Monk flurry = TWF?

[dingle]

Actually looking into it further a 16th level cleric with two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting would have more attacks than a 16th level monk using flurry of blows which does not seem fair on the monk. So on balance I think it should be allowed.

 

[risner]

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.

Flurry is a full attack where all attacks in the full attack action must be Monk weapons. You can add TWF to it, but you must TWF with two weapons. You can't TWF with two Unarmed Strikes, because there is only one Unarmed Strikes so you can't TWF with "two" Unarmed Strikes.

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.

/agree

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...

And the Monk couldn't Flurry in the same round he used the Gauntlet and the Gauntlet would deal size based damage (not Monk Unarmed Damage.)

 

[Tilenas]

Flurry is a full attack where all attacks in the full attack action must be Monk weapons. You can add TWF to it, but you must TWF with two weapons. You can't TWF with two Unarmed Strikes, because there is only one Unarmed Strikes so you can't TWF with "two" Unarmed Strikes.

I'm still not sold on this. Either I am missing something in the rules or I am interpreting known rules differently. Could you perhaps quote from the SRD to back up your interpretation?

I'll go first:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
...
If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

If there's a second, there has to be a first. It explicitly mentions unarmed strike, so it's allowed to use at least one unarmed strike as part of TWF. Since the unarmed strike is frequently referred to as "weapon" (see the equipment listing), I take it that unarmed attacks are in this case treated like ordinary melee attacks. Hence, I've always allowed monks (and other unarmed combattants) to gain an additional attack through TWF.

 

[risner]

I'm still not sold on this. Either I am missing something in the rules or I am interpreting known rules differently. Could you perhaps quote from the SRD to back up your interpretation?

Hence, I've always allowed monks (and other unarmed combattants) to gain an additional attack through TWF.

Which part (there were like 3 or 4 parts) are you not sold?

You can gain an additional attack with TWF by a Monk, it just has to be with a different weapon. If the monk uses Unarmed Strikes, then the other weapon needs to be something like a Longsword etc. If you want Flurry, then Flurry also requires all attacks as part of the Flurry full round action to be Monk weapons (which prohibits a Longsword.)

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

And the Monk couldn't Flurry in the same round he used the Gauntlet and the Gauntlet would deal size based damage (not Monk Unarmed Damage.)

Yeah, I forgot about it not being a monk weapon and thus no flurry. I've just grown too used to monks using non-monk weapons having a feat to count it as a monk weapon. My statement is still true for a regular full attack, just not for flurry. Granted, why the monk would give up flurry to full attack just so he can use a gauntlet is an unlikely scenario.

 

[Arkhandus]

The rules have never been clear about it. And Flurry of Blows has never been essentially two-weapon fighting. You can just as easily conduct a flurry just with one hand as a series of punches or one leg as a series of kicks, or whatever.

The case is actually more open for debate in 3.0 with its wording. In 3.5, the rules are worded such that it is easier to argue that it is impossible to TWF with a monk's unarmed strikes. If there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for the monk striking unarmed, as the 3.5 entry indicates, then there are no extra off-hand attacks from using the TWF option of a full-attack.

 

[Kerrick]

This is getting interesting...

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.

That's pretty much what I was thinking - flurry is a special action, not TWF. I know the penalties decrease, and that it's not magical, blah blah blah... but my question is: can you combine it with TWF, or are they exclusive? Can you, for example, wield a kama in one hand and a short sword in the other, and get a flurry AND extra attacks with the short sword?

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.

Agreed.

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.

That's why they aren't monk weapons and monks can't flurry with them... but why do they require proficiency again? I don't think they do - they're just listed in case someone in armor makes an unarmed attack (i.e., punches someone in the face). It's exactly the same, except you can deal lethal damage.

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.

Yes, both are full-round actions, so your answer seems to make sense.

Actually looking into it further a 16th level cleric with two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting would have more attacks than a 16th level monk using flurry of blows which does not seem fair on the monk. So on balance I think it should be allowed.

Yes, but the 16th level monk is dealing 2d8 damage with each attack. This is, perhaps, WHY it scales like it does - so he can keep up with the TWF fighters. Let's compare a rogue (rapier and short sword) with the monk (flurry):

Rogue: 6 attacks (3 main, 3 offhand), avg dmg: 10.5 (main) + 10.5 (offhand) = 22/round. Even if he had a longsword in the main hand, his damage would be 13.5 + 10.5 = 24.

Monk: 5 attacks, avg dmg: 9 each = 45/round.

Monk wins. Fatality.

Flurry is a full attack where all attacks in the full attack action must be Monk weapons. You can add TWF to it, but you must TWF with two weapons. You can't TWF with two Unarmed Strikes, because there is only one Unarmed Strikes so you can't TWF with "two" Unarmed Strikes.

But... as noted above, TWF and flurry are both full-round actions. If you're wielding a non-monkish weapon (say, a short sword) in your offhand, you can't flurry. You're now using two weapons, and it defaults to the TWF rules.

And the Monk couldn't Flurry in the same round he used the Gauntlet and the Gauntlet would deal size based damage (not Monk Unarmed Damage.)

Hey look, we agree on something. But... you've just contradicted yourself. Since the gauntlet is not a monkish weapon, he would be fighting with multiple weapons while making attacks with it. Ergo, you can't combine TWF and flurry. Right?

 

[Deset Gled]

That's why they aren't monk weapons and monks can't flurry with them... but why do they require proficiency again? I don't think they do - they're just listed in case someone in armor makes an unarmed attack (i.e., punches someone in the face). It's exactly the same, except you can deal lethal damage.

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.

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. It would certainly be possible to classify a gauntlet as an item instead of a weapon. My best guess is that because an attack with a gauntlet is resolved in a normal attack sequence, it was included with the normal weapons - note that all other examples of weapon-like items use non-standard methods to determine hit and damage rolls. Another possibility is that it was an accident, or that it was simply overlooked and not considered.

Why - logically - should a gauntlet require more proficiency that a simple slap? Well, I suggest that it's because a strike with a gauntlet is performed differently than a normal unarmed strike. I would guess that you use your knuckles less (because of limited motion and potentially painful joints), and can rely more on back hand and palm strikes (since the metal makes them harder). I honestly can't say I have enough experience fighting with gauntlets to know.

 

[risner]

Can you, for example, wield a kama in one hand and a short sword in the other, and get a flurry AND extra attacks with the short sword?

That's why they aren't monk weapons and monks can't flurry with them... but why do they require proficiency again?

Yes, both are full-round actions, so your answer seems to make sense.

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.

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

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

Why - logically - should a gauntlet require more proficiency that a simple slap?

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.)

 

[Vegepygmy]

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 disagree with your chain of logic.

"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, because there is no actual thing called an "unarmed strike" that has to be moved from one hand to another. As page 121 makes clear, an unarmed strike is simply a way of hitting something--a punch, a kick, a head butt, an elbow jab, or what have you.

I don't see any way in which hitting something with your right hand prevents you from hitting something with your left hand, and vice versa. It may be more difficult to effectively hit both things at the same time, but that's why you take the TWF penalties on your attack rolls.