Just kidding. Wonderful to see such excellent rulings in both that and the sunder issue, and clearing up Attack Action. This is why Paizo is the only RPG I pay money for.
Discussion: How do you feel about the new rulings? Was it the rulings you hoped for? For me, all three things addressed (attack actions, sunder and flurry) worked out as I hoped.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you pretty please add a link to these rulings in the OP?
Edit: Nevermind I found 'em.
Would still be nice if you added these:
Hey there Folks,
First off, my thanks to everybody for calming down a bit in this thread. I understand how these sorts of topics can turn into a firestorm and I am glad to see it has abated a bit.
Second... when it comes to rulings on the game and internal consistency. I want to be clear on something. The buck stops with my department, and more specifically with me. I thought we had some of these issues under wraps, but it appears that there is still some confusion in the department. I am working to get them cleared up and fixed so that they do not happen again.
The NPC Codex issue was an error and it is one that we are going to fix in the next printing of the book. I am also going to put up an FAQ on it as soon as I am able.
As for the Monk issue. We have decided to reverse our previous ruling on using Flurry with one weapon. You can now do so. This change has been in the works for a little while now, but I have not had the chance to announce it. There are a few other changes coming to the monk as well and I am investigating a good venue for making those announcements.
I work very hard to try to make our rules system as tight and clean as possible, but with a rules set this complex, mistakes are bound to sneak through. That's not an excuse, its just a reality. Me and my team endeavor to solve these problems as they are found and as time permits. Its not easy, but I appreciate the patience that you have concerning these issues.
Expect more on this later today as I add some quick issues to the FAQ.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
When I use the monk class feature, flurry of blows, can I make all of the attacks with just one weapon, or do I have to use two, as implied by the ability functioning similarly to Two-Weapon Fighting?You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. This FAQ specifically changes a previous ruling made in the blog concerning this issue.
—Jason Bulmahn, today
Does the amulet of mighty fists allow a creature's natural attacks to bypass damage reduction if the enhancement bonus is high enough (as noted on page 562)?Yes. If the amulet grants at least a +3 enhancement bonus it allows a creature's natural attacks to bypass cold iron and silver damage reduction. If it is +4, it allows them to bypass adamantine damage reduction (although not hardness), and if it is +5, it allows them to bypass alignment-based damage reduction.
—Jason Bulmahn, today
To the OP, since I'm sure I'm not the only one who hasn't read them.
What is everyone talking about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe I got the right ones Lloyd, I just edited them into my post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is an awful ruling!!, now AoMF are so expensieve and do not make sense
/just kidding.
AoMF is priced appropriately for critters that have 3+ natural attacks. The problem lies in that it is dramatically overpriced for monks and other characters using unarmed strikes. A simple solution would be to introduce an item that provides an enhancement bonus only to unarmed strikes, not natural weapons. I'd be fine with an item that cost 3,000 gp x the enhancement bonus squared, but applied to all attacks with UAS, instead of that bodywraps of mighty striking nonsense where it varies according to your BAB how many attacks are enhanced.
But AoMF is a sacred cow, and those aren't easily slain.
MA
Just kidding. Wonderful to see such excellent rulings in both that and the sunder issue, and clearing up Attack Action. This is why Paizo is the only RPG I pay money for.
Discussion: How do you feel about the new rulings? Was it the rulings you hoped for? For me, all three things addressed (attack actions, sunder and flurry) worked out as I hoped.
Well, I can't wait to see the rest of the changes to the monk that Jason said they are getting ready to put out. But, for these specific issues, I am happy with all three rulings. Flurry can be done with a single weapon now (just like in 3.5) and the wording makes sense with that any combination text. With the AoMF bpyassing DR, that is all good and helps out tremendously on getting through DR at higher levels (but the price tag means at least two or three levels behind other characters). And I was glad to see the official clarification on sunder.
All in all . . . it is a good day.
MA
It is an awful ruling!!, now AoMF are so expensieve and do not make sense
/just kidding.
AoMF is priced appropriately for critters that have 3+ natural attacks. The problem lies in that it is dramatically overpriced for monks and other characters using unarmed strikes. A simple solution would be to introduce an item that provides an enhancement bonus only to unarmed strikes, not natural weapons. I'd be fine with an item that cost 3,000 gp x the enhancement bonus squared, but applied to all attacks with UAS, instead of that bodywraps of mighty striking nonsense where it varies according to your BAB how many attacks are enhanced.
But AoMF is a sacred cow, and those aren't easily slain.
MA
:)
It seems like MA did not undertand the convoluted joke.
Oh, I understand the joke, but it does not alleviate a very real problem that still underlies the class. That is, getting your enhancement bonus one, or two, or even three levels later than other characters (if going by strict WBL guidelines).
MA
And to think only 1 rule actually changed.
Where's a link for all that?
EDIT: Well I guess the FAQ's are already up. I just wish there was some sort of notification for stuff like that.
