So... I have been wondering about this since the Elemental Monk archetype was released. Currently, the Elemental Monk is able to switch between the Genie Style Stances using the "rules for style feats are on page 78 of that book". Because this Archetype uses the same rules as Style Feats, can I use Combat Style Master to then switch between the Genie Styles as a Free Action?
Honestly, this is going to really define the build for me. I am having trouble with feats (Duel Talent Human). I really want to grab Dragon Ferocity, but because Elemental Fist replaces Stunning Fist, that kind of slaps me in the face.
(Off Topic: Why does Elemental Monk forfeit BOTH Stunning Fist and 1st level Bonus Feats for Elemental Fist? Just seems a little scued, especially because it doesn't scale like the MoFWs monk, who only trades Stunning Fist and does the same exact thing).
Why does Elemental Monk forfeit BOTH Stunning Fist and 1st level Bonus Feats for Elemental Fist? Just seems a little scued, especially because it doesn't scale like the MoFWs monk, who only trades Stunning Fist and does the same exact thing).
My take: Because the archetype was written by someone who doesn't understand archetype design at all, and because at that point, editing was probably already neglected due to the developers working on PF2.
I would strongly suggest not using the Elemental Monk, as the archetype is a huge downgrade, needs houserules to even work, and the main draw is something that every character already possesses!
Seriously, Elemental fist already has you select the energy type when you use it, so the second sentence of the Elemental Strike ability doesn't do a thing! Well, technically, you select the damage after the attack roll is resolved, and not before, but I can't imagine a situation where that's relevant.
Currently, the Elemental Monk is able to switch between the Genie Style Stances using the "rules for style feats are on page 78 of that book". Because this Archetype uses the same rules as Style Feats, can I use Combat Style Master to then switch between the Genie Styles as a Free Action?
You don't actually use much of the style feat rules in UC. The way you enter a stance certainly seems to be as described by the archetype, not by the general rules.
But here's the catch: As written, the archetype does not work. Nothing in the Genie Style ability description after the first paragraph functions, because the higher level abilities only work "while the elemental monk is using a genie style feat", but you never have any of those feats! Seriously, you gain the feat's benefits (that's the text written in the "benefits" section of the feat), but not the feats themself. This language also means they don't help you fulfill the prerequisite of Combat Style Master.
Also, Genie Style doesn't list a duration, so RAW, you only need to select each of the four styles once and permanently have all the benefits of all five of them. There aren't any rules preventing you from being in multiple stances at once, either, and the Genie Style ability doesn't use the normal rules for entering and thus switching styles. Of course, the style feat rules don't list a duration either...
Basically, it boils down to "ask your GM". There isn't really an "as written" answer, because you cannot really play the archetype as written.
At 6th level, while the elemental monk is using a genie style feat, she also gains the benefits of a feat from the following list, as appropriate for that style’s feat path: Djinni Spirit, Efreeti Stance, Janni Tempest, Marid Spirit, and Shaitan Skin.
At 10th level, while the elemental monk is using a genie style feat, she also gains the benefits of a feat from the following list, as appropriate for that style’s feat path: Djinni Spin, Efreeti Touch, Janni Rush, Marid Coldsnap, and Shaitan Earthblast.
At 18th level, when the elemental monk gains the benefits of Djinni Spirit, Efreeti Stance, Marid Spirit, or Shaitan Skin, her elemental resistance from that feat instead becomes immunity to that element, as long as she is not denied her Dexterity bonus to AC. While she is using Janni Style, she gains the effects of enlarge person or reduce person (her choice), even if she is not humanoid. This is a spell-like ability with a caster level equal to the elemental monk’s level.
This replaces evasion, purity of body, and diamond body.
I would strongly suggest not using the Elemental Monk, as the archetype is a huge downgrade, needs houserules to even work, and the main draw is something that every character already possesses!
Hm... I wouldn't say that it is that bad with playing it from experience. The strongest negative I've encountered is the fact I don't scale Elemental Damage and the fact I lose two feats for one. I feel the benefits from the feats given, and the ability to freely switch between them, is rather strong (especially with DR 6 to Acid/Fire/Cold/Electric as a swift action being comparable to Evasion in my experience). It seems like a hybrid between MotFW and MoMS monks. I'll admit, I'm a little sad at losing Stunning Fist because that means I don't get Dragon's Ferocity, but that isn't too big of a deal breaker.
