Natural Attack + Monk

[BalazarIago]

<quote>
Originally Posted by SRD
Flurry of Blows (Ex): When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a –2 penalty, </bold>as does each other attack made that round</bold>. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to –1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.
</quote>

So, I wonder if that means that instead of the natural attacks being at -5, they would be at -7 instead?

 

[D+1]

You might not have a high opinion of the sage or the FAQ, but Wizards is the maker of the game and thus the rule readings are considered by most players/gms as official.

And wrongly so.

The sage's responses are indeed official rules/rulings and thus should be considered as official by everyone - insofar as officiality actually goes. HOWEVER... The sage is not infallible and his rulings even if technically official and even if logically correct are not necessarily good, proper, or useful rules/rulings.

One of the rare, singular downsides to 3rd edtion rules is that they have come to be handled by WotC in the same way they handle Magic: The Gathering rules. Gamers have similarly begun to treat D&D as if it HAS rules in the same way that M:TG has rules and rather than exercise their imaginations or consider something wierd as a priority - like fun - they slavishly seek first and foremost the OFFICIAL answer as if their own thoughts and desires on the issue are by default inadequate and irrelevant.

I DESPISE that.

The Sage is not a book. He is not an errata file. Therefore, he is not a primary source. When what he says contradicts the primary source for a particular rule, the primary source (the RAW) take precedence.

The Sage has some good house rules - but they are house rules, and should be labeled as such.

IMO the only RESPECTABLE approach by WotC on this subject SHOULD be that the sages responses can be considered official - if OFFICIAL is what is actually needed - but overwhelmingly the appropriate response by players of the game to rules questions should be to MAKE UP THEIR OWN FREAKIN' MINDS. The Sage is NOT YOUR DM. WotC does not run your game. Figure it out for yourself because OFFICIAL answers are IRRELEVANT unless you're running a tournament.

 

[JoeStock]

<quote>
Originally Posted by SRD
Flurry of Blows (Ex): When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a –2 penalty, </bold>as does each other attack made that round</bold>. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to –1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.
</quote>

So, I wonder if that means that instead of the natural attacks being at -5, they would be at -7 instead?

Correct. It is clear ALL attacks that round have to take the flurry penatly, so it would be -7.

The sage's responses are indeed official rules/rulings and thus should be considered as official by everyone - insofar as officiality actually goes. HOWEVER... The sage is not infallible and his rulings even if technically official and even if logically correct are not necessarily good, proper, or useful rules/rulings.

One of the rare, singular downsides to 3rd edtion rules is that they have come to be handled by WotC in the same way they handle Magic: The Gathering rules. Gamers have similarly begun to treat D&D as if it HAS rules in the same way that M:TG has rules and rather than exercise their imaginations or consider something wierd as a priority - like fun - they slavishly seek first and foremost the OFFICIAL answer as if their own thoughts and desires on the issue are by default inadequate and irrelevant.

I DESPISE that.

I'm in total agreement. Of course the players I do have the most rules issues are M:tG players, so I wonder if it's connected.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The sage's responses are indeed official rules/rulings and thus should be considered as official by everyone

Except where they contradict the actual Rules - and therefore fail the Primary / Secondary source test.

Seriously, what part of this is so hard for people to understand?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, I wonder if that means that instead of the natural attacks being at -5, they would be at -7 instead?

Of course they would be - if he could make them at all, which he can't.

Note, also, that things like AoOs also suffer the -2 penalty.

 

[Caeleddin]

Patryn - Correction. YOU say they can't. That is YOUR House Rule. Others may think differently and follow the Sage and the FAQ, both of which is far more widely accepted than you are, and, technically, more OFFICIAL than you are.

When we play cricket by the beach, we make certain restrictions that is NOT in the official cricket rules. That does NOT make our rules the one EVERYONE must follow. It just makes our game different. The rules are NOT the OFFICIAL ones.

In your words: "Seriously, what part of this is so hard for YOU to understand?"

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Patryn - Correction. YOU say they can't. That is YOUR House Rule.

Do you have difficulty reading?

Where, in the description of Flurry of Blows, does it say "natural weapons"?

Point it out to me. I'd love to see it.

Accordingly, it is not my HOUSE RULE.

It would be a HOUSE RULE to allow them - and one which many people seem to believe is overpowered.

Don't bring knives to gunfights, kid.

 

[Caeleddin]

Patryn - The same part where it says that you can use your natural attacks IN ADDITION to your other attacks in a full attack action. Since Flurry is considered a full attack option, then it is ok to use your natural attacks after it, just like you get natural attacks after TWF.

The OFFICIAL FAQ has ruled on this. The penalties of TWF is CUMULATIVE with the penalties for Flurry. That means that Flurry is part of your primary hand iterative attacks. You get to add TWF AND natural attacks after it as per USUAL. For just BAB, a Centaur monk with the full TWF tree and Multiattack has the following attacks: 13/13/13/8/3, 13/8/3 AND 11/11. That is the ruling.

YOU are not the OFFICIAL FAQ. In fact, you are OFFICIAL nothing. Thus, what you said is a House Rule.

QED.

"Seriously, what part of this is so hard for YOU to understand?"

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The same part where it says that you can use your natural attacks IN ADDITION to your other attacks in a full attack action. Since Flurry is considered a full attack option, then it is ok to use your natural attacks after it, just like you get natural attacks after TWF.

Except for the rules of Flurry that specify specific limitations. They don't just "go away."

Any ruling which ignores the specific rules of Flurry of Blows is in error - however well-intentioned the spirit of that ruling is. It's fine for a House Rule - it's not fine for a publication whose express purpose is to explain the finer points of the RAW.

The OFFICIAL FAQ has incorrectly ruled on this.

I fixed it for you.

YOU are not the OFFICIAL FAQ. In fact, you are OFFICIAL nothing. Thus, what you said is a House Rule.

Faulty logic.

1. PoE is not official.
2. Therefore, anything he says is a House Rule.

Your conclusion does not flow from your premises.

The problem lies solely with the FAQ. If it were in accordance with the actual rules, than such a problem would not exist.

Furthermore:

1. Anything that contradicts an "Official" source is a House Rule.
2. PoE contradicts an Official source.
3. Therefore, PoE is positing a House Rule.

Agree?

 

[Caeleddin]

YOU think the FAQ is incorrect. However, unless the FAQ states otherwise, it is the correct version. It is the rules put forth by the makers of the game (or at least, as close to it as you can get). Thus, it takes precedence over what YOU think.


Unless you are claiming to be Gary Gygax?

The problem here is you refusing to see that you have NO STANDING WHATSOEVER. You are not the FAQ, you are not an official source, and you are definitely not God. Get over yourself. Anything you say that contradicts the FAQ or sourcebooks is a House Rule. The FAQ clarified a murky part of the sourcebook. That is all.

I do not see any problem with the FAQ ruling. It is based on the same mechanics as TWF and natural attacks that appear time and again throughout all three core rulebooks. Yes, it deserves a nerfing, no one is denying that (other than the munchkin Monk players). However, for you to claim your view as the only valid one and that even the FAQ is wrong because you said so is absurd at best.

In my view, the FAQ takes precedence over you. The FAQ comes from a noted source. You, on the other hand, is an unknown. In the same manner, I will take the word of Einstein on the Theory of Relativity over yours.