|
| 13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Sohei Monk (Ultimate Combat archetype) has a class feature which grants the character weapons training in specific categories and which works like the fighter's weapons training. Additionally, the Sohei Monk may also flurry or ki strike with a weapon that is in one of those categories.
If a Sohei Monk takes levels in a class that allow weapons training in categories other than those in the Sohei Monk description, may the Sohei Monk flurry or ki strike with weapons in those other categories?
Personally, I believe the flurry and ki strike only apply to those categories listed in the Sohei description, but others disagree.
Much like the Punishing Kick nonsense, the RAI and RAW are different. By RAI, you are limited. By RAW, you are not.
|
|
I'm not familiar with a Punishing Kick debate.
What is RAW but an interpretation of what is printed. It is obvious that there are different interpretations of whether a Sohei can flurry with a katana.
The question is whether the interpretation should apply to any weapon category from the Sohei archetype or should it apply to any weapon category derived from multi-classing into other classes.
Both interpretations are "RAW". Which one is the "intended" interpretation?
I'm not familiar with a Punishing Kick debate
Punishing Kick has no text that requires you to actually use an unarmed strike with it. You can, by RAW, Punishing Kick with a sword, or bow or anything else.
What is RAW but an interpretation of what is printed.
RAW is not interpretation, that is the point of RAW. It is literally taking the words that are written.
It is obvious that there are different interpretations of whether a Sohei can flurry with a katana.
Interpreting what is meant is the realm of RAI. RAW is strictly textual.
"A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training."
Fighters get Weapon Training. RAW is simple and clear.
However, the obvious intent is that the Sohei may use Flurry of Blows and ki strike with any weapon in which has weapon training via levels in Sohei, but that's not said, so it's not RAW.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may be difficult to grasp this concept but what people think of as "RAW" is nothing more than a pedantic interpretation of what is written—it is still an interpretation. The question becomes: do you use the pedantic interpretation or do you use the common sense interpretation. Sometimes the line between what is pedantic or common sense is blurred, often times to the point where either interpretation would be a reasonable one.
Ultimately, the RAW/RAI response is quite disingenuous because it completely ignores the fact that other people may be reading the same words but coming to a different conclusion..
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Weapon Training (Ex): At 6th level, a sohei gains weapon training in one of the following weapon groups, as the fighter class feature: bows, crossbows, monk weapons, polearms, spears, or thrown weapons. He may select an additional group of weapons for every six levels after 6th, to a maximum of three at 18th level. A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training. This ability replaces purity of body, diamond body, quivering palm, timeless body, and tongue of sun and moon.
It is VERY clear to me that when it says "A sohei gains the weapon training in one of the following weapon groups, as the fighter class feature: bows, crossbows, monk weapons, polearms, spears, or thrown weapons.", it means literally whatever weapon group you chose AS A SOHEI you may Flurry and Ki Strike with.
"A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training", obviously refers to the SOHEI ARCHETYPE and the weapon training chosen for that archetype. Also, since it says as the fighter class feature, it is basically "replacing" the norm of what a fighter would gain with that weapon training feature with that of the Sohei weapon training.
Example:
Flurry of Blows: Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so, he may make on 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 use this ability). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
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. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks."
Just as the Sohei Weapon Training fiasco you've presented, the "as if bla bla" part is basically saying you already have it. Which, you do! It's just limited to the weapon groups in the Sohei Archetype description. Can I take Two Weapon Fighting in combination with Flurry of Blows? No. Because I basically already have it. The only difference between the two is that with Flurry the detriments are much more minimal for the poor not-so-strong Monk class. Flurry is replacing TWF in this instance, although it doesn't allow me to combine Natural Attacks like TWF would because Flurry specifically states otherwise. It's a free TWF though basically. Hard to argue that.
I believe you have the wrong perspective on this whole thing and you're really just desperate(well many Monks are) to somehow find a loophole to be able to Flurry with anything and everything possible. This is NOT the intent with this Archetype. You choose the weapon groups, and those are the ONLY ones you can flurry with - As clearly stated by the Archetype.
|
|
Much like the Punishing Kick nonsense, the RAI and RAW are different. By RAI, you are limited. By RAW, you are not.
No, this is a personal perception issue. It's clear what the Sohei Weapon Training applies to and what it refers to.
