| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So at a recent PFS game I was told by the GM that I could not use Flurry of Blows with a Double Chain Kama. Her reasoning for this was based on this sentence in the double chain kama's description The wielder can attack as if armed with a single kama in each hand or extend the chain to make a single reach attack.
My understanding of this is that the weapon is considered a double weapon if wielding both of the kamas without reach or a single weapon if using it as a reach weapon. Flurry of blows, unlike two-weapon fighting does not require two weapons and specifically states all of the flurry attacks can be made with the same weapon.
Can someone please clarify how this should be ruled? Is this the only monk weapon that can't be used to make multiple attacks with Flurry of Blows? Please note my question is how this is ruled in Pathfinder Society Play, not for home games.
Thank you!
Flurry of BlowsAt 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. This additional attack stacks with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality. He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what's already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects).
Kama, Double-Chained: This weapon comprises a pair of kama connected with an 8-foot length of chain. The wielder can attack as if armed with a single kama in each hand or extend the chain to make a single reach attack. By swinging the rope, the wielder can whip the kama about to disarm or trip opponents. Furthermore, if one of the weapons is dropped, the wielder can retrieve as a free action by pulling on the chain.
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.posted November 2012 | back to top
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly this shouldn't work with a double-chained kama.
We're talking about an unchained monk here.
Clearly this shouldn't work with a double-chained kama.
We're talking about an unchained monk here.
lol yeah I see the irony with it =P
I'm pretty surprised a PFS GM made a mistake like that. You are definitely right, you can absolutely flurry with a double chain kama.
|
I'm pretty surprised a PFS GM made a mistake like that. You are definitely right, you can absolutely flurry with a double chain kama.
I'm not. I play a lot of PFS, and I have played with GMs of varying rules knowledge. PFS GMs are just like any others, and sometimes they get things wrong. Several times I have accepted a wrong ruling rather than argue it and disrupt play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty surprised a PFS GM made a mistake like that. You are definitely right, you can absolutely flurry with a double chain kama.I'm not. I play a lot of PFS, and I have played with GMs of varying rules knowledge. PFS GMs are just like any others, and sometimes they get things wrong. Several times I have accepted a wrong ruling rather than argue it and disrupt play.
Hmm. I suppose I will defer to the superior experience on the matter, because I've only experienced two PFS GMs before I quit, and they were both pretty good.
Yeah, sometimes you just have to pick your battles. When you see a long argument starting up at the table, the first question you always ask yourself is "Is it worth stopping play? Is the ruling that important to the situation?"
I'm pretty surprised a PFS GM made a mistake like that. You are definitely right, you can absolutely flurry with a double chain kama.I'm not. I play a lot of PFS, and I have played with GMs of varying rules knowledge. PFS GMs are just like any others, and sometimes they get things wrong. Several times I have accepted a wrong ruling rather than argue it and disrupt play.Hmm. I suppose I will defer to the superior experience on the matter, because I've only experienced two PFS GMs before I quit, and they were both pretty good.
Yeah, sometimes you just have to pick your battles. When you see a long argument starting up at the table, the first question you always ask yourself is "Is it worth stopping play? Is the ruling that important to the situation?"
I understand there will be table variation on some things but this is the primary weapon for the character so I'd like to have it figured out so its not up in the air from session to session.
Wielding multiple weapons is different from Two-Weapon Fighting. You can have 3 iterative attacks @ +11, +6, +1 and make those attacks with any weapons you have readily available. That could be the Longsword in one hand, the Shortsword in the other, Unarmed Strike with your feet or head, Boulder Helmet, Boot Blade, etc. So long as you stick to your normal iteratives, it doesn't count as TWF; you aren't getting "extra" attacks, you suffer no TWF peanlties, and none of the weapons suffer from the off-hand half-Str to damage penalty. So an Unchained Monk wielding a DCK is no different than an Unchained Monk wielding a normal Kama in each hand; they receive a certain pre-set number of attacks based on their BAB, level of Flurry, and other sources of "extra attacks" (ie. Haste), but they can't use TWF rules to gain additional off-hand attacks. They can assign those attacks to any Monk weapon they are wielding or to unarmed strikes as they see fit. So you could use the Cold Iron Kama in one hand to attack a fey and then switch to the Flaming Kama in the other hand to attack something vulnerable to fire and then Unarmed Strikes to hit something with DR/Blud. It doesn't matter if the two Kama are attached by a chain or not.
