| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So now that Monk Flurry is NOT working like 2WF (per FAQ, if not yet Errata'd),
is there any reason you can't combine Flurry with 2WF for additional attacks?
It's still a Full Attack action, unlike Magus Spell Combat, so I don't see why not....?
Personally, I wish Flurry had been clarified in the opposite direction but just given more 2WF support,
i.e. counting as having/using the 2WF Feats and thus qualifying for 2 Weapon Rend, etc.
What is the confusion?
This is the relevant part of the TWF rules:
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
This has always, all the time been understood as "you cannot combine this with TWF".
This is the FAQ:
Monk Flurry of Blows: When I use 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, 11/30/12
Nothing in this changes that part of the FoB rules, or in any way indicates that there is a change.
Monk FoB functions as TWF except where noted otherwise. "Where noted otherwise" has been expanded to explicitly include the ruling in the FAQ (pre-any FoB FAQ it was ambiguous, after the first FAQ it was excluded and now in the second it's included).
It still works like TWF. The monk just gets an exception to be able to use one weapon instead of two weapons.
This came up yesterday, and Jason said a long time ago that TWF feats shall not be combined with FoB.
How is it now functioning as if using 2WF though?
I mean, I don't see how the current RAW will not be Errata'd one way or the other, it is just not helpful to include the current RAW in the next printing if the FAQ's update is the intended functionality, although I'm not sure exactly what they will change the RAW to (obviously).
Regardless, do you think that if a Monk separately takes 2WF Feat to qualify for 2 Weapon Rend, that they could use 2 Weapon Rend while Flurrying even if they choose to only use one weapon to make all the attacks? If not, I don't see how Flurry is retaining any relation to 2WF...???
EDIT: @wraithstrike, huh I wasn't aware of that... Of course, if it was said 'a long time ago', that wouldn't be taking into account the FAQ functionality. And if I remember the Paizo postings immediately previous to the FAQ being issued, they were in fact previously maintaining that it worked like 2WF ala separate weapons, in which context not stacking with normal 2WF makes 100% sense.
But assuming some 2WF functionality for Flurry, although you don't get 2WF Feats for free (even restricted to Flurry UAS/etc), if you do take them separately to qualify for 2 Weapon Rend/et al, why would 2 Weapon Rend/et al not apply to Flurry if it is working like 2WF? How exactly is Flurry working like 2WF then?
That is why I don't see the FAQ being compatable with Flurry still working like 2WF, and in the obviously implied/needed Errata to make Flurry work clearly per RAW, I would expect the 2WF references to go the way of the dodo for that reason... (which then opens up 'stacking' with 2WF) ...??? /shrug
(of course, they can always Errata it to specifically not be compatable with 2WF, but that is part of the question I'm asking)
Two weapon fighting does not grant an extra attack, it reduces the static penalties on the attacks to -2/-2. Flurry of blows allows a monk to use class level as BAB AND Reduce the static penalty to -2/-2. You can use them both at the same time all you want. Neither grant extra attacks and both have the same static reduction (ie NOT a bonus, just an adjustment). Waste your feats, have a great time. Tell your friends you use twf and fob together. But it won't change the mechanics of just using fob by itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of FoB in PF is to make sure you do not combine it with TWF. That is why it says "as if.....two weapon fighting". The reason why you get to use one weapon while doing so is because it was allowed in 3.5, and the monk sucks less that way.
Since the ability does not give you the TWF feats as bonus feats then you can not take two-weapon rend.
Working like TWF in some ways does not equal "I have these feats".
Would I allow it in a home game? Sure I would, but my house rule are not "the rules".
Remember, I said it was a rules exception.
FOB says "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)."
It never says the monk officially has the feats, which is what should have been done. You can't qualify for feats by having a special ability that gives you the same benefits.
Since they are effectively the same thing they would not stack but only overlap, so you can take the feats, but it won't help you.
Another rules exception is that the offhand attack does not do half strength damage.
Effectively the monk has the equivalent of TWF, and Double Slice to start. Later he effectively gains the other TWF feats, and when the post was made by Jason about not allowing TWF feats to stack the monks were being built according to the latest FAQ. Why they ever tried to force the monk to use two weapons is beyond me.
