Magic Fang Question

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not sure, but I think Xahn`Tyrs interpretation seems to be right - as far as an interpretation can be wrong or right.
Though in most parts Flurry of Blows works similar to Twoweaponfighting, there is actually no rule that tells us that it is in all things the same ...

Since most the time we do not try to adress certain body parts (no target zones), I think Magic Fang is meant not to affect a certain body part (a fist, as an example), but a certain natural weapon.
So, a creature having as natural attack options bite, claws and tail could have enchanted her bite, her claw or her tail with one Magic Fang.

Most Humanoids do only have one "natural" attack, the unarmed attack. Though it is only stated in the monks description, a unarmed attack can be more than just an attack with the fist.
I believe tripping with out a special weapon for it (like a Flail) is considered using an unarmed attack, and you may even try to trip enemies when you have both hand full with weapons and/or shield...

So I think if you cast Greater Magic Weapon on a Monk, he can fully profit from it.
This might also be the reason why the Amulet of Mighty Fists is much more expensive than a standard weapon enhancement...

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

I think I see the situation now:

My reading is something like this:

"If armed with one such weapon and using it for her primary attack(s), she makes the extra attack either with that weapon or unarmed.

While Caliban's reading (I'm guessing here) is like this:

"If armed with one such weapon, but attacking unarmed with her primary attack(s), she makes the extra attack either with that weapon or unarmed.

Which is more likely? I've no idea. I feel obliged to support my interpretation, but then that bit about having to use both weapons if you're holding them doesn't really make sense:

If armed with two such weapons, she uses one for the regular attack (or attacks) and the other for the extra attack."

If my way were right, then you should be able to pretty much ignore that second weapon and just keep bonking them with the first one. I think that deep down they are still picturing monks attacking with one hand and then the other, regarless of all their fancy talk about using feet, elbows, and what not.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think they state is as clearly as they could, but I believe the intent is that when you do a flurry of blows, the extra attack fom the flurry has to come from a different limb than the one you made your normal attacks with.

So if you have a kama in one hand, you can either:

A) Attack once with the kama, then the flurry attack is made with an unarmed strike (hand/foot/knee/etc.),

B) Attack once with an unarmed strike, then flurry attack is made with either the kama or a different limb than your first attack. (i.e. You punch them and then either whack with the kama or knee them in the groin.)

If you have a kama in both hands, you can either:

A) Attack once with an unarmed strike (kick/knee/elbow/etc.) and then do the flurry attack with one of the kama's or a different limb for the unarmed strike.

B) Attack once with a kama and then do the flurry attack with either the other kama, or with an unarmed strike.

If you have multiple iterative attacks, they can all be made with the same limb/weapon or different limbs/weapons, but when you do a flurry, the extra attack from the flurry always comes from a different limb/weapon than the initial attack.

This interpretation tries to take into account the rules for the flurry, the rules for the flurry with the monk weapons, and the text indicating that an unarmed strike can take the form of any type of unarmed attack, not just a punch.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What about a monk using a Flurry of Blows while grappling?

A character who is grappling may attack with a light weapon - an unarmed strike, for example - but may not attack with two weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

What about a monk using a Flurry of Blows while grappling?

A character who is grappling may attack with a light weapon - an unarmed strike, for example - but may not attack with two weapons.

-Hyp.

Honestly I don't think you would be allowed to flurry while grappling.

The monk must use the full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows

Can you do a full round action while grappling?

--Monkish Spikey

 

[cappun]

Back to my original question. Does everyone agree that the magic weapon spell would remain in effect during wildshape and would not meld into the new form?

 

[Geoff Watson]

I don't think they state is as clearly as they could, but I believe the intent is that when you do a flurry of blows, the extra attack fom the flurry has to come from a different limb than the one you made your normal attacks with.

It does not state that at all.
Flurry allows an extra attack, with all attacks at -2. No mention of using other limbs, etc.

It mentions that if you are using a special monk weapon, the monk can use a comination of unarmed and weapon attacks, but does not state that this is required.

For the original question, yes, I'd allow it.

Geoff.

 

[Pielorinho]

Cappun, I definitely agree with you; there's no indication that the spell would go away.

Caliban, I can kinda see where you're coming from. But I think you agree that the rules are ambiguous here. And there's plenty of martial arts flicks that show kung fu masters doing a triple-kick to the bad-guy's face, for example; I think flurry-of-blows with a single limb isn't implausible (at least, not within a fantasy setting). Especially when the limb is magical.

More importantly, monks have as one of their major weaknesses their trouble hitting creatures with DR; if you don't allow them to FOB with a single limb, that weakness is even greater.

Most importantly, my druid is always GMFing my monk/rogue friend's fist, and I really hope our DM doesn't make us stop!

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

And there's plenty of martial arts flicks that show kung fu masters doing a triple-kick to the bad-guy's face, for example; I think flurry-of-blows with a single limb isn't implausible (at least, not within a fantasy setting).

I agree with Caliban that the rules imply strongly (while never quite stating) that the extra flurry attack comes from another source.

I am, however, of the "whatever" camp on this one - as a DM, if the monk PC wants to Flurry with his forehead, I'll let him.

From a realism standpoint, though - speaking as someone who can triple-kick peoples' faces, I would point out that it is easier to get power into each attack if you're alternating feet, than using the same foot for all three.

At least in my experience.

-Hyp.

 

[Mean DM]

It seems like the consensus is "Yes" to your question Cappun but that you will need to cast it for each claw. Works for me.

Mean DM