Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[jessemock]

So if we look at it. We have the following places where Unarmed Strike is mentioned.

1) Flurry of Blows

2) Improved Unarmed Strike feat

3) Unarmed Strike as a weapon

4) Unarmed Attack in Combat

5) Unarmed Strike in the Glossary

All places it is defined as an unarmed attack that deals damage, the exact wording may differ but the meaning is the same.

No; in the glossary it is not defined as an unarmed attack that deals damage; it is defined as the result of a successsful unarmed attack that deals damage. If you substitue this definition for 'unarmed strike' in the Flurry, text, a monk never misses with an unarmed strike.

Further, it is not defined at all anywhere outside of the glossary and the Equipment section.

And these two definitions directly contradict one another.

The unarmed attack section is interesting, because 'unarmed attack' is first described as "striking for damage..."--which allows us to infer that all unarmed attackes are unarmed strikes, meaning attacks or 'strikes' for damage.

This changes with the addition of (unarmed) Trip and Grapple attacks.

Either 'unarmed strike' then comes to mean something other than 'unarmed attack for damage' or we have to turn to the glossary definition for 'unarmed attack' or it is not possible to attempt these maneuvers unarmed.

The first option makes sense: the 'unarmed strike' referred to in the WF/S feats is an unarmed attack for damage; the 'unarmed strike' in the unarmed melee touch attacks referred to in the Grapple text is an unarmed strike.

This would mean:

1) Monks can make all of these maneuvers as 'unarmed strikes' in a Flurry.

Hm. I'm editing this post. What's interesting is that the melee touch attack made to start a grapple is intended to 'grab' the opponent--the same 'grab' referred to in the Disarm action?

What if this is what is meant by the division between 'unarmed strike' and 'grapple' in the WF feat:

a character who had both WF: US and WF: Grapple would add the first to the melee touch attack and the second to his grapple checks.

"A grapple chack is like a melee attack roll"--to me this says that it isn't one, but the Base Attack Bonus applies to it.

How can the BAB apply to something that is not an attack roll?

By this reading, WF: US would stack with Improved Trip and Improved Disarm, but not with Improved Grapple (but WF: Grapple would, maintaining the separation of the weapons).

But the unarmed attacks used to initiate a grapple (or a trip)--is not the 'grapple' itself; it is its own thing, an unarmed strike.

This would allow, at least, for the initiation of a grapple action in a Flurry.

But what about further grapple checks?

 

[jessemock]

If I cast Enlarge Person, my unarmed strike damage - and hence my grapple damage - increases from 1d3 to 1d4.

If I take a level of monk, my unarmed strike damage - and hence my grapple damage - increases from 1d3 to 1d6.

Grappling is not an unarmed strike, but the damage dealt is equivalent to an unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

That's a dodge, Hyp: Enlarge affects all weapons equally. The fact that Enlarge continues the effect that a monk's unarmed strike has on his grapple doesn't say anything to the fact that a monk's unarmed strike affects his grapple.

You haven't at all responded to the issue that an improvement to one weapon results in an improvement to the other.

It's exactly as if an improvement to a dagger resulted in an improvement to a longsword, according to your account.

I notice as well that you haven't responded to the question of whether a grapple attack counts as a light weapon...

 

[AGGEMAM]

This changes with the addition of (unarmed) Trip and Grapple attacks.

Ah, now I see where you get your misinterpretation.

The unarmed part of the Grapple and Trip description refers to you always being considered unarmed when doing the special attack, even if you have IUS, IG or IT you always considered unarmed when performing these attacks. IG and IT lets you avoid the AoO normally infered by the attack but you are still considered unarmed when doing it. There is no such thing as an "armed" Trip or an "armed" Grapple.

 

[Artoomis]

...I notice as well that you haven't responded to the question of whether a grapple attack counts as a light weapon...

Does he need to? The initial attack is a melee touch attack, presumably unarmed, and is therefore made with a light weapon.

For the rest of the attacks (garpple checks) the rules specifically prohibit two-weapon fighting, so it's not an issue.

 

[Caliban]

What I'm getting at is this: is 'grapple' a light weapon?

Grapple checks aren't attack rolls, and don't use most of the attack roll modifiers.

They are opposed BAB checks that use different modifiers.

You don't use AC, larger size gives you a bonus to hit instead of a penalty, and you can't make off-hand attacks while grappling.

So any modifiers you had to the initial touch attack to start the grapple don't apply to the grapple checks themselves. The penalty for attacking with an off-hand to initiate the grapple doesn't apply to the grapple check to establish the hold.

The attack penalty from using power attack doesn't apply to the grapple checks (but neither does the damage increase).

And if you could flurry of blows to make grapple checks, the attack penatly from flurry of blows would not apply to the grapple checks, which would give low level monks a free extra grapple at no penalty. That's part of why I changed my mind about using a flurry of blows to grapple.

Grapple is it's own wierd little combat subsystem that doesn't use the same set of rules as normal melee combat.

 

[jessemock]

Ah, now I see where you get your misinterpretation.

The unarmed part of the Grapple and Trip description refers to you always being considered unarmed when doing the special attack, even if you have IUS, IG or IT you always considered unarmed when performing these attacks. IG and IT lets you avoid the AoO normally infered by the attack but you are still considered unarmed when doing it. There is no such thing as an "armed" Trip or an "armed" Grapple.

Um...what are you even talking about?

 

[AGGEMAM]

Um...what are you even talking about?

Thought that was it. Good to see I was right.

 

[jessemock]

Grapple checks aren't attack rolls, and don't use most of the attack roll modifiers.

