Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3206933" data-attributes="member: 1656">[blink]&nbsp; You don't?That startles me.&nbsp; I'm not aware of anyone else who holds that position.I think you and I2K are reading your sentence above in two different ways.&quot;Or that they only unarmed strike while FoB?&quot;You're reading it as &quot;The only time you can use an unarmed strike is during a Flurry of Blows&quot;.He's reading it as &quot;During a Flurry of Blows, the only attack you can make is an unarmed strike&quot; - and he clarifies with &quot;or special monk weapon&quot; in his response.Both are valid readings of your sentence, but only one of them actually fits with the rules.&nbsp; A monk - or a fighter - can take the attack action, and use the single attack that permits to make an unarmed strike.&nbsp; A monk - or a fighter - can take the full attack action, and use the potentially multiple attacks from a high BAB to make several unarmed strikes.&nbsp; A monk (not a fighter) can, while taking the full attack action, use Flurry of Blows to gain an extra attack... but all attacks made while using Flurry of Blows must be made with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons.A monk can certainly use his unarmed strike whether or not he is using Flurry of Blows.We haven't established this.&nbsp; We've established that an unarmed attack does not necessarily deal any damage simply by virtue of being an unarmed attack, but we know that certain unarmed attacks - such as an unarmed strike or a successful grapple - can deal damage.It's as though you've said &quot;We've established that fruit is not red - there is no chart describing the colour of 'fruit'.&nbsp; Strawberries, yes, but not fruit - therefore strawberries are not fruit.&quot;Strawberries are a subset of fruit, and are red, even though fruit is not required to be red.&nbsp; Unarmed strikes are a subset of unarmed attacks, and deal damage, even though unarmed attacks are not required to deal damage.Some unarmed attacks do deal damage.&nbsp; Not all.Let's say there's a rule that nothing red can be brought into a room.&nbsp; I have a card that says any fruit I carry is exempt from the &quot;Nothing red&quot; rule.If I'm carrying a pineapple, it's exempt from the &quot;Nothing red&quot; rule because of my card, even though it would have been fine anyway.&nbsp; If I'm carrying a strawberry, it's also exempt from the &quot;Nothing red&quot; rule because of my card, and I can carry it into the room even though it would normally be disallowed.The card could have been more specific, and mentioned strawberries by name, or 'red fruit'.&nbsp; But it's not incorrect for it to just reference 'fruit', even though not all fruit is affected by the &quot;Nothing red&quot; rule in the first place.-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 3206933, member: 1656"] [blink] You don't? That startles me. I'm not aware of anyone else who holds that position. I think you and I2K are reading your sentence above in two different ways. "Or that they only unarmed strike while FoB?" You're reading it as "The only time you can use an unarmed strike is during a Flurry of Blows". He's reading it as "During a Flurry of Blows, the only attack you can make is an unarmed strike" - and he clarifies with "or special monk weapon" in his response. Both are valid readings of your sentence, but only one of them actually fits with the rules. A monk - or a fighter - can take the attack action, and use the single attack that permits to make an unarmed strike. A monk - or a fighter - can take the full attack action, and use the potentially multiple attacks from a high BAB to make several unarmed strikes. A monk (not a fighter) can, while taking the full attack action, use Flurry of Blows to gain an extra attack... but all attacks made while using Flurry of Blows must be made with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. A monk can certainly use his unarmed strike whether or not he is using Flurry of Blows. We haven't established this. We've established that an unarmed attack does not necessarily deal any damage simply by virtue of being an unarmed attack, but we know that certain unarmed attacks - such as an unarmed strike or a successful grapple - can deal damage. It's as though you've said "We've established that fruit is not red - there is no chart describing the colour of 'fruit'. Strawberries, yes, but not fruit - therefore strawberries are not fruit." Strawberries are a subset of fruit, and are red, even though fruit is not required to be red. Unarmed strikes are a subset of unarmed attacks, and deal damage, even though unarmed attacks are not required to deal damage. [i]Some unarmed attacks [i]do[/i] deal damage. Not all. Let's say there's a rule that nothing red can be brought into a room. I have a card that says any fruit I carry is exempt from the "Nothing red" rule. If I'm carrying a pineapple, it's exempt from the "Nothing red" rule because of my card, even though it would have been fine anyway. If I'm carrying a strawberry, it's also exempt from the "Nothing red" rule because of my card, and I can carry it into the room even though it would normally be disallowed. The card could have been more specific, and mentioned strawberries by name, or 'red fruit'. But it's not [i]incorrect[/i] for it to just reference 'fruit', even though not all fruit is affected by the "Nothing red" rule in the first place. -Hyp.[/i] [/QUOTE]

Verification