The issue was does the double chained Kama get the iterative attacks from flurry of blows as a reach weapon.
|
lol yeah I see the irony with it =PClearly this shouldn't work with a double-chained kama.
We're talking about an unchained monk here.
That is a Coincidence, not Irony.
If it were, say, a weapon called the "Monk's Sword", but not only was the Monk not proficient, but could not Flurry with it, then that would be ironic.
|
I understand there will be table variation on some things but this is the primary weapon for the character so I'd like to have it figured out so its not up in the air from session to session.
There are two issues here.
First, flurry of blows has a complicated history where there was a very clear ruling that you can't make all flurry of blows attacks with a single weapon... followed by a very clear ruling that you can. Some people know about the first ruling, but not the second.
The flurry of blows text in the PRD for the original monk has been updated to indicate that this works;
"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)."
Second issue; Unchained Monk flurry of blows works completely differently... no more text about simulating TWF. The FAQ you listed is specifically for Core Monk... there's no FAQ on unchained flurry and no PRD version either.
That being said, I think the text of unchained flurry is very clear that you get the same number of attacks whether holding one weapon or two. Indeed, since they both require a full attack action, unchained flurry can't be combined with TWF.
I'd suggest talking with the GM before the next session and pointing out that unchained flurry doesn't work like core flurry (even though core flurry now allows this too). With unchained flurry you get the same number of attacks whether you are using one weapon, two, or thirty-seven. It doesn't mimic the TWF feat progression at all.
|
|
As bolded in the original the post, the main issue is that the weapon itself precludes it from being used as a reach weapon in a full attack. It says right in the text that it can be to make a single reach attack.
Now it's probably intended that they meant you either have two normal weapons or one reach weapon, but I don't fault the GM for ruling as such and I wouldn't argue with it because the text can plainly be interpreted in a way that means you can't iteratively attack with it.
Would you let someone use Greater Weapon of the Chosen to roll twice for each of their attacks? (sure, it is more clear by saying attack action, but it also does use the same verbage "single attack")
|
|
As bolded in the original the post, the main issue is that the weapon itself precludes it from being used as a reach weapon in a full attack. It says right in the text that it can be to make a single reach attack.
Now it's probably intended that they meant you either have two normal weapons or one reach weapon, but I don't fault the GM for ruling as such and I wouldn't argue with it because the text can plainly be interpreted in a way that means you can't iteratively attack with it.
Would you let someone use Greater Weapon of the Chosen to roll twice for each of their attacks? (sure, it is more clear by saying attack action, but it also does use the same verbage "single attack")
The weapon text also says it has both a chain and a rope. If you can only make a single attack with it, do you threaten at reach?
As bolded in the original the post, the main issue is that the weapon itself precludes it from being used as a reach weapon in a full attack. It says right in the text that it can be to make a single reach attack.
That's the part that's ambiguous and I feel needs a FAQ ruling. It's not definitive that the sentence means the weapon can be used once per round as a reach weapon, once per turn as a reach weapon, once per lifetime, or once per iterative attack as a reach weapon, or if the meaning is that it's either a single reach weapon or a double weapon without reach.
Applying the rules chronologically, the flurry of blows rules in Pathfinder Unchained, I feel would take precedence over the wording in Ultimate Equipment specific to the weapon. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality.
My temporary solution to this was to buy and use a Kusarigama, which is essentially the same weapon, only one of the Kama is replaced with a metal ball and it gains the grapple ability and can do bludgeoning damage.
Kusarigama: This weapon has a single sickle held in the off-hand attached by 10 feet of fine chain to a weighted metal ball. The sickle is used to make trips, jabs, and blocks while the ball is whipped around at high speeds and then smashed into the opponent.
Again, this is an almost identical weapon but makes no mention of only being used for a single attack at reach.
As bolded in the original the post, the main issue is that the weapon itself precludes it from being used as a reach weapon in a full attack. It says right in the text that it can be to make a single reach attack.
Now it's probably intended that they meant you either have two normal weapons or one reach weapon, but I don't fault the GM for ruling as such and I wouldn't argue with it because the text can plainly be interpreted in a way that means you can't iteratively attack with it.