Back on topic for the rules: Has there been an FAQs page for "Gains the Benefits of" text? This is an exceptionally common terminology for Pathfinder books that have been released recently, and I think it would be great to get some FAQs clarification for this.
Well, it's not unplayable, but I'd much rather have a regular unMonk, or a Windstep Master.
The first problem with the archetype is that Elemental Fist sucks. Hard. Let's say we're level 8, with 18 wisdom, 4 encounters á 4 rounds a day. Flurry is 3 attacks a round, plus one more from Ki half the rounds. That's 56 attacks per day. Elemental Fist does an average of 7.5 damage 10 times, for 75 theoretical bonus damage over the course of the day. That's an average of 1.34 damage per attack, i.e. not much more than a trait.
The five style chains are all pretty weak as well: The damage bonus via Elemental Fist from the first feats is minuscule compared to other styles. The triggered effects from the second feats tend to have problems (entangled allows fort save, catching fire has a neigh-irrelevant effect, and deafen is a small effect against only a small number of enemies). The elemental style third feats, as well as all three Janni feats, don't work with a full attack, and thus work against the very foundation of your class.
Shaitan Skin is normally OKish because it can trigger Medusa's Wrath on a failed reflex save (easier to stick than Stunning Fist), but this archetype removes all your bonus feats, so you can't grab said feat.
Sure, if you're fighting lots of enemies with bonus elemental damage, it might be nice (although those enemies tend to be resistant or immune against that same element, which lowers the offensive gain), but you often know what energy type to expect, so a wand of Resist Energy can grant most of what the archetype offers.
Being able to choose the second feat according to the enemy (deafen versus casters, reflex save versus big creatures, fortitude save versus nimble ones), but if the deafen or entangled hits, Stunning Fist would have worked as well, for a generally more potent effect.
Not really being able to use the Dragon Style or Jabbing Style chains isn't much of a problem, but loosing all your bonus feats without compensation, and loosing the 10th level ki power (i.e. Ki Leech), hurts.
UnMonk is a strong enough chasis that a Elemental (un)Monk can still be good, but a vanilla unMonk would probably be better, hence the term "downgrade".
That is valid and useful information on the subject. Unfortunately, is it off topic and doesn't serve to answer the main question.
So far, the only answer I have is: Ask your GM, which doesn't work so well in PFS where you have a different gm each table. Lol
The very strict RAW answer is that it does work, but is completely unnecessary - since the style feat rules don't say that stances ever end, nor that you can't have more than one stance active simultaneously, you can use the archetype's Genie Style ability to enter the stances of all of the five style feats (you can add in a regular style feat by entering its stance first), and they'll persist indefinitely. You don't even need to be in combat, as you aren't using the style feats to enter the stances, but your archetype ability, which has no such limitation. (You wouldn't get any bonuses out of combat, though, so the energy resistance doesn't help against e.g. enviroment effects.)
If we presume that style feat stances end when combat ends (which is kinda implied, though not stated), the archetype still doesn't give a duration for the for the Genie Style ability, which means that once you've used it for a specific feat's benefits, you keep those benefits indefinitely and you could use Combat Style Master to switch between them.
If we presume that you lose not only the stance but also the feat(s benefits) at the end of combat, Combat Style Master doesn't help (much), as you would still need to use a swift action to use Genie Style to gain the feat(s benefits), so you could only use CSM to switch between style already "activated" with Genie Style in that same combat. This presumption has no basis in the written rules, though.
But as I've said in my first post, RAW you can't benefit from the level 6/10/18 sections of Genie Style without selecting the respective earlier feats as your normal feats. Nor would Genie Style help you meet the prerequisites of CSM. The Swashbuckler Finesse ability's last sentence shows that having the benefits of a feat does not include counting as having the feat for meeting prerequisites.
I would very, very, very strongly suggest not using the archetype in PFS. Not only for your sake, but also for your GMs' - you're putting GMs in a tough spot when they have to decide between abandoning PFS' "RAW if possible" stance, and making your character kinda useless.
I would very, very, very strongly suggest not using the archetype in PFS. Not only for your sake, but also for your GMs' - you're putting GMs in a tough spot when...
Honestly, I have already told you "not playing" this archetype is not an option. Now please, if you could stop with your elitism regarding this archetype and stop telling me not to play this archetype.
All I have heard is your opinion on the matter and have heard nothing regarding official rules. If you could provide some official rules that would be great.
