|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly stuff that was already FAQd, but here it is one place:
Page 57—In the Flurry of Blows class feature, in the
first paragraph, replace the second sentence with the
following:
When doing so, he may make one additional attack,
taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using
the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any
combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk
special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to
utilize this ability).
Page 58—In Table 3–10: Monk, in the Special column,
in the 7th level entry, change “Wholeness of body” to
“Ki pool (cold iron/silver), wholeness of body”.
Page 59—In the Ki Pool class feature, in the f irst
paragraph, delete the f ifth sentence. Add the following
sentence after the fourth sentence:
At 7th level, his unarmed attacks are also treated as cold
iron and silver for the purpose of overcoming damage
reduction.
Page 496—In the amulet of mighty fists, change the price
line to read as follows: “Price4,000 gp (+1), 16,000 gp (+2),
36,000 gp (+3), 64,000 gp (+4), 100,000 gp (+5)”. Change
the cost line to read as follows “Cost2,000 gp (+1), 8,000
gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), 50,000 gp (+5)
|
Page 57—In the Flurry of Blows class feature, in the
first paragraph, replace the second sentence with the following:When doing so, he may make one additional attack,
taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using
the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any
combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk
special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to
utilize this ability).
It remains maddeningly unclear as to whether or not a monk can make more than one attack with the SAME weapon while Flurrying (i.e. a single temple sword wielded in two hands).
I've seen this one ruled all over the map: some will say two 2H (monk weapon) attacks are kosher, others say one 2H and one natural are OK, others go no-2H-soup-for-you, some say you can't even jab-jab with your right fist twice.
So did the Monk get nerfed again, or did the Paizo crew realize they were beating a half-dead horse all this time?
Ah, thanks. I had to ask since I'm too busy at work to read them all in detail.
|
|
FAQ link
What's infuriating (for a monk player) is that this FAQ regarding Flurry (or TWF, for that matter) is not published anywhere despite the passage of half a year. It's not in the 6th-printing CRB or the 5/30/13 errata PDFs; and the FAQ rulings are totally counter-intuitive to the *concept* of "two-weapon fighting" as those three words hit a noob's eyeball and jack straight into his brain.
Nobody with a good grasp of English is going to read the currently-worded CRB text of TWF and honestly claim he even had an inkling that it meant his low-level monk could 2hPA a temple sword twice a round.
GM: "See, it's called 'Two Weapon Fighting'; and it talks about fighting with another weapon in your other hand, blah-blah. What's not to understand here? Why are you arguing with me?" (etc).
*sigh*
Onward, the 7th Printing! <whip-crack>
Nobody with a good grasp of English is going to read the currently-worded CRB text of TWF and honestly claim he even had an inkling that it meant his low-level monk could 2hPA a temple sword twice a round.
Er, I have always assumed it worked that way from the very beginning without any errata. It has always looked clear to me that mentioning "Two Weapon Fighting" was just to prevent anyone from trying to combine flurrying with Two Weapon Fighting, as was popular in 3.5.
|
|
Nobody with a good grasp of English is going to read the currently-worded CRB text of TWF and honestly claim he even had an inkling that it meant his low-level monk could 2hPA a temple sword twice a round.Er, I have always assumed it worked that way from the very beginning without any errata....
<incredulous stare>
"Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon."
GM to a low-level monk: "'Two weapons' is in the title and in the description! What's wrong with you? Why are you arguing with me!? Your staff is a 'double' weapon; so you can bonk with one end and then the other end, because double weapons work with TWF! You can't two-hand it twice. Your temple sword is a one-handed monk weapon; with means you can Flurry it for one-hand damage and then follow with another unarmed strike or deploy another monk weapon! If you want to two-hand Power Attack twice, you wait 'til your character BAB is 6 like everybody else! And remember that an extra Ki attack is only while Flurrying, so you'd get *two* one-handed chops with your temple sword, not *three* 2hPAs at 4th level!"
