Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[jessemock]

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.[/I]

The point is that, by the text of this Feat,'unarmed strike' is always considered a weapon and, unless you've got IUS, when you use it, you're unarmed.

How does that make sense? Where's the definition of weapon that allows one to attack with a weapon and still be considered unarmed?

Plus, you're advancing the proposition that someone would take WF: US without IUS. No one ever would.

What's IUS got to do with anything?

Every instance of the appearance of the phrase 'unarmed strike' has to do with it. It's either used consistently in all cases or it isn't. It isn't.

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.

I'm not saying that grapple is an unarmed strike; I'm saying that, in the Flurry of Blows definition, the phrase 'unarmed strike' means "unarmed attack", which includes grapples.

Can you give me a good reason why 'unarmed strike' in the Flurry of Blows def. should not mean "unarmed attack"?

Clearly, I can't interpret the phrase literally or even in accord with how I find it used in the IUS text. I have to make a judgement here.

C'm'on: you've already reversed position once--come back to us.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The point is that, by the text of this Feat,'unarmed strike' is always considered a weapon and, unless you've got IUS, when you use it, you're unarmed.

How does that make sense? Where's the definition of weapon that allows one to attack with a weapon and still be considered unarmed?

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

-----

Since it's "like attacking with a weapon, except", it's fine for WF or WS. But one of the "excepts" is that you provoke an AoO.

Where's the problem?

Plus, you're advancing the proposition that someone would take WF: US without IUS. No one ever would.

Irrelevant. I'm not saying they would - I'm saying if they did, they'd get +1 to attack rolls, and still provoke an AoO.

Every instance of the appearance of the phrase 'unarmed strike' has to do with it. It's either used consistently in all cases or it isn't. It isn't.

Where's the inconsistency?

I'm not saying that grapple is an unarmed strike; I'm saying that, in the Flurry of Blows definition, the phrase 'unarmed strike' means "unarmed attack", which includes grapples.

Can you give me a good reason why 'unarmed strike' in the Flurry of Blows def. should not mean "unarmed attack"?

Can you explain why "unarmed strike" should suddenly mean something different from "unarmed strike"?

You seem to be saying "I'm deciding that in this context, it means something else, which makes it an inconsistently-used term, which means I can decide it means something else."

That's horribly circular.

If we make the opposite assumption - the term is used consistently - then there are no problems...

-Hyp.

 

[jessemock]

Where's the inconsistency?

It starts with the definitions of 'unarmed attack' and 'unarmed strike' in the glossary.

The way that they're set up makes 'unarmed strike' the result of an attack: "a succesful blow..."

Throughout most of the text this holds true; 'unarmed strike' refers to a a group of results, of which there are several, such as the result from a 'normal unarmed strike' or the result that IUS affords.

This definition doesn't apply to the use of 'unarmed strike' in the definition of Flurry--how can a monk attack with "a successful blow..."? Similarly, this is not the meaning found in the WF/S 'unarmed strike'--how can you add an attack bonus to "a successful blow..."?

This clarifies why we also can't turn to the definition of 'unarmed strike' provided in the monk description to interpret the phrase 'unarmed strike' in the Flurry definition: the 'unarmed strike' defined as a feature of the monk includes, among other things, the result of an attack ("a successful blow..."), as well as a condition of the attacker (considered to make 'armed' unarmed attacks).

You can't attack with a condition or a damage result--it would be like attacking with invisibility or with the secondary damage of a poison.

The 'unarmed strike' referred to in the Flurry definition can't have this meaning.

We could interpret it to mean "either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet" (and, possibly, do the same with the 'unarmed strike' in WF/S), but this again places us in direct contradiction with both the definition in the glossary and the use of 'unarmed strike' throughout the rest of the text.

Plus, we'd be attributing to 'unarmed strike' the meaning given to 'unarmed attack'--at least, insofar as it appears in the Unarmed Combat section (in the glossary and farther on in the text, when we get to Disarms, Trips, and Grapples, 'unarmed attack' also comes to [sometimes] include these maneuvers as well).

There's a few contradictions for you. Tell me what it is, then: does a monk Flurry with "a successful blow..." or is the phrase 'unarmed strike' used inconsistently?

Irrelevant. I'm not saying they would - I'm saying if they did, they'd get +1 to attack rolls, and still provoke an AoO.

The point is that you're setting up an absurdity.

First of all, 'like a weapon' doesn't mean "is a weapon". In fact, it would be better to say that the phrase 'like a weapon' establishes that an unarmed attack is not a weapon: a weapon cannot be 'like a weapon'. Another way to say this would be: if it were a weapon, you wouldn't need to tell me it's like one (and, in fact couldn't).

It doesn't help to offer up the text of the WF/S feats, because that would be circular: we're asking what the phrase 'unarmed strike' means there; we can't use an interpretation of that phrase in order to establish our interpretation of it. In other words, these feats don't establish unarmed attacks as weapons.

I might also point out that you're interpreting the phrase 'unarmed strike' in the Feat text to mean 'unarmed attack'. The text you quote says 'unarmed attack' is 'like a weapon'. Does 'unarmed attack' mean 'unarmed strike'? If it does, then does 'unarmed strike' mean 'unarmed attack'?

