Flurry of Blows to initiate a Grapple?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not quite, though it may seem like it.

What I'm saying is that:

1) By definition, an unarmed strike is the result of a successful combat roll when using an unarmed attack.

I'm a monk with 3 attacks, 4 if I Flurry.

I declare a Full Attack action with a Flurry, and select "unarmed strike" for my first attack.

I miss.

Does the world crash to desktop?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Only if you're using a WinTel machine that isn't Y2K compliant.

If you're using a Mac, you'll get to use all of your attacks, some of which may actually strike.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm a monk with 3 attacks, 4 if I Flurry.

I declare a Full Attack action with a Flurry, and select "unarmed strike" for my first attack.

I miss.

Does the world crash to desktop?

No, you missed Danny's point. If you select unarmed strike you can't miss.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Not quite, though it may seem like it.

What I'm saying is that...

No, what you're saying is equivalent to this:

1. Let "A" be true.
2. Let's ignore "A" when it conflicts with my position or creates an unstable universe.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, I'm saying you can't choose unarmed strike at all- it doesn't exist except as the result of a successful unarmed attack.

No, what you're saying is equivalent to this:

1. Let "A" be true.
2. Let's ignore "A" when it conflicts with my position or creates an unstable universe.

You've misquoting or misunderstanding me.

"A" is true- that is the PHB definition.

What I said clearly in "2" is that even WotC isn't strictly following their own definition, and tend to use the terms interchangeably, as evidenced even in the CustServ response that calls them synonyms.

Besides, its not like the counterposition doesn't introduce whacky stuff, as evidenced by Ki Strike.

 

[Legildur]

No, I'm saying you can't choose unarmed strike at all- it doesn't exist except as the result of a successful unarmed attack.

Then why all the references to it in the Monk class description, the feats chapter (namely IUS), and in the equipment chapter?

Table 7-5: weapons, shows that under the class of weapons called unarmed attacks, there is a gauntlet and an unarmed strike listed. Unarmed Strike is clearly a subset of unarmed attacks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Besides, its not like the counterposition doesn't introduce whacky stuff, as evidenced by Ki Strike.

Ki Strike doesn't introduce any wackiness to my position at all.

I'm a monk with Ki Strike. I trip someone as an unarmed melee touch attack. My trip attack bypasses DR X/Magic.

How is this any different to tripping someone with a +1 kama? That trip attack bypasses DR X/Magic as well - it's made with a magic weapon.

The lack of damage dealt by my trip attack is completely unaffected by the opponent's DR. The ability to bypass the DR gains me nothing, in this case... so what? It's not wackiness.

What I said clearly in "2" is that even WotC isn't strictly following their own definition...

WotC isn't strictly following what's in the Glossary. This is not uncommon.

I refer you to the questions I asked earlier - in which I only got as far as 'C'! - demonstrating problems with relying on the Glossary.

If you're using a Mac, you'll get to use all of your attacks, some of which may actually strike.

The monk makes an unarmed attack as part of a Flurry. He misses. Per the Glossary definition, the unarmed attack he made was not an unarmed strike; neither was it an attack with a special monk weapon. By missing, he has broken the rules of the Flurry; thus, he was not allowed to make the attempt.

If we adhere to the Glossary definition, the monk may only attempt an unarmed attack in a Flurry if he can guarantee he will hit before rolling the die. And given the possibility of a natural 1, he cannot guarantee he will hit.

-Hyp.

 

[Egres]

Claws are weapons. If you have a weapon, you aren't unarmed.
.

From the SRD:

"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, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

"Armed" unarmed attack.

A natural weapon attack is always an "armed" unarmed attack.

Not to mention that, by your reasoning, no one coud be unarmed, since even unarmed strikes are listed as weapons.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

WotC simply does not use language with the precision you guys are expecting.

The glossary is where the game terms are defined. The rest of the text regarding a particular entry tells you how things work.

For example "Armor Class" is defined in the PHB glossary, but it doesn't include all of the possible things that can affect the calculation of AC. The definition for "Sorcerer" is only one line long, and includes ZERO mechanics info.

In the case of unarmed strike, the glossary defines it (as a "successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons." etc.), but you have to go to the combat section to find out that you must declare your unarmed attack, roll dice, compare it to the target's AC, and see if you actually strike the opponent to deal damage.