The Punishing Kick nonsense is acceptable, although it is meant to obviously be used with Melee, but the RAW of it makes it easily arguable.
Punishing Kick requires an Attack Roll, however it doesn't say what kind of attack it can be used with at all. Leaving people in a state of confusion. This is an acceptable argument(although stupid imo) as the lines are left obviously unclear and easy to misinterpret.
The question becomes: do you use the pedantic interpretation or do you use the common sense interpretation.
Yes, RAW vs. RAI.
The common sense interpretation is RAI. The pedantic one is RAW.
Ultimately, the RAW/RAI response is quite disingenuous because it completely ignores the fact that other people may be reading the same words but coming to a different conclusion..
Please explain how you can read the words "a sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training," then see that Fighters get Weapon Training, and decide that, purely by what is written, that they don't work together.
Again, I agree with you that it is the obvious RAI that it be limited to weapons you got training with through Sohei, but that is not what is written.
Much like the Punishing Kick nonsense, the RAI and RAW are different. By RAI, you are limited. By RAW, you are not.No, this is a personal perception issue. It's clear what the Sohei Weapon Training applies to and what it refers to.
Of course it's clear what the intent is--the RAI--but it's not what is written. What is written only states that you can flurry with weapons you have weapon training in and Fighters get Weapon Training.
Sohei+fighter weapon groups is probably RAI (I'd say obviously, but it's obviously not obvious to some people) given the FAQ ruling that myrmidarch weapon training and fighter weapon training stack.
If it's the same ability for magus, it's the same ability for monk.
Ultimately, the RAW/RAI response is quite disingenuous because it completely ignores the fact that other people may be reading the same words but coming to a different conclusion..Please explain how you can read the words "a sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training," then see that Fighters get Weapon Training, and decide that, purely by what is written, that they don't work together.
Again, I agree with you that it is the obvious RAI that it be limited to weapons you got training with through Sohei, but that is not what is written.
It's the same argument behind why the "Bonus Feats" section in the Fighter class only refers to those particular Bonus Feats, not bonus feats taken by other classes for other reasons or other combat feats taken at other levels which might otherwise qualify as Bonus Feats.
The rules are (at least arguably) intended to be read within that section, meaning Weapon Training refers only to that particular iteration of Weapon Training.
Understandably it can be confusing (as it can lead to this sort of issue), but it's not an uncommon occurrence in manuals, formal texts, legal documents, etc.
The rules are (at least arguably) intended to be read within that section, meaning Weapon Training refers only to that particular iteration of Weapon Training.
Bolded for emphasis.
"Intended" is the realm of RAI. Indeed, it is the very definition.
If you have to figure out what they meant, it's not RAW anymore.
However, this is precisely why we have human GMs with reason and judgment rather than robots.
Please, don't take my statements on RAW to mean I have any affection for the concept. Truth is, I am disappointed in RAW for this exact reason. By RAW, Sohei can flurry with weapons he has weapon training in from fighter (or any other class that grants weapon training). But RAW should never be the end of the story.
|
|
Please explain how you can read the words "a sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training," then see that Fighters get Weapon Training, and decide that, purely by what is written, that they don't work together.
Because there is a recent FAQ from the PDT that states that "[c]lass entries in the Core Rulebook are written assuming that your character is single-classed (not multiclassed)". Essentially, the any in "[a] sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training" is referencing the six weapon groups that a sohei may choose from, not every single weapon group in existence in the game.
Does the FAQ directly refer to the sohei? No, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the FAQ is directly applicable in this case. To say that it doesn't apply because of "RAW!" is willful ignorance.
A cavalier/druid's levels for determining an animal companion only stack if the animal is found on both class' lists. Much in the same way that a sohei/fighter can only flurry with a weapon group that is found in both class' weapon training lists.
And quite honestly, if you look at the sohei archetype as a whole, it becomes pretty obvious that it is a mounted archetype and given that context, it doesn't really make sense to allow any other weapon groups the benefit of flurry or ki strike.
The reason why I made this FAQ question was because in another thread someone mentioned the FAQ regarding a sorcerer applying the benefit from Bloodline Arcana to any spell he casts instead of just sorcerer spells as evidence that fighter weapon groups can be flurried. I disagree with this position, but I at least understand why he might think that, and so I thought that it made a legitimate FAQ question.
