Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Hypersmurf]

How does that relate to the whip, since youa re not attacking with the whip on an aoo?

As I said, apples and oranges.

I'm not disagreeing that the whip and the gauntlet are apples and oranges. But the whip is an apple with a clause that has an implicit "with the apple", and the gauntlet is an orange that has an implicit "with the orange", and that point of similarity is why I'm using the apple as an analogy for the orange. Not the points of difference, which I agree are numerous.

In similar fashion, I might use the example of Intelligence: 0 and Intelligence: -- being different to argue that there's a potential difference between a healing spell that cures 0 hit points of damage, and a healing spell that does not cure hit points; or a character with a caster level of 0, and a character with no caster level. Intelligence and healing spells are apples and oranges... or perhaps even apples and Matchbox cars. Nevertheless, there's a common concept that relates to both, and its on that common concept I might relate the two. Saying "But Intelligence and healing spells are different" is true, and obvious, but not the point.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I'm not disagreeing that the whip and the gauntlet are apples and oranges. But the whip is an apple with a clause that has an implicit "with the apple", and the gauntlet is an orange that has an implicit "with the orange", and that point of similarity is why I'm using the apple as an analogy for the orange. Not the points of difference, which I agree are numerous.

In similar fashion, I might use the example of Intelligence: 0 and Intelligence: -- being different to argue that there's a potential difference between a healing spell that cures 0 hit points of damage, and a healing spell that does not cure hit points; or a character with a caster level of 0, and a character with no caster level. Intelligence and healing spells are apples and oranges... or perhaps even apples and Matchbox cars. Nevertheless, there's a common concept that relates to both, and its on that common concept I might relate the two. Saying "But Intelligence and healing spells are different" is true, and obvious, but not the point.

-Hyp.

It is different and thus you can use them as a comparison, let alone the basis of your argument. Without a basis, your argument is useless to me as it allows you to move goalposts like crazy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is different and thus you can use them as a comparison, let alone the basis of your argument.

I'm assuming you mean 'can't'?

I'm not using the comparison as the basis of my argument. I'm using the comparison to illustrate my argument.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I'm assuming you mean 'can't'?

I'm not using the comparison as the basis of my argument. I'm using the comparison to illustrate my argument.

-Hyp.

You are right. It was "can't".

Illustrating is basis. You can't you "for example" and then claim that that is not what you are saying. Sorry. Doesn't wash.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Illustrating is basis. You can't you "for example" and then claim that that is not what you are saying. Sorry. Doesn't wash.

How so?

My argument is that a rule for a piece of equipment is only applicable if you are making use of that piece of equipment. The example of the whip is not the basis of that argument. I can remove the whip example entirely without changing the premise that a rule for a piece of equipment is only applicable if you are making use of that piece of equipment.

-Hyp.

 

[Diirk]

When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).

Ok, thats pretty explicit. You can't use anything other than special monk weapons or unarmed strikes while using a flurry. From what I've seen, most followers of the 'flurry + natural attacks' school of thought believe that your perform your flurry of blows, then after you've done all those attacks, you tack on natural attacks because you aren't doing a flurry anymore. I believe this to be a flawed argument.

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, as does each other attack made that round.

This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action.

When using a flurry of blows, you are using a flurry of blows for the entire round. As evidenced by the penalty affecting all your attacks (including AoOs) until your next turn. If a monk is holding a glaive in his/her hands, and elects not to use it so as to perform a flurry of blows, I believe the monk then can't use the glaive for AoOs for that round, as they are still flurrying.

In the same manner, it doesn't matter that you've finished all your iterative attacks, you are still performing the flurry and cannot use natural attacks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As evidenced by the penalty affecting all your attacks (including AoOs) until your next turn.

If you charge, the penalty to your AC persists until your next turn.

Are you, then - or your mount - considered to be 'charging' until your next turn? The lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount - would you apply this to all AoOs made before your next turn?

I don't agree that the persistence of the penalty determines the duration of the effect, but I think that the entirety of your full attack action is 'when using flurry of blows'.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

Ok, thats pretty explicit. You can't use anything other than special monk weapons or unarmed strikes while using a flurry. From what I've seen, most followers of the 'flurry + natural attacks' school of thought believe that your perform your flurry of blows, then after you've done all those attacks, you tack on natural attacks because you aren't doing a flurry anymore. I believe this to be a flawed argument.



When using a flurry of blows, you are using a flurry of blows for the entire round. As evidenced by the penalty affecting all your attacks (including AoOs) until your next turn. If a monk is holding a glaive in his/her hands, and elects not to use it so as to perform a flurry of blows, I believe the monk then can't use the glaive for AoOs for that round, as they are still flurrying.

In the same manner, it doesn't matter that you've finished all your iterative attacks, you are still performing the flurry and cannot use natural attacks.

Your argument can be voided by one word: Charge.



EDIT: Darn it! Ninja'd...

 

[Diirk]

If you charge, the penalty to your AC persists until your next turn.

Are you, then - or your mount - considered to be 'charging' until your next turn? The lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount - would you apply this to all AoOs made before your next turn?

I don't agree that the persistence of the penalty determines the duration of the effect, but I think that the entirety of your full attack action is 'when using flurry of blows'.

-Hyp.

I'd like to think charging is a little different and only applies to the first attack you make as there's various other abuses to be made there (eg. if you have pounce and spirited charge with a lance, do you do triple damage on all your attacks? ouch).

Unfortunately, I can't back that up with rules. However I like to compare flurry more to other choices like power attack, combat expertise etc.

As far as things like flurry go, I kinda like the way they were implemented in games like NWN; its a 'mode' that you can turn on/off each round, and whichever choice you make applies for the entire round.

 

[Cameron]

I'd like to think charging is a little different and only applies to the first attack you make as there's various other abuses to be made there (eg. if you have pounce and spirited charge with a lance, do you do triple damage on all your attacks? ouch).

Unfortunately, I can't back that up with rules. However I like to compare flurry more to other choices like power attack, combat expertise etc.

As far as things like flurry go, I kinda like the way they were implemented in games like NWN; its a 'mode' that you can turn on/off each round, and whichever choice you make applies for the entire round.

Yeah. They are always a little different when they don't meet your stance and assumptions, doesn't it? *sighs* Logic is just so inconvenient...