Worst interpretation of the rules ever?

[awa]

maybe the books are worded differently but the pf srd say it works like two weapon fighting.

[The Random NPC]

maybe the books are worded differently but the pf srd say it works like two weapon fighting.

They do now.
EDIT: I realized this may be confusing. The PF SRD says it works like Two Weapon Fighting now, after SKR made the post.

[Darthteej]

But wasn't Flurry of Blows effectiveley like Two-Weapon-Fighting before? In that you took a -2 to all your attack rolls and got to stack a bunch of attacks on as a benefit?

Call me crazy(and you can, since I am now Sneak Attack On A Charge Guy), but I don't see any problem with this

[Kelb_Panthera]

But wasn't Flurry of Blows effectiveley like Two-Weapon-Fighting before? In that you took a -2 to all your attack rolls and got to stack a bunch of attacks on as a benefit?

Call me crazy(and you can, since I am now Sneak Attack On A Charge Guy), but I don't see any problem with this

The only things twf had in common with flurry were the penalty and the extra attack, they were otherwise entirely different animals. There was none of this main hand/off hand crap, you could use the same weapon for the whole flurry, and if you were so inclined you could stack it on top of twf for extra attacks (not always the best idea, but at least an option.)

I didn't actually read the quote from SKR (I didn't want to hurt my brain) but with his track record, I'd be surprised if any of that was still true.

How does PF handle it? (dare I ask)

[The Random NPC]

But wasn't Flurry of Blows effectiveley like Two-Weapon-Fighting before? In that you took a -2 to all your attack rolls and got to stack a bunch of attacks on as a benefit?

Call me crazy(and you can, since I am now Sneak Attack On A Charge Guy), but I don't see any problem with this

I haven't played a lot of Monks, so I could be wrong, but I remember it being similar to, but distinctly different from, TWF.
EDIT:

I didn't actually read the quote from SKR (I didn't want to hurt my brain) but with his track record, I'd be surprised if any of that was still true.

To be fair to SKR, it seems he doesn't make all the rulings on his own. He's just the only one that tells us the rulings.

[TuggyNE]

I didn't actually read the quote from SKR (I didn't want to hurt my brain) but with his track record, I'd be surprised if any of that was still true.

How does PF handle it? (dare I ask)

They changed it so it works the way he said.

Which, among other things, means you can't use TWF and Flurry together, the justification being (roughly) that both involve "attacking all-out" (which could cover any number of things, such as Heedless Charge, Power Attack, Rage...).

[Darthteej]

So the only thing that changed was that the debate about whether you could stack TWF and FoB was rendered moot, something that no one in their right mind would do anyway.

And the clause about the +5 sai vs unarmed strikes, I thought they were just plain common sense. Now don't get me wrong, this rule still screws over the zen archer, but everything else seems to be how Flurry worked before.

[Gavinfoxx]

I wrote a one-act play based off of that story in my high school english class, it ended up on stage.

Can you post the play? Pleeaassee??

[Menteith]

So the only thing that changed was that the debate about whether you could stack TWF and FoB was rendered moot, something that no one in their right mind would do anyway.

And the clause about the +5 sai vs unarmed strikes, I thought they were just plain common sense. Now don't get me wrong, this rule still screws over the zen archer, but everything else seems to be how Flurry worked before.

Today I learned that I'm not in the right mind when I TWF + FoB on a Pounce, despite it seeming to be legal by RAW.

[toapat]

I am now Sneak Attack On A Charge Guy

can i sig this?

Also: i find it funny, because like in 3.5, monks still are not proficient with unarmed strikes in PF

i thought though that flury didnt stack with TWF

[Kelb_Panthera]

can i sig this?

Also: i find it funny, because like in 3.5, monks still are not proficient with unarmed strikes in PF

i thought though that flury didnt stack with TWF

Apparently they don't in PF, but there's absolutely nothing in 3.5's RAW to prevent it. The bigger issue is taking the extra -2 for a single extra attack. It's usually not a good trade-off, but it can be made to work.

[toapat]

Apparently they don't in PF, but there's absolutely nothing in 3.5's RAW to prevent it. The bigger issue is taking the extra -2 for a single extra attack. It's usually not a good trade-off, but it can be made to work.

eh, not like id ever roll a monk anyway, they arent really my thing

If i was insane though, id still stick to using a staff. no other monk weapon though.

[Kelb_Panthera]

eh, not like id ever roll a monk anyway, they arent really my thing

If i was insane though, id still stick to using a staff. no other monk weapon though.

I'm rather fond of a monk. I tend to play in low-op games, in spite of my optimization chops, though.

[roarinflames]

Actually, the bold there is correct. The rules shouldn't just be a tool for making a character that's awesome at everything and never fails. Neither should they just be a tool for the DM to tell his epic story with no player input.

What the rules are supposed to be, in my (and I'd wager more than few others') opinion, is a tool for the group as, a whole, to tell awesome stories with awesome characters from both sides of the screen.

