Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZansForCans" data-source="post: 1405633" data-attributes="member: 8059">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.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'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.Well, the first penalty is pretty severe--namely, you can't do it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.I hope I clarified again above why you don't need to ask that. It means what it says. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.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.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. 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----OK!You were kind of saying I was saying different things in two threads. I didn't think I was... No harm, no foul <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification