lycanthrope monk - flurry with natural attacks?

[Treebore]

Sej is quoting an FAQ, it is far from the rules. I will follow the rules logic in the PH that clearly states that the monks body weapons are effected by spells that enhance natural weapons. Either her fist/hand/claws are natural, or they are not. Spells do not let you have it both ways. That FAQ says a monks hand/feet are not natural weapons when the PH clearly states they have to be, or the mentioned spells will not work. the logic needs to stay as consistant as possible. Hands/fist/feet/claws/bites/etc... are all natural weapons.

I still would not allow a bite to be used in a flurry, but I would consider letting such a Monk to take a feat to allow them to use a bite in their flurry attack. Claws, on the other hand, are just an extension of the hands or feet. Those I will allow.

As for the flurry of blows, you have seen plenty of martial arts movies, I hope and assume, to where you have seen super fast punches and kicks. Those are the game equivelant of a flurry. Granted any body part of a Monk can be used. By that same logic neither should a body part be excluded, even claws.

you guys can go with the FAQ. You are DM's and are perfectly capable of deciding on how you want to interpret the rules or FAQ's. I will go with what I consider to be the better logic, especially when an FAQ counters the PH statement that the monks hands/feet/etc are enchantable by spells that enhance natural weapons. Those same natural weapons that the monk otherwise uses to deliver the majority of their attacks.

 

[Camarath]

Sej is quoting an FAQ, it is far from the rules. I will follow the rules logic in the PH that clearly states that the monks body weapons are effected by spells that enhance natural weapons. Either her fist/hand/claws are natural, or they are not. Spells do not let you have it both ways. That FAQ says a monks hand/feet are not natural weapons when the PH clearly states they have to be, or the mentioned spells will not work. the logic needs to stay as consistant as possible. Hands/fist/feet/claws/bites/etc... are all natural weapons.

Unarmed Strike follows the rules for attacks with manufactured weapons rather than the rules for attacks with natural weapons. Unamared Strike in never stated to be a natural weapon. It is stated to be "treaded both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons". That does not mean that unamred strike is a natural weapons just that it is treated as such for spells and effects that enhance or improve such weapons.

 

[IceBear]

So, let's say the monk can do 1d8 points of damage with an unarmed attack and make a claw attack for 1d4. Is his flurries going to be 1d8+1d4? Just 1d8? If it's just 1d8, it's effectively the same as not allowing a natural weapon in a flurry. Is there any PC playable creature that's going to do more damage with it's claw than a monk would with an unarmed attack?

I find it so funny that WotC has a FAQ for handling rules disputes, but as soon as someone disagrees with a ruling those that want to use it aren't following the rules and can't think for ourselves. The fact that it went into the FAQ means it wasn't very clear and open to interpretation, so obviously we're just not following YOUR interpretation of the rules. I've disagreed with stuff in the FAQ before and just continue to use my ruling. If you're going to allow natural attacks in a flurry, then using whatever is the highest damage is probably the best.

 

[Camarath]

Unarmed Strike has a set of listed properties such as damage, damage type, and crit range. And I have not seen any rule that would let one perform an Unarmed Strike and use any set of properties other then the ones given for an Unarmed Strike.

 

[Sejs]

Camarath:

I not believe that you can attack with a weapon that is not an unamred strike of an special monk weapons in a Full Attack Action in which you use Flurry of Blows.

Actually, you can, but as a secondary attack. So say for example I have an elven monk with a longsword. I can use the full attack action to get my normal alotment of monk attacks, including flurry, and then take a single attack with the longsword at the normal two-weapon fighting penalties (including the penalty for the secondary weapon not being light in this example... ouch). Or you can use the longsword as your primary weapon, getting a single secondary attack with your unarmed strike. What you cannot do is use the longsword as your primary weapon, and flurry with your unarmed strike as a secondary attack. Basically if you want to get multiple attacks with a secondary weapon, you need to take the improved/greater two-weapon fighting feats.

Unarmed Strike has a set of listed properties such as damage, damage type, and crit range.

Right. Unarmed strike is a defined, quantified weapon the same way a battle axe or mace is. Certain abilities and feats just let you get more performance out of that character's unarmed strike. Natural weapons are another different, defined weapon. If you had a medium creature that had 1d4 dmg claws, that creature could choose to rake some guy with its claws doing 1d4 piercing/slashing damage and being considdered armed, or it could punch/kick/headbutt/knee/noogie the guy for 1d3 non-lethal bludgeoning damage and drawing an AoO if they attack an armed opponent. Choosing between the two different attacks is essentially the same as a fighter choosing to use his sword or his mace.


IceBear:

Yup I like Sejs. Seems very rules savvy and polite

Thank you much. It's very nice of you to say. ^_^


Treebore:

Sej is quoting an FAQ, it is far from the rules.

