Natural Attack + Monk

[Hypersmurf]

Yes.

Of course, you can have fun trying to interpret what that means.

Does it mean "in order of highest BAB component to lowest"? Does it mean "in order of highest total bonus to lowest"?

What about if you have multiple attacks that aren't due to having a high BAB... like the extra attacks from ITWF or GTWF?

What if you get multiple attacks due to having a high BAB, but also have some extra attacks that aren't due to having a high BAB (say from Haste or Rapid Shot) - do the extra attacks that aren't still have to be made in order from highest bonus to lowest?

-Hyp.

 

[Caeleddin]

Hyp - When the FAQ contradicts ITSELF, then you have a point. In the case of Monk + TWF, it doesn't. In fact, it is quite clear what is supposed to happen. Whether I agree or disagree with it is another topic altogether.

As for stopping the argument, that's easy. I'll just take the FAQ's word for it and consider it closed due to the Einstein premise above: You can allow kung fu kicks in your game of soccer as much as you want, but in a real game of soccer, they aren't. And that's that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp - When the FAQ contradicts ITSELF, then you have a point.

But when it contradicts a primary source, it's wrong. The FAQ is not errata, nor is it a primary source; therefore when the FAQ and the primary source state two different things, the primary source takes precedence, and the FAQ is in error.

-Hyp.

 

[Caeleddin]

Hyp - There is no contradiction. The only phrase that seem contradictory is "... there is no off-hand attacks in unarmed strikes." or something similar to that. That means nothing. What does it mean, really?


Is it: when you are attack unarmed, you are not using your off-hand?
or: you cannot use your off-hand to attack?

From the wording, I am inclined to go with the former than the latter. The FAQ confirms this. Ergo, there is no contradiction.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Is it: when you are attack unarmed, you are not using your off-hand?
or: you cannot use your off-hand to attack?

From the wording, I am inclined to go with the former than the latter. The FAQ confirms this. Ergo, there is no contradiction.

And yet the FAQ - in the same answer - says "When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits."

How can the FAQ confirm "When you are attack unarmed, you are not using your off-hand" by saying "When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack"...?

What we end up with when we combine the PHB and the FAQ is "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, unless a monk uses an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack."

-Hyp.

 

[Caeleddin]

Hyp - The same way you can use a double weapon for an off-hand attack. Exactly the same. You can use one blade for your full iterative attack at ful BAB, or you can use both for extra attacks at a reduced BAB (depending on whether you have TWF).


Just because it says that when you attack unarmed as a Monk you are not using is as an off-hand weapon does NOT mean you can NEVER use it as an off-hand weapon. It just means you are not using it as an off-hand weapon when you are attacking normally (ie., normal or Flurried attacks).

Again, I read the quote from the PHB as "when the Monk is attack with a full attack with his unarmed strikes, he is not using his off-hand" which is true of ANY character's attacks with a double weapon. Now, if they want to add an additional attack, they can, via TWF. So can the Monk.

Again, the FAQ bears this out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just because it says that when you attack unarmed as a Monk you are not using is as an off-hand weapon does NOT mean you can NEVER use it as an off-hand weapon.

It doesn't say "Generally, a monk treats his unarmed strike as a primary attack."

It says "There's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

If there's no such thing, it does mean you can never use it as an off-hand attack.

You can't make an off-hand attack as a monk striking unarmed, because there's no such thing.

If there were a rule that said "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a character wielding a two-bladed sword", it would mean that no character can ever use a two-bladed sword to make an off-hand attack.

Can you see the difference between "A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it."

and

"There's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a character wielding a double weapon

They are not the same thing at all!

-Hyp.

 

[Caeleddin]

Hyp - You are reading it as "you can never do it". I and the FAQ read it as "when you are doing it, there is none in that attack routine". Again, I believe that the FAQ has precedence over either of us. Until it changes, I am forced to believe it over either of us. It happens to support me this time.


This does not mean I will not wield the House Rules nerfbat over the bloody thing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp - You are reading it as "you can never do it". I and the FAQ read it as "when you are doing it, there is none in that attack routine".

Ahh! Now, that, I agree with.

When you are striking unarmed, there is no off-hand attack in that attack routine.

I have no complaints with that reading whatsoever!

-Hyp.

 

[Caeleddin]

Hyp - Unfortunately for you, both the FAQ and I also take it as to equate it with a full attack routine with the primary hand of a TWF fighter Which means you can still do a series of off-hand attacks after that AND natural attacks