Two weapon fighting does not grant an extra attack, it reduces the static penalties on the attacks to -2/-2. Flurry of blows allows a monk to use class level as BAB AND Reduce the static penalty to -2/-2. You can use them both at the same time all you want. Neither grant extra attacks and both have the same static reduction (ie NOT a bonus, just an adjustment). Waste your feats, have a great time. Tell your friends you use twf and fob together. But it won't change the mechanics of just using fob by itself.
?QUE? Two Weapon Fighting DOES grant an extra attack. THE FEAT reduces penalties.
If Flurry is working like 2WF, then Feats like Two Weapon Defense and Two Weapon Rend should apply to it.(even if you have to 'waste' a Feat to take the 2WF Feat normally to qualify for those)
If Flurry is no longer working like 2WF, then that isn't true, but the question Flurry/2WF stacking comes up.
Is there a specific reason you ignored the actual content of this thread?
Working like something does not equal "can take it's place"
As an example the monk's abundant step, and dimension door are prerequisties for dimensional assault, but other abilities that work like dimension door or not. You must have whatever is in the "prerequisite" line, not something that is very similar to it.
Since the ability does not give you the TWF feats as bonus feats then you can not take two-weapon rend.
Working like TWF in some ways does not equal "I have these feats".
What part of when I mention 'taking the 2WF Feat separately in order to qualify for 2 Weapon Rend/et al' isn't clear here? I mean, I really don't want to be rude about this since you're otherwise a great constructive poster, but you're bypassing the thread with an argument I am not making (and have already explicitly avoided).
I'm well aware Monk doesn't grant the 2WF Feats, but if it WORKS LIKE 2WF, then if you DO gain those Feats (and subsequent Feats modifying 2WF), then those subsequent Feats should seemingly apply to Flurry if it works like 2WF. (you can also gain the subsequent Feats via alternate means without the Base 2WF Feat, e.g. Ranger Style)
WORKING LIKE is very different than 'being something for purposes of pre-requisities', which I have no confusion over.
But if something WORKS LIKE something, then all game-play rules interacting with the 'working' of those things should apply to things 'working like' them... I'm sure there's several other examples of 'working like' cases in the rules where that is expected to be the case.
The current FAQ clearly seems in place of Errata, it's inconceivable that the current RAW will be retained if the FAQ is the intended functionality. If the new RAW is released, it should probably take care of all this conclusively, but until that point when we have FAQ with ambiguous relationship to RAW, these issues can come up. All I'm asking is how to resolve these contradictions... We can ditch the 2WF equivalency concept completely and still be compatable with the FAQ... which brings up the issue of 2WF/Flurry stacking (unless specifically barred) Or we can retain it, but that implies that if you can gain 2 Weapon Rend, then it should work with Flurry (which I would have said to non-ambiguously be the case previous the single-weapon Flurry FAQ).
Quandary to be clear, are you asking if monks can get 3 attacks with TWF and FoB? Or are you asking if by taking TWF they can take other feats and use them during a flurry?
Both. Either one OR the other (depending on whether Flurry works like 2WF or not) would seem to be the case, barring explicit rules specifically saying otherwise.
I think I'm starting to see what you're getting at. Your question, from what I understand, is more or less this:
If I have an ability that affects two-weapon fighting, and doesn't specifically require the two-weapon fighting feats to function, can that ability be used in conjunction with flurry of blows, as using flurry of blows is "as if using TWF"?
Is that correct?
In that case, I'd say it's a gray area. I cannot however come to think of any such abilities that are noteworthy enough to be an issue. As for two-weapon rend specifically:
Striking with both of your weapons simultaneously, you can use them to deliver devastating wounds.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.
If a monk only attacks with a single weapon, it has no off-hand attack - thus two-weapon rend will not function. If it had said just "If you hit an opponent twice in the same attack routine when two-weapon fighting" or similar, it'd been a gray area, but as is it's clear.
