Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Baby Samurai]

18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str:

Full Attack: Unarmed strike +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 with flurry of blows and kama +13/+8/+3 and kama +13/+8/+3 and kama +13/+8/+3 and bite +13

15 attacks per round.

 

[SlagMortar]

Although in a literal sense, I agree with you, I don't think your conclusion is valid. Literally, you can easily read rapid shot to mean that it adds one ranged attack. However, given the flavor and name of rapid shot, I'd say this is unreasonable. To have time "left" for that extra attack you need to be doing something faster than normal - that "something" being shooting - rapidly . If it were up to my interpretation I'd say all attacks must be ranged attacks. However, the FAQ interpretation that at least two (an "original" and the "extra") attacks must be ranged is just as valid, and for consistency, that's what I'll do. Futhermore, it increases character options, which is a good thing

Your melee attacks take a -2 penalty so that could certainly imply those attacks are done "faster" to provide time for a rapid shot. Also, the feat is called "Rapid Shot" not "Rapid Shots" so it may very well mean you can make a single quick shot, but it leaves you off balance for the rest of your attacks (melee or ranged).

I do agree after reading the FAQ entry that it appears the intent was to add an extra ranged attack to an attack sequence that already included a ranged attack. However, I think allowing rapid shot's extra attack as the only ranged attack in a sequence is balanced. There is possible potential for abuse at low level by getting one attack with a two handed weapon and an extra attack that deals full strength damage for a total of 2.5 x str bonus for the round, but I think the limits (provoke's AoO, must draw a weapon) and feat cost (quickdraw, PBS, RS) are too great to make it unbalanced. I like anything that increases the options for a viable warrior.

 

[eamon]

18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str:

Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and bite +13

15 attacks per round.

I've never heard of Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting. It's certainly not core. Thri-keen also have a level adjustment of +2 (in addition to the 2 racial HD), so you've just made an epic character there. Anyways, it's neat, all these attacks (and you could even get more using things like haste) but what are you trying to say?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've never heard of Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting. It's certainly not core.

Er, look again. Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting are the core feats that make up the TWF chain.

Here's another question, assuming you accept the basic contention of that FAQ that additional attacks from TWF are permissible, can you flurry on your off-hand? why not?

I'm not certain what you mean by 'flurry on your off-hand'.

I think if you're wielding a second special monk weapon in your off-hand, you can get an extra attack (or two, or three, with ITWF or GTWF) with that weapon, but all your attacks will take penalties as appropriate for two-weapon fighting. Ordinarily, off-hand attacks would add half Str bonus to damage, but since these are part of a Flurry of Blows (and hence restricted to special monk weapons (since there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed)), 1x Str bonus always applies.

If by "flurry on your off-hand", you mean "Apply the extra attacks and penalty from flurry of blows to your primary hand, and then also apply the extra attacks and penalty from flurry of blows to your off-hand", then no - just as you can't gain two extra attacks from Rapid Shot by using two hands.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

The whip and the sword are certainly two different weapons. I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise.

-Hyp.

Yes you have, when you compared it to an unarmed strike doing both lethal and non-lethal damage without penalties.

Again, I ask you:
Where is the consistency in this stance:

1. Unarmed strike is *one* weapon. Thus you cannot TWF with it.
2. When you wear a gauntlet, you inflict lethal damage only when you punch. Yet, a punch is an unarmed strike. By your interpretation of the rules, as it is one weapon, *any* unarmed strike would thus do lethal damage, including kicks, head butts, elbows, knees, etc. Yet, you said "no".
3. You compared the unarmed strike to a whip with a sword in the other hand allowing you to threaten. So, is the unarmed strike one weapon or two weapons?

This is where you are moving goalposts, Hyp, following rules only when it agrees with you, and calling all rules you don't agree with as non-RAW and stupid.

QED.


Please note: Just because you don't like it or agree with it, that doesn't mean the rules are non-RAW. Not RAI, *maybe*, but it is still RAW. You have the option of Rule 0-ing it, but please don't insult our intelligence and call it non-RAW or broken or whatever.

Thank you, and have a nice day

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where is the consistency in this stance:

1. Unarmed strike is *one* weapon. Thus you cannot TWF with it.
2. When you wear a gauntlet, you inflict lethal damage only when you punch. Yet, a punch is an unarmed strike. By your interpretation of the rules, as it is one weapon, *any* unarmed strike would thus do lethal damage, including kicks, head butts, elbows, knees, etc. Yet, you said "no".

It's one weapon. You can use that weapon in such a fashion as to utilise the gauntlet, or in such a fashion as not to.

3. You compared the unarmed strike to a whip with a sword in the other hand allowing you to threaten. So, is the unarmed strike one weapon or two weapons?

One more time?

Okay, one more time.

I used the whip as an example of "the text in an item description only applies if the item is being used". Not as an example of the difference between one weapon and two weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

It's one weapon. You can use that weapon in such a fashion as to utilise the gauntlet, or in such a fashion as not to.



One more time?

Okay, one more time.

I used the whip as an example of "the text in an item description only applies if the item is being used". Not as an example of the difference between one weapon and two weapons.

-Hyp.

No. You are trying to move the goalpost by changing your parameters halfway. Either it is one weapon and *all* its properties apply, or it isn't and thus you can treat it like a double weapon or even two weapons. There isn't "it is one weapon for this two weapons for that". This goes to the heart of the matter of whether you can TWF with unarmed strikes or not, since your objection to the unarmed strikes being TWF-able is that it is *one* weapon.

Which is it?



PS. Or you can just admit you are wrong and stop this dead in its tracks...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Either it is one weapon and *all* its properties apply, or it isn't and thus you can treat it like a double weapon or even two weapons. There isn't "it is one weapon for this two weapons for that".

I'm not claiming "it is one weapon for this two weapons for that". I'm claiming it's one weapon. Whether or not you deal lethal damage depends on whether, when you attack with that one weapon, you use the gauntlet.

-Hyp.

 

[Arkhandus]

Cameron, you're just being rude. You only erode the validity of your own position by acting so. It is possible to discuss matters without being rude.

And you put too much stock into the FAQ, which is at best a shaky, sometimes-contradictory rules interpretation by one or a few people at Wizards of the Coast, not the original writers of any given rule that's being 'clarified' in the FAQ.

 

[Cameron]

I'm not claiming "it is one weapon for this two weapons for that". I'm claiming it's one weapon. Whether or not you deal lethal damage depends on whether, when you attack with that one weapon, you use the gauntlet.

-Hyp.

Doesn't matter. If you wear the gauntlet, your *unarmed strikes* deal lethal damage. That's the rule. If, as you say, unarmed strikes are one weapon, it is one weapon. Lethal damage, period. Now, if it is a *class* of weapons, then you can say what you just said, and you will be right.

However, if it is a *class* of weapons, then you can TWF with it as it is not *one* weapon.

As I said, which is it? Class or one?

Your choice.