I refer you to the questions I asked earlier

Which post? We've been at this a while.

Ki Strike doesn't introduce any wackiness to my position at all. <edit>
The lack of damage dealt by my trip attack is completely unaffected by the opponent's DR. The ability to bypass the DR gains me nothing, in this case... so what? It's not wackiness.

Yes, it is whacky in that it is horribly imprecise. Why say that Ki Strike affects "unarmed attacks" when (if your position is correct) the only effect the power can have is upon "unarmed strikes?" Essentially, your position means that the power description is saying that all unarmed "attacks" have an ability that only benefits unarmed "strikes." Why draft the rules this way?

No, I'm saying you can't choose unarmed strike at all- it doesn't exist except as the result of a successful unarmed attack.

Then why all the references to it in the Monk class description, the feats chapter (namely IUS), and in the equipment chapter?

Table 7-5: weapons, shows that under the class of weapons called unarmed attacks, there is a gauntlet and an unarmed strike listed. Unarmed Strike is clearly a subset of unarmed attacks.

Again, its the subset of successful unarmed attacks. The references to it in the monk class is a result of (as you see directly in the CustServ answer) treating the two terms as interchangeable.

The language of IUS refers to "strikes" only in its latter sections- it starts off by referring to unarmed attacks. I say that because the first sentence of the Feat is a brief restatement of the rules for "Armed" Unarmed Attacks. The last portion says "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike..." when it should (by your position) say "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed attack..." (emphasis mine) unless you want to assert that only unarmed strikes get screwed without this feat. (I doubt that you would, because that would contradict the more fully fleshed out language on p139.)

Again, they're using the 2 terms interchangeably.

The equipment section? Longswords don't do damage unless they hit either. The difference is that the various melee weapons have a variety of attributes, whereas the unarmed attacks don't get broken down by body part, thus are handled more abstractly than even the weapons. Where a longsword is clearly different from a dagger or 2 hander, a PCs bite=kick=punch.

The table shows everything in the book that could be considered a melee or ranged weapon with the exception of improvised weapons...and the equipment section tells us to compare improvised weapons to weapons on the chart and approximate.

The glossary definition for unarmed strike does not exclude successful unarmed attacks that do no damage. "Strikes" "typically" deal "non-lethal damage," but all other possibilities are left open- lethal damage, no damage at all, spell damage, characteristic damage, stuns, disarms, sunders, trips can all be delivered by a successful unarmed attack, aka, an unarmed strike.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which post? We've been at this a while.

This one.

Yes, it is whacky in that it is horribly imprecise. Why say that Ki Strike affects "unarmed attacks" when (if your position is correct) the only effect the power can have is upon "unarmed strikes?" Essentially, your position means that the power description is saying that all unarmed "attacks" have an ability that only benefits unarmed "strikes." Why draft the rules this way?

It doesn't make it wrong.

Again, I refer you to the red fruit example.

It might seem inefficient to grant all fruit an exemption to a rule that only affects red fruit. But it's not incorrect to do so.

Ki Strike might only provide a tangible benefit to certain unarmed attacks, despite applying to all of them. That doesn't make it incorrect.

I say that because the first sentence of the Feat is a brief restatement of the rules for "Armed" Unarmed Attacks. The last portion says "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike..." when it should (by your position) say "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed attack..." (emphasis mine) unless you want to assert that only unarmed strikes get screwed without this feat. (I doubt that you would, because that would contradict the more fully fleshed out language on p139.)

Not at all.

Without Improved Unarmed Strike, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike. This is true; the Normal text is not in error. The Normal text doesn't state that you are also considered unarmed when attacking with any unarmed attack that is not an unarmed strike, but we can find that information elsewhere. An omission is not a contradiction! The Normal text makes a correct statement; it simply doesn't tell us all the applicable rules.

If the Normal text stated "Without Improved Unarmed Strike, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike; however, you are considered armed when making other unarmed attacks", there would be a contradiction. Happily, it does not state this.

The contradiction is found in the Glossary, where it makes the incorrect statement that unarmed strikes are always 'successful'.

-Hyp.