Monk flurry = TWF?

[Kerrick]

In 3E, the monk's flurry of blows was specifically called out as being two-weapon fighting:

Unarmed Strike: A monk fighting unarmed gains the benefits of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and thus does not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents that she attacks.

Making an off-hand attack makes no sense for a monk striking unarmed.
A monk fighting with a one-handed weapon can make an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, but she suffers the standard penalties for two-weapon fighting. Likewise, a monk with a weapon (other than a special monk weapon) in her off hand gets an extra attack with that weapon but suffers the usual penalties for two-weapon fighting and can't strike with a flurry of blows.

and

A monk may also use the flurry of blows if armed with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, or siangham). If armed with one such weapon, the monk makes the extra attack either with that weapon or unarmed. If armed with two such weapons, she uses one for the regular attack (or attacks) and the other for the extra attack. In any case, her damage bonus on the attack with her off hand is not reduced.

The verbiage was changed in 3.5 to be a lot more vague:

When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to -1, and at 9th level it disappears. 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 × 1½ or ×½) 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.

This would seem to indicate that a flurry of blows is a special action whereby the monk can attack freely with either or both hands at a -2 penalty for all attacks, gaining her normal Strength bonus. The person with whom I'm having this discussion, however, holds that the flurry is strictly attacks with the main hand, and that you can make offhand attacks via two-weapon fighting. What do you guys think?

 

[Vegepygmy]

This would seem to indicate that a flurry of blows is a special action whereby the monk can attack freely with either or both hands at a -2 penalty for all attacks, gaining her normal Strength bonus. The person with whom I'm having this discussion, however, holds that the flurry is strictly attacks with the main hand, and that you can make offhand attacks via two-weapon fighting. What do you guys think?

Both statements are correct. TWF and flurry of blows are similar, but distinct. A monk can flurry and gain an extra off-hand attack by taking the TWF penalties in addition to any flurry penalties, but applies only 1/2 Str bonus to the extra off-hand attack's damage.

A flurrying monk can choose to make all flurry attacks with his primary hand, if he chooses. Or with elbows, feet, head butts, etc. It doesn't really matter what part of his body he uses to make unarmed strikes. Mechanically, they're all the same.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Flurry is not two weapon fighting, it is its own full attack action/routine. And it doesn't matter which hand, or if you use a hand at all. Headbutt, roundhouse, uppercut, elbow strike is mechanically the same as left hook, right hook, left hook... when describing your unarmed flurry attack. The entire body is the same weapon, regardless of which part of it you decide to use.

This can be altered, however, by adding gear or possibly magic to the monk. For example, strictly speaking (ie, by RAW), if a monk equips gauntlets, he loses the ability to deal nonlethal damage when using handstrikes or punches. Unless he had gauntlet proficiency, he'd also suffer a -4 attack penalty on those attacks...

 

[Kerrick]

Flurry is not two weapon fighting, it is its own full attack action/routine. And it doesn't matter which hand, or if you use a hand at all. Headbutt, roundhouse, uppercut, elbow strike is mechanically the same as left hook, right hook, left hook... when describing your unarmed flurry attack. The entire body is the same weapon, regardless of which part of it you decide to use.

Huh. I've never seen anyone bring up the TWF thing before. If it's NOT TWF, though, why does it incur a penalty? It should be the same as being under the effect of a haste spell. That makes no sense.

This can be altered, however, by adding gear or possibly magic to the monk. For example, strictly speaking (ie, by RAW), if a monk equips gauntlets, he loses the ability to deal nonlethal damage when using handstrikes or punches. Unless he had gauntlet proficiency, he'd also suffer a -4 attack penalty on those attacks...

I really don't see why someone would need proficiency with a gauntlet - it's worn on the hand. And while it's considered an unarmed attack, I don't think a monk could use it to flurry; that just means that punching someone with a gauntlet on provokes an AoO. A martial artist may wear gloves, but he wouldn't wear heavy gauntlets that would restrict the movement of his hands/fingers (many strikes require precise finger positioning, which is hard to do with gauntlets on).

 

[billd91]

I think WotC would have made things a lot easier for DMs of cheese-hunting monk players if they had just said that Flurry was a monk-special version of TWF. As a house rule, I've pretty much been ruling that way. It simplifies matters a bit.

