Can a monk flurry in a grapple?

[justfisch]

Yup. Even the FAQ and RotG tend to stay away from this one. Best to ask your DM.

However, the 3.5 FAQ (if desired) does say:
"Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks
during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks?
What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat
maneuvers?
As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s
special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry),
the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of
a normal attack. She’s free to disarm, sunder, trip, and grapple
to her heart’s content."

This answer has some issues because initiating a grapple is an unarmed attack, but not specifically an unarmed strike... and the concensus is that there is a difference between the two. However, this may not be a truism, since both Andy Collins and Skip Williams (and other WotC authors) have used the terms interchangeably.

But this only covers initiating a grapple. Once a monk is in a grapple, then we have a separate issue of whether flurry is similar to TWF'ing or multi-limb fighting (which cannot be done in a grapple), and/or whether it counts as effectively increasing your BAB.

Again, best to ask your DM (or just avoid the whole issue entirely by never trying to flurry in a grapple).

I will ask my DM, thanks for the quote from FAQ that will help a lot, I believe.

cheers,
j

 

[Hypersmurf]

That makes no sense. You could flurry with kama but not open handed?

For tripping? Right.

So what if the unarmed strike is a weapon, the kama is a weapon. It is an attack with an with an unarmed strike, just because you need to only hit their touch ac and not their full ac shouldn't mater.

It's an unarmed attack, but it's not an attack with an unarmed strike; if unarmed strike could be used to trip, it would say so in the weapon description like every other trip weapon.

An unarmed trip is a trip made with no weapon at all, not made with an unarmed strike. Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike does not apply to your touch attack roll to trip unarmed.

I would agree, that starting a grapple is not an attack with an unarmed strike, it is more like getting up in someone's grill. But after the grapple is established I don't see why you couldn't flurry for the attack an opponent option.

The issue there is that you don't get to replace every attack you get with a grappling option; you get to replace every attack you get due to a high BAB with a grappling option. The extra attack from Flurry is not an attack due to a high BAB, it's something entirely separate.

The damage your opponent option seems more like you are twisting their arm or leg into some painful possistion to cause damage.

Right - not an attack with an unarmed strike or special monk weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

It's an unarmed attack, but it's not an attack with an unarmed strike.

As mentioned, the perceived difference between the two might not be intended by the authors.
(i.e. the Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks - Part One (if desired) states "Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably")

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As mentioned, the perceived difference between the two might not be intended by the authors.

I've gone round & round with H-smurf & others on this one, including the glossary definitions of such and my own personal replies from WizCust Serv- they're generally not buying it.

Thus, while I'm not all that stoked by some of what I read about 4Ed, I am hoping that they clarify that, at least.

 

[Deset Gled]

As mentioned, the perceived difference between the two might not be intended by the authors.
(i.e. the Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks - Part One (if desired) states "Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably")

It's also important to note that different authors have different oppinions. For example, Sean K. Reynolds would probably like to throttle Skip for that statement. See his "Learn what words mean, dammit!" rant here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html

I think the one thing we can all agree is that all of the terminology surrounding unarmed strikes is one of the worst editing fiascos of our gaming generation. WotC's refusal to issue (free) errata for it is one of my pet peeve's.

 

[mvincent]

See his "Learn what words mean, dammit!" rant here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html

He probably wouldn't be too happy to learn that the meaning of flat-footed (which has always been misused by various WotC authors) was similarly misused in the Rules Compendium, making it now technically official (because WotC has stated that the RC overrules everything else).

 

[Hypersmurf]

He probably wouldn't be too happy to learn that the meaning of flat-footed (which has always been misused by various WotC authors) was similarly misused in the Rules Compendium, making it now technically official (because WotC has stated that the RC overrules everything else).

Do you mean in the Hide rules, where now if you're invisible, your opponent is only denied Dex bonus, but if you're hiding, they're considered flat-footed, making hiding slightly more disadvantageous to the opponent than invisibility?

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

Do you mean in the Hide rules, where now if you're invisible, your opponent is only denied Dex bonus, but if you're hiding, they're considered flat-footed, making hiding slightly more disadvantageous to the opponent than invisibility?

Yup (and thank you for elaborating).

 

[eamon]

Leaving Flurry of Blows aside, there's a terminology problem of "unarmed strikes" vs. "unarmed attacks".

Since Grapple is not performed with an unarmed strike or special monk weapon (Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike or Weapon Focus: Nunchaku, for example, will not add to the touch attack roll - for that, you need Weapon Focus: Grapple), initiating a grapple isn't something that can be done as part of a flurry.

Why would a unarmed touch attack not be performed with an unarmed strike?

In general, it's not specified with what weapon a touch attack is performed. There are some exceptions - for example if you use a spiked chain to trip an opponent, you're trying to touch him with the spiked chain. If you're not using a (real) weapon, you're attacking unarmed (and hence provoke an attack of opportunity. There exist game rules for making attacks while unarmed, namely "unarmed strikes".

