Chess...
I've not said your view is wrong, that you are wrong, that you're wrong for having that view or anything of the sort. All my requests are requests not to derail the thread, there's nothing wrong with people discussing this with you, just this isn't the thread for it.
All I've said is that you have your view that you share often that no one that comments agrees with. Personally I feel you should note when sharing your view that it is not generally accepted by posters on the boards though technically correct.
Also you shouldn't derail a thread not about it with it, meaning if people call you out just say you've discussed it elsewhere and aren't convinced and that if they wish to discuss it they can create a thread for that discussion.
That's all my post is trying to do, let people be aware that your view, even if technically correct, isn't generally accepted as correct and that it shouldn't be discussed here. I'm trying to halt the flow of derailment.
So please don't strawman me and say I'm doing any bullying of you when I've done nothing of the sort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
The weak implication of the monk text isn't close to strong enough to supersede this rule.
Even if the monk unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon, it's still an "unarmed strike", which explicitly forces the other natural attacks to be secondary.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a monk with twf with 6 bab and a slam would be +4/+4/-1/-1 unarmed strikes +4 for the slam because of the twf penalties
natural weapons are not a manufactured weapon.
So twf penalties are not applied to natural weapons. Instead, you make them secondary and apply the -5 penalty to BAB for them.
Oddly, under the Natural Attack rules on the Combat page of the PRD,
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
Chess...I've not said your view is wrong, that you are wrong, that you're wrong for having that view or anything of the sort.Dude, yeah, you are.
just ignore Scott about this.please don't.This is nothing but attacking me personally. Dude, you're actually telling people not to talk to me for no other reason than I am who I am! I'm not attacking anybody personally. All I am doing is giving my best advice in good faith according to what the rules say and defending my person from attacks.
You're seeming to be intentionally strawmanning me. The "please don't" was telling another person to not embark on trying to prove you wrong here as a derailment. That wasn't at all directed to you, so I don't understand why you'd keep bringing it up as if I'm attacking you by telling someone else to not derail the thread more.
The first line you have quoted was meant to be ignoring the posts explaining it. Since you seem unable to restrain yourself from derailing a thread I'm telling others to ignore you to not derail the thread. I'm sorry if it seems I said to ignore your view, that was not my intent and I do apologize if that was in offense, it wasn't intended.
And as you can see from the things you've quoted. NOTHING in my statements say you're wrong, that your view is wrong, or that you're bad for having that view. The "not talk to you" is not to derail the thread. If the OP wants to understand your view then sure tell him as explaining that then isn't derailment. But having you and the forums go in yet another 100+ thread of argument isn't the purpose of this thread, and thus people, including you, shouldn't be getting into an argument about it in THIS thread. Like I said in my other post, people, including you, are welcome and encouraged to discuss this for 1,000+ if wanted, just in a different thread.
again, NOTHING personal in here. I have a similar situation with mounted combat and how the broken rules causes it to not work and people not agreeing with my view that the rules break it. I mention my view and try not to discuss it in a thread UNLESS that was the point of the thread, to discuss my view of it.
there's nothing wrong with people discussing this with you, just this isn't the thread for it.There is nothing wrong with offering dissenting opinions. I welcome disagreements. Show that I misread the rule. Find other rules. Find an official rules post that updates my position. But my person is not being offered as evidence. Stop attacking my person, please!
Again, there are no attacks at your person. I'm not saying you're a bad person for having your view, nor that you shouldn't share your idea when relevant, nor have I even said that your view is wrong in this thread. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't be taking over a thread with your view unless the OP asks for it. Yes, this was a great and good place to throw out that your view is that this works your way, your first post was great and good. All the following posts to defend your view aren't needed IN THIS THREAD. So sure, welcome the disagreements and discuss this topic all you and others want, just not in this thread. No where am I trying to invalidate your idea by questioning your character. No where am I making any personal attacks at you.
All I've said is that you have your view that you share often that no one that comments agrees with.That is actually false. I have had people comment and agree with me. And I do know personally know 1 person who did comment and did agree with me who was bullied off of a thread you were also participating in.
