Flurry of Blows and Special Attacks

[MarauderX]

Yeah, actually: a monk's unarmed strike provides benefits that IUS does not, including the ability to cause lethal damage without a penalty.

IUS allows the option for lethal or non-lethal damage, in 3.5 that is.

 

[Hypersmurf]

IUS allows the option for lethal or non-lethal damage, in 3.5 that is.

That's true... on an Unarmed Strike.

But if you read the Grappling rules, it specifically states that a monk has the option to deal lethal damage in a Grapple. It doesn't mention IUS.

In my opinion, that's a cut'n'paste oversight from 3E, but as written, if someone with IUS wishes to deal lethal damage in a grapple, he can either take a -4 penalty, or use the "attack with a light weapon" option to punch, dealing lethal damage via the feat... and taking a -4 penalty for using a light weapon in a grapple

-Hyp.

 

[MarauderX]

Thanks again. Now I know what to completely ignore and house-rule

You don't need Eagle Claw Attack to take a Sunder action with an unarmed strike; it just lets you add your Wisdom bonus.
-Hyp.

Yeah, wasn't aware of the new improved Eagle Claw Attack which allowed the Wis bonus. Is there an electronic update somewhere?

 

[MarauderX]

Didja see that? A nefarious triple post!

 

[MarauderX]

A nefarious triple post? Where? Was it here? Where did it go?

 

[Unseelie]

Not sure if this came up or not, but I'm not wading through all three pages (currently).

Further complicating whether one can trip during a flurry is the fact that you can flurry with a Kama, and of course, you can trip with a Kama.

In the games I'm in, we allow trip as part of a flurry. It's not come up in game, but I suspect that we'd allow grapple, disarm & sunder as well.

My two cents...

 

[ZansForCans]

A description that begins "Striking for damage..."

And that's important because?

Aid Another starts: "In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent." But that doesn't mean Aiding Another's skill check--listed further down in a second paragraph and which does not require a roll like the first use of the action--isn't an Aid Another action. The whole section is important to consider!

Plus, as I said before, the breakouts under Combat are descriptions, not definitions. They do not pretend to be exhaustive lists of what each thing is and so do not replace or compete with the simple definitions in the glossary. Check out the melee and ranged attacks as described there as well. They are not exhaustive lists of what each is. They are more concerned with pointing out how rules are applied when you are using those actions.

which, with the above, confuses these with variations of "striking for damage..."

I won't argue with you that the whole bit could have been written more clearly, but I don't see any real confusion if you go in with the proper definitions of unarmed attack and unarmed strike.

As I noted above (or maybe in the other thread), mechanically, they are very different. An unarmed attack is mechanically a roll with your d20 against the foe's AC. An unarmed strike is mechanically a roll with a die/dice that represent your damage. You only roll the damage if you succeed with the attack. It's no different than mechanically how a weapon works. For good reasons, but perhaps with bad terminology, they lumped the "successful blow" of whatever body part you choose to use into one term: unarmed strike.

Consider:

A successful blow landed by a melee attack with a weapon deals damage.

A successful blow landed by a melee attack without weapons deals damage.

Or, replacing the game definitions:

An unarmed strike landed by a unarmed attack deals damage.

You can't replace 'unarmed strike' in all places with the same definition. That means the phrase is not used consistently. The phrase in FoB does not mean "a successful blow..." The text uses the same phrase to refer to both a cause and an effect.

You'll have to find me some of those, because all the ones I find by searching the PDF SRD 3.5 I have can be literally replaced with no confusion or rules changes. Yes, the FoB bit does sound a little funny, but it does not change the rule of FoB by the replacement. The monk is allowed to use successful blows without weapons during a Flurry. Why does that not work?

And even if the "successful" part makes you uncomfortable, it does not change the fact that the unarmed strike is the blow and not the attack. That distinction is very clear in the definitions and use of the words throughout the rules.

TWF: I make an unarmed melee touch attack with my offhand (and, what the hey, with my 'on' hand)--what're the penalties?

Well, the first penalty is pretty severe--namely, you can't do it

TWF requires: "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

The unarmed strike is given an explicit equivalence to a light weapon, for the purposes of TWF. There is no other unarmed attack you can use with TWF. You can't deliver a touch spell (unless you opt to deliver it with an unarmed strike). You can't use a natural weapon. You can't try to deliver a Trip.

And the confusion arises when we ask whether 'unarmed strike' in FoB really means 'unarmed attack'.

I hope I clarified again above why you don't need to ask that. It means what it says. If you think it should say "any unarmed attack," that's a different statement, but not one that provokes rule confusion. At least for me. Coincidentally (or maybe not) as with TWF, Flurry can not deliver a touch spell (unless you opt to deliver it with an unarmed strike), use a natural weapon, or deliver a Trip.

If you apply the WF:G bonus to grapple checks and not to the initial melee touch attack, then that initial attack is not a grapple.

Sure enough, it's not actually a grapple. "You make a melee touch attack to grab the target." The grapple does not begin until you make your first successful grapple check in the next step. If the grab fails, you don't even get there to make the check.

It's in the 3.0 faq, pages 43-4.

Gotcha. I don't personally agree with that ruling (or option, it's hard to tell what he was forwarding it as) since that -20 penalty is only mentioned as an option under the description of Improved Grab.

But it doesn't quite make grapple checks equal to attack rolls since grapple checks can be used in place of attacks anywhere by statements all over the description of Grapple (and the actions table). They still are really opposed checks and follow those rules for resolution (e.g. ties) rather than attack rolls versus AC.

