Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[Hypersmurf]

Hmm.. looks like your right. Damn, I was playing my monk grappler wrong them.

I changed my mind halfway through the thread too. Grappling feels monkish, so I just assumed...

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

I changed my mind halfway through the thread too. Grappling feels monkish, so I just assumed...

-Hyp.

Heck, Improved Grapple is one of their bonus feats.

 

[T-Bone]

That's exactly my point - an unarmed strike is different from a grapple.

If I drop an opponent with my longsword, I get an immediate free attack with my Cleave feat. I can't use that free attack to grapple, though, even though I can normally make a grapple check in place of an attack, because Cleave specifies that my free attack must be with the same weapon. Right?

Flurry of Blows specifies that I can only use unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. We've established that an unarmed strike is different from a grapple, and grappling isn't on the list of special monk weapons, either.

So just as I can't use my dagger as part of a Flurry, I can't grapple as part of a Flurry either - the Flurry rules don't allow it. Just like the Cleave rules don't let me switch from longsword to grapple.

-Hyp.

Thanks Hypersmurf, I knew that flurrying grapples just seemed wrong, good to see the letter of the rules supports my thoughts.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thanks Hypersmurf, I knew that flurrying grapples just seemed wrong, good to see the letter of the rules supports my thoughts.

Well, the way we see it, flurrying grapples seem right, but the letter of the rules supports your thoughts

-Hyp.

 

[Kershek]

The sage has ruled that using flurry of blows with grappling is ok. Here's the tinyurl of the sage ruling in google groups:

http://tinyurl.com/2rksv

Here's the quote:

<<Oh, and a random grappling add on- does a monk's flurry allow him more
>maneuvers that require grapple checks, or is he only allowed to literally *strike*
>with that attack technique? (ie; no trips, no disarm, etc.). >>

:Thick of a flurry as an extra attack, usually a blow, but not always (so,
:yes, you can attempt an extra grappling maneuver with a flurry).

 

[Hypersmurf]

The sage has ruled that using flurry of blows with grappling is ok.

Yeah, I thought that when I ruled without opening the book, too.

-Hyp.

 

[jessemock]

Yeah, I thought that when I ruled without opening the book, too.

-Hyp.

The problem I find with the ruling that appeals to the unarmed strike restriction in the flurry of blows definition is that I can't find a definition of an unarmed strike that differentiates it from an unarmed attack.

Bear with me here. The feat is Improved Unarmed Strike--what does it improve?
An unarmed strike or an unarmed attack?

It seems that the unarmed strike referred to in the Flurry definition is actually the attack action provided by the IUS feat: unarmed strike and improved unarmed strike are synonyms.

Unless they aren't. Could 'unarmed strike' mean (sometimes) 'unarmed attack'? If so, a grapple attack certainly is one (an unarmed attack, which is also an unarmed strike). In fact, during a grapple, one causes damage "as if with an unarmed strike". If 'unarmed strike' means 'improved unarmed strike', then we're in trouble here, as this would mean that improved unarmed strike sometimes causes non-lethal damage: "you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike". If it means 'unarmed attack', then everything is rosy.

If 'unarmed strike' is interchangeable with 'unarmed attack' here, then why not allow that the grapple action is possible with a Flurry of Blows?

At any rate, it's clear that the strike/attack distinction is not at all rigorous. It may benefit us, then, to quit the pseudo-juridical interpretive strategy (the writers certainly have) and turn to a pragmatic one: what happens?

These grapple actions would be available as options in a Flurry of Blows:

1) Start a Grapple, confirm a grapple, cause damage.
2) Damage an opponent with a grapple check or attack with a penalised attack roll (the base maneuver allows for attacks with natural and light weapons, as well as unarmed strikes; I'd allow only unarmed strikes and monk weapons as part of a Flurry)
3) Draw a Light Weapon with grapple check
4) Escape from a grapple, with a grapple (or Escape Artist) check
5) Break another's pin, with a grapple check
6) Use an opponent's weapon against him, with a grapple check and a penalised attack roll
7) Pin an opponent with a grapple check
8) Remove an object from a pinned opponent with a Disarm check.

Is any of this crazy? Are these options unbalanced? Are they not in keeping with the character of a monk?

I'd say: no, no, and yes, actually, they are.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unless they aren't. Could 'unarmed strike' mean (sometimes) 'unarmed attack'? If so, a grapple attack certainly is one (an unarmed attack, which is also an unarmed strike).

From the text of Weapon Specialization:

"Choose one type of weapon for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for purposes of this feat."

If "Unarmed Strike" includes grappling, the WS: Unarmed Strike would add +2 to your damage rolls when grappling... which would make WS: Grapple a particularly stupid choice of feat, don't you think?

The weapon feats obviously consider unarmed strike and grapple to be two separate weapons. So when the Flurry description says "You can only flurry with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons", grapple is excluded.

-Hyp.

 

[jessemock]

From the text of Weapon Specialization:

"Choose one type of weapon for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for purposes of this feat."

If "Unarmed Strike" includes grappling, the WS: Unarmed Strike would add +2 to your damage rolls when grappling... which would make WS: Grapple a particularly stupid choice of feat, don't you think?

The weapon feats obviously consider unarmed strike and grapple to be two separate weapons. So when the Flurry description says "You can only flurry with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons", grapple is excluded.

-Hyp.

Unless the phrase 'unarmed strike' in the WF/S feat text means "the attack form provided by IUS" or, more simply, "IUS"--which I would argue that it does.

To take it a bit further, I wouldn't allow a character to take WF: unarmed strike without IUS--else the character is considered to be both unarmed and attacking with a weapon. What does WF/S: US say to the Attack of Opportunity, for example?

Parallel for grapple.

No; I think it's clear that the Weapon Focus/Specialization Feats are meant to refer to the 'weaponised' versions of these attack forms. 'Unarmed Strike' here does not mean the same thing that it does in the Flurry definition.

The phrase 'unarmed strike' is simply not used consistently (the only definition of the term is in the monk description; it does not mean the same thing there that it does in the text of the IUS feat).

Interesting, too, that the unarmed strike enjoyed by the monk has a broader application than that provided by the feat IUS. For example, in a grapple, IUS does not apply: "If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers). If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on your grapple check."

Unless you're a Monk: "Exception: Monks deal more damage on an unarmed strike than other characters, and the damage is lethal."

The unarmed strike of a Monk allows one to cause lethal damage with a grapple and no other unarmed strike does. IUS doesn't apply here.

Depending, of course, on how we interpret 'unarmed strike'.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To take it a bit further, I wouldn't allow a character to take WF: unarmed strike without IUS--else the character is considered to be both unarmed and attacking with a weapon. What does WF/S: US say to the Attack of Opportunity, for example?

What? Nothing at all. You're attacking unarmed - unarmed strike is allowed to be the choice for a Weapon Focus feat, but that doesn't mean you're 'considered armed', unless you also have Improved Unarmed Strike. But since everyone is proficient in unarmed strike, everyone is eligible to take Weapon Focus... regardless of whether they have IUS.

The unarmed strike of a Monk allows one to cause lethal damage with a grapple and no other unarmed strike does. IUS doesn't apply here.

What's IUS got to do with anything?

Grappling causes the same damage as your unarmed strike; that doesn't mean it is an unarmed strike. Grappling isn't listed as one of the exclusive options available in a flurry.

-Hyp.