Flurry of Blows to initiate a Grapple?

[Legildur]

BTW, flurry of blow is not an Attack Action, it is a full round action. I can't remember OTTOMH if it is a Full Attack action or its own FRA.

PHB p40: "A monk must use a full attack action (see page 143) to strike with a flurry of blows."

 

[glass]

PHB p40: "A monk must use a full attack action (see page 143) to strike with a flurry of blows."

I thought so, but I wasn't sure and since it was an aside anyway it didn't seem worth looking it up.


glass.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For those who insist that unarmed attack != unarmed strike (usually categorizing unamed strikes as a subset of unarmed attacks), I ask this question:

According to the equipment section, a standard unarmed strike for a M creature does 1d3 nonlethal; how much damage does a standard unarmed attack for a M creature do?

There is no table entry for unarmed attack. AFAIK, there is no creature entry that states damage for an unarmed attack.

The PHB definition of the 2 terms in the PHBs only tell us that the attack is one done "with no weapon in hand," while the strike is defined as a "succesful blow" that does damage, usually non-lethal.

Unarmed attacks, then, would seem to have no ability to do damage RAW.

Seems pointless to me.

As far as I can tell, the only sense in which an unarmed strike is different from (and thus a subset of) unarmed attacks is that the latter is before the d20 is rolled, and the former is the result.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unarmed attacks, then, would seem to have no ability to do damage RAW.

Seems pointless to me.

A trip deals no damage, but can be performed as an unarmed attack.

A grapple is an unarmed attack, and deals damage equivalent to your unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fair enough...but Ki Strike would still seem completely useless for unarmed attacks other than unarmed strikes- why would a monk need Ki Strike to penetrate damage reduction for an attack that does no intrinsic damage?

We're getting into odd territory. Ki Strike would only be useful in FoB or Grapples.

Which would also seem to mean that a monk could only damage a creature with DR if you FoB (Grapple is not defined as either an unarmed attack or unarmed strike)- and we've already had people claim that a monk can only "strike" in FoB.

 

[Legildur]

Fair enough...but Ki Strike would still seem completely useless for unarmed attacks other than unarmed strikes- why would a monk need Ki Strike to penetrate damage reduction for an attack that does no intrinsic damage?

Because, as Hyp pointed out and you agreed, "A grapple is an unarmed attack, and deals damage equivalent to your unarmed strike." That's where the Ki Strike would be useful. Why does it matter that it only works with an unarmed strike or a grapple? That's still better than any manufactured weapon, which can't be used to grapple.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which would also seem to mean that a monk could only damage a creature with DR if you FoB (Grapple is not defined as either an unarmed attack or unarmed strike)- and we've already had people claim that a monk can only "strike" in FoB.

Er... a monk can use his unarmed strike without using Flurry of Blows.

At fourth level, he can make one unarmed strike at no penalty, or two (using Flurry) with a penalty. Either way, he penetrates DR X/Magic due to Ki Strike.

He's certainly not required to Flurry in order for Ki Strike to apply to his unarmed strikes!

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In post #23, Infiniti2000 would seem to disagree with you, H-Smurf.

Dannyalcatraz
Or that they only unarmed strike while FoB?

Correct (or use a special monk weapon). This is stated quite clearly, and explicitly. Unless you can argue that you can use an "unarmed strike" to grapple, a monk cannot grapple while flurrying.

I don't buy that for a minute- a monk (or any PC, for that matter) should be able to unarmed strike at any time they can do a regular melee attack.

As things stand under the FAQ ruling, Disarm, Grapple, Sunder, and Trip are all valid uses of FoB and other unarmed strikes. The answer does not address a distinction between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks.

Under attack!=strike dichotomy, unarmed attacks (which do no damage) can be used for: Disarm, Grapple, and Trip attacks...except that Grapple gets a bye and can do damage as an unarmed strike.