The game-mechanics weapon "unarmed strike" isn't a weapon in the normal usage of the word. However, it's treated as one mechanically, especially if you have the improved unarmed strike feat. On the other hand, Grapple is not a weapon - neither mechanically, nor "normally". Weapon Focus (Grapple) makes less sense than Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike). It's in the PHB, but it's extremely ill-defined. What exactly would Weapon Focus apply to? Only the initial touch attack? What if you had an exotic weapon with which to perform grapple attacks (not entirely hypothetical - the dragonchain from RHoD allows this), which weapon focus would apply - or even both? Is "grapple" a light weapon? The presumed "grapple" weapon is, AFAIK mentioned nowhere else.

Then I wonder - if you attack unarmed, what game-mechanical weapon are you using - none? Or are you using an unarmed "attack"? If you're attacking without a game-mechanical weapon, that means you can't use weapon focus, you can't enchant it, and there are probably any number of other places in the rules in which the implicit assumption is made that there is some weapon you're attacking with.

Even the rules-text of the feat "Improved Unarmed Strike" taken completely by itself fails to distinguish clearly between "attacking unarmed" and an "unarmed strike". Apart from the fact that the feat's very name refers to unarmed strikes yet grants benefits to all unarmed attacks, the text also fails to distinguish the two.

SRD Improved Unarmed Strike extract:

"Benefit
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

Normal
Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.​

Emphasis mine. The feat (amongst other things) causes you to be considered armed - when? According to the "benefit" section, the feat improves your situation whenever you attack unarmed, whereas the "normal" section speaks merely of attacking with unarmed strikes.

The rules don't distinguish between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes. Unsurprisingly, they tend to use the words "unarmed strike" if you're merely trying to strike and opponent, and the words "unarmed attack" when speaking in more general terms of any number of attacks beyond a simple damage dealing strike.

Unless you're some weird psion, you can't trip someone with the power of your mind. You might use a natural weapon with the "Trip" ability, or you could use a special weapon (such as a spiked chain). If you aren't using any of these special means, then with what are you making that initial touch attack? I think it's an "unarmed attack".

Unless you're some weird psion, you can't grapple someone with the power of your mind. You might use a natural weapon with the "Improved Grab" ability, or you could use a special weapon (such as found in some splatbooks). If you aren't using any of these special means, then with what are you making that initial touch attack? I think it's an "unarmed attack".

Of course, if you're making an unarmed attack and have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you're considered armed - but with what?

Whether you want to draw a distinction between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes in your game or not, it's clear that the authors definitely weren't clear on the distinction themselves. That's not to directly say they didn't want a distinction, but that they failed to make it clearly and consistently. Desert Gled is being polite when he calls this an "editing fiasco": I don't think it's a textual issue, but rather that the issue was never clarified internally in the first place. Since D&D redefines common English words, it's easy to conceive a miscommunication about such things.

The question then becomes how to interpret the rules that are obviously nebulous.

Does weapon focus (spiked chain) apply to touch attacks such as those to trip someone? It does. Consistency suggests that weapon focus (unarmed) should apply to touch attacks to initiate a trip attempt. If better spiked-chain training allows a spiked chain wielder to connect slightly more frequently, should it not be able to allow a unarmed combatant to connect slightly more frequently as well? Weapon Focus doesn't apply only to straightforward weapon "strikes" but to any attack made with the weapon. The unarmed version should do the same.

Does Weapon Finesse apply to unarmed attacks? Unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, but unarmed attacks aren't mentioned. Again, making the distinction isn't good; you should allow weapon finesse to work for unarmed attacks. Otherwise you might get the nonsensical situation in which a character finds it easier to strike a creature for damage, than to merely touch a creature.

The rules concerning unarmed strikes/attacks are unclear. Choose whatever makes the most sense to you. I feel that if flurry of blows could conceivably be used to make multiple trip attempts with a kama, it could be used to make multiple trip attempts unarmed.

Flurry of Blows can only be combined with the full-attack action. Technically, a full attack action is not possible during a grapple. This doesn't seem to be a merely twist of words; for example, it's explicitly forbidden to attack with multiple light weapons even if you could, during a grapple. On the other hand, the RotG seems to think that you could use multiple natural weapons in a grapple, even though I can't see any support for that (anybody?). I would not allow flurry of blows during a grapple - but would for initiating a grapple.

...and...

Thus, while I'm not all that stoked by some of what I read about 4Ed, I am hoping that they clarify that, at least.

No kidding

 

[eamon]

Do you mean in the Hide rules, where now if you're invisible, your opponent is only denied Dex bonus, but if you're hiding, they're considered flat-footed, making hiding slightly more disadvantageous to the opponent than invisibility?

That doesn't make any sense, indeed. How do (would) you adjudicate that?