I believe my FAQ citation was more relevant as it applied to multi-classed weapon training, a much closer topic than bonus feats. Especially as the text in question is from Sohei, which was not a "class entry in the core rulebook" and therefore not limited to their assumptions.
The rules are (at least arguably) intended to be read within that section, meaning Weapon Training refers only to that particular iteration of Weapon Training.Bolded for emphasis.
"Intended" is the realm of RAI. Indeed, it is the very definition.
If you have to figure out what they meant, it's not RAW anymore.
However, this is precisely why we have human GMs with reason and judgment rather than robots.
Please, don't take my statements on RAW to mean I have any affection for the concept. Truth is, I am disappointed in RAW for this exact reason. By RAW, Sohei can flurry with weapons he has weapon training in from fighter (or any other class that grants weapon training). But RAW should never be the end of the story.
No, "intended" here is used in reference to how one should determine what is relevant for RAW, not what RAW actually says. Same word, different contexts, sort of like what this whole discussion is about, actually ;). Specifically, do you read that section globally (within the context of the entire set of rules), or do you read that section as being primarily limited to only that portion of the rules? In both instances, you would be applying quite literally the words that are written. But what changes is how one reads that rule within the context of the rest of the rules. Both are still "RAW" interpretations.
And a hypertechnical definition of RAW is silly anyway (as you've alluded to and Hangar mentioned) because written words necessarily have to be interpreted - it's just a matter of how much interpretation (and whose interpretation) we're going to use.
I believe my FAQ citation was more relevant as it applied to multi-classed weapon training, a much closer topic than bonus feats. Especially as the text in question is from Sohei, which was not a "class entry in the core rulebook" and therefore not limited to their assumptions.
I disagree with that. The FAQ you cited allows the bonuses to stack. The relevant one (Weapons Training) doesn't provide additional abilities like the Sohei version does. It's be more relevant if the Myrmidarch version added a specific ability to its Weapon Training. Additionally, Myrmidarch's version doesn't give a list of weapon groups that may be selected.
Sohei is limited to selected from a listed group of weapons and adds the additional ability to flurry and use ki with those weapons. So, the Myrmidarch FAQ isn't really all that related. It is relevant in the sense that it provides support for the belief that a Sohei's Weapon Training bonus should stack with the bonus gained from multiclassing into Fighter. But it doesn't really support one way or the other whether multiclassing into Fighter increases the groups of weapons a Sohei may flurry or use ki with.
|
|
Sohei is limited to selected from a listed group of weapons and adds the additional ability to flurry and use ki with those weapons. So, the Myrmidarch FAQ isn't really all that related. It is relevant in the sense that it provides support for the belief that a Sohei's Weapon Training bonus should stack with the bonus gained from multiclassing into Fighter. But it doesn't really support one way or the other whether multiclassing into Fighter increases the groups of weapons a Sohei may flurry or use ki with.
It's indeed a poor example. It has little to do with Sohei fiasco even by example comparison.
This reminds me when Driver_325_yards tried to argue so vigorously that the Monk's Cranes' Wing counted deflected attacks as "miss".
Is there any way we can tag people in this? I'd love to get Dabbler involved. He's brilliant when it comes to RAW and RAI with anything involving Monks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I believe my FAQ citation was more relevant as it applied to multi-classed weapon training, a much closer topic than bonus feats. Especially as the text in question is from Sohei, which was not a "class entry in the core rulebook" and therefore not limited to their assumptions.
I apologize. I meant to address your post in my response and I apparently omitted it. Regardless, fretgod99 essentially stated what I was going to say anyways.
In your example, they stack because the things being stacked are the same. Much in the same way that a rogue's and barbarian's uncanny dodge stack...because they are the same.
As I said previously, a character with cavalier and Druid levels only stack their levels (with regards to an animal companion) when the character has an AC that is on both class lists. If not, then the character has two different, albeit much weaker, animal companions.
The concept is similar with a Sohei/fighter character. For example, let's say that a character is a 5th level fighter and chooses "bows" as his weapon group. He then decides that his next six levels will be taken as a Sohei monk and chooses "spears" for his weapon group as a 6th level Sohei. It stands to reason that because the "bows" weapon group is also on the Sohei list (even though he took it as a fighter), the fighter and Sohei weapon training would "stack": bows would get a +2 and the character could flurry with them.