I think that the flurry of blows description that a weapon in two hands only gains the same damage bonus as a one-handed weapon from strength kind of hints that two-handed flurry is a possibility.
On the whole it was confusing I agree, and there are two points of view: those that thought it was confusing and those that suffered bad cognizant bias and felt that is was plain as day that it supported their interpretation (whatever way they wanted to interpret it). What was clear was that a lot of contributors were turning out stat-blocks that supported the one-weapon-flurry interpretation, and Paizo were passing them. Hence the outcry when they finally ruled otherwise, and had to rule the other way and apply some other errata.
At the end of the day, though, the monk is still a weak class. It still needs some more fixes to bring it up to speed.
TWF has always allowed the 2hd weapon. Greatsword + Armor Spikes has existed since 3.0.
This debate still comes up from time to time, so it is not really clear, and not official answer has ever been given. I am not here to start the debate again, just making a point that it's not clear.
|
|
If no one ever had an inkling, it never would have been a frequently asked question.
It *wouldn't* be if the online text and the book actually said remotely the same thing. There is not a hint in the book that a 4th level monk can spend a point of Ki and make three two-hand power attacks with a sword via Flurry "as if" (!) he were Two Weapon Fighting.
That is the problem. One of them has to change.
-- This dumb Pandora's box was opened the first time a WotC person, ages ago, when "fished" for whether or not a flurrying monk or other TWF could make a two-hand attack and then another attack -- instead of the N+1 one-handed attacks clearly implied by the text of TWF -- went "Eh, why not?" even though nothing in the CRB's feat or class descriptions supported it. It's now snowballed completely out of control (into 2hPA sword monks who Flurry without any unarmed strikes at all) while the book text still hasn't changed; and players browsing on their tablets are arguing with their GMs who have their brand-new 6th-printing dead-tree manuals open right in front of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It amazes me that, even after developer feedback, people can still quote "as two-weapon fighting" as if it's holy law, while totally ignoring "in any combination" as if it's meaningless.
It was in the 3.x FAQ. Not debated so much there after that. The rules haven't changed. Though its not in the pathfinder FAQ and pathfinder has reversed a number of 3.x FAQ rules while leaving the rule text the same. So there is certainly debate here.
This debate still comes up from time to time, so it is not really clear, and not official answer has ever been given. I am not here to start the debate again, just making a point that it's not clear.
I have the 3.5 FAQ, and I never noticed that.
I see it was buried in the middle of a long clarification.
I think that Monks being able to flurry with a single weapon was totally settled by the FAQ. As Dabbler mentioned, a flurrying Monk always uses 1x his or her Str bonus to damage whether wielding the weapon in one or both hands. I'd personally rule that this also limits Power Attack to the "normal" 2 to 1 ratio.
I think basing the PA bonus off of the Str bonus (half=1, full=2, or 1.5=3) seems pretty straightforward and works for natural attacks like gores or bites which don't involve any hands. Maybe that's an official rule somewhere, or maybe it is just how my group plays. It seems to work pretty well overall. Regardless of which side of the issue you're on it is just a few points of damage either way.
I think that Monks being able to flurry with a single weapon was totally settled by the FAQ. As Dabbler mentioned, a flurrying Monk always uses 1x his or her Str bonus to damage whether wielding the weapon in one or both hands. I'd personally rule that this also limits Power Attack to the "normal" 2 to 1 ratio.
I think basing the PA bonus off of the Str bonus (half=1, full=2, or 1.5=3) seems pretty straightforward and works for natural attacks like gores or bites which don't involve any hands. Maybe that's an official rule somewhere, or maybe it is just how my group plays. It seems to work pretty well overall. Regardless of which side of the issue you're on it is just a few points of damage either way.
I agree completely.
