Monks in Pathfinder


Rules Discussion

201 to 223 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:
Why do you consider the examples to not be rules?

Because in this case, it's a possibility, not a static rule. You would have to follow exactly what the "example" states then and it could not deviate in any way, which would make any other example contradictory to it.

You guys are really reaching for argument material aren't you? lol, that's ok, this is fun i got a couple more hours to kill.

I'm sure everyone got the point of my post, this is just some fun, friendly back and forth at this point ^^

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Heh, okies.

To phrase it another way, why would they make an example in the Core Rulebook that didn’t follow the rules?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SpawnLQ wrote:
swoosh wrote:
SpawnLQ wrote:
ignore that and still go by the book RAW.
I don't think ignoring what's written in the book is ever RAW, by definition.
I didn't say ignore the base text, they would be following the exact wording in the class description, which does not say anywhere about using Wisdom for Ki. They would ignore the sample boxes that are meant to be possibilities, not rules. I would have thought that was obvious?

I would have expected it to be obvious that ignoring text in the book in favor of how you think it should be read immediately makes it not 'as written'.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

Heh, okies.

To phrase it another way, why would they make an example in the Core Rulebook that didn’t follow the rules?

I came across this issue as well, and took a bit of exploring to figure it out. There is an obvious issue that needs to be fixed, and will be. When I originally read this, I thought it was a copy/paste of the monk example from the playtest, since Wis originally gave you spell points. Should we read the examples and sidebars? Yes. Is anyone disagreeing with that? No. What should we do when the sidebar example says one thing and the written rules say another? I believe the point that is being made is, this is a mistake and it can be easily confusing for a new player to figure out.


Rysky wrote:

Heh, okies.

To phrase it another way, why would they make an example in the Core Rulebook that didn’t follow the rules?

now THAT is a great question! Which is actually why I started with my first post response mentioning that it wasn't actually listed in the rules anywhere! Only in that example! :)

And that is the very reason that new players would be confused, because the core rules only talk about Dex or Str, while the sample monk mentions Wisdom, so an inexperienced player can easily get confused.

And the counter argument to that as written, is instead of making a Ki Monk, I will make a Crane Monk variant that I'll pick up some Ki spells for....which nowhere in the Crane Monk example does it mention Wisdom is needed.

There are many people out there (and i'm sure you'll agree) that if it's not plainly stated as an all encompassing rule, will try to exploit those holes to make their characters more powerful arguing how RAW states this or that.

Now we've gone full circle on this argument, thanks for closing the loop! lol :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GreenShaDow wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Heh, okies.

To phrase it another way, why would they make an example in the Core Rulebook that didn’t follow the rules?

I came across this issue as well, and took a bit of exploring to figure it out. There is an obvious issue that needs to be fixed, and will be. When I originally read this, I thought it was a copy/paste of the monk example from the playtest, since Wis originally gave you spell points. Should we read the examples and sidebars? Yes. Is anyone disagreeing with that? No. What should we do when the sidebar example says one thing and the written rules say another? I believe the point that is being made is, this is a mistake and it can be easily confusing for a new player to figure out.

That's the thing, the written rules don't say another. It wasn't an error by listing the wrong thing, it was an error by omission.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SpawnLQ wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Heh, okies.

To phrase it another way, why would they make an example in the Core Rulebook that didn’t follow the rules?

now THAT is a great question! Which is actually why I started with my first post response mentioning that it wasn't actually listed in the rules anywhere! Only in that example! :)

And that is the very reason that new players would be confused, because the core rules only talk about Dex or Str, while the sample monk mentions Wisdom, so an inexperienced player can easily get confused.

And the counter argument to that as written, is instead of making a Ki Monk, I will make a Crane Monk variant that I'll pick up some Ki spells for....which nowhere in the Crane Monk example does it mention Wisdom is needed.

There are many people out there (and i'm sure you'll agree) that if it's not plainly stated as an all encompassing rule, will try to exploit those holes to make their characters more powerful arguing how RAW states this or that.

Now we've gone full circle on this argument, thanks for closing the loop! lol :)

Lol

But then, I think it's reasonable that people will infer from reading, and the abusers will be miniscule in comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
GreenShaDow wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Heh, okies.

To phrase it another way, why would they make an example in the Core Rulebook that didn’t follow the rules?

I came across this issue as well, and took a bit of exploring to figure it out. There is an obvious issue that needs to be fixed, and will be. When I originally read this, I thought it was a copy/paste of the monk example from the playtest, since Wis originally gave you spell points. Should we read the examples and sidebars? Yes. Is anyone disagreeing with that? No. What should we do when the sidebar example says one thing and the written rules say another? I believe the point that is being made is, this is a mistake and it can be easily confusing for a new player to figure out.

That's the thing, the written rules don't say another. It wasn't an error by listing the wrong thing, it was an error by omission.

Okay, that was the intent of what I was saying. Thank you for clarifying. I will be sure to choose my wording a bit more clearly next time.


Rysky wrote:
GreenShaDow wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Heh, okies.

To phrase it another way, why would they make an example in the Core Rulebook that didn’t follow the rules?

I came across this issue as well, and took a bit of exploring to figure it out. There is an obvious issue that needs to be fixed, and will be. When I originally read this, I thought it was a copy/paste of the monk example from the playtest, since Wis originally gave you spell points. Should we read the examples and sidebars? Yes. Is anyone disagreeing with that? No. What should we do when the sidebar example says one thing and the written rules say another? I believe the point that is being made is, this is a mistake and it can be easily confusing for a new player to figure out.

That's the thing, the written rules don't say another. It wasn't an error by listing the wrong thing, it was an error by omission.