Otherwise, kindly keep your opinions outside of the thread which is only asking for official rules not opinions.
If you want to be an elitist who screams at people not to play a class, I would recommend the Advice thread. You would get along swimmingly with the optimists over there, who scream at people for asking for advice for fun builds that aren't optimal.
Any PFS GM who tells you that a Paizo printed Archetype is broken and doesn't function *at all* is legally required, under the PFS GM Code of Conduct, to be severely beaten with a hardcover until unable to quote rules text.
If you want to completely avoid needing Dragon Ferocity, you could always wield a Power Attack Monk sword in two hands and just use unarmed strike for anything that your weapon can't do, like Flying Kick. There's absolutely nothing in Elemental Fist that prevents using it through a weapon (though if some PFS plays tyrant, you can still use it with the one unarmed strike you're probably making anyhow). If using limited unarmed strikes per round, you can skip an Amulet of Mighty Fists and get a Bodywrap of Mighty Strikes instead; the cost of a nicely enhanced metal weapon and a passable Bodywrap ain't bad compared to one Mighty Fists, and you save the neck slot for something interesting. Especially within PFS levels, a temple sword or 9-ring broadsword hammering away in two hands kind of stomps on even Dragon Ferocity.
If you *did* want another "genie style" Monk Archetype option, the re-built Master of Many Styles is actually pretty cool - at level 8 they suddenly get a free +3 attack bonus, which basically makes them full BAB. Add to that how incredibly flexible they are with Styles, and it's actually a really nice rebuild for the Archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I have heard is your opinion on the matter and have heard nothing regarding official rules. If you could provide some official rules that would be great.
Are you f@*@ing kidding me? The first four paragraphs of my last post contain no personal opinion at all (that's why I seperated the last paragraph by a double blank line, you know?).
I gave you the answer to you question. Multiple answers, in fact - a pure RAW one, one based on the most likely GM ruling, and one absed on a more prohibitive GM ruling. Just because you don't like the answers you get doesn't make them untrue!
Now please, if you could stop with your elitism regarding this archetype and stop telling me not to play this archetype.
Did you actually read what I've said? I'm advising not to use the archetype in PFS because as written, most of the archetype does not function! This isn't some opinion, this is objective fact. "benefits" is a game term, one that every feat description uses. The Swashbuckler ability a feat's benefits is indeed not the entire feat, but only a section and at that point, using the section with the exact same name as the word used is the only logical step.
How is that "elitism"?
I have already told you "not playing" this archetype is not an option.
You didn't, actually.
If you want to be an elitist who screams at people not to play a class, I would recommend the Advice thread. You would get along swimmingly with the optimists over there, who scream at people for asking for advice for fun builds that aren't optimal.
I'm not screaming. I'm not telling you not to play the class. I've actually told you that "Elemental (un)Monk can still be good"! I tried to give a fairly objective evaluation of the archetype. My first post contained about four words of personal opinion, almost the entire post is about the mechanical problems the archetype has. When you wrote "I wouldn't say that it is that bad", I tried to explain why I consider it a downgrade (the smidge of opinion in my first post), but I deliberatly opened that post by saying that the archetype is playable. If you calmly read my previous posts, you'll see that I've addressed not only the archetype's negative aspects, but the positive ones as well. You might also notice that the post where I talk about the archetype's non-rule aspects is the one not containing any advise not to play the archetype.
You know what? If you want to insult the only one trying to help you, fine, be that way. Have fun in PFS with your archetype that stops working as soon as a GM makes a ruling based on actual written rules.
TMF, If you're holding out for a different answer on the rules than Derklords' 1st and 3rd posts in this thread I don't think that's going to happen. Derklord appears to have read the rules carefully and I can find nothing to disagree with him on.
TMF, If you're holding out for a different answer on the rules than Derklords' 1st and 3rd posts in this thread I don't think that's going to happen. Derklord appears to have read the rules carefully and I can find nothing to disagree with him on.
Except for the fact that he is not a lead designer for Paizo, and according to him the Archetype does not function *at all* and goes out if his way to belittle the Archetype because of this. Unless he can provide a link to evidence from an FAQ or Clarification thread out there that states that this archetype was *designed* to be unplayable (like he is suggesting), then it just sounds like he is spewing elitism to try and make the Class sound more dysfunctional than it actually is.
I *WILL* agree that Style Combat Master does not work with this Archetype (ruling that activating a Genie Stance class feature is not the same as Changing Stances rules).