I was unaware of the 1 person, and also superlatives are pretty much knows to be minor exaggerations, Sure, I'll accept I was "technically" wrong but not wrong enough that the point I was trying to convey was skewed. Having 1 agree with 100 opposing doesn't make much of a difference than 0 agree with 100 opposing. I just used that phrase since it was similar to something you said, "that we only know that people commenting on the boards don't agree with my view."
Meanwhile, even if I were the only one to hold this view, I have demonstrated that my view is technically legal. I think the Pathfinder community and the Pathfinder Society should make room for diverse playing styles. I think everyone should be allowed to play the game they way they want according to the rules. I am part of everyone.
And that's great, but a GM isn't required to accept your view of the rules and can't be forced to allow you to use your view in their game. You're welcome to ask your GM with your argument to rule your way, but you can't force them if their understanding of the rules works differently. That's part of the accepted table variation of PFS. So unless you have official clarification that you're view is the correct view you can't force others to GM with your view. Just like they can't force you to GM their view.
Personally I feel you should note when sharing your view that it is not generally accepted by posters on the boards though technically correct.I did note that this is a controversial opinion. Take another look at my first post on this thread, and you will see that.
Yes, you did. I will say now that I hadn't actually read this thread other than the last bit which showed this thread was being derailed. So good job! Like I said above, having now read your first post, your first post was great. Exactly the type of post it should have been. Trying to help the OP with their thing and sharing your view explaining the premise for it and noting it isn't liked. That post was great!
I'm not derailing the thread. This is about it. The OP asked directly about what the effect is of taking a level in Monk and incorporating Monk Unarmed Strikes in with his Slam Attack, and I directly answered his question with my best counsel given in good faith according to what the rules literally say.
The only thing I have done to derail this thread is to be the victim of personal attacks from you, James Risner, and Fuzzy Wuzzy. I don't think it is ever okay to blame the victim.
Yes your first post wasn't derailing. Going along with those that derail is. Like this, I am aiding in the derailment, the hope is that this will overall stop the derailment. You don't need to justify your view to trolls, or to anyone. Sure if someone asks about how it works, please explain it. But you shouldn't be needing to post to "defend" your view, posts like that should be a separate thread, a thread devoted to discussing your view. Yes there may be people making personal attacks, but if you don't fuel them by responding they won't continue doing so in a thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But as someone who has zero stake in this debate and who is seeing it for the first time, your responses come across as focusing on undermining Scott as an individual.
IMO he's saying that he's had or seen this debate play out before and scott was unconvinced then and it ended up in a massive derail. I don't see it as a personal attack to say that trying to debate him will most likely result in the same thing as before. I think anything more is just a matter of perception.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect you've debated it with him in the past, so you'd be better served to say you don't agree, say why, and leave it at that.
If you don't know the history, Scott gets a quirky not at all correct interpretation in his "current arsenal" and he hammers it through with sufficient number of locked threads until Paizo gives a FAQ tailored specifically to Scott as he is the only person who shares his view. When it happens, he proudly champions the fact he saved the forums.
When really all is happening is he engages in baiting with the most polite manner as possible to evade being seen to be baiting.
Ugh, would someone please lock this thread already...?
StuffChess, normally I think you and I agree on a lot of things. But as someone who has zero stake in this debate and who is seeing it for the first time, your responses come across as focusing on undermining Scott as an individual.
Clearly you don't agree with his interpretation and I suspect you've debated it with him in the past, so you'd be better served to say you don't agree, say why, and leave it at that.
Since I don't see it but apparently you and Scott do,
What did I say to attack Scott personally?I feel I've never stated that Scott shouldn't have posted his first post, that Scott isn't entitled to his idea, I've not even stated here that his idea is right or wrong since the validity of his view isn't what I'm discussing, nor that he shouldn't discuss his view, just not here.
But since that is coming across as a personal attack would you mind trying to explain why it seems like a personal attack?
