Monk flurry = TWF?

[StreamOfTheSky]

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.

Yes, I rule that a single casting affects the whole body. And a monk could not normally TWF with his unarmed strikes alone. Unless you count every single type of unarmed strike as a separate weapon, this ruling does absolutely nothing mechanically over only enhancing a single attack. I don't get what the big deal is. A druid casts GMF on a tiger, it either gets +1 on all 5 attacks, or +3 on one. It cannot attack with each natural weapon more than once. Cast on a monk, he gets the same iterative attack chain regardless of how you rule. It just comes down to...do you want to force the monk to do nothing but punch or kick with the same limb?

Note a monk can also benefit from (Greater) Magic Weapon for his unarmed strike.


I kind of want to take the argument of unarmed strike being many different natural weapons to its logical extreme: A monk who takes Multi-Weapon Fighting. You know...Punch, Punch, Kick, Kick, Elbow, Elbow, Knee, Knee...

 

[risner]

1) Most DMs hand-wave proficiency with the club, even though it's listed as a simple weapon

2) Full attack is listed there. Therefore, it takes up the entire round.

3) ALL characters are proficient with unarmed strike

4) (unarmed strikes) it's a natural weapon

1) Which is a house rule.

2) Of course full attacks take up the entire round, duh. But you can still TWF and Flurry in ONE full attack action.

3) There is no rule saying all people are proficient in unarmed strikes.

4) Unarmed Strikes are absolutely not Natural Weapons. There isn't even anything that suggests such.

I understand your argument, but it proceeds from a false assumption.

It proceeds from my reading of the rules (RAW), but I'll do some full disclosure and point out the fact that WotC's official stance is that you can use Unarmed Strikes as both the primary and secondary of a TWF sequence.

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.

Actually, depending on whether you consider Unarmed Strikes as one weapon (your whole body any parts) or as 1000's of weapons (each individual part is a separate Unarmed Strike weapon), then the rules either explicitly say you can or can not TWF with Unarmed Strikes.

Yes, I rule that a single casting affects the whole body.

There is a PrC (I think Kensai) where it is required to advance both fists as magical weapon if your weapon is the Unarmed Strike weapon.

 

[billd91]

Actually, depending on whether you consider Unarmed Strikes as one weapon (your whole body any parts) or as 1000's of weapons (each individual part is a separate Unarmed Strike weapon), then the rules either explicitly say you can or can not TWF with Unarmed Strikes.

Is this statement actually taking a position? I can't tell. What are you trying to say? That it explicitly states that unarmed strikes can be used with TWF? Or that it explicitly states it cannot?
I ask because my copy of the PH says, explicitly, jack and squat about the question of whether or not both weapons in TWF can be unarmed strikes.

 

[Arkhandus]

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.

Where does it say unarmed strikes are natural weapons then? Or that they are not simple weapons?

Unarmed Strike
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

Emphasis mine. Unarmed strikes are listed in the table as Unarmed Attacks, within the Simple Weapons category, because Unarmed Attacks have special rules associated with them, which the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, among other things, is there to address. But they wanted to allow Weapon Finesse and similar effects to be useable with unarmed strikes, so they included mention that they're treated as light weapons as well as unarmed attacks.

Javelins are listed as ranged weapons but their description includes mention that they may be used in melee at a -4 penalty to the attack roll as nonproficient, as an exception. Arrows are similarly described as useable in melee with certain stats and penalties, as an exception to their normal use, though they are listed as ranged weapons. Rapiers are listed as one-handed martial melee weapons yet their descriptive text indicates some exceptions and benefits that apply with them beyond the normal rules for one-handed melee weapons: "You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you. You can’t wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1½ times your Strength bonus to damage." Just because the descriptive text lists an alternative or extra function for a weapon does not make its table entry invalid.

If unarmed strikes were merely natural weapons, they would threaten an area and not provoke AoOs, they wouldn't require Simple Weapon Proficiency to use proficiently, and they would be clearly stated as natural weapons, rather than being listed among Simple Weapons. They are described as being treated as weapons for some purposes just to indicate what effects work on them (Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, for example), and to indicate how they are treated in the rules despite the logical problem of them not technically being weapons within real-world definitions of such and despite not being manufactured. But in-game, they are treated as weapons nonetheless, for game mechanical purposes.

 

[Tilenas]

I think we're sidetracking here. I don't want to say that the question of proficiency with unarmed stikes/natural weapons has nothing to do with the OP, but neither does it bring us closer to answering the question of whether you can combine Flurry + TWF, and, if so, what STR mod applies to the different attacks.

My take: You can do both. Flurry attacks are performed with normal STR mod and suffer your main-hand penalty to attack rolls from TWF (like multiple attacks with a weapon would). The additional off-hand attack (or attacks) is performed at off-hand penalties and one-half STR mod.

