Druid/Monk combo

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Yeah. I'm not sure that the PHB's perspective is relevant... if the Flurry column (-2/-2) can have other attacks (Haste, TWF, Rapid Shot) appended to it, I don't see any reason that secondary natural attacks would not be treated identically, and appended to the list... becoming part of the Flurry and thus illegal unless designated as special monk weapons somehow.

-Hyp.

 

[kerbarian]

Yeah. I'm not sure that the PHB's perspective is relevant... if the Flurry column (-2/-2) can have other attacks (Haste, TWF, Rapid Shot) appended to it, I don't see any reason that secondary natural attacks would not be treated identically, and appended to the list... becoming part of the Flurry and thus illegal unless designated as special monk weapons somehow.

According to the MM, all the attacks you get from a BAB progression, including any modifications from haste, TWF, etc., get lumped into a single "manufactured weapon attack" that's treated as a primary attack, and then secondary natural attacks are in addition to (and separate from) that. Why wouldn't the same be true for the attacks you get from the flurry progression (including modifications from haste, etc.)?

 

[Hypersmurf]

According to the MM, all the attacks you get from a BAB progression, including any modifications from haste, TWF, etc., get lumped into a single "manufactured weapon attack" that's treated as a primary attack, and then secondary natural attacks are in addition to (and separate from) that.

But they all occur as part of the same full attack action, so they're all lumped in together in that fashion.

When determining order of attacks, we look at 'multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough', which would include iteratives, but exclude extra attacks from flurry, TWF, haste, Rapid Shot, etc, which are multiple attacks whether or not your base attack bonus is high enough. So we have another form of lumping together there.

If the monk kicks three people and chucks shuriken at two more, we've got three melee attacks and two ranged attacks; another way to lump attacks together.

Why should the fact that manufactured and natural attacks can be 'lumped together' in two separate lumps have any bearing on what is or is not considered part of a Flurry, when we can lump different attacks together in any number of ways? What makes that one special?

"When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons." When is the monk using flurry of blows? I'd say it's for the duration of the full attack action.

(As another illustrative example, a monk with Combat Reflexes is wielding a longsword and kama. He initiates a Flurry of Blows, and attempts to Disarm his opponent with his kama, provoking an AoO. The opponent takes this AoO as a Disarm himself, provoking an AoO in turn. Can the monk take this AoO with his longsword? I'd say no - this is occurring 'When using flurry of blows', so the non-monk weapon cannot be used to attack. Instead, he kicks the opponent, disarms are resolved, flurry continues, etc. End of monk's full attack action, end of flurry, end of turn. The opponent attempts to disarm again on his own turn, provoking another AoO. Can the monk use the longsword to respond? Sure - he's not using flurry of blows any more... though the -2 penalty still applies until his next turn.)

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

"When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons." When is the monk using flurry of blows? I'd say it's for the duration of the full attack action.

For what it's worth, I agree with Hyp, and have been arguing so for a long, long time.

 

[kerbarian]

But they all occur as part of the same full attack action, so they're all lumped in together in that fashion.

When determining order of attacks, we look at 'multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough', which would include iteratives, but exclude extra attacks from flurry, TWF, haste, Rapid Shot, etc, which are multiple attacks whether or not your base attack bonus is high enough. So we have another form of lumping together there.

If the monk kicks three people and chucks shuriken at two more, we've got three melee attacks and two ranged attacks; another way to lump attacks together.

Why should the fact that manufactured and natural attacks can be 'lumped together' in two separate lumps have any bearing on what is or is not considered part of a Flurry, when we can lump different attacks together in any number of ways? What makes that one special?

What makes that one special is that it's the lumping the MM uses. A creature's "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." So anything that doesn't take the -5 penalty for being a secondary natural attack must be part of the (primary) manufactured weapon attack. That lumps together attacks from the BAB progression and all attacks based on the BAB progression. That includes TWF, rapid shot, etc., but it excludes secondary natural attacks.

The question then becomes: Is a flurry a modification of a BAB-based set of iterative attacks, or does it extend beyond that to include all attacks made during a full attack action?

The rules don't say anything explicitly on this point one way or the other, so it's definitely an issue of interpretation rather than RAW. It looks to me, though, like the flurry would include attacks made using the "Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus" progression in the monk table and all attacks based on that progression. If that's the case, then the flurry would be lumped together by the MM into a "manufactured weapon attack" and would be separate from secondary natural attacks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What makes that one special is that it's the lumping the MM uses.