There's something I like about the rule that all flurry attacks deal damage like a one-handed weapon; monks are free to use light, one-handed, double, or two-handed weapons chosen for style and special effect rather than just damage.
|
|
I think that Monks being able to flurry with a single weapon was totally settled by the FAQ.
It amazes me that, even after developer feedback, people can still quote "as two-weapon fighting" as if it's holy law, while totally ignoring "in any combination" as if it's meaningless.
-- It amazes me that posters are totally ignoring the point: "Two Weapon Fighting" should be renamed and rewritten if the game designer's (apparently ever-evolving) intent is for it to mean more (let alone way more) than what "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon" implies.
-- For starters, a monk taking multiple two-handed Flurry whacks with a temple sword is obviously NOT using two weapons. He's using ONE weapon.
-- Because a monk taking multiple two-handed Flurry whacks with a temple sword is obviously NOT using two weapons. He's using ONE weapon.
It's like he's using one weapon but getting extra attacks as if he is two weapon fighting!
They should just rename TWF to "Extra Attack" (flavor text: "Hit 'em again, any way you know how!") -- if that's what they want it to mean.
Wow, you really can't just admit you were wrong, huh?
The feat Two-Weapon Fighting specifically requires two weapons. Flurry of Blows mentions it as the basis for the power for two extremely obvious reasons:
1) Because it uses the same mechanics (-2 to hit in order to make an extra attack--including getting further bonus attacks at the same time a TWFer would with the improved/greater feats)
2) Because it was a pretty big deal in 3.5 that monks could TWF and Flurry, and Pathfinder wanted to put an end to that, because it led to truly absurd numbers of attacks. The easiest way was to flat out mention the feat in the description.
You have always clearly been able to use a single weapon (two-handed or otherwise) for all your attacks while flurrying. The errata makes it painfully obvious. I was not even aware anyone thought anything differently until one of the developers mistakenly claimed you had to use multiple weapons on the message board once, which confused everyone (except apparently you), and that is the reason there is a FAQ at all--it has nothing to do with some claimed ambiguity in the original text, it is entirely about a developer making a public mistake.
|
|
Wow, you really can't just admit you were wrong, huh?
Wow, you just really can't admit you didn't read a single word of what I wrote across a half-dozen posts, huh?
Disclosure: I am not one of those "anti-monk" people; in fact I'm playing one right now (which is why this is an issue for me -- I don't dare try that 3x Ki/temple-sword business at 4th-level in my group because I know damned what will happen if I try it).
I want the @#*&$% ***TEXT*** in the ***BOOK*** to ***MATCH**** the @#@^#^ ***FAQ*** so there won't be any more ***ARGUMENTS*** -- get it? ...This BS has been going on for at least two printings, if not longer according to other people here in the thread.
Wow, you really can't just admit you were wrong, huh?Wow, you just really can't admit you didn't read a single word of what I wrote across a half-dozen posts, huh?
Disclosure: I am not one of those "anti-monk" people; in fact I'm playing one right now (which is why this is an issue for me -- I don't dare try that 3x Ki/temple-sword business in my group because I know damned what will happen if I try it).
I want the @#*&$% ***TEXT*** in the ***BOOK*** to ***MATCH**** the @#@^#^ ***FAQ*** so there won't be any more ***ARGUMENTS*** -- get it? ...This BS has been going on for at least two printings, if not longer according to other people here in the thread.