I would like to think that Jason Bulmahn thought to himself, "Man, if Lamontius can drop rhymes that hard, then I need to stone cold up my game and just get these monks jumping with some sick flurry madness."
I mean, we can give RavingDork the credit for being the catalyst, or you know, give it to me.
You decide!
Excellent news. Thanks to the Paizo team for working on this.
The AoMF ruling seems obvious unless your intent is to twist it, but it's great to have official clarification so people can back off the digital cliff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for not linking in the OP!
Also, prone shooter has been errata'd to lesser the prone AC penalty vs melee to -2 and increase the AC bonus vs ranged to +6. Which IMO is a really well-chosen mechanic of the feat.
Link
So is this what master arminas looks like right now? :)
So is this what master arminas looks like right now? :)
Heh. Snoopy is a much better dancer than me. My friends (friends, mind you) tell me I have all the grace of a drunken rhinoceros.
MA
see, as long as flurry of blows has existed, I always assumed you could make the flurry with any combinations of qualifying weapons and/or unarmed strikes, including one.
|
It's a good day!
Sanity has been restored for sunder and flurry.
I'm more ambivalent regarding the changing definition of 'attack action'. It'll take a while to get straight which abilities that referred to 'attack action' in the past now can be any attack or now must be a standard action. But, now that it's an official FAQ rather than some thread postings that applied to one thing but may or may not have been a general statement, at least we can all move forward singing from the same hymn sheet.
Yay for flurry and sunder clarification.
|
|
see, as long as flurry of blows has existed, I always assumed you could make the flurry with any combinations of qualifying weapons and/or unarmed strikes, including one.
That was the case in 3.5, but they changed it to be more like TWF in PF. Thankfully, they've reversed that decision and changed it back! : )
Lead Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really understand this. Why not announce changes as soon as they're decided? The cost of putting something on the FAQ once you've decided on an answer must be very close to zero. Why not do it as soon as possible after you get through the time and money consuming decisionmaking?
To put it simple, sometimes the clarifications are not as simple as a quick FAQ post, and we have to look at the right way to present the information so that it gets to everyone and does not just get buried somewhere.
Jason
|
|
I don't really understand this. Why not announce changes as soon as they're decided? The cost of putting something on the FAQ once you've decided on an answer must be very close to zero. Why not do it as soon as possible after you get through the time and money consuming decisionmaking?To put it simple, sometimes the clarifications are not as simple as a quick FAQ post, and we have to look at the right way to present the information so that it gets to everyone and does not just get buried somewhere.
Jason
Jason, I know the 'get your house in order' thread was a tad disrespectful, but you must know that we all think it's absolutely awesome that the designers of the game interact with the gaming community in this way!
In a way, you've spoiled us. Keep it up! : )
see, as long as flurry of blows has existed, I always assumed you could make the flurry with any combinations of qualifying weapons and/or unarmed strikes, including one.That was the case in 3.5, but they changed it to be more like TWF in PF. Thankfully, they've reversed that decision and changed it back! : )
yea i must have missed that memo. I thought it was only "like twf' in the same way spell combat is 'like twf'
Malachi, the attack action definition has not changed, so I must ask you to try not to confuse people.
|
|
Malachi, the attack action definition has not changed, so I must ask you to try not to confuse people.
Your memory is short.
The 3.5 version of 'attack action' was clarified in the 3.5 FAQ by Skip as any attack following the rules in that section of the combat chapter, which included each element of a full attack, the attack at the end of a charge, AoOs, etc.
Similarly, Jason has clarified 'attack action' to mean specifically an attack made as a standard action, in the latest Pathfinder FAQ.
This is a change.
It should not cause continuing disagreement between us; the point has been rendered moot by today's FAQ. I accept it in good grace (though I would have gone the other way myself), and hope that any remaining ambiguities resulting from a rule being written before this change are cleared up.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To put it simple, sometimes the clarifications are not as simple as a quick FAQ post, and we have to look at the right way to present the information so that it gets to everyone and does not just get buried somewhere.
Jason
I think you're seriously underestimating the ability of GeekNet to get the word out, especially on something as big as the monks.
Sweet. Now my 9 section chain using Crane Style monk is awesome again
Nice FAQ's!
I hope Hero Lab gets the memo and updates monk flurry with one weapon soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
um, yeah, is ANYBODY unhappy about these issues being resolved finally? :-)
i am happy with the outcome of them, albeit i would also have been happy to see Flurry be clarified to be exactly like 2wf if it had also been clarified/Errata'd to be 'granting' conditional-usage 2wf feats and thus also work with (and provide the pre-reqs for) 2wf feats like 2 weapon rend. probably each approach would have made certain types of builds more powerful, but just being clear on how the rules ARE inteneded to work, having a consistent usable game for all is the main thing for me.
i do think there's still a huge host of outstanding issues that i hope to see faq/errata for in the near future, but this latest update/faq can only give me more optimism for that to occur.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To put it simple, sometimes the clarifications are not as simple as a quick FAQ post, and we have to look at the right way to present the information so that it gets to everyone and does not just get buried somewhere.
