|
The initial rules for the Flurry edge seem to not require weapons except for offhand mention in parentheticals:
You have trained to unleash a devastating flurry of attacks upon your prey. Your multiple attack penalty for attacks against your hunted prey is –3 (–2 with an agile weapon) on your second attack of the turn instead of –5, and –6 (–4 with an agile weapon) on your third or subsequent attack of the turn, instead of –10.
But the level-17 Masterful Hunter Upgrade for Flurry is far more explicit about it:
You can blend your weapon mastery with skillful targeting to make a series of precise attacks. If you have master proficiency with your weapon, your multiple attack penalty for attacks against your hunted prey is –2 (–1 with an agile weapon) on your second attack of the turn, and –4 (–2 with an agile weapon) on your third and subsequent attacks of the turn.
A strict reading of the first passage would limit the MAP reduction for unarmed attacks to -3 and -6, with weapon attacks exclusively receiving -2 and -4. But that sure is an awkward way to express a rule. Then, at level 17, unarmed attacks receive no additional benefit.
All that doesn't seem intended, but I'm not sure what the underlying intent would have been. Is it weapons-only for all of it, weapons for most of it as in the strict reading, or something else entirely?
To me it does seem intended, mostly because there are Strike feats (as well as a Rogue Thief's Dex-to-damage) that only work with weapons when they seemingly could work with unarmed attacks too. So there is precedent. And Paizo often includes "unarmed attacks" in the wording (or excludes "weapon" so it covers any Strikes), yet chose not to include that here. So yeah, it seems intentional to me, especially when talking about a key ability in the CRB.
As for the reasoning, I have suspicions that it's tied to combos and/or the advantage of free hands, yet you'd have to ask Paizo. If you're playing straightforward, your GM might allow it to work with unarmed attacks if you ask. I'd approve if used with inferior attacks (such as those from Ancestry feats since they fit the Ranger flavor too).
Twin Takedown requires two weapons. So really the point is moot. Virtually every Ranger is going to go with weapons.
But I would be happy to allow non weapon attacks with flurry, also even non strike attacks like grapple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for Unarmed Attacks even specifically says that class features and feats that work with weapons don't work with unarmed attacks unless the feature or feat says that it does also work with unarmed attacks.
But that does seem to be a bit too limiting in this case. I would probably allow it as a houserule unless it becomes a balance problem.
The Ranger is pretty hard coded to be a weapon user and not an unarmed strike user.
Twin Takedown requires two weapons. So really the point is moot. Virtually every Ranger is going to go with weapons.
But I would be happy to allow non weapon attacks with flurry, also even non strike attacks like grapple.
I wouldn't call the point moot at all when you consider how well a flurry ranger with a decent ancestry-based unarmed attack could combine with something like Wrestler without their edge not combining with Agile for those.
Flurry Edge doesn't work on combat maneuvers post errata, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for Unarmed Attacks even specifically says that class features and feats that work with weapons don't work with unarmed attacks unless the feature or feat says that it does also work with unarmed attacks.
But that does seem to be a bit too limiting in this case. I would probably allow it as a houserule unless it becomes a balance problem.
This rule is not one that explicitly requires weapons. To me its a natural langauage problem. It looks more like loose wording in the followup text.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me it does seem intended
Given how it's written I can't agree with this.
There's no weapon only restriction in the basic feature of the flurry edge. It works on any attack. Weapon is only mentioned in regards to the agile property and the level 17 upgrade.
So if this is on purpose, Flurry works fine with unarmed strikes... unless those unarmed strike are agile... and then abruptly stops working at 17?
That's kinda jank. I have trouble believing that was the design intent.
Also consider that the other two ranger edges have absolutely no restriction regarding unarmed or weapons either. Why Flurry in particular?
Flurry Edge doesn't work on combat maneuvers post errata, right?
Flurry Edge works with attacks, which combat maneuver checks are. The errata made it so that maneuvers aren't attack rolls, which is important for things like the Finesse trait.
With the caveat that if we take this language as "intentional" the level 17 upgrade to flurry will only work if the maneuver is made using a weapon.