Personally all this back and forth, along with Scott's and James' and whoever else has been trying to prove Scott's view as right/wrong shouldn't be in this thread. But since this process has happened here and has happened a lot before with no attempts made at reducing future derailment I'm trying to get future derailment to not happen. I started by addressing "the forums" to stop attacking Scott's view, that if they felt it was wrong or needed to clarify that it's a very unpopular view on the forums to just comment that and move on.
My whole point was for "the forums" don't attack Scott's idea to derail a thread. And to Scott, Don't defend your view to derail a thread, suggest a new thread or make one to hold the discussion if it's desired.
But since that didn't come across that way but somehow as a personal attack against Scott I apologies and do ask to be informed on what led to that understanding.
Scott should put his idea in a new thread, detail it, and invite FAQ.
He shouldn't be derailing every thread that touches upon the subject, ever how slightly, which then derails into the world against Scott's interpretation.
To be fair, this was the perfect thread for him to mention his view. You can't get more applicable than someone asking how natural attacks worth with a monk not flurrying. Totally agree that he shouldn't be derailing, but you didn't help with that either.
But as someone who has zero stake in this debate and who is seeing it for the first time, your responses come across as focusing on undermining Scott as an individual.IMO he's saying that he's had or seen this debate play out before and scott was unconvinced then and it ended up in a massive derail. I don't see it as a personal attack to say that trying to debate him will most likely result in the same thing as before. I think anything more is just a matter of perception.I would expect that Paizo wants responses to address the topic and not other posters as individuals. I violated that rule here because Scott felt like he was being ganged up on and I had the same impression. Whether I agree with Scott or not, I have been in his shoes and would have appreciated someone else stepping in and calling a spade a spade.
EDIT: And to be clear, my motivation is not to tell Chess what to do. I'm primarily letting Chess know how his responses come across to someone who has no vested interest in the outcome.
I'd like to thank N N 959 for helping me see what was wrong.
My original intent as stated was to to limit the derailment and to hopefully stop future derailments on this topic and for it to not turn into a attack Scott and his idea thread.
My suggesting to not arguing with Scott was for people who are unfamiliar with Scott but like to correct wrong rules views to know this has been tried before, and to remind the same bunch of people that have argued with him before that just because he shares his view doesn't mean you have to attack it, that they could express their disagreement without attacking and Hijacking the thread. It wasn't to discredit Scott or his view.
Now while I think that it takes looking at my words in a negative light for them to be bad that doesn't excuse them for being able to be taken that way because odds are that that's how half the people will see it. But I've been reminded that it isn't my place to try to get people to not need the moderator to come clean up the thread.
So I do apologize, and I'm am quite sorry to Scott that if felt like I was trying to address his person rather than his idea. My goal was the opposite.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh? Bring it! I like evidence. Bring forth the evidence. I will examine your evidence.
See that is baiting.
Baiting isn't about personal remarks. It's about making a statement, that you know is going to illicit a rejecting response.
I'll give you an Example...
Scott what do you think the PDT would say the intend of the wording is if they stepped into this conversation right now?
Scott goto the following link
here
Scott what do you think the PDT would say the intend of the wording is if they stepped into this conversation right now?I don't really care what the intent of the wording of the PDT was. I feel that we customers can hold the Design Team to what they did say, and they don't get to hold us to what they meant to say. If I have come up with an interpretation of the rules that goes against the intent of the rule but is nonetheless technically legal, I am doing Paizo Publishing a favor by pointing out a problem. I am not creating a problem.
Also, I feel compelled to point out the Core Rulebook Monk Class was not written under the auspices of Paizo Publishing at all but lifted nearly whole cloth from the 3.5 Players Handbook. That means that all of the Pathfinder Roleplaying game is violating the intent of the rules when it comes to the Monk Character Class. So if you suppose that my interpretation of the rules goes against the intent of the rules, then I will point out that I am doing nothing more than what Paizo Publishing itself is doing when they came out with Pathfinder in the first place. Going against the intent of the rules is playing Pathfinder in the highest and purest sense of the game!