EDIT: I would also like to clarify one thing about the wording in the rules. The Monk rules do not state that Flurry functions like TWF. They say "When doing so he may make one additional attack *snip* as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat".
The extra attack is taken as if using the two-weapon fighting feat. That is not necessarily the same thing as the abiltiy as a whole working like TWF.
Are there any problematic abilities where this would come up? That is, feats or abilities that are good enough people would try to get them to combine with flurry? I can't think of any, none of the TWF feat chains seem to have anything and the benefits from the two-weapon warrior are so neglible and only relevant if FoBing with two weapons anyway.
I would say no to a third attack based on how flurry was intended to function. However I can see allowing you to use TWF feats such as two weapon defense being available during a flurry provided you meet the prerequisites.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are saying you can take the TWF feat chain to qualify for Two weapon rend I agree it can be done. There are no rules saying the monk can't take the feats.
I thought you were saying taking TWF and having FOB doubled your attacks also since they stacked, which is the argument presented yesterday.
@wraith: OK, I wasn't aware a similar subject was discussed recently, definitely there is no intended context from that here :-)
@Ilja: That is more or less one of the questions I have (the other being if 2WF is now NOT intended to be invoked at all, the FAQ clearly is over-writing some of Flurry's 2WF-ness, I just don't know how much).
Seriously, I just don't see any space between 'functions as 2WF' and 'make (an) extra attack(s) as if using [2WF, I2WF, G2WF Feats]', 'as if using' is equivalent to 'functions as', the extra text is just distinguishing between the modifiers for featless 2WF vs. -2/-2 2WF, as well as specifying the extra iterative attacks ala Imp/Grt. Exactly how is Flurry still functioning 'as if using 2WF/etc' if it is not functioning as 2WF? If it is functioning as 2WF, then it is, and the extra attacks from 2WF are explicitly off-hand attacks, etc. If Flurry isn't granting off-hand attacks, then it isn't really functioning like 2WF any more, it is a unique scaling Rapid Fire-like ability.
If a monk only attacks with a single weapon, it has no off-hand attack - thus two-weapon rend will not function. If it had said just "If you hit an opponent twice in the same attack routine when two-weapon fighting" or similar, it'd been a gray area, but as is it's clear.
But you could also see Flurry's modification of how 2WF works as carrying over to Two Weapon Rend. Similar to Magus Spellstrike letting you make a weapon attack that also is the touch spell's 'delivery' attack (normally separate), the Flurry FAQ is saying you can use one single weapon to make all attacks including the bonus attacks "as if using 2WF", i.e. the off-hand attacks. So 2 Weapon Rend could still work, because you ARE making that attack, some other ability (Flurry) is just letting you do so with a non-standard weapon.
The only thing against that I can really see is the whole 'There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.', which is under Monk UAS NOT Flurry and thus appears to apply even when using NORMAL (non Flurry) 2WF... And then that is contradicted within Flurry by the reference to off-hand 'A monk applies his full Strength bonus... whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.' So I just have to write that off to the 'Flurry RAW is borked' file.
Regardless, even if 2 Weapon Rend specifically requires separate weapons (which it doesn't state directly, even though main/off-hand are USUALLY defined as separate weapons), the question remains whether you can trigger that while Flurrying... And even though you now can Flurry with only one weapon, given how Amulet of Mighty Fist works, there is no reason NOT to Flurry with multiple UAS if AoMF is your source of Enhancement Bonus.
Interestingly, if Flurry IS working as 2WF, then that is very important for Monks who multi-class out, since they can then pursue the whole 2WF chain while being compatable with Flurry, multi-classing with Ranger they could in fact skip the base 2WF Feat and go to more advanced ones while retaining all the benefits of Flurry INCLUDING using just one weapon (UAS/Monk-Weapon-only) even for bonus attacks gained from subsequent Feats since they ARE still Flurrying. (Realistically, all we have to go on now is the FAQ, so the Errata could or could not work like that, but it seems highly plausible)
...Or, if the 2WF relationship is being dropped completely (if Flurry is not functioning as 2WF in any way, but rather is more like scaling Rapid Shot, which is a sentiment I saw when the FAQ was released), then stacking with 2WF does come up as an issue (which could be easily addressed by a specific rule in Errata if Paizo chooses to go that way, I am just asking for clarification which way they intend to go). Although given you would be taking -4, practically knocking all attacks down to a lower iterative tier, I don't really know if that is a problem. And either way, Flurry would still seem to stack with Rapid Fire right? If anything, if Flurry does NOT now function like 2WF, then it is likely to be stated to function like Rapid Fire... and thus not stack with Rapi Fire (while it would with 2WF), so I don't see the big deal either way honestly.
