Monk Animals

[Angel of Adventure]

I've got to side with the PC and Anubus (sort of) in this. In several games our party fought a variety of weirdo (sometimes animal) monks and they all did their monky thing just fine. I think that, fundamentally, a paw is the same as an unarmed strike. Actually, nearly anything can be an unarmed strike, according to the PHB's description.

I would think that nearly all monk bonuses would transfer over during a shape change.

The best way to regulate this character would be to attack it in ways that are optimal based on her chosen form. Or, only let her monk thing as part of shaping into something humanoid (like an ape or the like) that could actually punch someone.

For the minority,

AoA

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Seperate Mechanics and Fluff...

I see similarity in most of the above posts.. it seems people are getting wrapped up in the fluffy bits of this.

THe character attacks using the mechanics of either the natural attack {claw/claw/bite} or the mechanics of the monk {unarmed with iteritives and flurry of blows}

Given a high enough monk to have 3 monkish attacks in a round the fluff can look exaclty the same:
"Jaq leaps forward, biting at the enemies shoulder and raking with his back claws across the soft, exposed belly.." can be used to describe either mechanic.

As long as the player and DM are aware of the mechanical differences/ advantages/ disadvanteges of both routes, life is good.


JMHO

 

[glass]

When she is a jaguar bite would be a primary attack. I don't know how scaled BAB natural attacks for shapeshifting monks work though.

If you are mixing 'weapons' (including unarmed strikes) and natural attacks, all the natural attacks are secondary regardless of whether they would be primary or secondary normally.


glass.

 

[glass]

True enough, but honestly how is a claw attack fundamentally any different than a punch

Fundamentally, the rules say they are different.

...there's no reason she couldn't paw someone instead, like those declawed cats for example, which would make the attacks "unarmed". So why couldn't she use her two "paw" attacks, then her flurry of blows with her paws, and still get 4 or 5 attacks with the d10, with just the bite staying at d6? Or perhaps sticking closer to the rules a flurry with one paw, then a regular claw and bite as additional weapons?

If she has here claws pulled, she no longer has natural weapons to attack with in addition to her unarmed attacks (apart from the bite), so she just gets fewer attacks when not flurrying.

When she is flurrying, she can't use her claws or bites at all, regardless of what surgery she has had.


glass.

 

[glass]

Well I really don't want to turn this into me against anyone, but in my later post I never said the paw and claw were the same. I suggested using the paw for the flurry, then a claw and a bite as additional weapons, count 3 weapons here. Also, technically a monks unarmed strikes aren't punches, it specifically states that they are just blows made with some part of your body, whether it be fist, foot, head, knee, whatever, so why not a paw?

Which part of the body a monk uses for unarmed strikes is flavour text. Unarmed strikes do unarmed strike damage.

Claws and bites are not unarmed strikes, and do not do unarmed strike damage. They do claw or bite damage. And, they are not monk weapons, so they are can not be used in a flurry.


glass.

 

[Anubus]

Please explain to me how the physics of a spinning kick and the physics of a claw attack differ. The former is fine based upon what some are calling the "flavour" text, or what I call the definition of an unarmed strike, so to me an attack that mimics the same movement should be able to qualify for the monks abilities.

To me this is not a simple black and white issue, and I can always due without the opinions of rules lawyers. Yes the rules call a natural weapon and an unarmed strike different attacks, but a creature that isn't a typical humanoid shape can take monk levels no problem under the rules, so why wouldn't they be able to adapt the monks abilities to suit their own physiology?

 

[dcollins]

Because you're granting a bonus to damage (as you say in your first post, "now its getting kind of crazy") that is not allowed under the rules or any existing examples. If you dislike the opinions of "rules lawyers", then you shouldn't have asked this question in the Rules Forum, frankly.

 

[Anubus]

Sorry, let me rephrase, I think we've read the rules lawyers opinions enough times already, I'd like to people to consider what is actually going on with the situation, not just quote some rule somewhere. What I'd like is a discussion based upon why or why not this stuff would actual work or not, without the black and white answer of "natural attack <> unarmed attack".

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Please explain to me how the physics of a spinning kick and the physics of a claw attack differ.

Have you ever watched the Discovery Channel?

Have you ever seen a great cat perform a spinning kick?

I'll bet you've seen one claw an opponent, though - I can think of several documentaries on lions and their internal struggles for dominance, off the top of my head, in which this has happened.

Given that the body's motion and *equipment* used for a spinning kick is radically different than that used in a swipe with a claw (if nothing else, you're trying to hit them with a different part of the body), then I'd say it's pretty obvious how the "physics" of the attacks differ.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sorry, let me rephrase, I think we've read the rules lawyers opinions enough times already, I'd like to people to consider what is actually going on with the situation, not just quote some rule somewhere. What I'd like is a discussion based upon why or why not this stuff would actual work or not, without the black and white answer of "natural attack <> unarmed attack".

Then you need to go to the house rules forum to discuss your overpowered - by your own admission - house rule.