 

[Deset Gled]

Huh. I've never seen anyone bring up the TWF thing before. If it's NOT TWF, though, why does it incur a penalty? It should be the same as being under the effect of a haste spell. That makes no sense.

Flurry doesn't incur a penalty once you get to a high enough level. It has different damage properties than TWF and is not magical like haste (and does not stack the same as haste). Considering these things, it makes perfect sense to treat flurry as a distict action rather than try and shoe-horn it into existing mechanics.

TWF also cannot be performed with only an unarmed attack because TWF explicitly requires two weapons, and all creatures only have a single unarmed strike. You can't TWF with your two fists anymore than you could TWF with a knife that you toss between your two hands.

I really don't see why someone would need proficiency with a gauntlet - it's worn on the hand. ... gauntlets that would restrict the movement of his hands/fingers (many strikes require precise finger positioning, which is hard to do with gauntlets on).

...

And while it's considered an unarmed attack, I don't think a monk could use it to flurry

Well, it think you just explained the reason why gauntlets require proficiency, and why they aren't classified as special monk weapons.

Just to clarify, the gauntlet is technically a simple weapon (which monks are not automatically proficient with) and is not a special monk weapon (which is a specific list). So a monk cannot flurry with one, and if they make a normal attack with one they take a -4 penalty.

 

[Tilenas]

TWF also cannot be performed with only an unarmed attack because TWF explicitly requires two weapons, and all creatures only have a single unarmed strike. You can't TWF with your two fists anymore than you could TWF with a knife that you toss between your two hands.

I beg to differ. While PHB pg. 160 states that you may get an additional attack with your off-hand if you "wield a second weapon", it also states that light weapons operate at a reduced penalty and that "the unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon".
Furthermore, PHB pg. 116 lists the unarmed strike as a light melee weapon. I think the wording is misleading, as the passage tries to distinguish "weapons" from "other hand-held objects".

I think WotC would have made things a lot easier for DMs of cheese-hunting monk players if they had just said that Flurry was a monk-special version of TWF.

That would exclude monks from unarmed two-weapon-fighting (which seems to be the idea). It makes sense if you say that since Flurry already incorporates any and all parts of the body, monks should not get another attack just because they use their other hand. I would allow it anyway, seeing that the unarmed strike is underpowered at higher levels.

If it's NOT TWF, though, why does it incur a penalty? It should be the same as being under the effect of a haste spell. That makes no sense.

It doesn't need to be TWF. The same mechanic (additional attack; all attacks at -2) is used with the Rapid Shot feat.

Both statements are correct. TWF and flurry of blows are similar, but distinct. A monk can flurry and gain an extra off-hand attack by taking the TWF penalties in addition to any flurry penalties, but applies only 1/2 Str bonus to the extra off-hand attack's damage.

I would say the same.

 

[dingle]

Don't you need a full round action to get in your 2 weapon fighting extra blows? The monks flurry of blows has already used up all the full round action, so either you use flurry of blows or TWF not both together.

 

[Tilenas]

Don't you need a full round action to get in your 2 weapon fighting extra blows? The monks flurry of blows has already used up all the full round action, so either you use flurry of blows or TWF not both together.

The RAW isn't very precise about the whole issue, but it does say that you need to take the full attack action to make more than one attack. Since TWF stacks with the regular attacks every character eventually gets, I wouldn't say that you can't combine two actions that grant you extra attacks. Otherwise, your 11th level fighter would have to choose between his three regular attacks and two attacks from TWF.

 

[Deset Gled]

I beg to differ. While PHB pg. 160 states that you may get an additional attack with your off-hand if you "wield a second weapon", it also states that light weapons operate at a reduced penalty and that "the unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon".
Furthermore, PHB pg. 116 lists the unarmed strike as a light melee weapon. I think the wording is misleading, as the passage tries to distinguish "weapons" from "other hand-held objects".

I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing, here. I was making the point that you cannot use an unarmed strike to be both the primary and off-hand attacks as part of a TWF full attack sequence. This is, as you point out, because TWF requires you to "wield a second weapon". Since an unarmed strike is one, singular, solitary weapon it cannot be both parts of the TWF sequence - there would be no second weapon to attack with. It is perfectly cromulent to use an unarmed strike as either the offhand or primary hand of a TWF sequence, just not both.

The fact that an unarmed strike is a light weapon is immaterial. This point was made to discuss the design reasons why flurry is distinct from TWF, and doesn't have any bearing on the penalties involved in TWF.