Claw, Claw, Bite, Karate Chop?

[Caeleddin]

...during his primary attack routine.

 

[Hypersmurf]

...during his primary attack routine.

Oh, absolutely. There's no such thing for a monk during his primary attack routine.

... or at any other time he is 'striking unarmed'.

-Hyp.

 

[Caeleddin]

FAQ disagrees. You don't count It merely means you are not using your off-hand in the routine and thus it can be used to do off-hand attacks. It was most probably put in RAW to stop arguments ("Haven't you seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon??? They used everything, man!!!"), but was so ineptly worded that it CREATED arguments. The FAQ tried to stop that, but then we get *cough*boneheads*cough* that keep insisting that the official FAQ is a load of rubbish and should be ignored


Funny, isn't it, that you and I can disagree and not get abusive while....?

 

[Hypersmurf]

It merely means you are not using your off-hand in the routine and thus it can be used to do off-hand attacks.

That requires you to add in whole sentences that aren't there, though.

"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

Q1. Are you a monk?

If yes:

Q2. Are you striking unarmed?

If yes:

Conclusion: There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for you.

The question "Are you involved in a primary attack routine" is not relevant. It's not stated, hinted, or even alluded to in the text as having any association with the statement.

Funny, isn't it, that you and I can disagree and not get abusive while....?

Given that I feel the FAQ can be freely ignored when it contradicts the rules, it would seem I'm included in your blanket description of 'boneheads', and thus you're still getting abusive while disagreeing...

-Hyp.

 

[Caeleddin]

Obviously the means nothing to you.

I am sorry that humour is wasted on you. I shall never make that mistake again.

 

[John Quixote]

Hyp, I've gotta tell ya, the PHB description of the monk is just crap. Back in 3.0, it said "it makes no sense for a monk attacking unarmed to have an off-hand attack", and one paragraph later, pointed out that monks can make off-hand unarmed attacks along with one-handed weapons (and the 3.0 FAQ had to clarify that they could do it along with two-handed weapons as well). Even the RAW can be self-contradictory.

As it stands, the 3.5 description of monk unarmed strikes only mentions the off-hand for one purpose: to point out that a monk with his hands full (either with weapons or any other objects) can still make primary unarmed strikes. If a fighter has a sword in his primary hand, any unarmed attack he makes is off-hand, -4 to hit and 1/2 Str bonus to damage. A monk in the same situation can make a primary unarmed strike with any part of his body without suffering those penalties. The PHB text does *not* forbid off-hand unarmed attacks for monks who choose to make them (it'd be silly to think that a fighter who multiclasses monk forgets how to make off-hand unarmed attacks!), but merely points out that the monk can't be forced into making them the way other characters can. The FAQ clairifies this (as if common sodding snense weren't enough) and is even nice enough to remind us that an off-hand unarmed strike, even for a monk, takes half the Str bonus to damage (even though the poorly worded PHB text might suggest otherwise).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, I've gotta tell ya, the PHB description of the monk is just crap. Back in 3.0, it said "it makes no sense for a monk attacking unarmed to have an off-hand attack", and one paragraph later, pointed out that monks can make off-hand unarmed attacks along with one-handed weapons.

It did indeed. But in 3.5, it doesn't go on to say they can make off-hand unarmed attacks. It simple says there's no such thing.

If we were debating what was possible in 3E, the answers would be different.

-Hyp.

 

[John Quixote]

It did indeed. But in 3.5, it doesn't go on to say they can make off-hand unarmed attacks. It simple says there's no such thing.

It shouldn't have to say it. It's assumed. It's fweakin' obvious. The FAQ just clears up a point which is more common sense than any omission on the part of the text.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It shouldn't have to say it. It's assumed. It's fweakin' obvious.

How is it possibly "fweakin' obvious" that a monk can do something that's just been stated to be non-existent?

-Hyp.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I thought it was established that the offhand attack for monks meant that a monk could carry a kama in one hand, sai in the other, and still attack with a flurry taking their unarmed damage instead--kicking and headbutting, or whatever.