The problem, of course, is that the 'unarmed attack' phrase in the combat section is part of a text that follows the definitions of 'unarmed attack' and unarmed strike' given in the glossary, whereas the texts of the WF/S feats do not.

You've chosen to interpret 'unarmed strike' in the Feat text to mean what 'unarmed attack' means in the combat text. What's your justification for this?

Furthermore, the notion that an unarmed attack is a weapon (and not just like one) contradicts both IUS and monk's unarmed strike: they provide an extra weapon quality to an unarmed attack--how do you provide this quality to something that is already a weapon?

No; it's absurd: it's obviously a screw-up--why not just admit that the writers got it wrong?

 

[Caliban]

It starts with the definitions of 'unarmed attack' and 'unarmed strike' in the glossary.

The way that they're set up makes 'unarmed strike' the result of an attack: "a succesful blow..."

Throughout most of the text this holds true; 'unarmed strike' refers to a a group of results, of which there are several, such as the result from a 'normal unarmed strike' or the result that IUS affords.

This definition doesn't apply to the use of 'unarmed strike' in the definition of Flurry--how can a monk attack with "a successful blow..."? Similarly, this is not the meaning found in the WF/S 'unarmed strike'--how can you add an attack bonus to "a successful blow..."?

This clarifies why we also can't turn to the definition of 'unarmed strike' provided in the monk description to interpret the phrase 'unarmed strike' in the Flurry definition: the 'unarmed strike' defined as a feature of the monk includes, among other things, the result of an attack ("a successful blow..."), as well as a condition of the attacker (considered to make 'armed' unarmed attacks).

You can't attack with a condition or a damage result--it would be like attacking with invisibility or with the secondary damage of a poison.

The 'unarmed strike' referred to in the Flurry definition can't have this meaning.

We could interpret it to mean "either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet" (and, possibly, do the same with the 'unarmed strike' in WF/S), but this again places us in direct contradiction with both the definition in the glossary and the use of 'unarmed strike' throughout the rest of the text.

Plus, we'd be attributing to 'unarmed strike' the meaning given to 'unarmed attack'--at least, insofar as it appears in the Unarmed Combat section (in the glossary and farther on in the text, when we get to Disarms, Trips, and Grapples, 'unarmed attack' also comes to [sometimes] include these maneuvers as well).

There's a few contradictions for you. Tell me what it is, then: does a monk Flurry with "a successful blow..." or is the phrase 'unarmed strike' used inconsistently?





The point is that you're setting up an absurdity.

First of all, 'like a weapon' doesn't mean "is a weapon". In fact, it would be better to say that the phrase 'like a weapon' establishes that an unarmed attack is not a weapon: a weapon cannot be 'like a weapon'. Another way to say this would be: if it were a weapon, you wouldn't need to tell me it's like one (and, in fact couldn't).

It doesn't help to offer up the text of the WF/S feats, because that would be circular: we're asking what the phrase 'unarmed strike' means there; we can't use an interpretation of that phrase in order to establish our interpretation of it. In other words, these feats don't establish unarmed attacks as weapons.

I might also point out that you're interpreting the phrase 'unarmed strike' in the Feat text to mean 'unarmed attack'. The text you quote says 'unarmed attack' is 'like a weapon'. Does 'unarmed attack' mean 'unarmed strike'? If it does, then does 'unarmed strike' mean 'unarmed attack'?

The problem, of course, is that the 'unarmed attack' phrase in the combat section is part of a text that follows the definitions of 'unarmed attack' and unarmed strike' given in the glossary, whereas the texts of the WF/S feats do not.

You've chosen to interpret 'unarmed strike' in the Feat text to mean what 'unarmed attack' means in the combat text. What's your justification for this?

Furthermore, the notion that an unarmed attack is a weapon (and not just like one) contradicts both IUS and monk's unarmed strike: they provide an extra weapon quality to an unarmed attack--how do you provide this quality to something that is already a weapon?

No; it's absurd: it's obviously a screw-up--why not just admit that the writers got it wrong?

I believe that you are overthinking this just a tad.

 

[jessemock]

I believe that you are overthinking this just a tad.

I believe that this is the point of the forum.

Just for kicks, then, tell me what you think: does the definition of 'unarmed strike' given in the glossary apply to the phrase 'unarmed strike' used in the Flurry definition?

If not, it's entirely possible--in fact, quite likely--that you haven't been playing your monk incorrectly all this time: a monk can make grapple attacks in a Flurry.

 

[Caliban]

I believe that this is the point of the forum.

Just for kicks, then, tell me what you think: does the definition of 'unarmed strike' given in the glossary apply to the phrase 'unarmed strike' used in the Flurry definition?

If not, it's entirely possible--in fact, quite likely--that you haven't been playing your monk incorrectly all this time: a monk can make grapple attacks in a Flurry.

I think the flurry ability is referring to the monks "Unarmed Strike" class ability, as detailed on page 41 of the monk class (which uses the terms unarmed strike and unarmed attack interchangably). However the monk "Unarmed Strike" class ability also makes a distinction between grappled and unarmed strikes.