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
I do believe one can still make off-hand attacks with Flurry of Blows, so two weapon rend should function normally.
EDIT: Except for when a monk strikes unarmed, then it is not off-hand, so two weapon rend will require a different weapon to hit.
But I think that even with UAS 2WRend should be usable (if Flurry is working like 2WF) because if 'something' changes your off-hand attack to no longer be an off-hand attack, then that once-was-off-hand attack is still being made and is still triggering 2WRend, even if it's typing has been changed, it's still the same attack. But as I wrote, the entire existence of that line just seems questionable to me, if it's only apparent purpose is to affect this corner case situation: The Flurry rules already state that all attacks do only 1x STR damage (for ALL weapons, UAS and Monk), so the wording under Monk UAS just seems confused to me.
Regardless, if the 2WF rules are still meant to invoked, that has serious implications for Flurry: the type of weapon used for bonus off-hand attacks hugely impacts the attack penalties. I've honestly never seen that discussed, people seem to just use the table as the final arbitrator even though that is essentially a SYNOPSIS of the 2WF rules when the off-hand is light. If you are using a 1h/2h weapon for all attacks (i.e. the off-hands, which are the ones that matter), you should use the signifigantly worse 2WF penalties... if 2WF is still relevant to Flurry, of course. Again, if the table IS meant to be the final word regardless of weapon type, then we are just even further from using the 2WF rules to the extent that I don't see anything recognizable from 2WF in Flurry.
My GM would say this..."If you want to use 3 feats, and meet the required 17 Dex to get Two Weapon Rend then hell yes you can use it as a monk"
I would much rather go with Boar Style and its feat line myself. Less requirements, 2d6 damage on two hits (no bonus str but no biggie) and an eventually 1d6 bleed, not bad for the same 3 feats you would be basically wasting. And also you get the ability to do B or S damage at first, and even P damage later.
Sure, but I specifically pointed out that there are options to bypass requirements, such as multiclassing with Ranger. If subsequent 2WF Feats granting more bonus iteratives also benefit from the '1 weapon Flurry' rule, that is pretty signifigant and would probably be a very viable build.
I am starting a new thread HERE with the purpose of putting more coherent questions up-front for people to FAQ.
Please hit FAQ on it. Thanks anybody who already hit FAQ on this one.
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.I do believe one can still make off-hand attacks with Flurry of Blows, so two weapon rend should function normally.
EDIT: Except for when a monk strikes unarmed, then it is not off-hand, so two weapon rend will require a different weapon to hit.
A monk can make an attack wit IUS that is an offhand attack. That line covers the monk always having their full str on those attacks even when not flurrying.
A monk who loses flurry but then takes TWF can TWF with unarmed strikes just as well as any other character with TWF. Becoming a monk does not suddenly force one to lose the ability to TWF with unarmed strikes.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Which means that they do full damage when they decide to use IUS to make an additional attack above and beyond what their BAB allows when making a full attack (full round action) instead of using FoB. They would need to take TWF to hit anything at all too. Essentially, as pointed out, the monks IUS ability grants them double slice for IUS attacks.
The line you bolded doesn't prevent them from ever being able to TWF if they give up FoB, just like shields aren't required to be off hand attacks because of their write up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yar!
Im not going to get too far into this, however there is something I should say regarding the notion of combining TWF with FoB...
