Monk Grappling & Flurry of Blows

[jessemock]

From the SRD:


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.

Right.

So what?

A character is fighting with two-weapons, makes first attack, makes off-hand attack to initiate a grapple, grapples, stops two-weapon fighting.

Fine.

How do we calculate the penalty for two-weapon fighting?

 

[Artoomis]

...How do we calculate the penalty for two-weapon fighting?

Just like you normally would. What is different here? If you are going to use an off-hand attack to start a grapple, than the normal two-weapon penlaties would apply for the whole round, just as if you had, say, a sword and dagger and decided to use the dagger that round.

It's one of those funny cases where you have to decide ahead of time what you are going to do so that the attack penalties are figured in properly.

 

[jessemock]

Just like you normally would. What is different here? If you are going to use an off-hand attack to start a grapple, than the normal two-weapon penlaties would apply for the whole round, just as if you had, say, a sword and dagger and decided to use the dagger that round.

It's one of those funny cases where you have to decide ahead of time what you are going to do so that the attack penalties are figured in properly.

What I'm getting at is this: is 'grapple' a light weapon?

 

[Artoomis]

What I'm getting at is this: is 'grapple' a light weapon?

No. But the unarmed attack you use to start the grapple is a light weapon.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

If I cast Enlarge Person, my unarmed strike damage - and hence my grapple damage - increases from 1d3 to 1d4.

If I take a level of monk, my unarmed strike damage - and hence my grapple damage - increases from 1d3 to 1d6.

Grappling is not an unarmed strike, but the damage dealt is equivalent to an unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

 

[jessemock]

No. But the unarmed attack you use to start the grapple is a light weapon.

Really? Where does it say that unarmed attacks are light weapons?

Plus, according to the Weapon Focus Feat 'grapple' counts as a weapon. However, it seems to have no actual qualities.

 

[Artoomis]

[QUOTE=jessemock]Really? Where does it say that unarmed attacks are light weapons?

Plus, according to the Weapon Focus Feat 'grapple' counts as a weapon. However, it seems to have no actual qualities.[/QUOTE]

1. It seems obvious, but you find "...An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon..." in "Disarm." It may be mentioned elsewhere as well.

2. It seem obvious to me (though many disagree" that WF (Grapple) applies to grapple checks and not the intial touch attack to intitiate the grapple. After all, "A grapple check is like a melee attack roll," and WF applies to attack rolls. That seems the simplest interpretation.

 

[jessemock]

[QUOTE=jessemock]Really? Where does it say that unarmed attacks are light weapons?

Plus, according to the Weapon Focus Feat 'grapple' counts as a weapon. However, it seems to have no actual qualities.

1. It seems obvious, but you find "...An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon..." in "Disarm." It may be mentioned elsewhere as well.

2. It seem obvious to me (though many disagree" that WF (Grapple) applies to grapple checks and not the intial touch attack to intitiate the grapple. After all, "A grapple check is like a melee attack roll," and WF applies to attack rolls. That seems the simplest interpretation.

Check out the rest of this thread, Artie!

The distinction between 'unarmed strike' and 'grapple' has been offered as a reason why a Monk can't use grapple attacks in a Flurry.

Me, I'm of the opinion that 'unarmed strike' has been used more loosely than it should've, that its meaning changes from place to place in the text. The 'unarmed strike' in the 'unarmed attack' section in Combat is not the same thing as the 'unarmed strike' in the Weapon Focus feat, for example.

I think it makes more sense that WF: Grapple would apply to grapple checks, rather than the touch attack, but it's hard to say this and still remain pedantic.

Same with the idea that the 'unarmed strike' in the WF feat is really just 'an unarmed attack meant to cause damage', rather than one intended to Grapple, Trip, Disarm, etc.

Similarly, the 'unarmed strike' in the Flurry def. means 'unarmed attack' in the broadest sense, i.e. to damage, Disarm, Trip, or Grapple.

To say nothing of the fact that, according to the glossary, 'unarmed strike' means "a successful blow".

 

[Caliban]

[/color]


To say nothing of the fact that, according to the glossary, 'unarmed strike' means "a successful blow".

A successful blow that causes damage, to be exact. Hmm.....

 

[AGGEMAM]

So if we look at it. We have the following places where Unarmed Strike is mentioned.

1) Flurry of Blows

2) Improved Unarmed Strike feat

3) Unarmed Strike as a weapon

4) Unarmed Attack in Combat

5) Unarmed Strike in the Glossary

All places it is defined as an unarmed attack that deals damage, the exact wording may differ but the meaning is the same.