Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[jessemock]

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

No; I said sometimes it does: there are places in the text that disagree completely with the definition of 'unarmed strike' as a successful blow.

An unarmed strike is an unarmed attack to deal damage.

Not always.

You can use it to disarm (because it's equivalent to a weapon),

Here's one example.

but a disarm is not an unarmed strike.

True; neither is a disarm a nunchaku--does this mean that I can't use a nunchukau in a disarm maneuver?

An unarmed strike is a different type of unarmed attack that has characteristics similar to a weapon, as shown on the weapon table.

Sometimes it is this, yes, and, as a weapon, we can use it to perform Disarm Maneuvers, just as we could use any weapon to perform disarm maneuvers. An unarmed strike doesn't become something other than itself when used in a Disarm Maneuver anymore than a nunchaku does.

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.

A special monk weapon is not a 'type of attack'. It is a weapon, and it may be used for anything that one normally uses a weapon for.

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.

If you read the entire the thread, you'll find that this has already been done, except, of course, that I don't believe that the Sage's ruling in anyway contradicts the rules here.

 

[AGGEMAM]

What you fail to recognize here is that while both unarmed strikes and special monk weapons are considered melee weapons. Gaining a attack with any specific weapon like the above is not the same as getting a melee attack.

Disarm takes the place of a melee attack. But Flurry of Blows does not grant you any melee attacks at all, it grant you attacks with some specific melee weapons but those are not interchangeable (ie you cannot disarm with an attack granted by Flurry of Blows).

Sometimes the rules are a little more subtle than first catches the eye.

For instance I had trouble with the Cleave description. I couldn't understand at first why it said it granted an extra melee attack. Because cleave always has to be made with a melee weapon it seemed unnes'ry to point out that it was a melee attack, and not just an extra attack with the same weapon. That was until I realized that the extra melee attack granted by cleave could be used to sunder, disarm or anyother of those special attack that are exchangeable with a melee attack as long as you used the same weapon.

 

[jessemock]

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

Your ruling rests entirely on this interpretation. I'll get to that in a second.

First, I want to ask if you think that it's legitimate to make, in a Flurry of Blows, Disarm attempts and Trip attacks with special monk weapons (Disarms with nunchaku, Trips with a quarterstaff, for example), and Disarms and Trips with an unarmed strike?

Back to the Feats. A few questions:

1) Caliban has established the glossary as a Primary source--what do you make of this?

2) Say a guy has Weap. Spec.: Unarmed Strike. He grapples, he makes his touch attck, he makes his grapple check. He deals damage "as if with an unarmed strike". Does this mean at +2?

3) Same Guy, next attack he damages his opponent with a grapple check. He deals "non-lethal damage as normal for [his] unarmed strike". +2 for WS:US?

4) A monk's unarmed strike allows him to deal lethal damage with a grapple check. An improvement to unarmed strike results in an improvement to grapple.
How does an improvement to one weapon type result in an improvement to a completely different weapon type?

5) Only monks may cause lethal damage in a grapple, yes?

6) Does grapple damage even exist, outside of an unarmed strike?

And the most important question of all:

Would you mind defining 'unarmed strike'?

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

Unless the 'unarmed strike' in the WF/S texts is not the same as a monk's unarmed strike. Unless a monk's unarmed strike includes grapples as one of its possibilities.

But we'll wait for your definition.

 

[jessemock]

What you fail to recognize here is that while both unarmed strikes and special monk weapons are considered melee weapons. Gaining a attack with any specific weapon like the above is not the same as getting a melee attack.

Disarm takes the place of a melee attack. But Flurry of Blows does not grant you any melee attacks at all, it grant you attacks with some specific melee weapons but those are not interchangeable (ie you cannot disarm with an attack granted by Flurry of Blows).

It's interesting that these statements offer no supporting references.

Let me ask you something: how could it be that a monk gains "one extra attack", if this attack is not a melee attack?

"Extra" to what, then?

Are you saying that all of a Monk's attacks are not melee attacks and that, in a Flurry, he gets an extra one of them?