Certainly, but... so? What difference does that make?

Why is one grouping of attacks that happens to be found in the Monster Manual more relevant to determining what is or isn't part of the Flurry - described in the Player's Handbook - than any grouping of attacks found in the Player's Handbook?

It looks to me, though, like the flurry would include attacks made using the "Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus" progression in the monk table and all attacks based on that progression.

But secondary natural attacks are based on that progression as well - they're at your highest BAB - 5.

-Hyp.

 

[kerbarian]

Certainly, but... so? What difference does that make?

Why is one grouping of attacks that happens to be found in the Monster Manual more relevant to determining what is or isn't part of the Flurry - described in the Player's Handbook - than any grouping of attacks found in the Player's Handbook?

The chain of reasoning is:

The MM lumps the entire BAB-based set of iterative attacks (and modifications to them such as TWF) together into a "manufactured attack" that's separate from secondary natural attacks.

A flurry of blows is a modification to the BAB attacks, as shown in the monk table and described in the text: "The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column..."

If a flurry is a modification of the BAB-based set of iterative attacks and such iterations are lumped together by the MM rules into a "manufactured attack", then that means a flurry of blows is treated by the MM rules as a "manufactured attack".

If the flurry is treated as a "manufactured attack" by the MM rules, then secondary natural attacks are not part of the flurry.

Again, though, we're down to interpretation. My second item about a flurry of blows being a modification to the BAB-based set of iterative attacks is not what I'd call clear and explicit in the rules . It seems pretty reasonable to me, though, and I don't see anything in the rules that contradicts it. Deciding that the flurry includes all attacks made as part of a full attack action is also fairly reasonable, but there's nothing in the rules that's clear and explicit about that, either.

So I think at this point we're arguing about the intent of the writers, which probably isn't going to go anywhere. Do you agree? Or do you think that the RAW clearly state that a flurry includes any natural attacks?

But secondary natural attacks are based on that progression as well - they're at your highest BAB - 5.

You're right, I should have worded that more carefully. Instead of the BAB attack progression, I should have referred to the BAB-based set of iterative attacks.

In thinking about this, I just realized an interesting option for monsters with high BAB. Consider a juvenile red dragon, which has a BAB of +16. With its strength of 29, size large, and assuming it takes multiattack, it normally has a full attack of:

Bite +24 (2d6+9), 2 claws +22, (1d8+4), 2 wings +22 (1d6+4), and tail slap +22 (1d8+13)

Now say the dragon takes Improved Unarmed Strike. Could it choose to make a full attack of unarmed strikes using one of its claws and then take the rest of its natural attacks as secondary? That would give it a full attack of:

Unarmed strike +24/+19/+14/+9 (1d4+9), bite +22 (2d6+4), claw +22 (1d8+4), 2 wings +22 (1d6+4), and tail slap +22 (1d8+13)

which looks significantly better than its normal full attack. For example, vs. AC 25, it would deal an average damage of 79 rather than 62.

For that matter, is there any reason a dragon couldn't wield a greatsword? And wear armor? For hyper-intelligent creatures, you'd think they would have figured that out by now if it's possible .

 

[Hypersmurf]

So I think at this point we're arguing about the intent of the writers, which probably isn't going to go anywhere. Do you agree? Or do you think that the RAW clearly state that a flurry includes any natural attacks?

I think that the entire full attack action falling under the 'When using Flurry of Blows' is the most consistent reading.

You're right, I should have worded that more carefully. Instead of the BAB attack progression, I should have referred to the BAB-based set of iterative attacks.

But Haste, Flurry, Rapid Shot, and TWF are all outside the BAB-based set of iterative attacks...

Now say the dragon takes Improved Unarmed Strike. Could it choose to make a full attack of unarmed strikes using one of its claws and then take the rest of its natural attacks as secondary?

I don't see a good reason why not. There's nothing to suggest that any creature can't make an unarmed strike; indeed, if they can't, it makes the 'Damage Your Opponent' grappling option rather distasteful for many creatures.

-Hyp.

 

[brendan candries]

Interesting.

I'm currently playing a human druid using the PHB2 shapeshifter variant. He's got Improved Unarmed Strike.

He can shapeshift to a predator form (wolf, bite attack for d6) as a swift action.

So it's possible for him to use the full attack action, attack once with a scimitar at full bab, shapeshift to predator and bite at -5?

-or-

In predator form. Full attack with an unarmed strike for d3 (but lethal, no aoo) and one bite at -5?