Would you let someone use Greater Weapon of the Chosen to roll twice for each of their attacks? (sure, it is more clear by saying attack action, but it also does use the same verbage "single attack")
The weapon text also says it has both a chain and a rope. If you can only make a single attack with it, do you threaten at reach?
That's another good point, with it being a reach weapon and having that possible limitation, how many Attacks of Opportunity should I be able to make with it?
|
|
Applying the rules chronologically, the flurry of blows rules in Pathfinder Unchained, I feel would take precedence over the wording in Ultimate Equipment specific to the weapon. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality.
If we're applying the rules chronologically, then we first have to read the very first part of the flurry rules that you're quoting from that says "a flurry is a full-attack" (my words, shortened). Which doesn't negate what I said about the GM making the call that since the weapon says it can only make a single attack which by definition is not a full attack.
Now I believe it was very well meant that it's either two regular weapons or a single reach weapon, but I can't fault the GM for his interpretation because as written it plainly says that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is ambiguous, it needs errata or FAQ. I doubt it's asked with enough frequency for it to get a FAQ, but who knows?
I read the description of the weapon twice, and the first time I thought that, if used as a reach weapon, you get one attack action.
The second time I read it I changed my mind and decided the wording means that you can either use it as two weapons, or as one reach weapon. This is a problem, because I can see it going either way. My guess as to the intent is the second interpretation.
Using the game as context, I can't think of a single weapon in Pathfinder that doesn't let you full-attack (except possibly crossbows/heavy crossbows without rapid reload/crossbow mastery due to reload limitations), so it's a trade-off of two weapons (great when they have two different enchantments) or a single reach weapon (which can also trip or disarm). Thematically I would side this way as well.
The benefits of this weapon actually aren't as great for flurry of blows as they are for TWF (since there's an actual trade-off in number of attacks vs. reach). For a monk with flurry, you get the same number of attacks whether it's a single reach weapon or two weapons, one in each hand.
I FAQ this but my FAQ button is broken. I click it and nothing happens (the rest do something). Very weird.
"The wielder can attack as if armed with a single kama in each hand or extend the chain to make a single reach attack."
My take on this is that the author wanted the weapon to only be usable as either a double weapon OR a reach weapon and that's why it's worded that way. So for any one attack you have to determine if it has reach or not, hence the single part.
However, most likely to fit word count, it was worded so poorly that it can be read that you can ONLY get a single reach attack. With two workable readings you're left with pulling out RAI and your own sense of what sounds right.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was at the con with you and I told you my take on it. Did you ever ask Dominick about it? Expect table variation at the least because the wording is poorly written.
There is no reason why one could not flurry with it using one or both kamas in melee but the reach is questionable because of stated poor wording. It wouldn't be overpowered to allow it at reach imo but the wording is an issue.
"The wielder can attack as if armed with a single kama in each hand or extend the chain to make a single reach attack."
My take on this is that the author wanted the weapon to only be usable as either a double weapon OR a reach weapon and that's why it's worded that way. So for any one attack you have to determine if it has reach or not, hence the single part.
However, most likely to fit word count, it was worded so poorly that it can be read that you can ONLY get a single reach attack. With two workable readings you're left with pulling out RAI and your own sense of what sounds right.
I think that's exactly the case, however since I'm trying to use this in PFS, I'd like to get a FAQ or definitive ruling on it.
I was at the con with you and I told you my take on it. Did you ever ask Dominick about it? Expect table variation at the least because the wording is poorly written.
There is no reason why one could not flurry with it using one or both kamas in melee but the reach is questionable because of stated poor wording. It wouldn't be overpowered to allow it at reach imo but the wording is an issue.
Nah I didn't ask Dom, it wasn't a big enough deal to bother anyone else with at the con. I just figured that since it was poorly worded and confusing I'd attempt to get a FAQ for it on here.
For PFS, you might be better served with a Kusarigama instead of the Double Chain Kama. It's got more options without the dodgy wording. Unless you have a fluff reason for the Double Chain Kama I don't see many mechanical reasons for it.
|
Unless you have a fluff reason for the Double Chain Kama I don't see many mechanical reasons for it.
The big advantage of the Chain Kama is that you only need to enchant one side - the kusarigama needs both sides enchanted. One for melee - one for reach.