IMO, this is running into the same language issue as unarmed attacks not counting as weapons, but still having a "weapon damage die."
Flurry only every mentions attacks not attack rolls. It is therefore open to maneuvers.
I recall someone did a very nice Ranger grappler build with Kobold Fangwires
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, that distinction makes me want to offer my soul to Rovagug.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everytime I see distinction like this, I get upset about Paizo's decision for Natural Language rules.
It is only Natural Language up to a point.
Just remember it was Paizo who pulled everyone up on this in the first errata. They made attack rolls different to attacks. I'd actually be very happy to group everything attack roll, attack, and attack trait together as the one thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually be very happy to group everything attack roll, attack, and attack trait together as the one thing.And then skill check bonuses wouldn't apply to all combat maneuvers. Nope, your nice Armbands of Athleticism don't work for Trip, no way.
Of course they would. They provide item bonus to Athletics checks it just so happens that those checks are attacks too. Which is perfectly legal either way. The other point is with the loose interpretation they all blur together. The fact that one is an attack roll and the other is a skill check doesn't bother you, they are both checks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everytime I see distinction like this, I get upset about Paizo's decision for Natural Language rules.
As much as I agree with you, I also think Paizo did a great job streamlining most of the concepts of their books. Sure, there are still a few areas that are shaddy or clunky, but most of the book is straightforward with one single interpretation played at every table.
Having a book that is both readable by most humans and accurate enough to remove all blurry points is a challenge in my opinion, not something one can expect (especially in a small industry like roleplaying games).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I can see that they didn't want Dex-based whip tripping, but the cure is pretty bad, maybe worse than the disease. The distinction between "checks for things that are attacks" and "attack rolls" is not at all intuitive. Getting MAP on maneuvers because they're attacks, and even Agile, but not Finesse because they're not attack ROLLS is just cutting it too fine. It might have been better to just restrict Finesse to Strikes then, that would have been clearer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everytime I see distinction like this, I get upset about Paizo's decision for Natural Language rules.As much as I agree with you, I also think Paizo did a great job streamlining most of the concepts of their books. Sure, there are still a few areas that are shaddy or clunky, but most of the book is straightforward with one single interpretation played at every table.
Having a book that is both readable by most humans and accurate enough to remove all blurry points is a challenge in my opinion, not something one can expect (especially in a small industry like roleplaying games).
For a game of this complexity Paizo have done better than most.
But there are still significant parts of the game that are played differently at different tables. Does it matter? Not really. It is just annoying when they don't acknoweldge and fix them.
To me it does seem intendedGiven how it's written I can't agree with this.
There's no weapon only restriction in the basic feature of the flurry edge. It works on any attack. Weapon is only mentioned in regards to the agile property and the level 17 upgrade.
So if this is on purpose, Flurry works fine with unarmed strikes... unless those unarmed strike are agile... and then abruptly stops working at 17?
That's kinda jank. I have trouble believing that was the design intent.
Also consider that the other two ranger edges have absolutely no restriction regarding unarmed or weapons either. Why Flurry in particular?
Flurry Edge doesn't work on combat maneuvers post errata, right?Flurry Edge works with attacks, which combat maneuver checks are. The errata made it so that maneuvers aren't attack rolls, which is important for things like the Finesse trait.
With the caveat that if we take this language as "intentional" the level 17 upgrade to flurry will only work if the maneuver is made using a weapon.
IMO, this is running into the same language issue as unarmed attacks not counting as weapons, but still having a "weapon damage die."
A potential answer for "why flurry in particular" is the same as it is for many things when it comes to unarmed attacks: there are unarmed attacks that straight up break the weapon budget math. D8 agile attacks and such.
Now that's not to say I think it's intended here, but just saying that it "could" be intended. There have been plenty of examples of Paizo just forgetting to put "and unarmed attacks" in abilities and fixing it later (the first one that always comes to my mind is rogue weapon tricks) but without official clarification/errata, there's no real reason to assume this has been missed in all 3 of the erratas unless Paizo says it has (good luck).
