Flurry of Blows and Two Weapon Fighting

[Tessarael]

Here are the attacks:

+15/+15/+15/+10/+5 - Monk 20 Flurry
+13/+8/+3, +13/+8/+3 - Monk 20 TWF

+13/+13/+13/+8/+3, +13/+8/+3 - Monk 20 Flurry + TWF

Let's assume a Flaming Quarterstaff +5 wielding Monk with Strength 22, so damages of:

2d6+5+6 = 18 avg in main hand
2d6+5+3 = 15 avg in off hand

I'm going to ignore criticals and assume opponent ACs of 16, 21, 26, and 31.

vs AC 16 opponent:

96.75 damage from Flurry + TWF
76.5 damage from Flurry only
64.35 damage from TWF only

vs AC 21 opponent:

63.0 damage from Flurry + TWF
54.0 damage from Flurry only
39.6 damage from TWF only

vs AC 26 opponent:

34.2 damage from Flurry + TWF
32.4 damage from Flurry only
19.8 damage from TWF only

vs AC 31 opponent:

13.65 damage from Flurry + TWF
15.3 damage from Flurry only
8.25 damage from TWF only

Flurry is clearly better than two-weapon fighting (TWF). Is it unbalanced? Let's compared to the TWF scenario, but now let's make it a 20th level Fighter instead, with attacks of +18/+13/+8/+3 and +18/+13/+8 with TWF:

89.7 damage vs AC 16
67.05 damage vs AC 21
40.5 damage vs AC 26
20.7 damage vs AC 31

In my opinion, the 20th level Fighter should be better. I don't like the fact that the TWF/Flurry Monk comes out better at AC 16. Other than that, 20th level Monk TWF/Flurry doesn't seem overpowering compared to a 20th level Fighter.

 

[Camarath]

Tessarael, would you mind comparing a 20th level Monk fighting Unarmed using Flurry of Blows, a 20th level Monk fighting with a Quaterstaff using Flurry and GTWF, and a 20th level Ranger fighting with a Double Sword using GTWF. I would be interested to see how those builds compare.

 

[Christian]

Especially since they've had to burn three feats on it. A 20th level human fighter has 18 or 19 feat slots to spend, of which 11 are limited to a broad list of combat feats (which includes the TWF feats). The 20th level monk has only 10 or 11, of which three are limited to a very short list that does not include the TWF feats. Net-the fighter has 18-19 slots that could have TWF feats or other feats, compared to only 7-8 for the monk; those three feats thus represent a relatively large investment for the latter character ...

 

[LokiDR]

In my opinion, the 20th level Fighter should be better. I don't like the fact that the TWF/Flurry Monk comes out better at AC 16. Other than that, 20th level Monk TWF/Flurry doesn't seem overpowering compared to a 20th level Fighter.

I think if the monk spends most of his general feats on TWF and focuses on strength, I have no problem with him beating the mooks like a drum. You have shown the "power" problem decreases the closer you get to BBEG.

 

[Hypersmurf]

From Andy Collins on the Wizards Boards:

3) TWF and Flurry of Blows stacks?

A: No

4) IIRC, the monk gains his 2nd Flurry attack at 11th level. If, at that point, he decided to multiclass into Fighter (since his BAB is no longer different from normal BAB) would he have 6 attacks at 17th level?

A: Flurry no longer uses a separate BAB. If the Ftr/Mnk's BAB was +16 or higher, he'd have 6 attacks when he flurried.

5) IF no. 3 and no. 4 answers are yes. COuld a monk 12/Ftr5 with the TWF tree, have 9 attacks with his quartterstaff?

A: No--they don't stack.

------

From Skip Williams, email to Olgar Shiverstone:

<< Can a monk use Two-Weapon Fighting (or Improved Two Weapon Fighting) in conjunction with Flurry of Blows to gain an extra attack, >>


No.

>>or to reduce the penalties for the Flurry of Blows?>>


No.

<< I'm fairly certain the spirit of the rules didn't intend for these abilities to work together, but I can't find anything in the rules that would prohibit it >>

When you use a flurry, you can use a specil monk weapon once as part the flurry. If you use two weapons with a flurry, you use each weapon once as part of the flurry (a quaterstaff is a double weapon and counts as two weapons). You do not get an extra attack for the second weaoon, nor do you suffer any of the usual penalties for attaking with two weapons.

A monk can fight with two weapons and use the varius two-wepoan fighting feats, but the number of attacks the monk gets is based on the monk's normal base attack bonus and number of attacks, not on the monk's number of attacks in a flurry.

------

From WotC Customer Service:

-- When a Monk uses a Quarterstaff, two weapon fighting, and Flurry of Blows does he get an extra attack from the flurry, and an extra attack from the Two Weapon fighting, taking a -4 to hit with all attacks,,, or can he not use both in one round???

The Monk may use the both attacks, plus the flurry of blows, if he or she wishes. _They Monk will suffer the cumulative to-hit penalties, however.

Adam
Wizards of the Coast - Game Support

------

So, the Sage says they don't stack, which is a point in favour of "They don't stack".

The lead designer for 3.5 says they don't stack, which is a big point in favour of "They don't stack".

And Customer Service says they do stack, which is the biggest point in favour of "They don't stack"...

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

You do not get an extra attack for the second weaoon, nor do you suffer any of the usual penalties for attaking with two weapons.

It would have been nice if they had just put this sentence in the Flurry of Blows ability description.

 

[Spatula]

Why does WOTC's customer support even field rules questions? They don't seem to have access to any information that isn't available to everyone else. And most times they don't even have a firm grasp of the rules... (although in this case the rules are ambiguous)

 

[Snipehunt]

YOu could roll a d6, with 1-3 being no, 4-6 being yes, and do as well as customer support or whatever the heck they call it. But if ANdy and Skip didn't want TWF and flurry to stack, why doesn't the book say that anywhere?

 

[Camarath]

But if ANdy and Skip didn't want TWF and flurry to stack, why doesn't the book say that anywhere?

Poor workmanship? Lack of foresight? Utter lack of play testing? The addition of the new 3.5 rules after the revision and integration process was completed? Maybe they did not have as much control over revision process as they should have had?

I don't know how we can for sure. But regardless of why, we now have a situation where the rules and the known intent of the designers are in conflict (IMO). The books have been out less than a month. I wonder how many more of these inconsistencies are we going to find in the "Revised" rules.

 

[Tessarael]

The errata (for those books which got errata lists) and Sage Advice compilations for 3E were very good, with one or two exceptions. It's hard for designers to think of all the loopholes.

Think of it this way: we stress test the rules, then ask questions, and then they try and fix the loopholes. Of course we'd prefer there were no loopholes in the first place, but D&D is such a complicated system that loopholes and rules problems will always be there.

Camarath, regards running the other numbers - maybe we'll see if I'm motivated with spare time tomorrow. It's fairly easy to do with Excel or some other spreadsheet. Here's how you do it:

Put the target AC in a spreadsheet cell, say A1.

Put a list of your attack bonuses in a column. Let's assume you have the first one in cell B1, and we're ignoring criticals. Your chance to hit is:

IF(21-($A$1-B1)>1, IF(21-($A$1-B1)<19, (21-($A$1-B1))/20,0.95)),0.05)

$A$1 says keep the reference fixed on A1 as we copy and paste this cell to B2, B3, etc.

Then in column C put in the average damge values.

Make column D have in D1 for example D1=C1*B1.

Then at the bottom in column D, put SUM(D1 : D8), if there are 8 attacks for example. That sum gives you the total average damage per round.