Is it inconsistent with the glossary definition? Yes, but it is is consistent with itself.

 

[MarauderX]

My two coppers, as it relates to the reality of actual gaming...

I treat the flurry as general attacks, not as a special attack to be selected like grapple, trip, etc. The monk gets the choices of Improved Grapple, Improved Trip and Improved Disarm along the way up in levels, so at 1st level why would you ever choose 1 attack just to grapple when you could use 2 strikes to do actual damage (based on a general fight, not on specifics)? Sword and Fist has a table in the back of it that gives the hit chances, and based on that, getting scaled back by one attack per round hinders at monk's effectiveness at special attacks.

Monk attacks were given -2 all around in 3.0 when using flurry vs. without, and it improved in 3.5. It said in the class description that the monk didn't need the off-hand bonus feats (in 3.0), as a monk could attack with either hand/weapon/knee/whatever interchangeably, but took the negatives whenever doing a flurry. And now it's argued that per the letter of non-associated feats such as Weapon Specialization that Unarmed strike and Grapple are equal, and unarmed strike is anoption. By my understanding, after reading this thread and the associated websites, Grapple, Disarm, etc. are meant to be defined as attack options. It also says to me that a monk's flurry of blows ability are attacks, and not a special attack option to be selected like trip or disarm. Again, this is from what has been discussed and is me adjudicating as if I were an almighty Sage.

Also of note, the monk's FoBs penalties disappear at 9th level. Why would you ever not flurry? It would seem like the answer would be that WotC and the proverbial Sage would say that you have to use the non-flurry BAB when using special attacks, as when else would it be used? One answer is movement; flurry is a full round action, and you can't move and flurry in the same round (unmodified). IMO a flurry can be applied to do any type of special attack as needed unless WotC wished to have the monk pushed down a little bit further than it already is.

Interesting thread. Now, a copper for your thoughts, but I want change.

 

[jessemock]

I think the flurry ability is referring to the monks "Unarmed Strike" class ability, as detailed on page 41 of the monk class (which uses the terms unarmed strike and unarmed attack interchangably). However the monk "Unarmed Strike" class ability also makes a distinction between grappled and unarmed strikes.

Is it inconsistent with the glossary definition? Yes, but it is is consistent with itself.

Consistent with itself isn't good enough.

As you point out, the text of the monk's unarmed strike "uses the terms unarmed strike and unarmed attack interchangably"--why can't I do the same thing later on?

Why can't I read the 'unarmed strike' in the Flurry def. as 'unarmed attack'?

And why wouldn't this 'unarmed attack' include grapple attacks?

Does the definition of 'Unarmed Strike' as a monk feature exclude grapple attacks? Or, for that matter, any of the maneuvers collected together under the usual sense of 'unarmed attack', meaning Trips and Disarms (when attempted unarmed) are available as well?

Because the terminology has suddenly changed, because 'unarmed strike' now refers to an attack that a character can make, rather than the effects of an attack that a character can make, we have to re-interpret the terms.

What does 'unarmed strike' now mean?

In other words, can a monk use his hands, elbows, knees, feet, legs, etc. to Trip, Disarm, and, yes, Grapple?

We can't use the Feats to separate these options. We can't say that, because both 'Unarmed Strike' and Grapple are offered as options for WF/S, therefore they're two different things in the monk description. This is because the use of these terms in the Monk feature text have no external application. The 'Unarmed Strike' referred to in the WF/S texts is not the same as the one described under the Monk description.

Unless, of course, only Monks may Focus or Specialise in Unarmed Strike...

 

[jessemock]

IMO a flurry can be applied to do any type of special attack as needed unless WotC wished to have the monk pushed down a little bit further than it already is.

Interesting thread. Now, a copper for your thoughts, but I want change.

That's my opinion, too. The problem is that the use of 'unarmed strike' is inconsistent and ambiguous.

I think it's pretty clear that all of the special combat maneuvers available to the monk as bonus feats are meant to be available to the flurrying monk--but try to prove it! Wow! The writers have not made it easy!

But of course a Monk character should be able to punch a guy, grab him by the arm, give him a little twist, force the guy to hit himself in the face with his own club, then take it away from him--all in one sequence.

 

[Caliban]

Consistent with itself isn't good enough.
[/b]

*shrug* You can make pompous statements all you want, that doesn't change it.

Why, exactly, is it not good enough for the monk class to be consistent with itself? Unarmed strike is defined differently for monks than anyone else, right in the class description. It would be nice if they used a different term since it works differently for monks, but they don't.

As you point out, the text of the monk's unarmed strike "uses the terms unarmed strike and unarmed attack interchangably"--why can't I do the same thing later on?

Why can't I read the 'unarmed strike' in the Flurry def. as 'unarmed attack'?

And why wouldn't this 'unarmed attack' include grapple attacks?

Because the monk class ability "Unarmed Strikes" makes a distinction between a grapple and an unarmed strike.

Because the monk class ability "Flurry of blows" says that the extra attack has to be an unarmed strike.

How much simpler do you want it?