If, on the other hand, he had taken "heavy blades" as a fighter, then no, they would not stack and they couldn't be used to flurry.
is a monk at a minimum of 9th level flurring with a katana so broken that you have to argue about it? i allow it and its not that bad. anyways it makes sense its pretty simple with what it says.
Well, considering RAW is just a specific application of RAI ...
Regardless, are we going to ignore that the Sohei ability specifically limits the field of Weapons Training? I'm not saying that's absolutely determinative, but to argue that questions like this are "so so so so so clear" is disingenuous.
Some people thought it was "so so so so so clear" that you could swap out combat feats taken at odd levels with the Bonus Feat Fighter feature. Some people thought it was "so so so so so clear" that you could apply sneak attack to every scorching ray. Some people thought it was "so so so so so clear" that you couldn't use Dueling Gloves with a Dragoon's Spear Training.
This isn't the first time somebody has thought a rule was "so so so so so clear".
I believe my FAQ citation was more relevant as it applied to multi-classed weapon training, a much closer topic than bonus feats. Especially as the text in question is from Sohei, which was not a "class entry in the core rulebook" and therefore not limited to their assumptions.I apologize. I meant to address your post in my response and I apparently omitted it. Regardless, fretgod99 essentially stated what I was going to say anyways.
In your example, they stack because the things being stacked are the same. Much in the same way that a rogue's and barbarian's uncanny dodge stack...because they are the same.
As I said previously, a character with cavalier and Druid levels only stack their levels (with regards to an animal companion) when the character has an AC that is on both class lists. If not, then the character has two different, albeit much weaker, animal companions.
The concept is similar with a Sohei/fighter character. For example, let's say that a character is a 5th level fighter and chooses "bows" as his weapon group. He then decides that his next six levels will be taken as a Sohei monk and chooses "spears" for his weapon group as a 6th level Sohei. It stands to reason that because the "bows" weapon group is also on the Sohei list (even though he took it as a fighter), the fighter and Sohei weapon training would "stack": bows would get a +2 and the character could flurry with them.
If, on the other hand, he had taken "heavy blades" as a fighter, then no, they would not stack and they couldn't be used to flurry.
I could see that as a valid interpretation. I'd still disagree, but it's not obviously wrong.
What I object to is Kazumetsa Raijin's
I say that's obviously wrong. They gave a stackable class feature to an archetype with the same same as a stackable class feature in a previously existing class. If you then tell me it's obvious they didn't intend them to stack together, I'll question your definition of 'obvious.'
To stack together in limited ways? Maybe. Arguably. But to say that you can only count the levels of one? No.
If you don't want to interpret rules, you're going to have a difficult time getting by in life. Language is imprecise; it's the nature of the beast. It's not so much that nothing is clear anymore, it's that there was no reason to think things were any more clear before. To be frank, I often wonder if the people who most vociferously argue that "The rules are clear!" feel the same way when they read some rule different than a majority or the seemingly established norm. RAW is clear, unless that's not how you read it. Then the RAW is totally ambiguous and it's now deserving of a FAQ.
And I think you may have missed the point of my references above, it isn't that "everything is ambiguous". It is that the people who were arguing that "The rules are so clear, why are we even arguing about this!?" were wrong. So apparently the rules "were not so clear". The idea that "RAW means RAW!" clearly didn't work in those instances. Or rather, the idea that "RAW means RAWAIIT (Rules as Written as I Interpret Them)!" was what was actually at play, with as steadfast assuredness that RAWAIIT actually was RAW and RAI.
Nobody really thinks it's too powerful, necessarily. We're just wondering if the rules actually work that way. There are examples on both sides of it, so you can't really say it's an unfair question. If there are two legitimate interpretations which lead to disparate results, that seems like the perfect situation to request developer intent, does it not?
I say that's obviously wrong. They gave a stackable class feature to an archetype with the same same as a stackable class feature in a previously existing class. If you then tell me it's obvious they didn't intend them to stack together, I'll question your definition of 'obvious.'
To stack together in limited ways? Maybe. Arguably. But to say that you can only count the levels of one? No.
Reading everything together, if I had to make a decision in the moment, I'd say the bonuses stack, but the only weapons available for Flurry and the rest would be those specifically identified for the Sohei.
I don't know of all of the threads of which you speak. I do know of some. The problem, however, is that you assume that because Paizo came down one way or the other it somehow means that the rules were not clear to begin with. This is a fallacy.
