Monk flurry = TWF?

[Vegepygmy]

But... as noted above, TWF and flurry are both full-round actions.

No, they are not. TWF and flurry require that you use the Full Attack action, which is a full-round action; they are not special actions of their own (like, for example, Charge). The distinction is important, because if flurry were its own special full-round action, you couldn't combine it with any other full-round action (such as a Full Attack using TWF). But since TWF and flurry are each performed as part of a Full Attack action, both can be performed during a Full Attack action.

If you're wielding a non-monkish weapon (say, a short sword) in your offhand, you can't flurry.

Not quite true. You can't make any attacks with the short sword while flurrying, but nothing prevents you from wielding it.

 

[risner]

"A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack." (PHB, page 121.)

If an unarmed strike can be used in one (primary) hand, and it can be used in one (secondary) hand--which it can--then there is no reason it can't be used in both hands at the same time,

I also disagree with your logic.

You can make multiple attacks with your one (and only) Unarmed Strike weapon using each hand, then each foot. At the end of the sequence you have used a total of one Unarmed Strike weapon.

You don't have a second animated body laying around that you can employ your second Unarmed Strike weapon in the same round do you?

A weapon in D&D is something that appears on a chart classified as Simple, Martial, or Exotic. Unarmed Strikes is just such a weapon.

The real issue depends on how you read text of the PHB, since there is no explicit rule in TWF saying you can use Unarmed Strikes for both the primary weapon and secondary weapon.

 

[Kerrick]

1) Only if Short Sword is a Monk weapon. You could however TWF a Kama with Unarmed Strikes from a Flurry in one Full Round. The Kama would be all your offhand TWF strikes and the Unarmed Strikes would cover your primary weapon in the TWF sequence.

I specifically chose a non-monkish weapon because if you were using, say, a kama, it would be considered part of the flurry.

2) Yes they require proficiency because they don't explicitly say they don't require proficiency.

That's circular logic. "It doesn't say we can't do it, therefore we can." Most DMs hand-wave proficiency with the club, even though it's listed as a simple weapon - it's not that hard to swing a large piece of wood.

3) No, they both can be done "as part of a full round", but do not consume the full round.

PHB, page 143: Full Round Actions. "A full round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step." Full attack is listed there. Therefore, it takes up the entire round.

It doesn't, you take -4 due to non proficiency if you don't have proficiency with Unarmed Strikes (and Monk's get it by default by having Improved Unarmed Strike feat even tho it isn't explicitly called out in the monk description.)

Um... ALL characters are proficient with unarmed strike - it's a natural weapon, and all creatures are automatically proficient with their natural weapons. A monk (or anyone else who takes the IUS feat), however, is the only one who can deal lethal damage and thus make armed attacks instead of unarmed ones.

Well, I guess it depends on which "why" you're asking.

Why do gauntlets require proficiency from a rules perspective? Because gauntlets are listed in the SRD - Equipment Weapons section of the rules. ALL weapons in this section fall under the category of simple, martial, or exotic, and gauntlets are specifically called out in a table as being simple weapons. Further noted in this section, all characters must have the relevant proficiency, or take a proficiency penalty. So basically, gauntlets require proficiency because the rules say they do.

Maybe they're listed there because they don't fit anywhere else. Unarmed strike is also listed there, but all characters are automatically proficient in it.

Why do the rules call out gauntlets as weapons? That's an interesting design question that I don't have a great answer for. Note that not all things that cause damage have to be called weapons. Items like caltrops, alchemists fire, and thunderstones all fall into a category that would be called "weapons" in normal english usage, but are not classified as weapons in D+D terminology. All of these items can be used by anyone without any proficiency issues.

That's because they're area of effect weapons, like grenades - you only need to get a grenade close to the target for it to be effective.

No, they are not. TWF and flurry require that you use the Full Attack action, which is a full-round action; they are not special actions of their own (like, for example, Charge). The distinction is important, because if flurry were its own special full-round action, you couldn't combine it with any other full-round action (such as a Full Attack using TWF). But since TWF and flurry are each performed as part of a Full Attack action, both can be performed during a Full Attack action.

I agree with the first part, but I'm not sold on the second. If they're both full-round actions, it doesn't make much sense to me that they could be combined.

Not quite true. You can't make any attacks with the short sword while flurrying, but nothing prevents you from wielding it.

That's putting a pretty fine point on it.

 

[Vegepygmy]

You can make multiple attacks with your one (and only) Unarmed Strike weapon using each hand, then each foot. At the end of the sequence you have used a total of one Unarmed Strike weapon.

I understand your argument, but it proceeds from a false assumption. There is no "Unarmed Strike weapon." An unarmed strike isn't something you have, it's something you do.

"I have an unarmed strike" is gibberish.
"I strike him, unarmed" is meaningful English.

An unarmed strike is considered to be a light weapon when such designations are relevant. (Can I use my off-hand to make one? Yes, it is considered a light weapon for such purposes. Can I make one while grappling? Yes, it is considered a light weapon for such purposes. Can I Disarm someone while unarmed? Yes, you are considered to be using a light weapon when you do so. Etc.) But it is not actually a weapon.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I agree with the first part, but I'm not sold on the second. If they're both full-round actions...

They're not. That's what you just said you agree with.

