Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[Hypersmurf]

Just a quick note - I've edited post 108 above, with a change to my answers about WS: US.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You're wrong about this: WF/S: US never applies to grapples. Only WF/S: Grapple does. It's "as if", not "with".

Yup - I came to the same conclusion just before you posted, and edited accordingly.

I disagree: it's "normal unarmed strike", and the text for IUS makes it clear what "normal unarmed strike" means, i.e. non-lethal.

As written, yes. "would" should have been "should" - I agree that as written, IUS does not permit lethal damage, but I think there's a strong likelihood that was a revision oversight.

Fine. This is not the same thing as a Monk's unarmed strike. A Monk's unarmed strike is effectively two weapons: a Monk can choose to use it as either an 'unarmed strike' (under your def. above) or as a grapple.

I can't agree.

A monk deals more damage in a grapple, equivalent to his unarmed strike. But as you note, he's not using an unarmed strike to do it.

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

jessemock, I you do not want to understand the rules, that's your choice.

Personally, I don't bother spending my time trying to explain rules to someone who reads but does't understand the rules deliberatedly.

*yoink* Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[Legildur]

I can take Weapon Focus: Longsword; Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike; Weapon Focus: Grapple.

The three are separate. I cannot apply my Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike to an unarmed touch attack to initiate a grapple; that's what Weapon Focus: Grapple is for.

(my emphasis)

I didn't see anyone else balk at this statement, so maybe I have it wrong.

From the 3.5E SRD:

Step 2: Grab. You make a melee touch attack to grab the target. If you fail to hit the target, the grapple attempt fails. If you succeed, proceed to Step 3.

Surely WF: unarmed strike applies to the melee touch attack for the grab? Just as WF: heavy flail would provide a bonus for the melee touch attack to make a trip attempt?

But, WF: grapple would apply for the hold attempt.

Step 3: Hold. Make an opposed grapple check as a free action.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But, WF: grapple would apply for the hold attempt.

Weapon Focus applies to attack rolls. The hold attempt is not an attack roll; it's an opposed grapple check.

The only attack roll involved in a grapple is the touch attack to start a grapple; thus, it's the only roll to which Weapon Focus: Grapple applies.

If Weapon Focus: Grapple did not exist, I'd be inclined to say that Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike would apply to the melee touch attack to start a grapple. But since WF:G exists, WF:US does not apply.

-Hyp.

 

[jessemock]

Weapon Focus applies to attack rolls. The hold attempt is not an attack roll; it's an opposed grapple check.

The only attack roll involved in a grapple is the touch attack to start a grapple; thus, it's the only roll to which Weapon Focus: Grapple applies.

If Weapon Focus: Grapple did not exist, I'd be inclined to say that Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike would apply to the melee touch attack to start a grapple. But since WF:G exists, WF:US does not apply.

-Hyp.

I agree completely--which makes WF: Grapple a pretty miserable feat.

A monk deals more damage in a grapple, equivalent to his unarmed strike. But as you note, he's not using an unarmed strike to do it.

Right. I agree that he's not using the 'weapon' 'unarmed strike' referred to in the WF: US feat.

The monk is, however, using his unarmed strike, which, you must agree, at the very least, exceeds the definition of 'unarmed strike' in WF:US. I say that it exceeds this def. all the way to counting for grapples.

The problem is that you can't have it both ways: either 'unarmed strike' and 'grapple' are two completely separate weapons or they are not. If they are separate, then an improvement to one can't result in an improvement to the other. The improvement to the monk's grapple is, then, exactly that--an improvement to his grapple.

One more thing that may help to resolve the issue (or, anyway confuse it further, but in an interesting way):

a character attacks with 'grapple' as his off-hand weapon in a two-weapon fighting routine--how do we calculate his penalty?

Same thing with an unarmed trip?

As written, yes. "would" should have been "should" - I agree that as written, IUS does not permit lethal damage, but I think there's a strong likelihood that was a revision oversight.

Well, yeah; but then this whole debate is pretty much an academic exercise in "as written", isn't it?

 

[jessemock]

jessemock, I you do not want to understand the rules, that's your choice.

Personally, I don't bother spending my time trying to explain rules to someone who reads but does't understand the rules deliberatedly.

*yoink* Welcome to the ignore list.

Hm. If you me do not want to understand the rules, isn't that your choice?

And, if it's your choice, certainly it couldn't have been done 'deliberatedly' on my part.

Plus, you do 'personally bother' to explain the rules to those you perceive as not having understood them. As evidence, I submit your earlier posts.

Lastly, it's impossible to yoink someone on a list.

 

[Caliban]

One more thing that may help to resolve the issue (or, anyway confuse it further, but in an interesting way):

a character attacks with 'grapple' as his off-hand weapon in a two-weapon fighting routine--how do we calculate his penalty?

Irrelevent, you can't use "off-hand" attacks while grappling.

 

[jessemock]

Irrelevent, you can't use "off-hand" attacks while grappling.

Can't initiate a grapple with an off-hand attack? Why not?

 

[Artoomis]

Can't initiate a grapple with an off-hand attack? Why not?

From the SRD:

...You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons...

Technically, it does not say you cannot initiate a grapple with an off-hand attack, but once grappled you cannot use two weapons any more.