Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Hypersmurf]

The point is that you can either use inferrence rules, or you don't. You can't use inferrence rules for one thing and then disallow it for something else.

Reasonable inference.

I'm applying reasonable inference rules in both cases, and disagreeing that the FAQ's reading - "There's no such thing as an off-hand attack" means "There's such a thing as an off-hand attack, but only if you use the off-hand attack rules" - can be reached through any reasonable inference.

-Hyp.

 

[Baby Samurai]

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


2.) 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.

1.) Improved and Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting are in Savage Species. And Thri-Kreen isn't core either.


2.) Not if you use the LA buy-off rules from UA.

 

[eamon]

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

Not Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, but Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting. Anyways, not that important. I was being exceptionally literal minded when interpreting the thri-keen build as it's not a build I feel deserves any sort of leniency given the extremes to which it's trying to go .

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.

The last paragraph is what I mean.

Flurry improves your "normal" iterative attacks by adding one or two extra attacks at the cost of a penalty, a bunch of monk levels, and a reduced set of permissible weapons. The original text in the player's handbook describes how a flurry is executed and clearly disregards the possibility of TWF or an off-hand. However, the FAQ's interpretations opens the doors to using off-hand attacks. The question then is: why do I need to use flurry as part of my primary hand? The secondary attacks are just as iterative, why not flurry those? I don't seriously believe it makes any sense, but was curious why you think it doesn't.

Frankly, I think it's clear (given the way the monk is described) that TWF and natural weapons weren't really part of the design when the monk was designed in 3.5. Maybe they thought about it (I surely hope at the very least they thought about natural weapons), but it just wasn't a core design issue. So we're dealing with a bunch of rules inference and common sense here no matter what.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Flurry improves your "normal" iterative attacks by adding one or two extra attacks at the cost of a penalty, a bunch of monk levels, and a reduced set of permissible weapons. The original text in the player's handbook describes how a flurry is executed and clearly disregards the possibility of TWF or an off-hand. However, the FAQ's interpretations opens the doors to using off-hand attacks. The question then is: why do I need to use flurry as part of my primary hand? The secondary attacks are just as iterative, why not flurry those? I don't seriously believe it makes any sense, but was curious why you think it doesn't.

Flurry doesn't add attacks to your primary hand; it adds attacks to your full attack action. Rapid Shot doesn't add a ranged attack to your primary hand; it adds a ranged attack to your full attack action.

You only have one full attack action, no matter how many hands you're using, so the attacks only get added once, not once per hand.

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

[...] 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.

The FAQ is sometimes shaky, and sometimes clearly misinformed even. However, I don't conclude from this that it has less value than the original texts. Rather, I quite like it's in-depth treatment of rules and rules interaction. I also find that whatever the merit of "orignal intent", the fact is that the orignal texts often contain serious serious imbalances and errors. I don't think that original intent is the foundation everything should revere. After all, many of those are errata'd as well... The FAQ's writers might even be more knowledgeable about the variety of rule interactions that the specific individual authors. Anyhow.... maybe.

 

[eamon]

Flurry doesn't add attacks to your primary hand; it adds attacks to your full attack action. Rapid Shot doesn't add a ranged attack to your primary hand; it adds a ranged attack to your full attack action.

You only have one full attack action, no matter how many hands you're using, so the attacks only get added once, not once per hand.

Not entirely. Clearly flurry adds attacks that are of the same type as those already possible - right? I mean, if you can use a shuriken and an unarmed attack without flurry, then those are the attacks with flurry. Flurry simply adds more of the same type. It's in that sense that the attacks are "typed". This is in contrast to TWF or natural attacks which add a new set of attacks of a different type. Of course any extra attacks within that set are also added to the full attack. Haste clearly states that extra attacks granted by haste don't stack, but flurry does not. If you have a symbiont, you both could flurry. Where's the border? If you have an extra set of arms with which you get a whole extra attack sequence, can you flurry? If you have one extra limb, with which you get another attack sequence, can you flurry? It should not be possible, but I think it's not a very clean rule set, if it's this vague.

 

[Deset Gled]

I also find that whatever the merit of "orignal intent", the fact is that the orignal texts often contain serious serious imbalances and errors. I don't think that original intent is the foundation everything should revere.