This is actually a very good point. It's not that it specifically stated another stat....but because of the omission of Wisdom for spell DC, there are multiple statements of "Your casting ability DC" or something like that...and the only DC ever mentioned in the class rules is your Monk DC based on your primary stat at that point. So with omission, it can actually be implied your primary monk stat DC is used. This better explains the point of my original post i think :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ignoring examples and sidebars is on them, not the book.

After looking at the iconic alchemist sheet and seeing the errors in it, I can totally see ignoring the examples: IMO relying in inference instead of actually spelling something out in plain text is something that needs fixed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ignoring examples and sidebars is on them, not the book.
After looking at the iconic alchemist sheet and seeing the errors in it, I can totally see ignoring the examples: IMO relying in inference instead of actually spelling something out in plain text is something that needs fixed.

actually you cant call that error, because you can't say either is correct since they are both part of the rules. Just as the one the developer said, side bards and examples are super important for issuing and discussing rules. In fact if you read most case law, you will find the rule is usually demonstrated by an example.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

Started my first 2e game on Saturday and decided on a elf monk. I took elven weapon familiarity, and I have a couple of questions.

1) Does this allow the monk to wield the elven curved blade trained? The working is a bit unclear.

Elven Weapon Familiarity wrote:

You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.

In addition, you gain access to all uncommon elf weapons. For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial elf weapons are simple weapons and advanced elf weapons are martial weapons.

Clearly you get trained in listed weapons, but the second clause seems to imply that things are tied to your proficiency. Does that mean that you don't have proficiency with advanced elf weapons, and where does the elven curved blade fall? Monks only have access to simple weapons.

2) I gather that RAW, you can't use any of these weapons with FoB, as that seems to be tied specifically to melee monk weapons.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Curveblades are Martial, so yes the Monk gets Trained Proficiency in them, since the Feat makes them count as Simple for Proficiency and he has Trained in Simple Weapons.

2. That's correct. Well, more specifically it's unarmed strike only unless you grab Monastic Weaponry, but even Monastic Weaponry doesn't let you use an Elven Curveblade.

Really, trying to use non-Monk weapons on a Monk is a bad idea and not recommended.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Really, trying to use non-Monk weapons on a Monk is a bad idea and not recommended.

Using a longbow for long range attacks is an upgrade from their other ranged options. I'd only call non-monk melee weapons a bad idea.


I'm honestly not sold on the longbow as a weapon, mainly because I tend to get dropped into situations where Volley will be a factor more commonly than another 40 feet of range over the shortbow will be - shuriken are pretty good if you factor in the ability to ki strike and stunning fist with them. And of course wind crash strikes are excellent any time cover is in play.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm honestly not sold on the longbow as a weapon, mainly because I tend to get dropped into situations where Volley will be a factor

For the monk, IMO, this is much less of an issue: if targets move into volley range then they are in range for move/melee most times: the normal tendency for foes to close into volley range is a boon for the monk, IMO, as the bow isn't their main weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

Exactly. I was just curious about the Elven curved blade, more as an alternative, not something that I necessarily was going to focus on. The long bow however has decided advantages as a ranged weapon. And if they close to volley distance to my monk, I'll move to engage with Tiger stance/Tiger claw.

But FoB with the Elven blade would be cool, and something I could imagine an Elven monk being able to do.


Aiden2018 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Can you even do Unarmed without being a Monk or taking Monk Dedication?
I wanna say that there's a certain type of Barbarian (the bestial one?) that can do that. Not sure though.

Animal barbarian is very much a unarmed combatant. When they are raging they morph and generally their abilities are 1d8 or 1d10 plus a bunch of useful keywords on each attack. Different flavor of character but is a very good take on the "naked savage" type motif.


When a monk is using his fists, they're agile (I think). But if he has flurry of maneuvers, i would use Athletics for his attack roll. Would that still be agile, or is it the usual -5 and -10?

Liberty's Edge

It's worth noting, in terms of using a longbow, that the longbow does not have the 'Elf' trait, and is thus not considered a Simple Weapon for Proficiency. You get Trained, and can invest the Feat at 13th level to up that (all the way to Master, on a Monk), but between 5th and 12th your Proficiency lags.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

That does bring up the question is the elven curved blade an advanced elf weapon or not. I can't find a definition of what is "an advanced weapon", elf or otherwise.

Does "For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial elf weapons are simple weapons" mean that the bumps in simple weapon proficiency apply to the elven curved blade as my monk levels?

I'm beginning to think that the Elven Weapons Familiarity might not be a great choice for a monk. Just stick with short bow, and unarmed strike.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Agodeshalf wrote:

That does bring up the question is the elven curved blade an advanced elf weapon or not. I can't find a definition of what is "an advanced weapon", elf or otherwise.

Does "For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial elf weapons are simple weapons" mean that the bumps in simple weapon proficiency apply to the elven curved blade as my monk levels?

I'm beginning to think that the Elven Weapons Familiarity might not be a great choice for a monk. Just stick with short bow, and unarmed strike.

Advanced weapons generally have more advantageous traits than martial weapons with the same damage (this is from the sidebar on CRB pg. 279). They are listed as advanced in the Weapons section of the CRB in Table 6-6: Melee Weapons (or called out in whatever product they appear in if not from the CRB).

Currently there are no advanced elf weapons (but that doesn't mean they won't exist in the future.)


Bardic Dave wrote:
Seisho wrote:
...those ridiculous big damage dice...
Anyone remember the D&D 3E Monk (not 3.5)? They jumped straight from a d12 to a d20 for damage rolls! Only time I can recall seeing a d20 for a damage roll in any edition of D&D.

There was the NoDachi in 2ed which did 1d20 vs Large creatures, but yes ridiculous.

201 to 223 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Monks in Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.