Lightning Fists... I'm confused...

[jontherev]

Actually I don't think it is clear...

Lightning Fists (General)
Your skill and agility allows you to attempt a series of blindingly fast blows.
Prerequisite: Monk level 4th+, Dex 15+
Benefit: You can make two extra attacks in a round. All attacks made this round suffer a -5 attack penalty. This feat requires the full attack action.

Unless you have an errata version, please point out where it says that you:
a) Can only make unarmed attacks with Lightning Fists
b) Are limited to melee attacks only

Why would you assume these things? Heck, Improved Unarmed Strike isn't even a prereq, so why would it be limited to only a monk's unarmed strikes???

Here is another example of what I am talking about... Lets say you take 10 levels of Cleric and 1 level of Wizard and 2 levels of Arcane Archer... According to the requirements for Arcane Archer, you need to be able to cast Arcane spells. The ability to Imbue Arrows with spells is not limited to Arcane spells only. So why would you assume that you can only Imbue arrows with Arcane spells? The answer is, you wouldn't!

So again, why assume you need to make unarmed melee attacks with Lightning Fists?

It does have Imp. Unarmed Strike as a prereq. You have to be a 4th level monk right? They get it at 1st level.

Through a combination of the errata linked above, the statement off the FAQ ("Lightning Fists works exactly like a flurry of blows, except that you add two extra attacks and you suffer a -5 penalty to all your attacks."), and common sense (no offense), it is obvious that this feat was meant to work exactly like Flurry of Blows. This is a monk feat for pete's sake! It's called Lightning FIST. So, look up Flurry of Blows and this feat works exactly like it except for what's stated above. That means you can only use it unarmed or with special monk weapons.

 

[RigaMortus]

I'm not arguing that it isn't a Monk feat. I am arguing that as written, you don't have to exclusively be a Monk to use it (just a 4th level one), nor do you have to use it exclusively with unarmed attacks, nor do you have to use it exclusively with melee attacks. As written...

Take a look at the Snatch Weapon feat... When you read it, you'd assume that it allows you to disarm an opponent, grab their weapon with your free hand and attack them with it. This of course is assuming it is a melee weapon, right? Wrong. What if you Snatch Weapon on a Hand crossbow? Would you then be allowed to fire it? Doesn't say you can't, but reading the feat you would assume that it is only meant for melee weapons.

 

[Vaxalon]

Fine, RM, use it that way. Clearly, they took it for granted that people would understand that this was only for monkish weapons, but I guess we need to have the rules written by a lawyer so that we take out every possible ambiguity.

Personally, I'd rather not have to pay $500 an hour for rules interpretation advice, especially with the one hour minimum charge, and occasionally rely on common sense.

Please, please, please, send this question to The Sage. I'm sure he could use a laugh.

 

[SableWyvern]

Question:

Do you want to implement all rules as they are officially and literally written, regardless of any commonsense reasoning that might indicate you should do otherwise?

If the answer is yes, then Lightning Fists gives you two extra attacks at your primary attack bonus, at the cost of all attacks suffering a -5 penalty.

If, OTOH, you wish to work with the spirit of the rule (which, in this case, if not already blatantly obvious, is clarified in the FAQ linked above), then Lightning Fists works exactly like Flurry of Blows, except that it give two extra attacks instead of one, and the penalty is -5 instead of -2.


This post coloured green for a reason.
(And I certainly hope that my conclusion is correct)

 

[Caliban]

Actually I don't think it is clear...

Lightning Fists (General)
Your skill and agility allows you to attempt a series of blindingly fast blows.
Prerequisite: Monk level 4th+, Dex 15+
Benefit: You can make two extra attacks in a round. All attacks made this round suffer a -5 attack penalty. This feat requires the full attack action.

Unless you have an errata version, please point out where it says that you:
a) Can only make unarmed attacks with Lightning Fists
b) Are limited to melee attacks only

Why would you assume these things?