It's not just the DM's story and it's not just the players' story, it's everybody's story and a way to have a good time.

this dm is of the mindset to make us play along to his story, strong armed a couple decisions i made in game to get his way. i recall an incident my main group had with him when he messed something up. our dm told him dont worry about, people make mistakes, its how we learn. His literal response, "i dont make mistakes." said in full-serious btw
we all stopped what we were doing and gave the death glare. so much arrogance

[Kelb_Panthera]

this dm is of the mindset to make us play along to his story, strong armed a couple decisions i made in game to get his way. i recall an incident my main group had with him when he messed something up. our dm told him dont worry about, people make mistakes, its how we learn. His literal response, "i dont make mistakes." said in full-serious btw
we all stopped what we were doing and gave the death glare. so much arrogance

Depending on how aggravated I was already, that's the kind of line that could easily push me into taking the first swing. Then again, I don't think I'd consort with anyone that arrogant long enough to -get- that annoyed in the first place.

[MarsRendac]

Depending on how aggravated I was already, that's the kind of line that could easily push me into taking the first swing. Then again, I don't think I'd consort with anyone that arrogant long enough to -get- that annoyed in the first place.

You're fine peeps, Kelb.

[Firechanter]

To be fair to SKR, it seems he doesn't make all the rulings on his own. He's just the only one that tells us the rulings.

Well I would expect his voice to have some weight among his peers, though. And when I hear SKR, I primarily think of his personal homepage and the hilarious nonsense he wrote there in full earnest. Really, read it to catch a glimpse of how this man understands the game he has helped write. It may cost some Sanity Points, though.
What's probably taking the cake would be his proposed "feat point system", where just for example he expresses the opinion that Skill Focus is twice as valuable as Quicken Spell.

So, yeah... when I read "SKR", I don't really expect anything more than a facepalm.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're fine peeps, Kelb.

Ya see, the problem with text as a form of communication is that tone doesn't translate well.

I honestly have no idea if this is a genuine compliment, given because I have the good sense to walk away, or a sarcastic barb, because I'm of such violent nature to be inclined to attack someone for being an insufferable jackass.

This is why I'm glad the blue text for sarcasm is catching on.

[TuggyNE]

OT:

Spoiler

Show

This is why I'm glad the blue text for sarcasm is catching on.

Any suggestions for a special color to indicate extra sincerity, or something? Sometimes I worry that merely the lack of blue does not quite convey it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

OT:

Spoiler

Show

Any suggestions for a special color to indicate extra sincerity, or something? Sometimes I worry that merely the lack of blue does not quite convey it.

Still OT

Spoiler

Show

Not a clue. I'd be surprised if one caught on though. Sarcasm is rather noticeably more prevalent than great sincerity in my experience.

Btw, you realize that there's not much point in spoilering that since nearly everyone will open it, given that you didn't address it to anyone in particular?

[TuggyNE]

OT for great justice:

Spoiler

Show

Not a clue. I'd be surprised if one caught on though. Sarcasm is rather noticeably more prevalent than great sincerity in my experience.

Heh, fair enough.

If one did, though, perhaps a sort of green?

Btw, you realize that there's not much point in spoilering that since nearly everyone will open it, given that you didn't address it to anyone in particular?

I ... had not actually thought of that, but oh well, I got no other idea on how to handle that.

And I just did it again. :P

[Rejakor]

In a mid-op game, I gave people lower than t3, amongst other bonuses, an extra round of actions for each iterative attack they had.

t1 and t2 people still dominated the party's interactions with the world.

But the melee got to feel like badasses in combat (even though the fights were still being won by Solid Fog and Wall of Stone etc).

I'd only recommend it for mid-op to high-op groups, i.e. the ones that take druids/clerics/wizards off the rails and shove them up monsters' butts, but it did make taking a fighter a more attractive choice.


That group doesn't sound like it was the rules that were the problem, though, just complete derp and failure to play by any set of consistent rules. High power games can be fun, but games where there aren't consistent rules are horrible, because it becomes 'guess which way the DM is going to rule things' and becomes a social exercise not a roleplaying one.

[Threadnaught]

Have you actually read the original post?

Yes and to me it looked like the guy's DM is an idiot. That's how I interprated it.

Who said that, and where?

Me, every time there's an issue about the game because someone disagrees with the DM. If all players feel the DM isn't being fair and that the DM could be running a better game, then it's the DM's fault. If there's a problem player constantly whining about how the DM is being unfair because of their sucky dice rolls, or a rule that won't allow them certain advantages, then it's the player at fault.

The rules shouldn't just be a tool for making a character that's awesome at everything and never fails. Neither should they just be a tool for the DM to tell his epic story with no player input.

What the rules are supposed to be, in my (and I'd wager more than few others') opinion, is a tool for the group as, a whole, to tell awesome stories with awesome characters from both sides of the screen.

It's not just the DM's story and it's not just the players' story, it's everybody's story and a way to have a good time.