To TWF or flurry, you must be using a full-round action (the Full Attack action). They are not actions in and of themselves, however. If I say, "You must be making a Full Attack in order to talk," and I say, "To chew bubblegum, you must be making a Full Attack at the time," you can talk and chew bubblegum at the same time, as long as you are making a Full Attack, because neither talking nor chewing bubblegum are separate actions of their own--they are just things you can do during a Full Attack action.

 

[billd91]

The real issue depends on how you read text of the PHB, since there is no explicit rule in TWF saying you can use Unarmed Strikes for both the primary weapon and secondary weapon.

It doesn't say you can't either. If we relied on the rules to always tell us what our PCs can do, their lives would be very boring.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Um... ALL characters are proficient with unarmed strike - it's a natural weapon, and all creatures are automatically proficient with their natural weapons. A monk (or anyone else who takes the IUS feat), however, is the only one who can deal lethal damage and thus make armed attacks instead of unarmed ones.

No, no they aren't.

Humans are assumed to be humanoids. Correct?

Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are presented as 1st-level warriors, which means that they have average combat ability and poor saving throws.
Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type.
Features

A humanoid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

• 8-sided Hit Dice, or by character class.
• Base attack bonus equal to ¾ total Hit Dice (as cleric).
• Good Reflex saves (usually; a humanoid’s good save varies).
• Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, or by character class.

Traits

A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

• Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
• Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. If a humanoid does not have a class and wears armor, it is proficient with that type of armor and all lighter types. Humanoids not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Humanoids are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
• Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.

Now, where do you see proficiency of natural weapons?

Hmm, let us try another type: Dragon

Dragon Type

A dragon is a reptilelike creature, usually winged, with magical or unusual abilities.
Features

A dragon has the following features.

• 12-sided Hit Dice.
• Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter).
• Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves.
• Skill points equal to (6 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

Traits

A dragon possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in the description of a particular kind).

• Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision.
• Immunity to magic sleep effects and paralysis effects.
• Proficient with its natural weapons only unless humanoid in form (or capable of assuming humanoid form), in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
• Proficient with no armor.
• Dragons eat, sleep, and breathe.

Funny that= Dragons are proficient in natural weapons. I can go on, but humanoids are not proficient.

Humans are not.

Now are unarmed strikes simple weapons? Likely yes. They are on simple weapon table.
But even if they aren't : humans including Monks are not proficient.


In fact, if unarmed strikes are not simple weapons: how do you gain prociency? There is no feat for that.

Druids are proficient, but only while wild shaped if unarmed strikes are natural weapons for proficiency.

Did you ever read Druid entry? This part:

They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth) of any form they assume with wild shape.

If everyone is automatically proficient than why mention proficiency gained?

Ergo, D&D doesn't like the idea of everyone proficient with natural weapons.
Houserules will differ obviously.

 

[milo]

This is for the people who say that all unarmed strikes from a monk are the same weapon. Monks can be buffed with a Greater Magic Fang, so if I have a druid at 12th level cast it on me once, on my body all attacks could gain the +3 rather than just the +1 for the alternate casting.

If not they are different weapons for TWF purposes. If so they are the same weapon and I have to use one of my monk weapons in my off hand to use TWF and flurry in the same round. So it depends on how you want to rule it as a DM, do you want to give monks a great way to buff if there is a druid around or give him TWF with his unarmed strike.

 

[Arkhandus]

I understand your argument, but it proceeds from a false assumption. There is no "Unarmed Strike weapon." An unarmed strike isn't something you have, it's something you do.

"I have an unarmed strike" is gibberish.
"I strike him, unarmed" is meaningful English.

An unarmed strike is considered to be a light weapon when such designations are relevant. (Can I use my off-hand to make one? Yes, it is considered a light weapon for such purposes. Can I make one while grappling? Yes, it is considered a light weapon for such purposes. Can I Disarm someone while unarmed? Yes, you are considered to be using a light weapon when you do so. Etc.) But it is not actually a weapon.

Unarmed strikes are listed as Simple Weapons in the Weapons table of the PHB and SRD. Therefore they are weapons. Just because some D&D rules are illogical doesn't make them not the rules.

Um... ALL characters are proficient with unarmed strike - it's a natural weapon, and all creatures are automatically proficient with their natural weapons. A monk (or anyone else who takes the IUS feat), however, is the only one who can deal lethal damage and thus make armed attacks instead of unarmed ones.

Incorrect. Unarmed strikes are not noted as natural weapons anywhere, they are distinctly different and folow the rules of normal weapons besides their own quirks. Only MONKS treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for certain purposes. For everyone else, an unarmed strike is strictly a Simple Weapon. It does not show up in the natural attack entries of humanoids or other creatures in the Monster Manual and is not listed as useable in part of a natural attack sequence.

While the Magic Fang spell indicates it can be cast on a fist or the like, that reference is the only one to any kind of unarmed strike being considered a natural weapon (or just as a valid target of the spell) outside of the Monk's class features.

Note, for example, the Amulet of Mighty Fists, and its distinction between unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Unarmed strikes are listed as Simple Weapons in the Weapons table of the PHB and SRD. Therefore they are weapons. Just because some D&D rules are illogical doesn't make them not the rules.

First of all, it's pretty widely recognized that "text trumps tables" when it comes to the rules. There are many places in the rulebooks where table entries are misleading, but the actual text of the rules is clear. (And this is one of them.)

Secondly, if "unarmed strike" is a weapon, why do the rules repeatedly state that it is considered to be a light weapon? Why don't they just say it is a light weapon?

Answer: because it's not. But thanks for contributing to the thread.