If the Rule say, all barbarians can dance, then there is no ambiguity, all barbarians can dance.
However, what happens in Pathfinder is someone then comes along and post a question saying "does pathfinder mean that all barbarians can dance or do they mean that all barbarians can dance except on wednesdays." People argue against that notion saying that is crazy, it says all barbarians can dance. There is no restriction on the days.
Then Paizo rules that RAI is that all barbarians can dance except on Wednesdays. This ruling does not mean that those who rightly argued that all barbarians can dance and that there is no restriction on the days were wrong to beleive that the language was clear.
The language was clear. Paizo just decided to go against the clear language.
As to the current question, the archetype says "A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with ANY weapon in which he has weapon training."
Now Paizo may come out and say (and I don't doubt they will seeing that we are talking about nerfing a monk) that the phrase I have quoted actually means "A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training gained through the Sohei archetype." Whether they do or don't does not mean that what was initially stated was not clear, it just means that Paizo is changing the rule without having the courage to call it an errata.
If they do rule as such, I think that should do the same for monastic mount (which noone cares about because it is not that powerful). Thus, there should be a ruling errataing the class in general saying that evasion, improved evasion and ki used or gained in monastic mount are referring to evasion, improved evasion, and ki gained through the Sohei archetype. If they don't they will be inconsistent in their logic for nerfing the weapon training as well as disingenuous in not calling it a nerf.
I could really care less what they do. I just hate the whole RAI crap. Woman Up already and call it an errata.
Woman up? Really?
Regardless, the issue here is you're equating it to "Barbarians can dance." You're begging the question. The Sohei Weapon Training isn't just like Fighter Weapon Training. It adds something, so it creates a question. Is that addition supposed to be available for every version of Weapon Training, or does "any weapon" mean "any weapon taken using this Weapon Training" feature? That's the point. "Any weapon" is not, in and of itself, patently clear. Is "any weapon" limited to the context of the rule in which it appears or does it actually extend beyond that? You're making it out to be painfully obvious and it simply isn't. That's why the Fighter FAQ is relevant (though that case is more obvious).
The Fighter Bonus Feat feature refers to bonus feats. Not "bonus feats taken with this specific feature", just "bonus feats". Does that mean any and all bonus feats? Does it mean just these specific bonus feats? It was rather clearly intended to mean just those feats taken specifically with that feature, despite the general language used, and that's how the FAQ came down. But that didn't mean people didn't argue quite strenuously that because general language was used, it should apply much more generally.
And again, you're missing the point. That you think language is clear does not necessarily make it clear. There are certainly instances where the clarification comes down as something other than the most obvious natural reading of the words. But that you think something is the most obvious implication also does not mean that it actually is or that the language is necessarily clear in the first place. Stating that the language is clear does not necessarily make it so.
|
|
I could see that as a valid interpretation. I'd still disagree, but it's not obviously wrong.
I can see the other side of the argument, too. Does the fact that we have a point of view, but recognize the other point of view, mean that we're going to rip a hole in the space-time continuum and destroy the universe?
I have to say I like the idea of allowing the Sohei to branch out. They give up almost every good monk ability to flurry with some other weapons. Basically all you get is the Flurry if you take Fighter (Weaponmaster) with Sohei. Your Weapon Training won't increase. You won't get any access to better fighter feats. At best you might get weapon specialization if you take 4 levels in Fighter. You give up a ton to Flurry with a Katana or other weapon.
Is it going to break anything to allow this? I doubt it.
It's purely a style choice.
Not to mention Paizo excluded swords from the monk, though they did throw a bone to monks in Ultimate Combat and with the Templesword. Some of the classic monk characters in fantasy martial arts were sword wielders whether a character like Zatoichi or the sword fighters from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The Katana is the premiere sword of the martial arts genre. Who doesn't want to flurry with a Katana?
Now the rules provide a way with specific archetypes.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Classes are written in a "single class" world, so when something says you get a class feature and can use that class feature to do something but you also have another class granting a similar class feature with a similar name you don't get to combine the two into the same class feature without a line that says "if you have this from another class do blah instead."
For example, if I take two classes that both grant "Blah" as a class feature that grants an Animal Companion. If there is no line in either that says it stacks then you would have two AC's and not one higher level AC.