In order to get the extra attacks from wielding a second weapon, you must use a Full-Round Action. This is in the Combat section under the heading of Full-Attack. Similarly when you use the Cleave feat you must use a Standard Action, when you use the Whirlwind feat you use a Full-Attack Action, Spring Attack is a Full-Round Action, and when you cast a summoning spell normally (as in, you are not the Summoner Class) it has a 1 round casting time (taking up your entire round of actions and finishing the next round).
A monk may make a Flurry of Blows attack as a Full-Attack Action.
You only get to perform one Full-Attack/Full-Round action per round, as it takes up all your actions for that round. The combat section says that as well.
You normally do not get to make two Full Attack/Full Round actions in the same round. You can either FoB or TWF, not both. Just like you may either Spring Attack or Whirlwind, not both. Even though the wording of those two feats are "as a..." and "when you...", they are still understood as separate actions that each require a Full Round/Full Attack Action to use, and thus cannot be combined. Same with combining any of these with a charge... it simply doesn't work due to action economy.
Neither can you combine TWF with Spring Attack or Whirlwind or Charging or Withdrawing or casting a 1 Round casting time spell or any other Full Round/Full Attack action. Each of these options/actions require one to use a Full-Round/Full Attack action. (I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue being able to TWF while Spring Attacking or Whirlwind-ing or Charging).
As it is with FoB and TWF. They each require you to use a Full Round/Full Attack action to perform, thus they cannot be performed at the same time.
Any arguments that FoB and TWF can be combined must also include being able to TWF during any action that is a Full-Attack Action.
hm, I ended up rambling a bit. Sorry about that.
~P
But you could also see Flurry's modification of how 2WF works as carrying over to Two Weapon Rend.
Flurry doesn't modify how 2WF works. Flurry is a separate ability that in some ways resemble 2WF ("as if using").
Similar to Magus Spellstrike letting you make a weapon attack that also is the touch spell's 'delivery' attack (normally separate), the Flurry FAQ is saying you can use one single weapon to make all attacks including the bonus attacks "as if using 2WF", i.e. the off-hand attacks. So 2 Weapon Rend could still work, because you ARE making that attack, some other ability (Flurry) is just letting you do so with a non-standard weapon.
I don't see this at all working, unless the you're actually using an off-hand weapon (that is, mixing up your unarmed strikes with say kama strikes).
Allowing the main hand weapon to be used in all attacks doesn't in any way indicate splitting your main hand weapon into two weapons, one which is main hand and one which is off-hand. Off-hand attacks are explicitly attacks made with a weapon held in your off-hand. Nothing in the FAQ states you switch hand between the weapons.
Regardless, the INTENT of the rules are very clear, especially after all the threads that's been on the topic. Also, the SIMPLEST explanation is also that all attacks with the main weapon are main hand attacks. It also doesn't frakk up any other rules or make other things MORE gray. And the simplest explanation also matches the intent of the rules perfectly.
Sure, Flurry is a separate ability that functions like 2WF in some ways, so 'modifying how 2WF works' is how we define how Flurry works, which if it works like 2WF will still interact with things that work with 2WF, since it's working the same (in some ways, with exceptions defined)... ???
Where did you get that I was talking about normal non-Flurry 2WF being changed? Flurry doesn't do that, the only thing that could might be the Monk UAS entry's 'no such thing as off-hand' line, which per RAW simply prevents Monks from using UAS as an off-hand weapon in non-Flurry 2WF (as well as Flurry2WF, since the bonus attacks are derived from 2WF and are thus off-hand attacks). Like I said, that line should probably be chalked up to the 'rules fail' file for not really saying exactly what it means.
The FAQ is saying you can use one weapon to make both normal attacks and the off-hand attacks from Flurry as if using 2WF, I2WF, G2WF... Effectively over-riding/changing the rules for off-hand attacks with Flurry-2WF. So whatever is the normal case for 2WF off-hands (which triggers 2WRend) re: separate weapon-ness is changed by that, you can make those attacks with one weapon now. To say otherwise, that you are now not making the 2WF off-hand attacks, but this is some now totally distinct bonus attack, just seems like it is now no longer working like 2WF in any way, even after we were told it works like 2WF (except for any explicit exceptions). What way is it still working like 2WF if you are not getting bonus off-hand attacks?