No; I think it's pretty clear that a Monk gets an extra one of the same kind of attacks that he already had (which were melee attacks).

The only difference is that these extra melee attacks have restrictions placed on them, but only with regard to the kind of weapons he may use, not the maneuvers that he may perform with them.

 

[AGGEMAM]

It is indeed supported by the rules, your stance is not anywhere in the slightest though.

Read the quote with the emphsis and you'll (hopefully) see what I mean.

Flurry of Blows (Ex): 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 x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) 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.

In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her flurry of blows routine to do so.

When a monk reaches 11th level, her flurry of blows ability improves. In addition to the standard single extra attack she gets from flurry of blows, she gets a second extra attack at her full base attack bonus.

See what I mean? Nowhere does it say you get an extra melee attack. It grants you extra attacks with specific melee weapons.

This is not the same.

 

[jessemock]

It is indeed supported by the rules, your stance is not anywhere in the slightest though.

Read the quote with the emphsis and you'll (hopefully) see what I mean.




See what I mean? Nowhere does it say you get an extra melee attack. It grants you extra attacks with specific melee weapons.

This is not the same.

You can't get an extra of something that doesn't exist.

It doesn't say "extra melee attack", because it doesn't need to: it says "extra", meaning "in addition to what is already there".

What is already there is a melee attack.

Unless you can provide a statement such as "this attack does not count as a melee attack", you have no argument.

I might also add that, under the base attack bonus section, the same terminology is used: no mention is made of "melee attacks", only "attacks".

By your reading, the additional attacks granted by a high BAB are not melee attacks.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Unless you can provide a statement such as "this attack does not count as a melee attack", you have no argument.

I might also add that, under the base attack bonus section, the same terminology is used: no mention is made of "melee attacks", only "attacks".

By your reading, the additional attacks granted by a high BAB are not melee attacks.

Please don't insult your own intelligence yet alone mine.

Iterative attack from high BAB is not defined as melee attacks because it is not nessescarily melee attacks, but could be ranged attacks too.

The attacks you get from Flurry cannot be considered regular melee attacks, because they by definition always have to do damage as per this paragraph.

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 x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) 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.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Your ruling rests entirely on this interpretation. I'll get to that in a second.

First, I want to ask if you think that it's legitimate to make, in a Flurry of Blows, Disarm attempts and Trip attacks with special monk weapons (Disarms with nunchaku, Trips with a quarterstaff, for example), and Disarms and Trips with an unarmed strike?

Disarm - yes. The opposed attack rolls are made "with your respective weapons", so WF: Kama or WF: Unarmed Strike would apply.

Trip - can't trip with a quarterstaff, but assuming you mean kama... I'm as yet undecided. I'm not certain whether WF: Kama applies to a melee touch attack with a kama, and even less certain whether WF: Unarmed Strike applies to an unarmed melee touch attack.

1) Caliban has established the glossary as a Primary source--what do you make of this?

It seems to me that the mention of dropping weapons on a stun was an omission from the primary text, and should have been included there.

2) Say a guy has Weap. Spec.: Unarmed Strike. He grapples, he makes his touch attck, he makes his grapple check. He deals damage "as if with an unarmed strike". Does this mean at +2?

Yup. He's not attacking with an unarmed strike, but the damage is determined as if he were.

Edit - I've changed my mind. No, not at +2. WS: Grapple would provide a +2 bonus. The "as normal for his unarmed strike" is outlined in the parentheses below - 'normal' if determined by size category, with a note that monks deal more than this.

WS: US is a bonus that applies if you're making an unarmed strike, but it's not part of the "as normal for his unarmed strike" calculation.

3) Same Guy, next attack he damages his opponent with a grapple check. He deals "non-lethal damage as normal for [his] unarmed strike". +2 for WS:US?

Yup. He's not attacking with an unarmed strike, but the damage is determined as if he were.

Edit - changed my mind. No. See above.

4) A monk's unarmed strike allows him to deal lethal damage with a grapple check. An improvement to unarmed strike results in an improvement to grapple.
How does an improvement to one weapon type result in an improvement to a completely different weapon type?

