Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[Caliban]

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.

Nothing stops a monk from doing this.

Monk with 3 attacks, then uses flurry of blows:

Extra flurry attack = punch a guy (Unarmed Strike)
First regular attack = Grab him by the arm and give it a twist(Improved grapple + a successfull grapple check)
Second regular attack = Force the guy to hit himself in the face with his own club (Grapple check)
Third regular attack = take the club away form him (Disarm in a grapple)

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Absolutely. Particularly if he's hasted with some fighter levels to make up five attacks.

But if he wants to punch him six or seven times, instead of performing five tricky maneuvers, he can Flurry.

-Hyp.

 

[jessemock]

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



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?

As simple as this: define 'unarmed strike'; define 'unarmed attack'.

Now show me where these definitions appear within the Unarmed Strike feature provided in the monk description. Then show me that these definitions clearly exclude all trip, disarm, and grapple attempts.

And, pardon me, but if it's so simple, how come you screwed it up?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nothing stops a monk from doing this.

Monk with 3 attacks, then uses flurry of blows:

Extra flurry attack = punch a guy (Unarmed Strike)
First regular attack = Grab him by the arm and give it a twist(Improved grapple + a successfull grapple check)
Second regular attack = Force the guy to hit himself in the face with his own club (Grapple check)
Third regular attack = take the club away form him (Disarm in a grapple)

Doesn't work. The restriction on weapon types doesn't just apply to the extra attacks - it applies to every attack in a Flurry.

I can't hit someone three times with my spiked chain and then kick him using Flurry of Blows. Every attack is considered "part of a Flurry of Blows".

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

As simple as this: define 'unarmed strike'; define 'unarmed attack'.

Now show me where these definitions appear within the Unarmed Strike feature provided in the monk description. Then show me that these definitions clearly exclude all trip, disarm, and grapple attempts.

And, pardon me, but if it's so simple, how come you screwed it up?

Hmm... nice attitude. I don't feel like being attacked today. So let me know when you are willing to be reasonable and I might discuss it with you further. Untile, debate is over, you lose.

Have a nice day.

 

[Caliban]

Doesn't work. The restriction on weapon types doesn't just apply to the extra attacks - it applies to every attack in a Flurry.

I can't hit someone three times with my spiked chain and then kick him using Flurry of Blows. Every attack is considered "part of a Flurry of Blows".

-Hyp.

I disagree.

 

[jessemock]

Hmm... nice attitude. I don't feel like being attacked today.

You seem, however, to be quite comfortable with attacking:

How much simpler do you want it?

and

You can make pompous statements all you want

Untile, debate is over, you lose.

Have a nice day.

No; when you quit, you lose. Or when you can't support your argument.

Two out of two sucks.

 

[jessemock]

Absolutely. Particularly if he's hasted with some fighter levels to make up five attacks.

But if he wants to punch him six or seven times, instead of performing five tricky maneuvers, he can Flurry.

-Hyp.

Back it up. Let's see those 'unarmed strike' and 'unarmed attack' definitions.

 

[Caliban]

You seem, however, to be quite comfortable with attacking:
[/b]

That was not intended as an attack on my part. If you feel that it was such, I apologize.

No; when you quit, you lose. Or when you can't support your argument.

Two out of two sucks.

This is a rather immature attitude on your part. As such, any arguements you might make really don't carry any weight with me.

Have a nice day.

 

[jessemock]

Absolutely. Particularly if he's hasted with some fighter levels to make up five attacks.

But if he wants to punch him six or seven times, instead of performing five tricky maneuvers, he can Flurry.

-Hyp.

Plus, you counted wrong: it's four maneuvers--and only three of them are 'tricky'.