You can choose to use a different weapon or not (such as two separate punches/kicks, which if you are relying on Amulet of Mighty Fist, there is no reason not do so), but if these bonus attacks are NOT off-hand attacks (that you CAN uniquely use the same weapon for), then even if you DO use a separate weapon it would still not be an off-hand attack... I don't see on what basis we can say the player choice to use separate weapon or not changes whether the bonus attack is an off-hand attack (like using 2WF), nor do I see how the FAQ is specifically changing this. The changes needed to achieve the function you're describing seem to be totally cleaving from 2WF... back to my question whether Flurry is meant to be related to 2WF anymore.
Further, if we say the Flurry bonus attacks are not an off-hand attack ala 2WF, then we also end up even further from the 2WF rules which gives varying attack penalties depending on the weapon category of the off-hand (light/not-light). The -2/-2 modifiers are based on using 2WF with a light off-hand weapon (the main-hand doesn't matter at all). If we don't have off-hand weapon, then that rule becomes irrelevant, and we have no means to derive attack modifiers. The ONLY options for deriving the bonus attack from 2WF ALL require an off-hand and assessing the weapon class of that weapon, if we can't do that because the bonus attack is no longer considered an off-hand (because we are now allowed to make it with the same weapon as main-hand), then the numeric details of the bonus attack fall apart. If we are still going on the line that Flurry works like 2WF (with specific exceptions, now including making the bonus off-hand attacks with the same single weapon), then the weapon type used for off-hand attacks matters, and that the bonus attacks are off-hand attacks to distinguish them from the main-hand (where weapon type doesn't matter).
The FAQ just doesn't say what is the intent, although since it conflicts with RAW, I have to either assume that 2WF functionality is being wholesale removed from Flurry, OR it is not and everything still applies except what is specifically mentioned - which still means there is an off-hand attack even if by exception you can use the same weapon for it.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
It's very cute to write a post with no thoughts of your own, but repeating the same quote which I /already/ included in the debate (actually following up with coherent analysis including other quotes from the rules) just doesn't seem that constructive, hm?
The only thing against that I can really see is the whole 'There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.', which is under Monk UAS NOT Flurry and thus appears to apply even when using NORMAL (non Flurry) 2WF... And then that is contradicted within Flurry by the reference to off-hand 'A monk applies his full Strength bonus... whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.' So I just have to write that off to the 'Flurry RAW is borked' file.
This is in addition to Flurry working like 2WF means the bonus attack IS an off-hand attack, and you resolve the attack modifiers based on whether the off-hand attack is being made with a light weapon or not (doesn't matter what main-hand is). Having an exception stating we can make the off-hand attacks with the same weapon as main-hand isn't changing that this attack is an off-hand, and were it to no longer be an off-hand we would be left with no valid means to resolve the attack modifier (which requires assessing what weapon the off-hand is being made with).
Again, as I also already wrote, what exactly is the function of that line? To specifically preclude benefitting from 2WeaponRend and specifically make it impossible to use UAS in non-Flurry 2WF? (and indeed, makes it impossible to UAS for the bonus off-hand attacks in Flurry2WF) OR, is it just a poorly worded reflection of the wording in Flurry re: 1x STR dmg (pseudo-Double Slice), that also means that all UAS attacks do 1x STR dmg even in non-Flurry 2WF (such as when 2WF'ing with a non-Monk weapon in main-hand along with UAS as off-hand)? Look, WE ALREADY KNOW the 2WF rules are badly written, that is why Paizo has issued 'FAQs' which actually over-rule the RAW itself, the RAW itself just isn't even internally consistent.
All I'm asking is for this FAQ that acts like it is Errata without saying so, to get some clarification as to how the FAQ is specifically meant to interact with the Flurry rules, namely the 2WF functionality and if that is meant to persist as written (or with any specific new exceptions) or if it can be dropped completely (which removes the importance of the bonus attack using a light weapon to determine the attack modifiers for all attacks).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is in addition to Flurry working like 2WF means the bonus attack IS an off-hand attack, and you resolve the attack modifiers based on whether the off-hand attack is being made with a light weapon or not (doesn't matter what main-hand is).