Quite simply - the rule states that the damage he deals is the same he would deal if he wear making an unarmed strike.

Let's say we have a magic club, with the special property that when wielded by a monk, the damage it deals is the same as the monk would deal with an unarmed strike. The club would deal 2d10 B base damage for a Mnk-20.

He would not apply his WF: US bonus to his attack rolls with the club. He could not use the club in a flurry; despite dealing the same damage as an unarmed strike, it is not an unarmed strike, nor is it a special monk weapon.

5) Only monks may cause lethal damage in a grapple, yes?

That's possibly an artefact of the revision.

Aside from switching "normal" for "lethal", the paragraph is copied directly from the 3E PHB. But IUS changed in the revision - in 3E, only monks could deal normal damage with an unarmed strike, while in 3.5, IUS also gives the option of dealing lethal damage.

I'd be inclined to suggest that IUS in 3.5 would also allow lethal damage in a grapple.

6) Does grapple damage even exist, outside of an unarmed strike?

Grapple damage is always the same as that the character would deal with an unarmed strike. That doesn't mean grappling is an unarmed strike.

Would you mind defining 'unarmed strike'?

An attack to which the Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike feat provides a +1 bonus on the attack roll.

-Hyp.

 

[jessemock]

Please don't insult your own intelligence yet alone mine.

It's 'let' alone mine. Intelligence, right.

Iterative attack from high BAB is not defined as melee attacks because it is not nessescarily melee attacks, but could be ranged attacks too.

Attacks from FoB can be ranged attacks, too. Or do you think a Monk doesn't throw shuriken in a Flurry, but keeps them in his hands and hits people with them?

The attacks you get from Flurry cannot be considered regular melee attacks, because they by definition always have to do damage as per this paragraph.

You're paying attention to the wrong part of the sentence. This is what you should be looking at: "to her damage rolls ".

This doesn't mean that all successful attacks in a Flurry do damage; it means that when a monk makes an attack for damage in Flurry, he always applies his full damage bonus.

If a monk makes a maneuver that doesn't have damage rolls, then there are no damage rolls to modify, and the application ends there.

This section distinguishes Flurry from Two-Weapon Fighting. It has nothing whatever to do with the restrictions placed on Flurry attacks.

 

[jessemock]

Yup. He's not attacking with an unarmed strike, but the damage is determined as if he were.

Then, Hyp, what does WS: Grapple do? Stack? +4?

You're wrong about this: WF/S: US never applies to grapples. Only WF/S: Grapple does. It's "as if", not "with".

The option to make an unarmed strike in the 'Attack' subsection makes this clear.

That's possibly an artefact of the revision.

Aside from switching "normal" for "lethal", the paragraph is copied directly from the 3E PHB. But IUS changed in the revision - in 3E, only monks could deal normal damage with an unarmed strike, while in 3.5, IUS also gives the option of dealing lethal damage.

I'd be inclined to suggest that IUS in 3.5 would also allow lethal damage in a grapple.

I disagree: it's "normal unarmed strike", and the text for IUS makes it clear what "normal unarmed strike" means, i.e. non-lethal.

Grapple damage is always the same as that the character would deal with an unarmed strike. That doesn't mean grappling is an unarmed strike.

And that's precsiely why WF/S: US doesn't apply to grapples.

An attack to which the Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike feat provides a +1 bonus on the attack roll.

Fine. This is not the same thing as a Monk's unarmed strike. A Monk's unarmed strike is effectively two weapons: a Monk can choose to use it as either an 'unarmed strike' (under your def. above) or as a grapple.

The Monk's unarmed strike is unique; it doesn't folllow any other def. of unarmed strike (witness the 'natural weapon' stipulation, which IUS doesn't provide).

That's why the monk--and the monk alone--causes lethal damage in a grapple.

And it's why the Flurry allows both strikes and grapples.

A monk who somehow took both WS:US and WS: Grapple would apply either when appropriate, i.e. when striking and when grappling respectively.

Later!