Grapple thus seems to occupy a middle ground as an unarmed attack that can do damage...except that it is never defined exclusively as an unarmed attack or an unarmed strike. It is unarmed, yes, but whether it is "strike" or "attack" is never explicitly mentioned. Which it is, we simply don't know. Thus discussion of it isn't helpful: it may be an unarmed attack that does damage like an unarmed strike, or a combat maneuver that does damage like an unarmed strike because it is one.

Now, we've already established that:

1) RAW, unarmed attacks do no damage- there is no data in text or chart describing the damage an "Unarmed Attack" does. Unarmed strikes, yes, but not unarmed attacks.

2) We have the language of Ki Strike:

Ki Strike (SU)

At 4th level, a monk's unarmed attacks are empowered with ki. Her unarmed attacks are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. (see Damage Reduction, page 291 of the Dungeon Master's Guide). Ki strike improves with the character's monk level. At 10th level, her unarmed attacks are also treated as lawful weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. At 16th level, her unarmed attacks are treated as adamantine weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction and bypassing hardness (see Smashing an Object, page 165).

Keeping in mind point 1, and assuming attacks are not synonymous with strikes, we have a section that effectively says:

Ki Strike (SU)

At 4th level, a monk's unarmed attacks (which do no damage) are empowered with ki. Her unarmed attacks (which do no damage) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. (see Damage Reduction, page 291 of the Dungeon Master's Guide). Ki strike improves with the character's monk level. At 10th level, her unarmed attacks (which do no damage) are also treated as lawful weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction. At 16th level, her unarmed attacks (which do no damage) are treated as adamantine weapons for the purpose of dealing damage to creatures with damage reduction and bypassing hardness (see Smashing an Object, page 165).

edits and emphasis mine.

While the original text would seem to imply that all of the monk's unarmed attacks are enhanced by Ki Strike, this clearly cannot be the case unless Unarmed attacks = Unarmed strikes. A Ki Strike no more enhances the non-unarmed strike unarmed attacks than my prescription glasses would help a blind man see. The supernatural ability enhances the ability to do damage...and unarmed attacks RAW do no damage.

So, we are still faced with a conundrum- either unarmed strike!=unarmed attack (as in the former is the subset of the latter) and Ki Strike is poorly worded OR Unarmed Attacks are merely Unarmed Strikes before the dice have been rolled- the position hinted at in the PHB glossary, PHB p40-41, and the FAQ.

I side with the latter. Ki Strike was clearly using Unarmed Attack as a near synonym for Unarmed Strike, seperated only by causeality. The roll of the dice makes the attack a strike.

 

[Legildur]

While the original text would seem to imply that all of the monk's unarmed attacks are enhanced by Ki Strike, this clearly cannot be the case unless Unarmed attacks = Unarmed strikes.

I don't agree with this. There is no reason that the Ki Strike ability can't apply to all unarmed attacks from a monk. It's just that it will only have a measurable effect with the unarmed strike.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It can't have any effect on an attack that does no damage. Ki Strike's sole purpose is to penetrate DR...and attacks which do no damage aren't affected by DR. Increasing an "unarmed attack's" ability to deal damage is like increasing a forest fire's ability to freeze water.

To continue the exercise, when we go to the combat section of the PHB to look at unarmed combat (under the heading of Standard Actions..."Attack", p 139), we get this:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches kicks and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except the following...

(whereapon it starts discussing provoked AoOs)

Note that it doesn't say "attacking for damage", "striking" is the word that is used.

The ONLY time when damage dealing is mentioned is under "Unarmed Strike Damage." There, you see verbiage about damage (as per the chart in the equipment section) and some later words about dealing lethal damage with one, as opposed to the standard non-lethal damage.

The distinction between "attack" and "strike" blurs further when we read right before that section:

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (page 96), a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and simliar natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Not "the monk's "unarmed strike"...its just another "'armed' unarmed attack"- there is no further distinction made.

In fact, nowhere in this section do we distinguish between the end results of unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes, strikes seem to be the only result listed of an unarmed attack of any kind.

In fact, when we look at the very first section we see:

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet...With a typical reach weaon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

Again, the only meaningful distinction between "attack" and "strike" is, as per the glossary, success.