Druid/Monk combo

[Matafuego]

Wait... why would you provoke an AOO if you're making an unarmed strike as a bear and you're a monk/druid?
Why would the Improved Unarmed Strike stop working?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wait... why would you provoke an AOO if you're making an unarmed strike as a bear and you're a monk/druid?
Why would the Improved Unarmed Strike stop working?

Sorry, I was just talking about a straight druid.

The monk/druid would deal unarmed strike damage as a monk of the bear's size category, and could also make those unarmed strikes as a Flurry of Blows. Dealing lethal damage and provoking no AoO.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

So, like, this makes me think of wild-shaping into the form of a cow. And using kung fu.

 

[kerbarian]

You can't make rake attacks as part of a Flurry of Blows; they are neither unarmed strikes not special monk weapons.

I've seen this come up a few times, and I wanted to be clear on the source of the interpretation. My first thought is that while natural attacks clearly can't be made as part of a flurry of blows, they could be made in addition to a flurry of blows during the same full attack action, as natural attacks can normally be combined with manufactured weapon attacks.

The reason that's not allowed is because of the line "she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round." The idea is that the -2 penalty applying to all other attacks during the round (including natural attacks) makes those attacks part of the flurry of blows. If that line about the penalty weren't there, then it would be possible to combine a flurry of blows with natural attacks. Is that correct?

Because the wording applies to all attacks during the round, that would mean that a monk who uses flurry of blows would be restricted to using unarmed strikes and monk weapons for any attacks of opportunity until his next action, right? If the monk were holding a (non-monk) reach weapon, would that mean that he actually stops threatening the squares he could hit with the reach weapon, since he's unable to attack with it?

 

[Hypersmurf]

My first thought is that while natural attacks clearly can't be made as part of a flurry of blows, they could be made in addition to a flurry of blows during the same full attack action, as natural attacks can normally be combined with manufactured weapon attacks.

Well, 'when using Flurry of Blows' must either describe the full attack action, or the extra attack(s) gained by the ability, or the entire round.

Let's say we have a first level monk with a longsword. He attacks at +0; if he uses Flurry of Blows, he gains an extra attack, but all attacks in the round are at -2.

Since Flurry of Blows is adding one attack, we know that that attack must be part of the Flurry of Blows, and therefore cannot be made with the longsword. What about the other attack, though, which he would have received even if he were not using Flurry of Blows?

If he can use the longsword for that attack, then I'd have no problem allowing a secondary bite as part of the Full Attack action. If he cannot, then I believe any secondary attack with natural weapons is also prohibited, since it means the scope of the Flurry is either 'every attack in the Full Attack action' or 'every attack in the round'.

-Hyp.

 

[kerbarian]

Well, 'when using Flurry of Blows' must either describe the full attack action, or the extra attack(s) gained by the ability, or the entire round.

What I had in mind was that the scope of the flurry of blows was essentially
"all manufactured weapon attacks made during the full attack action". Going by the D&D definition of manufactured weapon attacks, of course, which oddly enough includes unarmed strikes, even from a commoner.

Writing it out like that, it does look somewhat contrived. The real reason I was thinking that isn't so much the wording of the rules but the way they're organized. Most of the PHB describes everything in terms of manufactured weapon attacks and doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of natural attacks. You have to go to the MM to even find out how they can be combined. So my assumption is that the monk rules were written like most of the other rules in the PHB -- from the perspective of manufactured weapon attacks only -- and the flurry rules would refer only to those.

Looking at it as purely a RAW issue, I did spot something that supports that position. The monk table in the PHB has the column "Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus", and it lists only the attacks that would be gained from BAB plus flurry. That seems like a pretty clear definition of the scope of flurry to me. Of course, the -2 penalty applies to all attacks during the round, not just flurry attacks, so natural attacks would still get the penalty.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Looking at it as purely a RAW issue, I did spot something that supports that position. The monk table in the PHB has the column "Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus", and it lists only the attacks that would be gained from BAB plus flurry. That seems like a pretty clear definition of the scope of flurry to me.

So Two-Weapon Fighting to make off-hand attacks with a shortsword (not covered by the column entry), and Rapid Shot to throw a javelin (not covered by the column entry), and the extra attack from Haste to attack with the longsword in my main hand (not covered by the column entry), are all fine, while only the attacks listed in the column on the table are restricted to unarmed strikes and special monk weapons?

What if BAB from racial hit dice or other classes adds an extra iterative attack? Is that extra iterative attack added to the Flurry column, or just to the BAB column?

-Hyp.

 

[kerbarian]

So Two-Weapon Fighting to make off-hand attacks with a shortsword (not covered by the column entry), and Rapid Shot to throw a javelin (not covered by the column entry), and the extra attack from Haste to attack with the longsword in my main hand (not covered by the column entry), are all fine, while only the attacks listed in the column on the table are restricted to unarmed strikes and special monk weapons?

What if BAB from racial hit dice or other classes adds an extra iterative attack? Is that extra iterative attack added to the Flurry column, or just to the BAB column?

Clearly the "Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus" column has the same type of scope as the "Base Attack Bonus" column in the same table. It can be modified by a whole bunch of things. It was a poor choice on my part to describe it as "only the attacks that would be gained from BAB plus flurry", which implies that it can't be modified.

From the perspective of the MM, though, all the attacks of a fighter with BAB +11/+6/+1 (which can be modified by off-hand weapons, haste, etc.) count as a "manufactured weapon attack". The MM says

"Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks."

What I'm saying about that column in the monk table is that it sets the scope of a flurry of blows to be the same as the scope of a full attack made based on BAB. As such, it would be "considered the primary attack", and other, secondary natural attacks could be made in addition to it. The entire flurry of blows is the primary attack, and the secondary attacks are separate from that, so they wouldn't be part of the flurry of blows and thus wouldn't be subject to the weapon restrictions of flurry of blows.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The entire flurry of blows is the primary attack, and the secondary attacks are separate from that, so they wouldn't be part of the flurry of blows and thus wouldn't be subject to the weapon restrictions of flurry of blows.

But if you're assuming that the PHB was written from the perspective of manufactured weapons only and that the Flurry rules refer only to those, shouldn't one discount the -2 penalty when calculating secondary natural attacks also?

-Hyp.

 

[kerbarian]

But if you're assuming that the PHB was written from the perspective of manufactured weapons only and that the Flurry rules refer only to those, shouldn't one discount the -2 penalty when calculating secondary natural attacks also?

As I said earlier, "Of course, the -2 penalty applies to all attacks during the round, not just flurry attacks, so natural attacks would still get the penalty."

The perspective of the PHB helped form my initial impression, and then I looked for rules text to back it up -- it's not a rules argument in itself. The rules text about the -2 penalty is very clear, and it's independent of whether natural attacks are considered part of a flurry.