Because the errata states that you cannot use Flurry of Blow with Lightning fists, and flurry of blows only applies to unarmed attacks.

Because that is the obvious intent of the feat.

Here is another example of what I am talking about... Lets say you take 10 levels of Cleric and 1 level of Wizard and 2 levels of Arcane Archer... According to the requirements for Arcane Archer, you need to be able to cast Arcane spells. The ability to Imbue Arrows with spells is not limited to Arcane spells only. So why would you assume that you can only Imbue arrows with Arcane spells? The answer is, you wouldn't!

You aren't limited to imbueing arrows with arcane spells. You just have to be able to cast arcane spells to learn how to do it.

So again, why assume you need to make unarmed melee attacks with Lightning Fists?

Because it's called "Lightning Fists", it has been updated in the errata, and it has been specifically clarified as such in the Official D&D FAQ.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

I cannot imagine any DM not applying a clarifying Rule 0 for any player who wanted to use this feat for anything other than a monks unarmed strike/monk weapon attack. It is obviously intended to be so. The feat description should be reworded, I guess, in order to spare it from abuse.

 

[RigaMortus]

Because it's called "Lightning Fists", it has been updated in the errata, and it has been specifically clarified as such in the Official D&D FAQ.

The other arguements are very sound and reasonable, but this one? C'mon... You are gonna take the name of a feat literally?

Hey, here is one for ya... Throw ANYTHING.... Geeee, anything? Guess I can throw my couch, my mother, my kitchen sink.

I suppose Eyes in the back of you head really gives you eyes in the back of your head, right?

I know I am stretching it here, but when do you ever take the name of a feat/spell/whatever literally? You go by the rules, and the rules are what I posted, twice. That's all.

To say this is "like flurry of blows EXCEPT you get an extra attack and -5 penalty" is to say it is "like Improved Two Weapon Fighting" or that it is "like having a BAB of +11". It is a description of how to relate to the feat, but not a hard fast rule.

 

[Metalsmith]

I get it now!!

I get IT!!!
He's Joking, He's been Joking the WHOLE TIME!
GOOD ONE!

Thats pretty funny man, you really had me going.
I thought you were serious for a while.

You go by the rules, and the rules are what I posted, twice. That's all.

To say this is "like flurry of blows EXCEPT you get an extra attack and -5 penalty" is to say it is "like Improved Two Weapon Fighting" or that it is "like having a BAB of +11". It is a description of how to relate to the feat, but not a hard fast rule.

Here's a reply in the same sprit:

You posted the Rules twice and got the errata pointed at you twice. That's All.

I don's see how the meaning of, "this is like flurry of blows except you get an extra attack and a -5 penalty" is unclear. Is Flurry of Blows done with Missle Weapons or Couches?

A Hard and Fast rule: Ok I took a copy of the above rules and engraved them onto the hood of my car and then drove on the interstate at approx 100mph. (my spedometer pegs at 95mph) It can now be said that it's a Hard and Fast Rule.

Everyone happy now?

Metalsmith

P.S. Thanks man you cracked me up!

 

[Crothian]

I'm guessing your the player trying to justify having this feat for a character? I think it's been spelled out in a few different ways that it's for unarmed attacks only. You cannot always go by just the written rules, the spirit of the rules matter. As does the title of the feat. Throw anything does allow you to throw anything. You can throw your couch or your mom assuming you can lift it. Eyes in the back of Your Head is based of an old saying. It's a clever title that people understand. Well, most of us anyway.

In the end it's your game and whatever the DM allows is fine with me. I'm not in them.

 

[kreynolds]

Hey, here is one for ya... Throw ANYTHING.... Geeee, anything? Guess I can throw my couch, my mother, my kitchen sink.

Sure. Why not. You can apparently do anything that you want, so why bother arguing?

I know I am stretching it here...

Man, you haven't been doing anything but severely stretch the rules. Just my opinion.