAW is and ask with explanation for people to clearly state opinion versus what actually is. All I've gotten from you, starting with 'sigh seriously?' has been your long winded takes on why the RAW I've outlined isn't really how it works and how you think the Paizo crew seems to believe the same things you are stating using the FAQ as some sort of proof. Maybe it's just you being defensive because I dared to say you were 'wrong' who knows. I suppose I should just copy and paste the RAW as my temporary signature for any further posts in this thread.
Long-winded? Perhaps you are confusing my answers to you in this thread with others. If three paragraphs is long-winded, I would advise that you looked within the mirror.
Now, RAW is not the end-all, be-all of the game. Rules must (must, I say) be interpreted by a DM so that his game runs smoothly. If something is allowed by RAW, but doesn't work at your table, don't use it . . . or don't let it be used. More than that, RAW is constantly changing with every new publication, every eratta, every update. We get something new that changes what was done in the past. RAW, if and of itself, means nothing.
And in some cases, such as Flurry, RAW can have multiple legitimate interpretations. Jason and company thought that Flurry as TWF was clear, but it wasn't. Not for people used to 3.5 and their own writing staff. It literally could be read either way . . . which is why RAW takes you only so far. Beyond that point, you have to rely on your common sense, your interpretation of the rules, and how your game works.
MA
I think this works better as for needing two weapons to flurry makes no sense if you could punch with the other hand or use a few kicks.
Removed some posts. Please be civil to each other.
Long-winded? Perhaps you are confusing my answers to you in this thread with others. If three paragraphs is long-winded, I would advise that you looked within the mirror.
Now, RAW is not the end-all, be-all of the game. Rules must (must, I say) be interpreted by a DM so that his game runs smoothly. If something is allowed by RAW, but doesn't work at your table, don't use it . . . or don't let it be used. More than that, RAW is constantly changing with every new publication, every eratta, every update. We get something new that changes what was done in the past. RAW, if and of itself, means nothing.
And in some cases, such as Flurry, RAW can have multiple legitimate interpretations. Jason and company thought that Flurry as TWF was clear, but it wasn't. Not for people used to 3.5 and their own writing staff. It literally could be read either way . . . which is why RAW takes you only so far. Beyond that point, you have to rely on your common sense, your interpretation of the rules, and how your game works.
MA
Incorrect, RAW doesn't change, it becomes whatever current Rules As Written are at the most current time. RAW is all inclusive. A culmination of all written rules, errata and FAQs.
RAW becomes more defined with every FAQ and or rules rewrite. RAW today might not be what it was at the beginning of the game. That doesn't change the absolute fact that RAW is a current rules set as written, RAW never stops being RAW regardless of what changes occur. As the new changes along with the old collectively become the current RAW.
I'm going to leave it as, organized play disagrees with with your opinion on RAW. Try to remember just because you play a certain way, doesn't mean the vast majority of us play it that way. You may be right in your gaming world, but you are just as wrong in someone elses. I would hope someone having 'discussions' on an open forum would be a tad more open minded about it, and not have so narrow of vision to take explanations of RAW and out right ignore them due to you not liking the rule set and using it in your game.
Some of us actually have to use RAW, which for the record makes it far far more valuable than 'nothing.' For some of us, RAW is the law and has to be followed. Thank you for making it brutally obvious you don't care for anything other than your game and how you think the core rules should be played with your last post. Some of us actually care what RAW outlines, you've made it plain you don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
um, yeah, is ANYBODY unhappy about these issues being resolved finally? :-)
Given that I was building a "perpetual motion" power source based on Internet outrage and pointless arguments, this is a serious setback in my plans for World Domination and Neverending Nachos.
At least there's still plenty of power to be harvested over the mishmash of rules covering Stealth, Invisibly, Concealment, Cover, Lighting and Vision!
I've heard rumors from some of the freelancers that Paizo is recommending not to use the "attack action" terminology...
ORLY?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
YA RLYI've heard rumors from some of the freelancers that Paizo is recommending not to use the "attack action" terminology...ORLY?
