Flurry of Blows + Two Weapon Fighting?

[Ottergame]

Ah, a book I do not have. And I thought we were keeping this conversation to core rules.

 

[Unseelie]

Huge feat investment (min 3), penalties all over (extra negatives), useing weapons that probably do less damage than he would without useing them (assuming a standard way to let monks enhance their unnarmed strikes, 2d10 is better than most weapons)... all in all doesnt sound too bad for a character concept. Make sure at least one is a weapon of speed or get someone to cast haste on you

I'm playing a character like this in a game right now, and you're very right about both the penalties and the lower damage. What I found was that it was only beneficial for me to both flurry and use TWF when I was fighting low AC mooks. You can mow through mooks like mad, but the moment someone with AC shows up, it's not worth it... all of those extra attacks do you no good if you can't hit.

It might have potential for a TWF Monk Trip-Monkey, but that's already pretty cheesy.

 

[Scion]

Except unless I am failing to recall something, a monk's fists cannot be made into Flaming Icy Shock Vorpral Weapons. A fighters crappy d8 damage from a longsword is nothing, it's all the magical bonuses and magic damage that's important.

Amulet of mighty fists is core, a bit overpriced in my opinion, but still core. Having a +5 enhancement to all of your strikes is pretty cool I've always had bracers in my games which could be enchanted to give the monk special abilities like flaming and such.. really cool visual to see the monks whole body ablaze in a wash of fire and ice..lol.. Still though, just straight pluses are roughly the equivalent in damage as the energy enhancements, sometimes more, sometimes less. So having just a flat +5 is impressive.

 

[Unseelie]

Also, in 3.5, remember that your hands are either melee and natural weapons. You can magic fang them, but you can also GMW them or even apply potions of alchemical silver... kind of neat actually.

 

[Ranger REG]

We're talking 3.5 rules-as-written, right? The ones that don't disallow stacking TWF and FoB as long as you're not striking unarmed?

Yeah, the same ruleset that also allows multiclassing experience penalty when taking a level in prestige class.

I don't think the game designer intend for the monk to be that powerful offensively.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yeah, the same ruleset that also allows multiclassing experience penalty when taking a level in prestige class.

Didn't they address that in the Complete Warrior?

I don't think the game designer intend for the monk to be that powerful offensively.

It's not that powerful...

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Yeah, the same ruleset that also allows multiclassing experience penalty when taking a level in prestige class.

I don't think the game designer intend for the monk to be that powerful offensively.

Agreed with Hyp on both. I still didn't meet the monk who outdamaged a power attacking barbarian.

And that multiclass experience penalty... is another topic
A long one.

 

[Unseelie]

Yeah, the same ruleset that also allows multiclassing experience penalty when taking a level in prestige class.

I don't think the game designer intend for the monk to be that powerful offensively.

As someone who plays one, I can assure you I'm not that powerful offensively. In fact, in hindsight, I would not have gone the TWF/Flurry route at all had I realized that the only time it would ever be useful is against large groups of low AC mooks. Considering that my DM almost never throws low AC mooks at us, instead preferring one large big bad, I almost never TWF. Instead, I just flurry with my fists, which do greater damage... which I need because of 3.5 Damage Reduction.

I'd still go Ranger/Monk (FR: Order of the Yellow Rose), but I'd have gone down the Archery path instead.

 

[Ottergame]

Agreed with Hyp on both. I still didn't meet the monk who outdamaged a power attacking barbarian.

And that multiclass experience penalty... is another topic
A long one.

Since monks (usually) Have a better AC, saves, and options compared to a barbarian, I think it's excuseable that they do less damage.

 

[Errant]

Thanks everyone for the responses, I would have replied sooner but I've been away a few days.

Ask yourself: Is it the designers’ intention that monks with two sianghams should be able to attack more often than anyone else?

Actually I get the distinct impression that it is the designers intention that players be offered as many choices as possible in customizing their characters without (ideally) allowing them to be overpowered/unbalanced, but I was looking for what's allowed by the rules. Not whether Rule-0 is justified (a question for the House Rules forum I think) so I'd prefer to stick to the 3.5E rules here.

If I understand you right, you would let a monk, at first level, have 3 attacks per round, at a -4, -4, -4? And that a level 20 monk with all the right PHB feats would have a +13, +13, +13, +8, +3, +13, +8, +3?

Hmmm. Assuming light 2nd weapon...
L20 Monk FoB = +15/+15/+15/+10/+5
FoB, +TWF = +13/+13/+13/+8/+3, +13
FoB, +TWF +ITWF = +13/+13/+13/+8/+3, +13/+8
FoB, +TWF +ITWF +GTWF = +13/+13/+13/+8/+3, +13/+8/+3
That’s better than I thought but I think you're right.

In comparison a L20 Fighter would receive...
BAB = +20/+15/+10/+5
BAB, +TWF = +18/+13/+8/+3, +18
BAB, +TWF +ITWF = +18/+13/+8/+3, +18/+13
BAB, +TWF +ITWF +GTWF = +18/+13/+8/+3, +18/+13/+8

So the (pure) Monk gets one extra attack at +5 behind the Fighter. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me, so yes I'd allow it - if I can't find a definite rule disallowing it.

how do you think TWO-weapon fighting would apply?

spare me dubious rule quotes and please don't mention the TWO in TWO-weapon fighting is just flavor text.

I think TWF applies for the same reason Camarath seems to. FoB & TWF (feats) all allow bonus attacks when using Full Attack Actions, & I've yet to find/see a rules reference that says they don't stack.

Having read the responses & done some more reading I noticed, that while the description of Monk's Unarmed Attacks says:

A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

... the Combat II section of the SRD says:

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. ...
•If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. ( An unarmed strike is always considered light .)

It seems to me the Combat section is clearly indicating that unarmed attacks should be treated as attacks with light weapons & either that contradicts the Unarmed Attacks description OR the later is merely an clarifies how the Monk's strength bonus applies to unarmed attacks.

Obviously FoB + the TWF chain can add a definite edge to his combat ability, but I'd think that would be expected from a 3-feat chain requiring a Dex of 19.

So far I don't see any rule that would prevent it.