Here's why: No matter if your unarmed strike is a punch of the fist, a roundhouse kick, a head-butt, or whatever, you can only perform so many in one round. The total number is determined by BAB and special abilities that allow additional attacks like Flurry, usually at an attack penalty.
Flurry lets you make additional attacks, but it does not change the essence of those attacks, i.e. the punch-kick-whatever rule from above already applies to a single unarmed strike performed by a 1st-level commoner.
TWF assumes you wield a weapon in your main hand, and that your attacks consist of striking with it. It also assumes you wield a weapon in your off-hand, but it explicitly states that this "weapon" may be an unarmed strike. Now, people naturally assume that this unarmed strike consists of a punch of the fist of your off-hand. It doesn't need to be. It could be anything. Just like your primary "weapon" could be another unarmed strike!
The reason why I only allow one-half STR for the addtional TWF attacks is consistency. If weapons wielded in your off-hand grant you additional attacks at an attack penalty and slightly lower damage, the same should apply to unarmed fighters that try to "squeeze in" another unarmed strike in a round. I'm assuming the additional attack just isn't as effective as the others. Ergo, as an unarmed combattant, you can always use TWF to get an additional attack, but you have to be well coordinated (i.e. have TWF feats) to make it effective.

 

[Tilenas]

I kind of want to take the argument of unarmed strike being many different natural weapons to its logical extreme: A monk who takes Multi-Weapon Fighting. You know...Punch, Punch, Kick, Kick, Elbow, Elbow, Knee, Knee...

I like the idea, but unfortunately, you need DEX 13+ to use it and I doubt there is a monk in the world who has it. Also, you need three or more hands.
Even so, neither multi-weapon fighting or multiattack (the version for natural attacks) allow you to make more attacks. It just reduced the penalty for the attacks you already have.

 

[Theroc]

I like the idea, but unfortunately, you need DEX 13+ to use it and I doubt there is a monk in the world who has it. Also, you need three or more hands.
Even so, neither multi-weapon fighting or multiattack (the version for natural attacks) allow you to make more attacks. It just reduced the penalty for the attacks you already have.

That depends on how you rule unarmed strikes. With a monk, any part of his body is a 'natural weapon'. Feet, knees, hands, head.

Three arms aren't needed. Humans have heads and legs which... for a monk at least, count as both manufactured and natural weapons. Not that I'm sure multiattack would be useful, since one isn't using a natural attack sequence with monk attacks... unless Multiattack was reducing the penalties to iterative attacks...

 

[Tilenas]

That depends on how you rule unarmed strikes. With a monk, any part of his body is a 'natural weapon'. Feet, knees, hands, head.

It's true that the monk (and any other character for that matter) can attack with any part of their body. However, this does not mean they get more attacks through it, unlike, say, a carrion crawler (lame example, I know) with its many tentacles. These are natural weapons, an unarmed strike works slightly differently.

Three arms aren't needed. Humans have heads and legs which... for a monk at least, count as both manufactured and natural weapons. Not that I'm sure multiattack would be useful, since one isn't using a natural attack sequence with monk attacks... unless Multiattack was reducing the penalties to iterative attacks...

It doesn't, and that's why humans would gain no benefit from multiattack or multi-weapon fighting because they don't have three or more natural attacks or limbs to carry weapons.

 

[Kerrick]

Wow, too many replies. I'll just condense it.

Re: unarmed strikes and proficiency: Those of you who say it requires proficiency would appear to be correct (and yes, Vegepygmy, it IS a weapon - otherwise it wouldn't require proficiency). Huh. It's rather stupid, though... if they (my fists) are part of my body, I should know how to USE them, right? I mean, you're already suffering an AoO for attacking unarmed - why tack a -4 on top of it? And.. if they're not natural weapons, what are they? They're certainly not manufactured weapons. This is why we've had so many problems over the years with magic fang and the monk's unarmed strike. If WotC would just man up and say "Yes, it's a natural attack" it would clear so many things up. It really wouldn't break the game. Honest.

Oh, and if we really want to be technical, monks aren't proficient in unarmed strike. Check their weapon list.

Re: Club proficiency: Yes, it's a fairly common house rule.

Re: MWF. The prereqs are Dex 13, three or more arms. A human monk cannot take it. Period.

Re: Full attack actions and full round actions: By your logic, I could make a full move while also making a full attack action, since I

And now, back to the discussion at hand...

I remember a line in the flurry description that might prove pertinent:

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.

It goes on to use a quarterstaff (a two-handed weapon) as an example. This, to me, means that weapons and unarmed strikes are two separate weapons, and thus TWF and flurry are mutually exclusive.

 

[Tilenas]

It goes on to use a quarterstaff (a two-handed weapon) as an example. This, to me, means that weapons and unarmed strikes are two separate weapons, and thus TWF and flurry are mutually exclusive.

Thank you for bringing this up. The quarterstaff isn't just a two-handed weapon. It's a double-weapon. And frankly I don't see why a monk should have to choose between Flurry and TWF at low levels when wielding the quarterstaff or nunchucks or whatever. No one has to choose between TWF and more than one regular attack, even though latter already requires a full attack.
The text doesn't mention TWF at all, which either means it wasn't intended to be used in conjunction with Flurry (although this should have been made explicit), or was simply not thought of by the developers. Again, dual-wielding monks don't have to sacrifice their regular BAB-related attacks in order to gain their off-hand attack, why should they? To me, Flurry is the same thing, just with even more attacks and lower attack bonuses.