Except it isn't 2WF, it is flurry. And while it use the same mechanics of modifiers for additionnal attacks, it is automatically considering that you use a light "second weapon" (but even this is not needed, as you can fight with one weapon and still flurry if you want...), and that every single attack that you make are with 1 x STR bonus to damage.
Flurry is not 2WF, even if it is very close to it (and 2WF cannot be added to flurry). By not being a TWF, rend and other cannot be used with it.
Even more : if you use the "normal" feat TWF with a monk, then you will use your normal BAB (not a fighter BAB, as you have when flurrying), and will have to use 2 weapons, one of which will certainly be light.
Flurry never states that the additional attack is always treated as a light weapon attack for purposes of the 2WF rules it is using. The Table is in line with that (of course, UAS and all Core Monk Weapons at least can be used as Light Weapons and that is the obvious 'assumed case', but 2Handing Quarterstaff as non-double weapon is possible, non-Core Monk Weapons like Temple Sword are not Light, and many players are enamored of the Feat turning (non-Light) Deity Favored Weapons into Monk Weapons...), but text trumps table, and no such rules exception is given in the text. Claiming the Flurry BAB table entry as simply 'straight' BAB not derived from the rules text would be silly since the Flurry text would then allow ADDITIONAL attacks on top of the table text, by that reading. So, if Flurry is working like 2WF (with Monk Level=Full BAB) except as otherwise stated, then using a non-light weapon for all your attacks (including bonus 'offhand' attacks) should apply the worse non-light penalties for 2WF. If that isn't the intent, the rules should say otherwise.
If they are diverging this much from 2WF, I'm not sure exactly how it still is 2WF, or more to the point, what reason there is for the designers to want to present it as related to 2WF if basically no 2WF rules remain in usage. Adding in all the rules exceptions to make the RAW function clearly in all these cases is just a huge amount of text compared to making it be based off of Rapid Fire (for example, or any other direct approach). Either approach (2WF/Rapid Fire) means Flurry still stacks with one or the other of 2WF/Rapid Fire.
The tangential benefit of 2WF Feats applying to Flurry if you can take them by separately qualifying for them (or bypassing requirements) just seems dubious as a motivating factor, if that was the motivating factor then the rules would probably say that the 'pseudo-2WF Feats' applicable to Flurry count as fulfilling pre-reqs for Feats (with the restrictions of Flurry, e.g. weapons). Separately taking the nearly superfluous base 2WF Feat further requires DEX investment which is a weak approach for a melee Monk who otherwise doesn't need DEX.
The single weapon FAQ obviously is over-riding SOME RAW, SOME RAW will presumably be updated to reflect it, the question is what RAW is changed, and that affects a multitude of other issues. I don't really care what approach is used, I'm just hoping that it is clarified one way or another.
Sure, Flurry is a separate ability that functions like 2WF in some ways, so 'modifying how 2WF works' is how we define how Flurry works, which if it works like 2WF will still interact with things that work with 2WF, since it's working the same (in some ways, with exceptions defined)... ???
Not necessarily. A Volvo basically works like a Nissan, but if you buy a piece of equipment that says "this is designed for a Volvo" that doesn't mean it will necessarily work on a Nissan.
The FAQ is saying you can use one weapon to make both normal attacks and the off-hand attacks from Flurry as if using 2WF, I2WF, G2WF...
It doesn't say that you make those as off-hand attacks. It might just as well say that you can make all attacks as main-hand attacks. That interpretation works better with the other rules and the clear intent of the rules.
Compare this with the case of spell-like abilities and abilities that affect spells. The rules on spell-like abilities are far more strongly worded than "make this attack as if using the two-weapon fighting feat"; they explicitly say that "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell".
Despite this, abilities that refer to you casting a spell (such as spell focus, metamagic rods etc) do not work on spell-like abilities, because while they work like spells, they are not spells. You make the extra attacks from flurry of blows as if you where using the two-weapon fighting feat, you aren't actually two-weapon fighting.