Flurry of Blows to initiate a Grapple?

[Dannyalcatraz]

If I have Combat Reflexes, what game term do we use to describe the second extra melee attack I make in a round when an opponent I threaten does something that drops his guard?

It is, as explicitly stated in the feat, an additional attack of opportunity. This is a mechanical description of an exception to a rule, not an alteration to the core definition of Attack of Opportunity.

What is the game term to describe the enhancement to speed granted by levels in the monk class?

An enhancement bonus. Yes, I know it enhances something that is not an ability, armor, or weapon- which is merely evidence that WotC does not use language with precision, but only the illusion of precision.

The increase in armor class granted by armor, by a ring of protection, by a Shield spell?

In order, an armor bonus, a deflection bonus, and a shield bonus.

What sort of bonus do Greater Bracers of Archery provide to damage rolls?

A competence bonus.

I'll counter with this question: Why is the Feat that improves all of a PC's unarmed attacks called "Improved Unarmed Strike?"

WotC is clearly being imprecise.

We've had the discussion of WotC's imprecision before, H.- remember our discussion of whether the Whirling Blade (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170081) spell was an Area spell (and thus alterable by the Metamagic feat "Sculpt Spell") or an Effect (thus, not subject)? The spell had several characteristics of both types. The only conclusion in that thread was that there was no hard and fast delineation between the 2 spell types.

IOW, "Punt!"

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

and

Without Improved Unarmed Strike, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike. This is true <snip>;

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

So you (and others) would rather believe that the glossary is incorrect, that Ki Strike is so horribly drafted that it only meaningfully applies to a very narrow subset of what it purports to affect, and that the drafting differences between the language in the IUS Feat description & "Unarmed Attack" sections are omissions rather than further evidence of WotC's imprecise use of language?

Even in the face of a CustServ response that says explicitly that they are conflating "unarmed strike" and "unarmed attack?"

So be it.

Our positions are essentially diametrically opposed. The only way this could be decided difinitively is if one (or more) of the 3.X drafters dropped in and gave their opinion.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. A definition doesn't neccessarily describe how things work- I can look up "electron microscope" in my OED and find out what one is, but it won't tell me how to use one if I'm standing in front of one.

A glossary is essentially an abbreviated dictionary, the entire purpose of which is to define terms used within a particular work. Thus, the PHB's glossary is its repository of definitions. The text elsewhere describes how the terms defined within it are used mechanically within the framework of the game system.

 

[Legildur]

A glossary is essentially an abbreviated dictionary, the entire purpose of which is to define terms used within a particular work. Thus, the PHB's glossary is its repository of definitions. The text elsewhere describes how the terms defined within it are used mechanically within the framework of the game system.

I think you have said it here yourself where label the glossary an abbreviated dictionary.

By the other usages of Unarmed Strike thoughout the PHB, I cannot accept your position that the glossary term is all defining. That is, I don't see how you can maintain that an Unarmed Strike is simply a successful Unarmed Attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is, as explicitly stated in the feat, an additional attack of opportunity. This is a mechanical description of an exception to a rule, not an alteration to the core definition of Attack of Opportunity.

But the definition of Attack of Opportunity in the glossary is "a single extra attack". Surely, the phrase "additional attack of opportunity" is nonsensical; it's no longer a single extra attack, but one of a pair of extra attacks.

An enhancement bonus. Yes, I know it enhances something that is not an ability, armor, or weapon- which is merely evidence that WotC does not use language with precision, but only the illusion of precision.

In order, an armor bonus, a deflection bonus, and a shield bonus.

But the glossary defines a bonus as "a positive modifier to a die roll". An increase in speed is not a positive modifier to a die roll. An increase in armor class is not a positive modifier to a die roll. How can these be bonuses, if the glossary contains the authoritative definition of the term?

A competence bonus.

But the glossary definition of competence bonus states that it cannot apply to a damage roll. How can Greater Bracers of Archery provide a competence bonus to a damage roll, if the glossary contains the authoritative definition of the term?

I'll counter with this question: Why is the Feat that improves all of a PC's unarmed attacks called "Improved Unarmed Strike?"

Why is the feat that allows you to deflect javelins, thrown daggers, and crossbow bolts called "Deflect Arrows"?

Feat names do not contain rules information. The feat text contains the rules information.

A feat named "Longsword Mastery" which was otherwise word-for-word identical to Improved Unarmed Strike would allow a character to be considered armed while otherwise unarmed, and to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes. It would have no effect on his use of a longsword. The name might be deceptive, but it does not invalidate the effects of the feat.

