Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[reapersaurus]

Let me get this straight:

A Flurry of Blows allows a monk an extra attack.
Yet you are rules-mongering it so he can't Trip, Disarm, or Grapple as part of that attack.


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK.

I'm actually starting to be relieved that noone plays the rules exactly "as written."

 

[AGGEMAM]

A Flurry of Blows allows a monk an extra attack.
Yet you are rules-mongering it so he can't Trip, Disarm, or Grapple as part of that attack.

I'm actually starting to be relieved that noone plays the rules exactly "as written."

I don't really see the massive problem in this, just because the Monk can't use his flurry to do the special attacks, he is still far superior to all but the most specialized fighter at these.

There is nothing that says he can't use his regular attacks with the possible inclusion of haste with those special attacks.

All that this show is that Flurry of Blows is exactly what it says, a special attack that gives the monk the oppertunity to hurt his opponent with a lot of blows. (Remember that the name is Flurry of Blows not, not Flurry of Arm and Legs or somethings else).

 

[MarauderX]

I don't really see the massive problem in this, just because the Monk can't use his flurry to do the special attacks, he is still far superior to all but the most specialized fighter at these.

Tell you are kidding. Not even close. Using OA, I have a monk uses Great Throw to drop opponents to get the AoOs whenever they stand up. Without being able to grapple twice in a round, he has lost half of his gimmick ability to throw opponents. Now his choice is to either pick one guy and throw him or to attack two opponents with flurry. It's a tough choice, and my choice would be to stop playing that character and build out a fighter instead. A fighter would have more hit points and feats and would be able to whack more guys for more damage than a FoB, not to mention Cleave and Great Cleave. Add in Improved Trip, Disarm, Grapple,etc. and the fighter will have better chances to do each than a typical monk build, even if the monk was slanted towards Str. The versitility and effectiveness of the monk dries up if you cannot use FoB to do special attacks. Why bother to do a FoB as a full attack when your PC, as the special attacks guru, would do a single trip, disarm, etc. then move into position for the next?

All that this show is that Flurry of Blows is exactly what it says, a special attack that gives the monk the oppertunity to hurt his opponent with a lot of blows. (Remember that the name is Flurry of Blows not, not Flurry of Arm and Legs or somethings else).

Does it matter which it is? It could be a Flurry of two quick strikes with one arm, leg, knee, headbutt, whatever.

To beat DR/slashing, or DR/silver, or DR/good, or DR/adamantine(before 16th level)?
For cheaper Flaming/Shocking/Frost upgrades than Bracers of Striking?
If your DM interprets the monk rules such that a monk can combine TWF and FoB with monk weapons, but not unarmed?
-Hyp.

Adamantine? Ok, well, not many nunchaku made out of it in my campaign. The others I understood before you wrote it. DR/slashing, etc. isn't bypassed when Ki strike makes your attacks magical in nature? Hmmm.... guess I better re-ask the Sage about damage on a skeleton with a long sword +1 vs. a hammer.

If your DM interprets the monk rules such that a monk can combine TWF and FoB with monk weapons, but not unarmed?
-Hyp.

If my DM went strictly by the rules, which would be legal?

Now the other misunderstanding of mine...
If you got your kama+1 and your FoB would do more damage, you would have to sit down to do the math whether your attack bonus would be worth the loss in damage you would do. Not so much fun for the non-rules lawyer.


For the other debate, I'm with Reapersaurus... it's just too lame and if those are the rules, consider them broken. See you in the House Rules forum where I will post some clarifications on the monk, as well as try to solicit an opinion from James Wyatt, co-writer of OA.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Tell you are kidding.

No, please tell me you are though.

A specialized fighter should be better at martial arts than a monk.

But you seem to forget all of those neat things the monk do get that a fighter do not get: FoB, evasion, Fast Move, and every other feature on the monks feature list. This is what makes the monk not the martial arts abilities.

 

[MarauderX]

No, please tell me you are though.

A specialized fighter should be better at martial arts than a monk.

But you seem to forget all of those neat things the monk do get that a fighter do not get: FoB, evasion, Fast Move, and every other feature on the monks feature list. This is what makes the monk not the martial arts abilities.

Huh? I guess I was confused about what you were originally posting, which happens occassionally. I agree with your points here, but not in the post I quoted.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Huh? I guess I was confused about what you were originally posting, which happens occassionally.

Hey, don't sweat it. Ima notta thata guda englisch aniwai.

Maybe I should stick one-line post, I guess I can screw those up.

 

[jessemock]

I may as well put this one into the mix:

"A monk can use his unarmed attack rate of attacks per round while grappling."

That's from the PHB, p.137--under Starting a Grapple.

Except that's 3.0. This sentence doesn't appear in 3.5.


Now, I ask you, does it make more sense to suppose that Monks retain this ability and that this sentence was eliminated, because it was redundant...

...or...

...does it make more sense to suppose that this ability was eliminated in 3.5 and that the writers expected us to figure this out by applying the glossary definition of 'unarmed strike' until we infer, by way of an implication, a contradictory definition (one that establishes 'unarmed strike' as an attack form) that, somehow, excludes this application of an unarmed attack and takes priority over the glossary definition, by way of the primary/secondary source clause, which, incidentally, we have to assume to cover glossary entries?


Anyone for a shave with Occam's Razor?

 

[AGGEMAM]

I may as well put this one into the mix:

"A monk can use his unarmed attack rate of attacks per round while grappling."

That's from the PHB, p.137--under Starting a Grapple.

Except that's 3.0. This sentence doesn't appear in 3.5.

I'm quite certain that they omitted it in the 3.5 edition because it was contradictionary to the other rules on this subject in the same book.

 

[Caliban]

I may as well put this one into the mix:

"A monk can use his unarmed attack rate of attacks per round while grappling."

That's from the PHB, p.137--under Starting a Grapple.

Except that's 3.0. This sentence doesn't appear in 3.5.


Now, I ask you, does it make more sense to suppose that Monks retain this ability and that this sentence was eliminated, because it was redundant...

...or...

...does it make more sense to suppose that this ability was eliminated in 3.5 and that the writers expected us to figure this out by applying the glossary definition of 'unarmed strike' until we infer, by way of an implication, a contradictory definition (one that establishes 'unarmed strike' as an attack form) that, somehow, excludes this application of an unarmed attack and takes priority over the glossary definition, by way of the primary/secondary source clause, which, incidentally, we have to assume to cover glossary entries?


Anyone for a shave with Occam's Razor?

That sentence has nothing to do what what we are discussing. It's not referring to flurry of blows. It was eliminated because monks no longer get a special "unarmed rate of attack" in 3.5.

In 3.0 monks got interative unarmed attacks at every +3 BAB beyond +1, instead of every +5 BAB beyond +1. (So a monk with a +4 BAB would have unarmed attacks of +4/+1 - before they used Flurry of Blows).

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.

I'm not happy about this either, I would rather that monks be able to use grapple, trip, and disarm interchangeable while flurrying, but that's not the way the rules read. Unfortunately this is the only interpretation that eliminates the apparent inconsistencies.

 

[reapersaurus]

Unfortunately this is the only interpretation that eliminates the apparent inconsistencies.

This is not an attack on you. I'm asking a serious question:

Who cares about inconsistencies that require guesses and inferences to reach a "conclusion"?
WotC obviously does not care.
Most gamers don't care about the rules as written that deeply to analyze things this hard.

Why should "we" have to guess at deciphering rules that WotC themselves have expressed zero real interest in clearing up?
I'm surprised you guys still bother....