Or in short, it's not too bad to be true and could be to hedge against monk stances, but as a GM you can always say "oh no you can flurry's edge with non-stance attacks" or something. Unless you're a PFS GM of course.
|
"Natural Attacks" aren't a thing. Claws and Jaws and Fist et all are "Unarmed Attacks".
Of course. I just needed a succinct, unambiguous word to establish context.
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose
Isn't that just the proficiency? Are you saying this wording needs to be interpreted as all attacks in all the battle forms of the spell have the "unarmed" trait?
Food for thought: the same wording exists in Fey Form, yet a Redcap wields a scythe, and a Dryad wields a branch.
Devil Form, Demon Form, Daemon Form, Cosmic Form, Angel Form, Avatar, Nature Incarnate, and possibly others do not have this wording, instead stating: "One or more melee attacks ..."
Of the druid wild shape options, only Insect Form has the wording: "One or more melee attacks ..."
Is the inconsistency between spells for a reason? Is it redundant anyway (just restating it is an unarmed proficiency attack)? Or is it a mistake?
If we assume "One or more unarmed melee attacks ..." means all listed attacks have the "unarmed" trait, of the battle forms that don't have the wording "One or more unarmed melee attacks ...", this raises concerns about body parts being disarmed. The concern swings the other way with Fey Form - are a Dryad and Redcap immune to being disarmed of their weapons?
Still, if "One or more unarmed melee attacks ..." doesn't mean all listed attacks have the "unarmed" trait, are we just assuming body parts cannot be disarmed? (It is logical and is more consistent, but RAW and all ...)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you chooseIsn't that just the proficiency? Are you saying this wording needs to be interpreted as all attacks in all the battle forms of the spell have the "unarmed" trait?
Yes.
Food for thought: the same wording exists in Fey Form, yet a Redcap wields a scythe, and a Dryad wields a branch.
Fey Form differs in that "you have hands in this battle form".
Is the inconsistency between spells for a reason? Is it redundant anyway (just restating it is an unarmed proficiency attack)? Or is it a mistake?
Paizo Devs are often flattered when we assume they are infallible, but Pathfinder does indeed have a long and storied history of redundancies and discrepancies.
are Dryad and Redcap immune to being disarmed of their weapons?
I would think not the Redcap. But a Dryad could probably be argued either way. How would you rule them?
(It is logical and is more consistent, but RAW and all ...)
Wrong edition. There is no such thing as "RAW" in Pathfinder 2E, thanks to the section on Ambiguous Rules in the Core Rulebook.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as "RAW" in Pathfinder 2E, thanks to the section on Ambiguous Rules in the Core Rulebook.
Ambiguous Rules doesn't remove RAW but tells you to houserule if something isn't working as/is: the rules are still written.
Are druid Wild Shape's natural attacks like claws and a bite weapons? Just because they use unarmed attack modifiers doesn't disqualify them from being a weapon as the attacks don't have the unarmed trait like a fist does.
Just pondering if a ranger with a druid dedication would work.
The game doesn't have a formal definition of weapon, but the starting text in the weapon chapter describes them as separate carried item, and unarmed strikes only count as weapons when specifically stated. So clearly unarmed attacks aren't weapons in the general case.
None of the Hunter's Edge require weapons. So yes Ranger MC into a Druid to wildshape does work mechanically. But not everything. Twin Takedown requires weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as "RAW" in Pathfinder 2E, thanks to the section on Ambiguous Rules in the Core Rulebook.Ambiguous Rules doesn't remove RAW but tells you to houserule if something isn't working as/is: the rules are still written.
Agreed. RAW totally still exists and is a useful concept.
We are just reminded to think about it pragmatically. But even that GM fiat ability was always in the game anyway.
None of the Hunter's Edge require weapons.Well...sort of. Flurry references weapons.
Yep. Flurry uses Weapon Mastery and only refers to weapons in a secondary way, it doesn't require them. Weapon Mastery itself explicilty includes unarmed attacks, so it would be particulary harsh to exclude unarmed attacks here.
I'm fairly confident that this is a clear enough case where unarmed attacks are to be counted as weapons.
However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.Except they aren't, ever, unless specifically mentioned.
Which they are not.
Read it again.