You mind if I use that as my sig?

this dm is of the mindset to make us play along to his story, strong armed a couple decisions i made in game to get his way. i recall an incident my main group had with him when he messed something up. our dm told him dont worry about, people make mistakes, its how we learn. His literal response, "i dont make mistakes." said in full-serious btw
we all stopped what we were doing and gave the death glare. so much arrogance

If the whole group hates how the DM runs things, you should elect a new DM, or have somebody step up and take charge. It's clear this guy's games aren't going to go anywhere the group as a whole will enjoy.
If all else fails, you could join my group, we've been looking for a Cleric since the DM decided on a tier 1 campaign.

[BobVosh]

Back when we first started playing 3.0, when it was first released, I'm not entirely sure any of us actually read the rules.

On incremental increases to class stuff, e.g. BAB/Saves: Those + signs mean we add right? So from lvl 1 to 2, it was 3. From lvl 2 to lvl 3 it was obviously 3+3. Same thing for saves!

So it wasn't uncommon to have level 12 characters with 3 forms of confusing Bab (+6/+1? obviously we get a second pool of bab! In other words +21/+1)

Greater cleave doesn't let you do those free 5 steps that you can do whenever you aren't moving? Our strategy vs everything was arcane archer storm of arrows, paladin g. cleaves everything. So after every cleave he moved 5 feet, usually going up to 80+ feet to kill everything. In full plate.

Saves were obviously obscenely high, making us wonder how anyone could lose to a mage.

Strangely we got spells right, I think because it wasn't too different from 2nd ed.

Characters came in at level 1, regardless of the level of the rest of the party. I died so many times trying to catch up to party level when they were 10+.

*edit* Oh yeah, Monks were sick good, as not only did you have the obviously better flurry chart due to the number of extra attacks, that eventually began to hit after peaking at -3/-3 to hit, began to hit pretty well. You could dual wield those attacks, with only a -2/-2 to the first chart first 2 numbers! The recent posts about monks flurry in PF reminded me of that. And the damage! A monk was dealing 1D6+1D6+1D6+1D8+1D8+str per hit at level five!

[Douglas]

A monk was dealing 1D6+1D6+1D6+1D8+1D8+str per hit at level five!

So no one noticed that the monk damage table, unlike BAB and saves, did not have a + sign in front of everything?

I imagine monks also ended up with crazy high AC after a while, with the level based bonus scaling up like that.

[Shaynythyryas]

I once had a horrific game which combined horrific home rules and terrible rp setting.

1- the DM decided (or vastly misinterpretated) to replace the str/dex bonus by the stat itself. As for CA, he decided to add the full str to heavy armor, full dex to light/unarmed and the better of str and dex to medium.

2- same rule, of course, applied to damage. Neeldess to say, after the first fight against a petty thief, the whole groupe was down to almost 0 hp left.

3- magic (well, divine) healing was "too overpowered, unrealistic", so he limited it to an off-combat, very long conjuring spell that could, in case of success make us regain life over time.

4- every spell was bound to a dex-based test to be successfully cast if it involved a gestual component.

5- at some point, our group was captured and split up in different cells. To reflect that, naturally, he made us play alone while others were in another room. The problem is that these scenes were awfully, terribly long, and we had to wait for a complete hour for each one. It was a disastrous mood killer.

[starship1]

Back when we first started playing 3.0, when it was first released, I'm not entirely sure any of us actually read the rules.

On incremental increases to class stuff, e.g. BAB/Saves: Those + signs mean we add right? So from lvl 1 to 2, it was 3. From lvl 2 to lvl 3 it was obviously 3+3. Same thing for saves!

So it wasn't uncommon to have level 12 characters with 3 forms of confusing Bab (+6/+1? obviously we get a second pool of bab! In other words +21/+1)

Greater cleave doesn't let you do those free 5 steps that you can do whenever you aren't moving? Our strategy vs everything was arcane archer storm of arrows, paladin g. cleaves everything. So after every cleave he moved 5 feet, usually going up to 80+ feet to kill everything. In full plate.

Saves were obviously obscenely high, making us wonder how anyone could lose to a mage.

Strangely we got spells right, I think because it wasn't too different from 2nd ed.

I smell a dnd fix! melee gets good things, monks are decent, and casters get a huge nerf! Totally playtesting this!

[only1doug]

Harldy a competitor for worst ever but a recent thread made me recall the time my new wizard (just rolled up, first few minutes of play) got jumped on and eaten by a Landshark...

The GM was kinda eager to kill PCs (my previous PC had died due to the GM deliberately misinterpreting what I said) and I had just met up with the party.

Why is this a bad interpretation? well the new Wizard was an elf, which Bulette's refuse to eat, and they have scent so it would know to avoid him (and eat one of the tastier party members instead).

[awa]

refluffing monsters or changing their habbits isnt really a bad dm call. Its more a setting thing.

also scent only pinpoints a creatures sqaure if hes within 5 feet of it so assume it poped out of the ground directly beneath you it would have no way to diferentiate an elf from any nearby huminoids. (That ignores the fact that ive had dms who required sense to have line of effect so you would not be able to smell anything underground)

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Threadnaught

You can try and put that quote in your sig if you want, but it may be too long to fit.