I'm sorry to split hairs here, but the FAQ is a clairification of the rules as put down by the publishers. The two are one in the same. But as you said, we're all intelligent people, we're all fit to interpret the rules as we feel would fit best for our individual games.

 

[rowport]

Whew! It is getting somewhat heated in this thread... sorry to cause havoc...

Thanks to all! Especially with Seis' FAQ post and example, I am very close to understanding. The only confusion I still have is that in your example, you showed "bite at -7". Now, I totally followed your math, but am not sure if you meant that he CHOSE bite, or HAS TO USE bite, instead of claw (which does more damage, although no disease). Is there a requirement that a secondary natural weapon is ALWAYS used as secondary?


"1st level wererat monk: unarmed strike at -2 for flurry / unarmed strike at -2 for flurry, bite at -7 (-2 from flurry, -5 from secondary attack)."

 

[Camarath]

Camarath:
Actually, you can, but as a secondary attack. So say for example I have an elven monk with a longsword. I can use the full attack action to get my normal alotment of monk attacks, including flurry, and then take a single attack with the longsword at the normal two-weapon fighting penalties (including the penalty for the secondary weapon not being light in this example... ouch). Or you can use the longsword as your primary weapon, getting a single secondary attack with your unarmed strike. What you cannot do is use the longsword as your primary weapon, and flurry with your unarmed strike as a secondary attack. Basically if you want to get multiple attacks with a secondary weapon, you need to take the improved/greater two-weapon fighting feats.

I believe that this section of rules means that use of flurry of blows is a full attack action (i.e. during the entire full attack action one is considered to be using flurry of blows) and that one may attack using only unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons during that action (i.e. all of the benefits and limitations of flurry of blows apply to every attack in the full attack action).

"A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.
When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x1-1/2 or x1/2) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. "

 

[Terry Edwards]

I'm with Camarath on this one. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows. Following up a full attack with an additional longsword attack just doesn't jive. A monk either uses their base attack bonus or their flurry bonus not substituting their highest base attack bonus for the flurry.

As for using natural weapons (claws) in a flurry I would allow it as though it were a monk weapon although in this case unarmed damage is always higher so what's the point. If you're a low level monk (less than 3 attacks with a flurry) you may want to take multiattack to reduce the attack penalty for your bite to -2 instead of -5.

 

[Sejs]

Rowport:

Now, I totally followed your math, but am not sure if you meant that he CHOSE bite, or HAS TO USE bite, instead of claw (which does more damage, although no disease). Is there a requirement that a secondary natural weapon is ALWAYS used as secondary?

Actually, looking in the MM I don't see that wererats have a claw attack. In any case, a creature taking the full attack action can use all of its natural weapons that are not otherwise occupied as secondary attacks (-5 to hit, or -2 if the creature has the Multiattack feat, 1/2 strength bonus to damage). So a lizard man that normally has two claws (normally designated primary) and a bite (always secondary; the faq expands more on this) has a longsword and a shield. If he's using his sword and shield, both his hands are occupied; he can't make any claw attacks. He can use his bite as a secondary natural attack (-5 to hit, 1/2 str mod). If instead he ditches the shield and is just holding a longsword in one hand, he can use the longsword as his primary attack, and make both one claw and a bite as secondary natural attacks. Or, and this is closer to the heart of our discussion, if the lizard man is a monk he can make his normal monk attacks, and then take two claws (as both hands are unoccupied) and a bite all as secondary natural attacks.

Hence the wisecrack I made earlier in the thread about an awakened octopus monk. A giant octopus taking a full attack gets 8 tentacle attacks and a bite. An awakened giant octopus monk taking a full attack would get its full alotment of monk attacks, and then 8 tentacles and a bite as secondary attacks. Which is just crazy, heh.


Anyway, in case I'm rambling, to clairify: you can use any and all unoccupied natural weapons as secondary natural attacks when taking the full attack action. Doing so designates any natural weapons that are normally primary as secondary. Natural that are normally secondary remain secondary.


Camarath has pointed out that I may well be mistaken in if such a character could use their natural weapons as secondary attacks while making a flurry of blows, however. In which case a character with natural weapons could attack with their natural weapons as secondary attack when making the full attack action, but they could not use their natural weapons as secondary attacks at all when making a flurry of blows.

 

[rowport]

Thanks, guys, I think I got it now. I am glad to see that I am not alone in finding this complicated.

(To clarify, Seis, you are correct that the MM Wererat does not have a claw attack, but the Wererat class from Dragon 313 does have a claw attack as a hybrid in addition to the bite attack in both dire rat and hybrid form.)

So, as a full attack, he could:

1. Flurry of blows with unarmed strike (1d6/1d6) at -1/-1 as Level 1 Monk.
2. Primary unarmed strike (1d6) at no penalty, and secondary claw (1d4) at -5 and secondary bite (1d4 and disease) at -5 also. If he gets the Multiattack Feat, he can shrink that -5 penalty to -2 instead.

By George, I think I've got it!