If you want to give more visibility to the FAQ, having Gary add some code to the Paizo front page, that adds 1 line of text in Bold Red text, saying 'Core Rules FAQ updated: 2 items, APG FAQ updates: 1 item, etc' which persists for a week or 2 after the FAQ has been updated would probably be a pretty effective measure for everybody who visits Paizo's website semi-regularly. ...Besides emailing any Rules PDF purchasers and other Paizo subscribers. Regardless, the FAQ is a HUGE improvement visibility-wise compared to messageboard posts.
Thanks for clearing up the monk...
Now about that scorpion whip....
|
|
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.
Well....I'm glad that's cleared up....
I find the 'new' definition confusing sometimes. If it's it's own standard action, how does it stack with the things which were written with Jason's ruling in mind? Overhand Chop?
At least in 3.5, the things which were specifically standard actions, like Manyshot or Hideous Blow, were called 'standard' actions, not 'attack' actions! It was less confusing. YMMV.
BTW, this isn't intended as a continuation of the previous debate. It's about dealing with the implications of this ruling. : )
I find the 'new' definition confusing sometimes. If it's it's own standard action, how does it stack with the things which were written with Jason's ruling in mind? Overhand Chop?
Generally, things that modify the attack action stack with each other unless both replace things. For example, vital strike doubles your damage dice on attack actions and overhand chop lets you add double your strength bonus. As such, if you have both, you deal 2xdamagedice+2xStr+Whatever other bonuses. But if you have, say, a gaze attack that doesn't deal damage (also an attack action) you can't combine it with vital strike since vital strike does nothing with it.
At least in 3.5, the things which were specifically standard actions, like Manyshot or Hideous Blow, were called 'standard' actions, not 'attack' actions! It was less confusing. YMMV.
I agree that different abilities being different standard actions being simpler, but it makes certain kinds of stacking harder. There are pro's and con's of both.
If overhand chop was a standard action, and vital strike was a standard action, they would not stack.Since there are so few abilities based on the attack action though, I think they could have skipped it and made both overhand chop and vital strike standard actions with as special clause on overhand chop that it applies to vital strikes too. But things being as they are, I think the ruling made is great.
So, this does not allow a monk to use 2 kama's with different enchantments and start using the one kama and revert to the other for the remaining attacks (i.e. one with more damage but lower to hit for high attacks with high attack bonus and one with lower damage but higher attack enchantment.)...
When I use the monk class feature, flurry of blows, can I make all of the attacks with just one weapon, or do I have to use two, as implied by the ability functioning similarly to Two-Weapon Fighting?You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. This FAQ specifically changes a previous ruling made in the blog concerning this issue.
That would seem to be correct. It might work with a cestus though, but the cestus has weird wording (it says you're armed but modifies your unarmed attack - so is an attack with it armed, unarmed, or both? I suspect the latter but that feels weird)
It says 'you can' use one weapon or replace any of the attacks with an unarmed strike. You could still use a different monk weapon in each hand and follow the TWF type attack routine.
Edit: I think I missed the point of your run-on sentence. It looks like an 8th level monk with 2 kama weapons would still have to follow the TWF routine (Kama1 @+6, Kama2 @+6, Kama1 @+1, Kama2 @+1) and be able to put an unarmed strike in for any of them.
The routine (Kama1 @+6, Kama2 @+6, Kama2 @+1, Kama2 @+1) wouldn't work, but the same weapon for all would.
Great rulings! Thanks a lot!
Looking forward to the other monk changes planned... :-)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might work with a cestus though, but the cestus has weird wording (it says you're armed but modifies your unarmed attack - so is an attack with it armed, unarmed, or both? I suspect the latter but that feels weird)
Hope this helps.
The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.
Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)
Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.
The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.
Rope gauntlets are light melee weapons and its descriptive text shouldn't confuse the issue by referring to "unarmed strikes."
In short, weapons worn on your hand should be treated as plain ol' light weapons, with no relation to unarmed strikes whatsoever.
To my knowledge this hasn't been put anywhere "official", but Sean's explanation is good enough for me. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flurry FAQSo, this does not allow a monk to use 2 kama's with different enchantments and start using the one kama and revert to the other for the remaining attacks (i.e. one with more damage but lower to hit for high attacks with high attack bonus and one with lower damage but higher attack enchantment.)
The Flurry FAQ isn't saying you MUST make all attacks with one weapon, it is saying you CAN. Just as normal people can use multiple weapons held in different hands to make their normal iterative attacks (without invoking 2wf rules), you can do so with Flurry, and since the # of attacks is the same as 2wf, it doesn't seem like a stretch to say you can 'flavor' it to appear exactly like 2wf if you so wish to. It just doesn't count as off-hand attacks for purposes of things like 2 Weapon Rend.
Heh, and back to the Flurry mechanic debate ;D
I don't think you can use "regular twf" with it as it's not TWF and it's not regular iteratives.