Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[jessemock]

And an unarmed strike is a subset of an unarmed attack, yes ?

No.


Generally, an unarmed strike is the result of an unarmed attack.

For a Monk, however, all previous definitions are off.

The problem is that no new definitions clearly replace the discarded old ones.

It is not clear what 'unarmed strike' means for a monk.

For a monk, 'unarmed strike' may very well mean 'unarmed attack' in its broadest sense, which includes unarmed Trip, Disarm, and Grapple attempts.

That's as tightly as I can place the parameters of the current discussion.

There are other implications however.

For example: the only other place that I can find where 'unarmed strike' refers to an attack action, rather than the result of an attack, is under the Weapon Focus Feat.

There 'unarmed strike' coud mean "a successful blow..."(wha?), "monk's unarmed strike" (which would mean that only monks may take this option on the Feat), "any unarmed attack that is not covered by another Feat" (which would mean that you can wield a wepon that leaves you unarmed), or "attacking with Improved Unarmed Strike" (which makes perfect sense).

 

[AGGEMAM]

The monk Unarmed Strike class ability also refers to itself as an "unarmed attack" (Page 41, 1st column, last sentence).

All unarmed strikes are defined as unarmed attacks, but not all unarmed attacks can be defined as unarmed strikes. You do see the difference, right?

 

[Caliban]

Did you quote the right message?

I agree with pretty much everything you said there, but it didn't seem to address at all the message you quoted.

I'm saying "Every attack in the full attack action that uses Flurry of Blows is considered 'part of the Flurry of Blows'"; you said you disagree. I posted the message you just quoted in response to that disagreement. You replied with something about Trips and Disarms being unarmed attacks. I'm... not at all sure what the relevance is to the text you quoted.

You even quoted the question about strength bonus to a quarterstaff, but didn't do anything with it...?

-Hyp.

Yes, yes, you got me on the grapple part. Happy?

I was hoping to show that you could grapple as part of a flurry by showing that you can definitely do trips and disarms as part of a flurry, but couldn't quite manage it to my satisfaction.

It still seems odd to me that grapple would be excluded, since it seems to be a form of unarmed attack and monks are supposed to be good at all of them, but I can't find an acceptable arguement in favor of it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Is that a tournement rule?

PHB Errata.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D ® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry. An individual spell description takes
precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources
involves book and topic precedence. The Player's
Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing
the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class
descriptions. If you find something on one of those
topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the
Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's
Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the
primary source for topics such as magic item
descriptions, special material construction rules, and so
on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for
monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural,
extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

-----

The glossary is for quick reference. It's the equivalent of the short description of a spell - they're for jogging memory, not for defining rules. When Ray of Enfeeblement says it deals Str damage in the short description, and inflicts a Str penalty in the spell text, the spell text is the primary source.

If a contradiction comes about because the one-sentence description of something in the glossary is poorly-worded so that it appears to conflict with the appropriate section in the actual rules, the contradiction is easily resolved by noting "rules beat quick reference".

The glossary isn't in the SRD, because it's only repeating information in truncated form that already exists. If that truncation changes the meaning, it means the glossary's screwed up.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, yes, you got me there. Happy?

Well... not really. I still don't know if your position on Flurry-attack-to-strike, followed by grapple checks using normal iterative attacks, has changed...

-Hyp.

 

[jessemock]

All unarmed strikes are defined as unarmed attacks, but not all unarmed attacks can be defined as unarmed strikes. You do see the difference, right?

No unarmed strikes are anywhere defined as unarmed attacks.

What you're thinking of as an unarmed strike has always been nebulous: it's some kind of unarmed attack that isn't a Trip, Disarm, or Grapple, and it results in an unarmed strike.

Everybody refers to this mysterious attack form as 'unarmed strike' for three reasons: 1) Monks; 2) Improved Unarmed Strike 3) No one reads the glossary.

But take a look at that Feat in the middle there. The 'unarmed strike' that it improves is not the attack, but the successful blow: it improves from non-lethal to lethal damage.

The feat also makes the character 'armed' while attacking unarmed. The actual attack form never changes.

The monk description uses 'unarmed strike' differently--as does the Weapon Focus Feat. There, it becomes an attack form--but it may be the case that the attack form described in the monk entry and the attack form described in the feat text are not the same.

How do you like that!

Plus, 'unarmed strike' for a monk may include Trip, Disarm, and Grapple attempts...yadda yadda yadda.

 

[AGGEMAM]

No unarmed strikes are anywhere defined as unarmed attacks.

Oh, I can't wait for the quotes to support that coming in.

Makes coffee. Goes to bed. Works. Gets married. Get retired. Dies.

What ? Still none ?

 

[jessemock]

PHB Errata.


The glossary is for quick reference. It's the equivalent of the short description of a spell - they're for jogging memory, not for defining rules.

Well; this doesn't say anything about the glossary, and the glossary seems to me qualitatively different than a table, but, in the end, I don't think that it makes too much difference: I think it's pretty clear that the Unarmed Strike def. in the monk entry doesn't exclude Trips & co. Even the line on grapples seems to me more emphatic than exclusionary.

The glossary isn't in the SRD, because it's only repeating information in truncated form that already exists. If that truncation changes the meaning, it means the glossary's screwed up.

-Hyp.

I have to split. But try putting all of the 'controversial' uses of 'unarmed strike/attack' on hold and see whether all other uses adhere to the glossary def. I bet you'll find that they do: outside of Monk and WF, unarmed strike means what's in the glossary.

Peace out yo.

 

[Caliban]

All unarmed strikes are defined as unarmed attacks, but not all unarmed attacks can be defined as unarmed strikes. You do see the difference, right?

Hmm.. According to the PHB Glossary:

Unarmed Attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.

Unarmed Strike: A successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal non-lethal damage.

By that, an Unarmed Strike is a successful unarmed attack that causes non-lethal or lethal damage.

So what you are saying is:

Unarmed Strike = successful unarmed attack made strictly to deal damage.
Trip = unarmed attack to knock someone down
Unarmed Disarm = unarmed attack to take someones weapon.
Grapple Touch attack = unarmed attack to establish a hold on someone (and can subsequently deal damae equivalent to an unarmed strike with successful grapple checks.)

*sigh* Damn, that arguement makes the most sense yet. It clears up the apparent inconsistencies between the monk class ability and the glossary definition (the monk ability is only talking about making an unarmed attack for damage).

It's really not looking good for my monk grappler now.

You really can't use a Flurry for anything except damage. No special attacks. I know a lot of people who have been playing this all wrong, and won't be happy about this. Gah.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I have to split.

Yeah - I'm at work, and spending way more time in this thread than I really should be

-Hyp.