So you (and others) would rather believe that the glossary is incorrect...

In assorted places, not limited to discussion of unarmed strikes; yes.

... that Ki Strike is so horribly drafted that it only meaningfully applies to a very narrow subset of what it purports to affect...

I don't think Ki Strike is horribly drafted at all. I think that in any case where the damage dealt by your unarmed attack would otherwise be reduced by DR X/Magic, Ki Strike lets you bypass it.

... and that the drafting differences between the language in the IUS Feat description & "Unarmed Attack" sections are omissions rather than further evidence of WotC's imprecise use of language?

I think that the drafting differences don't affect the end result, because all the information can be found in the rules, and they do not contradict each other (unless you include the glossary, which I've already agreed I consider incorrect in this case).

Even in the face of a CustServ response that says explicitly that they are conflating "unarmed strike" and "unarmed attack?"

Goodness, it wouldn't be the first time I've considered a CustServ response to be at ninety degrees to the printed rules! (On occasion, they manage 180 degrees to another CustServ response to the same question!)

Thus, the PHB's glossary is its repository of definitions.

Except when it gets them wrong.

-Hyp.

 

[glass]

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

Nothing in your SRD quote mentions natural attacks at all. Why? Because they aren't relevant to unarmed attacks. They aren't 'armed unaarmed attacks', they are just 'armed attacks'.

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

You could make that argument, if they didn't specifically call out 'armed unarmed attacks' (in your quote, no less). If a subset of unarmed attacks count as armed, then by inference they rest do not. The exception that proves the rule.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

Nothing in your SRD quote mentions natural attacks at all. Why? Because they aren't relevant to unarmed attacks. They aren't 'armed unaarmed attacks', they are just 'armed attacks'...
glass.

Huh? Did we read the same thing?

"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)

Normally this is simply not an issue as "natural weapons" are pretty much their own category and have special rules, but they do seem to be, technically, "armed" unarmed attacks.

This is just another example of imprecision in the rules.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think you have said it here yourself where label the glossary an abbreviated dictionary.

Abbreviated as in its not the OED or its reasonable equivalent.

For instance, the PHB glossary has a definition of "target"...which is about 60 words short of the definition I can find in my unabridged dictionary. Nor are common words like "run" or "and" defined.

Only those words and terms with special meanings within the confines of the game are defined, much like I described "sigma" earlier.

And, like a definition of "sigma" (and some of the other words and terms), no term is fully described to its fullest.

If I look up "Cistercian Order" in my unabridged dictionary, I find the definition "a monastic order, a stricter branch of the Benedictine Order, established in 1098 at Citeaux, France."

Is there more to them than that? Of course- there are over 900 years of details that are not included in that definition- but that doesn't make it any less (nor lesser) a definition.

How can these be bonuses, if the glossary contains the authoritative definition of the term?

Because, as I have repeatedly stated, WotC is sloppy with language throughout their books. To try to interpret the rules with that level of scrutiny is to introduce unintended "rulings" into the game- one of the primary reasons why, for me and the guys I game with (a bunch of computer programmers, a guy with a math degree, and neuropsychologist), RAW is just a starting point.

For example, "Natural Weapon" is defined as a creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages."

RAW, this definition does not exclude fists, feet, knees, and the other body parts of PCs, and there are (non-glossary) sections of the 3.X PHB that have been revised from their 3.0 form that include "fists" as natural weapons.

And yet, WotC maintains that "fists" are not natural weapons except for the special case of Monks, Kensai or PC classes that expressly say so (I asked).

 

[Egres]

Nothing in your SRD quote mentions natural attacks at all. Why? Because they aren't relevant to unarmed attacks. They aren't 'armed unaarmed attacks', they are just 'armed attacks'.

Uh?

"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.

Not to mention that "natural attacks" is a meaningless term, since the rules talk about natural weapons.

You could make that argument, if they didn't specifically call out 'armed unarmed attacks' (in your quote, no less). If a subset of unarmed attacks count as armed, then by inference they rest do not. The exception that proves the rule.

1) The exception disproves the rules.

2) Your argument was that "If you have a weapon, you aren't unarmed".
Thus, since unarmed strikes are listed as weapons, you can't be unarmed at all.
And that's patently wrong.

3) Your argument is flawed, since the text above clearly lists "natural physical weapons" as "armed" unarmed attacks.