Which if you go to the link i posted, and scroll down to natural attacks. you will find the rules where it states that using unarmed strikes and natural attacks. primary natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks.
Scott what do you think the PDT would say the intend of the wording is if they stepped into this conversation right now?I don't really care what the intent of the wording of the PDT was. I feel that we customers can hold the Design Team to what they did say, and they don't get to hold us to what they meant to say. If I have come up with an interpretation of the rules that goes against the intent of the rule but is nonetheless technically legal, I am doing Paizo Publishing a favor by pointing out a problem. I am not creating a problem.
Also, I feel compelled to point out the Core Rulebook Monk Class was not written under the auspices of Paizo Publishing at all but lifted nearly whole cloth from the 3.5 Players Handbook. That means that all of the Pathfinder Roleplaying game is violating the intent of the rules when it comes to the Monk Character Class. So if you suppose that my interpretation of the rules goes against the intent of the rules, then I will point out that I am doing nothing more than what Paizo Publishing itself is doing when they came out with Pathfinder in the first place. Going against the intent of the rules is playing Pathfinder in the highest and purest sense of the game!
I didn't ask you if you cared. I asked what you thought they would say, and you coming up with a different interpretation is not doing them a favor unless it comes up that your interpretation is common among others which admittedly does happen sometimes when a poster brings up another interpretation of a rule. That means there is a rules dispute among players, and people needs to clear it up.
If your interpretation is different and 95% of the players agree with the opposing view it means that most people see it like they see it, and they are not likely to change anything.
So once again, what do you think they would have said?
PS: Since it's hard to tell tone of voice online, I am not being snarky or using a rude tone of voice.
edit: Since you had not reply to the link I am thinking this is cleared up, and that you already agreed with everyone else. You just did't think the wording was precise enough.
edit2: Most people ask questions because they want to know intent. You can easily say "___ is the intent, but the wording make it seem like ___". That way you are helping the OP, and pointing out an issue with the wording. I've done it several times. That way you can help to everyone.
If you don't know what the OP wants it's easy to ask "Do you want to know the intent or do you want to know how I am reading it based on how the rule is worded"?.
I think the Flurry of Blows "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" would supersede the natural attack general rule. 1x str damage on Flurry of Slams.
I don't know which rule supersedes the other to be honest: For instance, even a normally secondary natural attack becomes a primary if it's the only natural attack: what makes a section on non natural weapons [off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands] supersede the natural weapons section for natural weapons? The section was clearly written with the intent natural weapons were not included: "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." So it's completely unclear IMO.
For me, I'm going with 1.5 damage. I'm going with the natural weapons section and I'm not seeing as this is any kind of loophole as it sort of makes up for the non-scaling base damage with .5 more strength damage.
Unarmed strike is a single weapon, to unless there has been some errata I am unaware of you cannot TWF with just it.Yeah, there's an FAQ for that. Here.
Does that mean that a creature with a natural attack (say, a single claw attack) could accept huge penalties to get 2 attacks?
And I don't see anything that removes the "all attacks deal 1x str damage" clause. Natural weapons are not specifically called out, because they cannot normally be in there. Feral combat training lets you use them, the FAQ clarifies that they are treated as though they are monk weapons, and any weapon used gets 1x str...
"If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls." Note the word "always".
So we have an "always" clause against a "all attacks deal 1x str damage" clause... I'M seeing an argument for both readings so I'm not sure why you aren't.
PS: granting a natural weapon the monk special feature in no way makes it act as a manufactured/unarmed weapon for any other purpose as far as I know.
But if the MUS is being treated as 'natural weapons', then the creature doesn't only have 'only one natural attack' no?
Is this to me? If so:
If I cast a spell on my natural weapon, would it be counted as a natural weapon or a manufactured one? It's NOT as easy as you make it seem. Nothing in gaining the monk special feature automatically grants it manufactured weapon status.