I don't know what you're saying here.

Hyp made the point that this could be an editing error carried over from 3.0. Fair enough.

But, also consider that the monk has special abilities that are all body-based. The fact that only a monk (among the core classes) can deal lethal damage with the "Damage" grapple action without penalty is not terribly surprising to me.

The monk's unarmed strike abilities has many advantages outside of just IUS: applying full Str bonus to damage with all unarmed strikes (i.e. the lack of "off-hand"), the ability to treat her unarmed strike as both a manufactured and natural weapon, the ability to deal more damage with an unarmed strike, and the ability to Flurry with one.

The monk's Stunning Fist is usable many more times per day than any other class taking the feat.

So, the fact that a monk is mentioned alone as being able to deal lethal damage with no penalty is not outside the range of the other abilities conferred to the class. There is no reason it needs to be in parallel with other characters who take IUS, for example.

Then again, it could just be an editing bobble :b


----

So, what's the problem? I was trying to understand using FoBs for a grapple, not bringing up the point again and again for the fun of quoting someone.

OK!

You were kind of saying I was saying different things in two threads. I didn't think I was... No harm, no foul

 

[jessemock]

They are more concerned with pointing out how rules are applied when you are using those actions.

Which is exactly what is at issue here: the definition and description of unarmed attacks have to be clear, because there's a question over the application of precisely this action.

An unarmed strike is mechanically a roll with a die/dice that represent your damage.

it does not change the fact that the unarmed strike is the blow and not the attack.

Clearly, this is not the case, when an 'unarmed strike' is considered a light weapon--or a weapon at all. When you attack with an unarmed strike, you do not attack with a successful blow. In other words, an unarmed strike does not result from any unarmed attack that is not, itself, an unarmed strike. An unarmed strike results from an unarmed strike.

An unarmed strike landed by a unarmed attack deals damage.

No; there is no 'unarmed strike' ("successful blow...") that is not landed by an 'unarmed strike' ("considered a light weapon").

You'll have to find me some of those, because all the ones I find by searching the PDF SRD 3.5 I have can be literally replaced with no confusion or rules changes.

"A successful blow...is considered a light weapon."

The monk is allowed to use successful blows without weapons during a Flurry. Why does that not work?

It would mean that the monk always hits.

And even if the "successful" part makes you uncomfortable, That distinction is very clear in the definitions and use of the words throughout the rules.

Shouldn't the successful part make me uncomfortable? The problem is obviously that whoever wrote this section of the rules originally meant to make this distinction, but that same writer or those who followed left it by the wayside--as should have been done: there's no need for a term that defines a "successful blow" in addition to 'damage'.

The unarmed strike is given an explicit equivalence to a light weapon, for the purposes of TWF. There is no other unarmed attack you can use with TWF. You can't deliver a touch spell (unless you opt to deliver it with an unarmed strike). You can't use a natural weapon. You can't try to deliver a Trip.

That's a good argument, except that, in terms of practical consequences, it's ridiculous: you can't make an unarmed melee touch attack with your off-hand in a TWF routine? What's the point?

Characters somehow forget how to trip without a weapon in their off-hand?

No; I believe that this is merely a continuation of the poor use of terminology: there's absolutely no reason to deny this maneuver any more than there is to deny grapples in a flurry. It's a mistake that occurs because of careless writing.

I mean that everyone with whom I've argued these points, from Caliban to Hyp, has said that the grapple restriction doesn't make sense. Nevertheless, we're all continuing to play this academic game.

That's fine, I guess.

They still are really opposed checks and follow those rules for resolution (e.g. ties) rather than attack rolls versus AC.

They're opposed attack rolls, just as in Disarm. The point is that penalties and bonuses that affect attack rolls should affect grapple checks.

There is no reason it needs to be in parallel with other characters who take IUS, for example.

No, no; what I'm getting at is that I don't know what point of mine you're commenting on. I have no problem with the monk's US being the sole that provides lethal damage in a grapple. I'm saying only that this further adds to the notion that the monk has clearly been intended as a grappler--what would be the point, then, of restricting grapples from flurries? There isn't any.

Look; my take is simply this: all unarmed attacks are really variations on unarmed strikes (understood as weapons). Where they differ, they differ, e.g. weapon focus, but otherwise all unarmed attacks should be considered substitutable for unarmed strikes (and should derive whatever aspects haven't been specifically defined for them from unarmed strike).

I think that's obviously the intent of the rules for unarmed attacks, but, in typical D&D fashion, they've left this just ambiguous enough to spark endless threads.

Does WotC own the Enworld server?

 

[juliaromero]

Just to add to the mix - what about the big monster with monk levels and Improved Grab? It gets a free grapple attempt everytime it hits, so I assume that works with flury as well? Although, how do you rule a flury with a monster that normal gets 2 or more claw/appendage attacks?

On a totally different topic (why not, right?) does anyone else use Dex instead of Str for touch attacks?

 

[Camarath]

Just to add to the mix - what about the big monster with monk levels and Improved Grab? It gets a free grapple attempt everytime it hits, so I assume that works with flury as well? Although, how do you rule a flury with a monster that normal gets 2 or more claw/appendage attacks?

In my opinion you can't use Natural Weapons as Monk Weapons of in Unarmed Strikes. Since Improved Grab usually requires you to attack and hit with a specific Natural Weapon you would not be able to use it while using Flurry of Blows. However you could IMO use Unarmed Strikes as your primary attack (as a manufactured weapon) and your Natural Weapons as secondary attacks as per the rules on combining the use of Natural and Manufactured Weapons.