Dragon Monk

[Hypersmurf]

Er, that was said, but Hyp said that. I also don't understand it, as my reading of the SRD shows that you would not want to disallow a dragon from making one of his attacks later - since he could easily declare that he used his elbow to make the IUS.

I said if he declared it to be with his forepaw.

For example, a lizardman with no weapon gets claw/claw/bite. A lizardman with a longsword gets his sword attacks and also claw/bite, but he can't make a claw attack with the claw that's holding the sword.

For consistency, a dragon who uses a paw to make an unarmed strike wouldn't be able to make a secondary natural attack with that claw, just as if he'd used the paw to swing a sword.

As you say, he could make his unarmed strike as an elbow or headbutt instead, which woud leave all his natural weapons available as secondary attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

And what about TWFing?

Not the combinging-flurry-and-TWFing debate, but TWFing and then the natural attacks?

You can use TWF and then make natural attacks. Basicly you can use all of the options any other character could use and also attack with all of your usable natural weapons (unless those options prevent you from doing so such as a Whirlwind attack).

 

[Jdvn1]

You can use TWF and then make natural attacks. Basicly you can use all of the options any other character could use and also attack with all of your usable natural weapons (unless those options prevent you from doing so such as a Whirlwind attack).

/me imagines a character with Flurry, TWFing, Rapidstrike, and Multiattack.

That ends up being a lot of attacks. Okay, thanks guys. I think that answers all of my questions.

 

[moritheil]

I said if he declared it to be with his forepaw.

For example, a lizardman with no weapon gets claw/claw/bite. A lizardman with a longsword gets his sword attacks and also claw/bite, but he can't make a claw attack with the claw that's holding the sword.

For consistency, a dragon who uses a paw to make an unarmed strike wouldn't be able to make a secondary natural attack with that claw, just as if he'd used the paw to swing a sword.

As you say, he could make his unarmed strike as an elbow or headbutt instead, which woud leave all his natural weapons available as secondary attacks.

-Hyp.

In effect, that means that the flavor text of how the attack is made determines whether or not a penalty is imposed. I now understand why you say it works that way mechanically, but I still don't see how it's consistent in the sense that it's an arbitrary designation that affects nothing in terms of damage output or attacks, but will result in a real mechanical penalty for the player if he isn't careful.

Eh, I do understand how the distinction is directly predicated from armed attacks with physically distinct weapons such as axes, but . . . I think I'd rule that, given the fact that one could simply say "elbow" and avoid the hassle, it would only be fair and courteous for a DM to allow the description of an attack to include a paw (but no claw!) Am I just a softie DM?