I'm sorry your group is dumb and can't read. :(
|
|
I'm sorry your group is dumb and can't read. :(You mean like:
"Dear Mr. GM; we here at Paizo realize you've spent hundreds of your dollars on our products (Thank you!) which are full of English words utilizing fairly common contexts which immediately register to your consciousness when your eyeballs scan them upon the page, and that you and your players utilize said contextual commonality to forestall disagreements. Well, we just wanted to let you know that, due to our previous employment in Pakistani call-centers, our embracement of English is actually fairly haphazard and arbitrary; and, while we're constantly changing the combat rules (usually based upon whomever screams the loudest that their class is suboptimal) on a frequent basis, we're not changing the wording in the books you buy to reflect the revised rulings because it's easier for us if the entire English-speaking world re-defines the language it speaks rather than us having to recompose Two Weapon Fighting and monk class feature text...something that might take us all of fifteen minutes in page-layout. ...Soooo, you might as well throw your purchases in the dumpster and just run your games off a laptop linked to the latest FAQ rulings which are completely counter-intuitive if not diametrically opposed to the text in the latest printings of our books. We mean, why not? It'll save you a lot of time, money and aggravation. Yours, sincerely."
A wizard-level intellect is not required to realize that this is not a sound business model.
Monks do not gain the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
One more time:
Monks DO NOT GAIN THE TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING FEAT.
With that in mind, why do you think Flurry of Blows (an ability which works similarly to, but not exactly like, the TWF feat) should be assumed to work exactly like the TWF feat, based on a tiny blurb that compares the two?
Who's ignoring relevant points now? ;)
It's included because the mechanics involved are *nearly* identical, making for a quick and simple point of reference to help players understand the way the class ability works.
|
I think basing the PA bonus off of the Str bonus (half=1, full=2, or 1.5=3) seems pretty straightforward
Implement this rule. Please.
Monks using Dragon Ferocity will love you long time.
Nobody with a good grasp of English is going to read the currently-worded CRB text of TWF and honestly claim he even had an inkling that it meant his low-level monk could 2hPA a temple sword twice a round.Er, I have always assumed it worked that way from the very beginning without any errata. It has always looked clear to me that mentioning "Two Weapon Fighting" was just to prevent anyone from trying to combine flurrying with Two Weapon Fighting, as was popular in 3.5.
And allowing them to combine it with TWFing was too good because...
There is no good reason to mention it.
Was allowing TWF and flurry overpowered in 3.5? Nope. This is a monk we are talking about.
Would it be overpowered in PF? Nope. This is a monk we are talking about.
So there is no reason to stop the combo.
There's something I like about the rule that all flurry attacks deal damage like a one-handed weapon; monks are free to use light, one-handed, double, or two-handed weapons chosen for style and special effect rather than just damage.
There aren't many other reasons to choose between them, if they are monk weapons. Almost all of them suck big-time.
"Two Weapon Fighting" should be renamed and rewritten if the game designer's (apparently ever-evolving) intent is for it to mean more (let alone way more) than what "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon" implies.
I agree the description needs modifying, as you can use Two Weapon Fighting with a two-handed weapon and armour spikes or blade boots. However you are still "Two WEAPON Fighting" - you are just not using a weapon in each hand to do it.
I think basing the PA bonus off of the Str bonus (half=1, full=2, or 1.5=3) seems pretty straightforwardImplement this rule. Please.
Monks using Dragon Ferocity will love you long time.
I have to agree that this will make Dragon Style more effective, and it will make a number of builds (particularly sohei) relying on two-handed weapons a lot LESS effective, and lets face it, the monk does NOT need more nerfs, quite the opposite.
Nobody with a good grasp of English is going to read the currently-worded CRB text of TWF and honestly claim he even had an inkling that it meant his low-level monk could 2hPA a temple sword twice a round.Er, I have always assumed it worked that way from the very beginning without any errata. It has always looked clear to me that mentioning "Two Weapon Fighting" was just to prevent anyone from trying to combine flurrying with Two Weapon Fighting, as was popular in 3.5.And allowing them to combine it with TWFing was too good because...
There is no good reason to mention it.
Was allowing TWF and flurry overpowered in 3.5? Nope. This is a monk we are talking about.
Would it be overpowered in PF? Nope. This is a monk we are talking about.
So there is no reason to stop the combo.
I disagree, there IS a good reason to mention it and stop the combo - so that nobody foolishly tries to do it, nerfing their character into uselessness.