Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[Hypersmurf]

Most gamers don't care about the rules as written that deeply to analyze things this hard.

If one of your players said "I use Flurry of Blows, and hit him five times with my longsword!", how would you respond?

-Hyp.

 

[MarauderX]

If one of your players said "I use Flurry of Blows, and hit him five times with my longsword!", how would you respond?

-Hyp.

"I'll see you in court?"

And it would result to be complaint #2947283722, Player Joe, character #238423884 vs. defendant, DM #937320.

How does that usually go? DM pleads 0th amendment, aka Rule 0; DM wins; let's move on.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I don't see how it's so hard to understand, they changed the rules in 3.5. It has been perfectly obvious to me all along that that was the case. And they've made the rules more intuitive and logical. If you don't wanna play by the rules, don't.

 

[jessemock]

I don't see how it's so hard to understand, they changed the rules in 3.5. It has been perfectly obvious to me all along that that was the case. And they've made the rules more intuitive and logical. If you don't wanna play by the rules, don't.

It's hard to understand, because there is no definition of 'unarmed strike' outside of the glossary.

All other interpretations of 'unarmed strike' are exactly that: interpretations, inferences.

Problem is: these inferences conflict, in some cases, with the definition presented in the glossary.

As I see it, the basis for all of the usages of 'unarmed strike' as an attack form, rather than the result of an attack, is the use of 'unarmed strike' in the last line of the 'unarmed attack' section in the Combat chapter.

This establishes 'unarmed strike' as a light weapon for purposes of two-weapon fighting "and so on".

What does "and so on" mean?

To my eyes, this statement reads: 'for purposes of two-weapon fighting and so on, the unarmed attack that may result in an unarmed strike (meaning "a successful blow..." as per the glossary) counts as a light weapon.

In other words, an unarmed strike may be used to perform an attack that may result in an unarmed strike...and it may be used to perform Disarm, Trip, and Grapple attempts, as well as with two-weapon fighting.

This is why the Disarm text says 'unarmed strike' counts as a light weapon for purposes of the maneuver.

This is why the Grapple text establishes 'unarmed strike' as the damage result from certain grapple maneuvers.

Note that 'unarmed strike' has two different meanings for each of these texts.

Ultimately, you can use 'unarmed strike' to make a straightforward attack, a disarm attempt, a grapple attack, or a trip attempt. The text for each of these maneuvers makes this clear.

Let me put it another way: can a monk flurrying with kamas use them to make disarm attempts? Or is there some stipulation in the Flurry text that states that only attacks for direct damage may be attempted with monk weapons?

There isn't.

Similarly, there is no stipulation that an 'unarmed strike' can't be used for Disarm, Trip, and Grapple attempts, which is right and just.

 

[jessemock]

In 3.5 monks get the same iterative attacks as everyone else, even with their unarmed strikes. (So a monk doesn't get an extra attack until their BAB is +6.) Instead, they get extra Flurry atttacks at higher levels.

Yeah; what I'm saying is that 'instead they get Flurry attacks' and these can be used to grapple.

Basically, if you can use an unarmed strike to make disarms, trips, and grapples (you can), you can use them in a Flurry to make disarms, trips, and grapples.

I mean: would you not allow a monk Flurrying with nunchuks to make disarm attempts?

Where in the Flurry text does it specify this restriction?

 

[reapersaurus]

If one of your players said "I use Flurry of Blows, and hit him five times with my longsword!", how would you respond?

You disappoint me, Hyp.

Your knowledge of the rules is far superior than to settle for an obviously-wrong rules statement like that to try to make a point.

Since a longsword is not a monk weapon, your example is most obviously wrong.

If you guys ACTUALLY think that using Flurry of Blows to make Grapples with is = to trying to use FoB with a longword, than you have completely lost it, I humbly submit.

BTW: the glossary is NOT a primary rules source, IMO.
It is solely there to help a high-level understanding, and to be used as a general reference point summary.

It is NOT a place where primary rules are defined.

Therefore, any rules argument that uses the glossary as an underpinning is horribly incorrect.

 

[Caliban]

Yeah; what I'm saying is that 'instead they get Flurry attacks' and these can be used to grapple.

Except that's not what you said. You were saying something completely different in the post I responded to.

Basically, if you can use an unarmed strike to make disarms, trips, and grapples (you can), you can use them in a Flurry to make disarms, trips, and grapples.

That's not exactly true. An unarmed strike deals damage (as you pointed out previously).

An unarmed strike is an unarmed attack to deal damage. You can use it to disarm (because it's equivalent to a weapon), but a disarm is not an unarmed strike. It's a different manuever. As is a trip or grapple. (And a trip or grapple is type of unarmed attack, not an unarmed strike. An unarmed strike is a different type of unarmed attack that has characteristics similar to a weapon, as shown on the weapon table.)

I mean: would you not allow a monk Flurrying with nunchuks to make disarm attempts?

If I'm using the rules as written? No.

Where in the Flurry text does it specify this restriction?

PHB, page 40, "Flurry of Blows", second paragraph, 1st sentence "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons..."

It limits you to only those options. No special attacks that replace your normal attack, just those two types of attacks.

I think it's a bit silly, but that's what the rules say. If you don't like it, write to the sage and see if you can get him to publish something that contradicts the rules in Sage Advice.

Or write to WOTC and try to get it errata'd.

 

[Caliban]

BTW: the glossary is NOT a primary rules source, IMO.
It is solely there to help a high-level understanding, and to be used as a general reference point summary.

It is NOT a place where primary rules are defined.

Therefore, any rules argument that uses the glossary as an underpinning is horribly incorrect.

This is incorrect actually. The glossary is a rules source. It's not there for "high level understanding", it actually defines many of the game mechanic terms we use.

And for an example of it being used as a "primary rules source", remember that in 3.0 the only place that mentioned that the "Stunned" condition caused you to drop what you were holding was in the glossary, and the designers confirmed that the glossary definition was correct, even though it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the rest of the PHB. The PHB and DMG were later errata'd to include this in the condition summary for "stunned".

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you guys ACTUALLY think that using Flurry of Blows to make Grapples with is = to trying to use FoB with a longword, than you have completely lost it, I humbly submit.

I can take Weapon Focus: Longsword; Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike; Weapon Focus: Grapple.

The three are separate. I cannot apply my Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike to an unarmed touch attack to initiate a grapple; that's what Weapon Focus: Grapple is for.

Thus, longsword, unarmed strike, and grapple are three different types of attack.

As part of a Flurry of Blows, a monk may only employ unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. The special monk weapons are listed, and do not include grapple. A grapple is different to an unarmed strike, as shown above. Thus, "grapple" is not included on the list of what monks can do as part of a Flurry of Blows.

FoB with grapples is identical to FoB with longsword - iot's not on the list, and is therefore prohibited.

-Hyp.

 

[0-hr]

If one of your players said "I use Flurry of Blows, and hit him five times with my longsword!", how would you respond?

-Hyp.

That's funny actually, because I play a Monk in the Scarred Lands - where a longsword is considered a Monk weapon (at least for Monks from Vesh).

Anyway, I wanted to thank everyone for pointing out these rules problems. It's nice to see the rough spots so that I can bring them up with the DM before peoples lives are on the line.