Weapon Mastery
Level 13
You fully understand the intricacies of your weapons. Your proficiency ranks for simple and martial weapons and unarmed attacks increase to master.
The fact that it includes unarmed attacks here - while still using the term weapon in an inclusive way is enough. Flurry references Weapon Mastery. This is just natural language. It should be enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excluded sometimes. Depending on the type of attack and the level.
Which, again, is pretty dumb and feels like an editing error more than conscious design choice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Excluded most of the time. It could be an error, though I find it more likely that the error is that the base -3 and -6 work. Unarmed being excluded is fairly common.
Possible, but again, precision works fine with Unarmed and there's nothing really special about flurry here.
They can use them, sure. So can everyone else. That doesn't mean it works with Flurry's Edge. Thief Rogues can use unarmed strikes too, but they don't get to use Dex for damage. Flurry refers to weapons but does not refer to unarmed strikes, therefore unarmed strikes are excluded.
I'm really not sure why you are requoting that rule. I'm well aware of it. The rules have specifically said, because unarmed attacks are included in weapon mastery, and flurry specifically refers to weapon mastery. That is enough of a specific reference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It then immediately specifically says for weapons, so I'm not entirely sure you did read it.
Which even weapon mastery does inside itself. It uses the term weapons clearly meaning weapons and unarmed attacks. Yes it is terrible writing. We can't typically expand language like that, but Flurry is closely tied to Weapon Mastery so in my opinion the implication carries accross.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is like how Swashbuckler gets Expert in weapons and unarmed attacks at level 5, and also gets critical specialization with weapons at level 5 from the same feature, but it never gets critical specialization for unarmed.
I agree it is the same situation. But I don't agree with your analysis here. Why? because the term weapons is used in the more open sense as highlighted.
Weapon Expertise
Level 5
You've dedicated yourself to learning the intricacies of your weapons. Your proficiency ranks for simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks increase to expert. You gain access to the critical specialization effects of all weapons for which you have expert proficiency.
The description limits the effect to weapons, it includes non weapons, then says weapons again. So either the rule explicitly contradicts itself or we are supposed to treat the term weapon in the broader sense it has already used.
This evil has a name. It is called Natural Language.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's more an example of Paizo creating lots of issues with their weird weapon/not-weapon/attack/not-attack language.
The RAW itself is confusing and nonintuitive, so trumpeting that doesn't really seem like a big win either (like, are you actually going to GM games where Flurry works normally for 16 levels then starts acting weird? More power to you I guess if you are, but I can't imagine most tables running it that way).
You either stick with bad rules or try to interpret them one way or the other into something more logically consistent (which, conveniently, is also RAW).
You're free to houserule whatever, but this is the rules forum.
Not helpful. I've provided clear reasons for my statements. That you disagree is perfectly fine. But you can't deliberate ignore certain text and then reasonably claim your position is the one true RAW. The rules contradict themselves in many places. This is just one of the more obvious ones. The way I am reading it is perfectly legitimate. It is what the rules say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bigger problem than edge cases of Rangers trying to exploit some unusual build is the issue that there is no special language allowing the rangers animal companion to use their natural attacks with the flurry edge, which runs very counter to the purpose of rangers getting animal companions.
While I do think there is an intentional lore push for Rangers to use weapons and not unarmed attacks, It is too bad to be true that animal companions don’t get the full benefit of their ranger’s class abilities because they use natural weapons
In other words, things not working well for a multi class option is fine, but something not working for a very obvious in class choice feels off to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flurry is a dubious choice for an animal companion even if fully effective. They simply don't get enough attacks for it to be effective.
That's beside the point.
A Rangers' animal companions are supposed to gain the benefits of Hunter's Edge. It makes no sense, then, to make a Hunter's Edge that animal companions mechanically cannot benefit from. That Flurry may be suboptimal for animal companions is irrelevant.
I mean, trading a third attack from the ranger for a second attack from the animal with potentially only a -2 isn’t that bad a choice. I am guessing you are having trouble with the movement to get those attacks?
They don't get full benefits from Outwit either, being unable to be trained in skills that can Recall Knowledge.
The primary combat benefit of the out wit is the defense bonus, which the companion gets just fine