Howrver, I *WILL NOT* agree with his practices of "answering" questions that weren't even asked in this thread just to try and belittle a sub-optimal build option. No one asked if any of the future archetype class features worked - I asked ONLY if it worked with Style Combat Master.
All I ask is that he keep his elitism outside of the Rules and Questions thread, and answer the questions posed on the topic and not post his elitist "dont play anything sub-optimal" opinions on anything else.
Additionally; upon further research of the Rules - You ARE considered *using the style feat* when using its benefits to enter the style feats stance. Therefore it's higher tier functions work by RAW. So the point he was trying to make was invalid to begin with. But I guess that is what happens when you post with an opinionated elitist viewpoint.
As far as "genie" styles go, Shaitan is awesome even if the rest are meh. Throwing a fairly powerful stagger vs. reflex round after round is great for a martial, and a bonus chunk of acid damage never hurts. ER, does hurt.
according to him the Archetype does not function *at all*
This is a lie! I did not say that the archetype doesn't function at all. Unless you take the hyperbole in my first post literally, and ignore that I immediately explained what, precisely, doesn't work.
goes out if his way to belittle the Archetype because of this.
This is a lie! I tried to post an objective evaluation of the archetype, explicitly also mentioning the upsides.
this archetype was *designed* to be unplayable (like he is suggesting)
This is a lie! I never suggested that the archetype was designed to be unplayable. Indeed, I explicitly said that the archetype is playable.
make the Class sound more dysfunctional than it actually is.
This is a lie! I didn't say a single thing about the class itself.
his practices of "answering" questions that weren't even asked in this thread just to try and belittle a sub-optimal build option.
This is a lie! I most definitely did not "try and belittle a sub-optimal build option", I gave substantiated reason why I called it the archetype a "downgrade". Also, I only answered your post, where you wrote an entire paragraph in responds to the four words I've said about the archetype's power.
post his elitist "dont play anything sub-optimal" opinions
This is a lie! I did not post a "dont play anything sub-optimal" opinion, nor do I actually have one. Both times that I advised against using archetype I gave wording based reasons.
But I guess that is what happens when you post with an opinionated elitist viewpoint.
Great, now you're adding insults (again).
All I ask is that he keep his elitism outside of the Rules and Questions thread, and answer the questions posed on the topic and not post his elitist "dont play anything sub-optimal" opinions on anything else.
Funny, the only post that contained a notable amount of opinion is the one you called "valid and useful information on the subject".
the point he was trying to make was invalid to begin with.
While it's certainly possible that I am wrong, that doesn't make anything I've said elitist or belittling.
Additionally; upon further research of the Rules - You ARE considered *using the style feat* when using its benefits to enter the style feats stance. Therefore it's higher tier functions work by RAW.
Could you please show me/us a rule quote on this? I'd like to hear it - believe it or not, I would prefer to see this archetype fully functional by RAW!
Genie Style says an Elemental Monk "automatically enters that feat's stance" when they use a swift action to activate Genie Style and select a Style feat to benefit from.
Sure, but the later abilities say "(...) while the elemental monk is using a genie style feat, she also gains (...)". Emphasis mine. You can't use the feat because you don't have it, only its benefits. In case it's not obvious, the style feat rules aren't a problem, as they check for stance, but the archetype ability itself checks for the actual feat. As I've said in my first post, if the ability simply used "a feat" instead of "the benefits of a feat", the whole problem would have been evaded. Swashbuckler Finesse is the only ability I've found that uses bothn the "benefits" wording and talks about meeting prereqs, which is why I used it as a base for my rulings.
And just to be clear, no, I don't think that's intended, and I think the RAI is rather clear (see the spoiler in my first post), but when RAI notably conflicts with RAW, you need your GM to make a non-RAW based ruling. Hence my initial suggestion of "ask your GM", and my subsequent suggestion not to use it where that's not possible.
You're "gaining the benefits" of a Style Feat and you've "entered that feat's stance", but you're not "using" that feat? Even if for arguments sake you don't actually have that feat, do you not count as at least "using" that feat when you're in the feat's stance and benefiting from the feat? Seems like a pretty hard reach to say it doesn't work, even if the language is odd.
How can you use a feat you don't have?
How can you use a feat you don't have?
Through an ability like Genie Style. Or...
Martial Flexibility: A brawler can take a move action to gain the benefit of a combat feat she doesn’t possess.