They are opposed BAB checks that use different modifiers.

You don't use AC, larger size gives you a bonus to hit instead of a penalty, and you can't make off-hand attacks while grappling.

So any modifiers you had to the initial touch attack to start the grapple don't apply to the grapple checks themselves. The penalty for attacking with an off-hand to initiate the grapple doesn't apply to the grapple check to establish the hold.

Where did I say that it did? Before now, everyone was referring to the melee touch attack as the Grapple--thus, Hyp said (and I agreed) that WF: Grapple applied to the melee touch attack made to initiate the grapple. I no longer think that it should.

No one ever maintained that these penalties would carry over to the grapple checks. But I might...

The attack penalty from using power attack doesn't apply to the grapple checks (but neither does the damage increase).

You're trying to say that we can't use Power Attack with a grapple chack? Ok.

And if you could flurry of blows to make grapple checks, the attack penatly from flurry of blows would not apply to the grapple checks, which would give low level monks a free extra grapple at no penalty. That's part of why I changed my mind about using a flurry of blows to grapple.

That's a good argument--why haven't you advanced it before now?

Still, it leaves room for initiating a grapple with a Flurry (or off-hand 2-W, which would use the unarmed strike quality to determine the penalty).

Are we at least agreeing on this? We can use Flurry to Disarm, Trip, and initiate a Grapple?

There's also this problem, from the grapple section: "Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack".

Alongside: "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."

Flurry attacks look like this [attack] at -2; [attack] at -2.

Plug in grapple check in place of an attack: [grapple check] at -2.

At any time that a grapple check replaces an attack, it suffers (or enjoys) any modifier that would have affected that attack.

Grapple is it's own wierd little combat subsystem that doesn't use the same set of rules as normal melee combat.

True; but it doesn't have to be: the fact that BAB applies to the check leaves me deeply suspicious.

Let me present a notion: 'grapple' is a subset of 'unarmed strike', much in the way that 'dagger' is a subset of 'light melee weapon'.

If I say that a character may only use a 'light melee weapon' in an attack (to make an attack action in a grapple, for example [although, it appears you may be able to use ranged weapons?]), the character may use a dagger, a spiked gauntlet, etc. All of these substitute for 'light melee weapon'--but this doesn't mean that they give up their distinctiveness as individual weapons (you still have to take WF: US for each of them).

Same thing for unarmed strike and grapple: this explains why 'grapple' doesn't appear on the Weapons table (even though it is supposedly an entirely distinct weapon), why it has no entry in the weapons section, and why it has no elaboration whatsoever of whatever qualities it may have.

 

[jessemock]

Thought that was it. Good to see I was right.

Thing is: what you're saying is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

You've offered up information without drawing any conclusions from it. What you've said has no bearing on the debate, until you demonstrate that it does.

Now, I taught you how to support your statements with references drawn from the text, do you think that you could now learn to present conclusions?

 

[Caliban]

Where did I say that it did? Before now, everyone was referring to the melee touch attack as the Grapple--thus, Hyp said (and I agreed) that WF: Grapple applied to the melee touch attack made to initiate the grapple. I no longer think that it should.

By the rules it should. I'm not certain that that was their intent. I think it would make more sense for it to apply to the grapple check, but unfortunately that is not the way they worded it.

No one ever maintained that these penalties would carry over to the grapple checks. But I might...

*shrug* I knew you would.

You're trying to say that we can't use Power Attack with a grapple chack? Ok.

I'm not trying to say that. I am saying that. Pay attention next time.

That's a good argument--why haven't you advanced it before now?

Because I thought it was obvious. It was the central arguement the last time I had this debate a month ago on another list.

Still, it leaves room for initiating a grapple with a Flurry (or off-hand 2-W, which would use the unarmed strike quality to determine the penalty).

Not as part of a flurry of blows. But as part of a normal attack sequence, sure.

Are we at least agreeing on this? We can use Flurry to Disarm, Trip, and initiate a Grapple?

Nope. Flurry is specifically restricted to unarmed strikes, while Disarm, Trip, and Grapple are special attacks that happen to be unarmed attacks. Disarm is the only one that refers to using an unarmed strike, and that is only as a weapon equivalent.

There's also this problem, from the grapple section: "Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack".

No problem. Instead of attacking you are doing a grapple check.

Alongside: "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."

Flurry attacks look like this [attack] at -2; [attack] at -2.

Stop taking a sentence out of context and ignoring the rest of the section. A flurry does not just grant an extra attack. It specifically grants an extra unarmed strike/monk weapon attack (and only an unarmed strike/monk weapon attack), if you read the entire section.

This arguement was already advanced by me and disproved by Hypersmurf. Go back and review the thread if you can't keep up.

Plug in grapple check in place of an attack: [grapple check] at -2.

At any time that a grapple check replaces an attack, it suffers (or enjoys) any modifier that would have affected that attack.

Bad logic there. It's not an attack. It replaces the attack, and since it's not an attack it doesn't use any attack specific modifiers. It only uses grapple specific modifiers.

That's what the rules as written indicate. Your idea is not knew, that's how I thought it worked originally, until I read the rules more closely. That's probably how it should work, but unfortunately it's not.

The entire unarmed strike/grapple system is like that. It doesn't seem to follow any of our expectectation of how it "should work".

Let me present a notion: 'grapple' is a subset of 'unarmed strike', much in the way that 'dagger' is a subset of 'light melee weapon'.

Find me a rule that actually states that somewhere first.

Because all the rules I've seen indicate that Unarmed Strike and Grapple are both subsets of "Unarmed Attack"; as indicated in the combat and equipment sections of the PHB.