NO WAI
I've heard rumors from some of the freelancers that Paizo is recommending not to use the "attack action" terminology...ORLY?
YARLY*!
* - Having finally found the source of that statement, I was half wrong. The original statement was that the author was to avoid the use of "attack action". Later on, it was clarified that the advice was to break the habit of using 'attack action'. Since I read this over a year ago, and since the original thing was simply "avoid the 'attack action'", it appears my mind filled in the blanks and got "don't use attack action. Instead use standard action" instead of "don't use attack action. Instead use attack", which was the actual advice given by the dev.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More good news for monks!
Late last week, we posted up a few quick FAQ issues to resolve some problems involving the monk. There has been a lot of discussion on the monk on the boards, and while it has taken us a while to come up with some solutions, we have made a few simple changes to address these concerns. I wanted to take this blog post to review these changes and to announce a few more.
Flurry of Blows: We have decided to reverse a previous ruling (that came from this very blog) that stated you needed to use two weapons when using flurry of blows (or a combination of weapon attacks and unarmed strikes). You can now make all of your attacks with just one weapon, or substitute any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. Of course, if you have a pair of weapons and want to keep using both of them, that still works as well.
Ki Pool: Monks typically have problems bypassing DR with their unarmed strikes, forcing them to rely on weapons to deal with many forms of DR. We have decided to add a new ability to the Ki Pool monk class feature. At 7th level, a monk's unarmed strikes count as cold iron and silver for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction, so long as he has at least 1 point remaining in his ki pool.
Amulet of Mighty Fists: On Friday, we posted up a FAQ that stated that the enhancement bonus from an amulet of mighty fists does allow natural attacks and unarmed strikes to bypass damage reduction if the enhancement bonus is at least +3 (as with other weapons, see page 562 of the Core Rulebook). In addition, we have decided to adjust the price of the amulet of mighty fists. The new prices are as follows: 4,000 gp (+1), 16,000 gp (+2), 36,000 gp (+3), 64,000 gp (+4), 100,000 gp (+5). Accordingly, the costs to create these amulets are also reduced to the following: 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), 50,000 gp (+5). This makes this item priced a bit more competitively for monks and creatures that rely on natural attacks. I should note that this change will be reflected in future printings of the Core Rulebook, Ultimate Equipment, and the NPC Codex.
Well, that about wraps up our current thoughts on the monk. Thanks to all the folks on the boards that provided us with feedback on this class.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Monkeying Around is the Blog in question.
Oh my, yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! Thank you Paizo.
MA
So we still have TWF flurry (with interchangeable IUS for any attack in the sequence or all with one weapon for those weapon focused archtypes).
The new Ki pool is a nice quality of life change for mid level monks.
The amulet change covers the later levels for DR and enhancement bonus, though I admit I'm surprised they went so low with the price. All natural weapons upgraded for the cost of a single weapon? My tiefling alchemist in Way of the Wicked will be happy.
|
So we still have TWF flurry (with interchangeable IUS for any attack in the sequence or all with one weapon for those weapon focused archtypes).
The new Ki pool is a nice quality of life change for mid level monks.
The amulet change covers the later levels for DR and enhancement bonus, though I admit I'm surprised they went so low with the price. All natural weapons upgraded for the cost of a single weapon? My tiefling alchemist in Way of the Wicked will be happy.
The AoMF now costs as much as two weapons; it used to cost as much as three.
The AoMF now costs as much as two weapons; it used to cost as much as three.So we still have TWF flurry (with interchangeable IUS for any attack in the sequence or all with one weapon for those weapon focused archtypes).
The new Ki pool is a nice quality of life change for mid level monks.
The amulet change covers the later levels for DR and enhancement bonus, though I admit I'm surprised they went so low with the price. All natural weapons upgraded for the cost of a single weapon? My tiefling alchemist in Way of the Wicked will be happy.
Bleh, skimmed over and read the creation prices. Price is where I was expecting it then ;)