Also - arguably you can use Weapon Finesse with the Chain Kama, both in melee and at reach.
Unless you have a fluff reason for the Double Chain Kama I don't see many mechanical reasons for it.The big advantage of the Chain Kama is that you only need to enchant one side - the kusarigama needs both sides enchanted. One for melee - one for reach.
Also - arguably you can use Weapon Finesse with the Chain Kama, both in melee and at reach.
Why must you enchant more than one end? Does something prevent you from using the same end in melee?
Both are double weapons so:
Fight "as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon" or
"wield one end of a double weapon two-handed"
I don't see how "can attack as if armed with a single kama in each hand" overrides the basics of double weapons [one handed + light] but even if it does, it'll lead to the same issues as the reach part. For the Kusarigama this means the ranged end and the same end in melee can be used two handed.
It's in reference to the weapon's description mentioning a 'single attack' at reach. It's unclear if it means 'only one ever' or it just means 'no twf with it since you're only using one side'.
Why wouldn't it? It's a Monk weapon in its own right, not just when wielded as a pair of Kama.
It's the sentence in the Double Chain Kama's description about it being used as a kama in each hand or the chain being extended to make a single attack at reach.
The confusion is does this mean it can only make one attack during a turn when used as a reach weapon or if it means the weapon is treated as a single weapon instead of a double weapon when used to make a reach attack.
In the case of the former, you wouldn't be able to use it in a flurry of blows. In the latter, obviously you could use it to make the flurry of blows attacks.
I think it's pretty clearly able to make multiple attacks at reach. Where elsewhere in the weapons table is there a melee weapon that says you are only allowed to make one attack with it, regardless of levels or abilities?
lol yeah I see the irony with it =PClearly this shouldn't work with a double-chained kama.
We're talking about an unchained monk here.
That is a Coincidence, not Irony.
If it were, say, a weapon called the "Monk's Sword", but not only was the Monk not proficient, but could not Flurry with it, then that would be ironic.
You used incorrect capitalization, Mr. Grammar Nazi.
|
|
You used incorrect capitalization, Mr. Grammar Nazi.lol yeah I see the irony with it =PClearly this shouldn't work with a double-chained kama.
We're talking about an unchained monk here.
That is a Coincidence, not Irony.
If it were, say, a weapon called the "Monk's Sword", but not only was the Monk not proficient, but could not Flurry with it, then that would be ironic.
The capitalization was for emphasis. Also, there was no grammatical errors being pointed out. The framework and structure could be perfect, but the word could still be used to describe something that is not there.
For example: The rose is blue.
It is grammatically correct, but still untrue.
So, your "grammar nazi" quote comment is a pointless and irrelevant, as calling me a fish hoarder.
You used incorrect capitalization, Mr. Grammar Nazi.lol yeah I see the irony with it =PClearly this shouldn't work with a double-chained kama.
We're talking about an unchained monk here.
That is a Coincidence, not Irony.
If it were, say, a weapon called the "Monk's Sword", but not only was the Monk not proficient, but could not Flurry with it, then that would be ironic.
The capitalization was for emphasis. Also, there was no grammatical errors being pointed out. The framework and structure could be perfect, but the word could still be used to describe something that is not there.
For example: The rose is blue.
It is grammatically correct, but still untrue.So, your "grammar nazi" quote comment is a pointless and irrelevant, as calling me a fish hoarder.
It is as he said. We of the grammar based constabulary allow no Nazis within our esteemed ranks.
He is being a stickler of vocabulary. Which, by calling him a Nazi for such behavior, it's obvious that you are not such as stickler. This is because Nazis were known for adjusting definitions to fit their agenda rather than being sticklers for them.
So, your "grammar nazi" quote comment is a pointless and irrelevant, as calling me a fish hoarder.
Bloody fish hoarders...
Bloody fish hoarders...
So, your "grammar nazi" quote comment is a pointless and irrelevant, as calling me a fish hoarder.
Are they related to nerf-herders?
Yeah. One of them in particular is very famous. He owns the ship known as "the aluminum eagle"
Yeah. One of them in particular is very famous. He owns the ship known as "the aluminum eagle"
I thought it was the Centennium Swallow?
Eon Shrike?
Yeah. One of them in particular is very famous. He owns the ship known as "the aluminum eagle"I thought it was the Centennium Swallow?
Century Duck