FWIW, WotC's "official" stance disagrees with you (although their actions over the past few years seem to differ from the official stance). Unless an official errata says otherwise, the original text always correct if the FAQ gives a different answer.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

This means that the FAQ is free to comment on unclear portions of the rules, but is not allowed to overturn text like "There is no such thing as an off hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

 

[eamon]

FWIW, WotC's "official" stance disagrees with you (although their actions over the past few years seem to differ from the official stance). Unless an official errata says otherwise, the original text always correct if the FAQ gives a different answer.

I'm aware of the primary sources rule. However, I'm just noting that some primary sources are far less well elaborated than others, and often even if there is no official errata, I'll side with the more specific, and well-worked out text than the primary source. Sometimes that's the FAQ, and sometimes it's not. For instance, the FAQ's contention that vampire monks cannot energy drain on an unarmed attack isn't something I'll support in my game (though it's hardly game-breaking if you go with the FAQ there too).

I think that's pretty much what's happening with the Monk attacks/natural attacks question. Seemingly, the monk wasn't designed with anything except his "normal" attacks in mind. However, other classes can benefit from natural attacks, and there's no real reason a monk shouldn't - it's just an oversight. So the FAQ explored a line of reasoning in which monks can use natural attacks (without giving up a key ability - flurry). This opens the question of TWF.... etc ;-)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Haste clearly states that extra attacks granted by haste don't stack, but flurry does not.

What does flurry say? "When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round".

If you're using Flurry of Blows, you get one extra attack in a round. And you're either using Flurry of Blows, or you aren't. You aren't using Flurry of Blows with your right hand and not with your left hand, or using Flurry of Blows with your right hand and using a different Flurry of Blows with your left hand, or any other combination... either you are using Flurry (gaining one extra attack in a round), or you aren't using Flurry.

In similar fashion, having a BAB of +6 doesn't grant you multiple attacks with your off-hand; you need a specific feat to gain an extra off-hand attack.

You propose that since Flurry, unlike Haste, doesn't mention stacking, it should be possible. Rapid Shot also doesn't mention stacking. Do you believe that a two-weapon fighter with the Rapid Shot feat gains one extra ranged attack per round, or two - one with each hand?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

For instance, the FAQ's contention that vampire monks cannot energy drain on an unarmed attack isn't something I'll support in my game (though it's hardly game-breaking if you go with the FAQ there too).

This one's an interesting one.

According to the Monster Manual, a vampire can use energy drain with a slam or other natural attack he possesses.

The FAQ says "Please note that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy."

Now, the first half of that is correct - the vampire is not using its slam attack. That in itself, however, is not sufficient to deny the energy drain, because the vampire can also energy drain with any other natural attack he possesses.

First question - is unarmed strike a natural attack? It's debatable - and debated. I'm inclined to say no, despite implications in the Magic Weapon spell to the contrary. For example, a natural weapon gains 1.5x Str bonus to damage if its the only natural weapon the creature possesses. There are creatures with a single bite or gore attack who gain 1.5x... despite possessing an unarmed strike. If unarmed strike were a natural weapon, the bite or gore would not be the only one they possessed. (Along with such considerations as unarmed strike using iterative attacks, which natural weapons do not, and so on.)

So a vampire fighter, for example, would not in my opinion drain energy with his unarmed strike - he is not using his slam attack or any other natural attack he possesses.

But a monk? Ah. A monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve or enhance natural weapons. Does energy drain improve a natural weapon? It's hard to say no - the natural weapon has more effect with than without energy drain.

So my inclination is to rule that a non-monk vampire may not drain energy with an unarmed strike, but a monk vampire may (though no more than once per round) - supported by the stat block of the vampire monk/shadowdancer in the Monster Manual. (A stat block can be wrong, and often is, when it contradicts the rules, but I feel in this case the stat block reflects the monk's ability to treat his unarmed strike as a natural weapon for certain purposes.)

I believe the error in the FAQ was the assumption that a vampire's energy drain requires a Slam... rather than a Slam or any other natural attack he possesses.

-Hyp.