Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[eamon]

The Dervish is another example of a class where a class feature, which grants some benefits, also removes some options.

...suggesting that it would not be odd for a monk class feature to grant not only benefit's but also impose draw-backs.

Your reasoning is exceptionally sound, and you clearly have a better understanding of the myriad rules than I do. I had not considered the example of the dervish; I'm not familiar with the class (though I've heard of the power-attack issue). Your reasoning is not flawed here either: yet nevertheless, the conclusion you draw is questionable.

Class features can certainly limit options. For instance, a barbarian cannot use Concentration while raging. The rules text for that class feature clearly indicates that this is the case: the trade-off intended by the rule is explicitly mentioned, and the disadvantage explicit, and intentional. Flavor text and reasoning supporting that is present. This is not the case in the monk's rules blurb. The monk's rules blurb speaks of considerable advantages and that the monk may attack with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows. Even with full hands the monk can strike. It is therefore that there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, and thus her full Strength bonus can be applied to all unarmed attacks.

Important limitations imposed by key class features are generally explicit. The wizard is an arcane caster, and though that implies that arcane spell failure is an issue, they reiterate that not only in the "Weapon and Armor" section, but include a whole section about it exploring that limitation. A ranger should best wear light armor. This limitation is explained in each of the class features affected by it. The limitation that off-hand attacks only have 1/2 strength bonus apply to their damage, and that penalties apply is stated in the ranger starting package. The Combat Style text explicitly refers to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and there again the draw-backs are very clear.

Clearly, the text tries to make drawbacks clear, not merely mentioning the effect, but without exception clearly representing the disadvantages as such - sometimes repeatedly. This is a text which isn't trying to sneak problems out from under you.

The intent of the text-blurb on the monk is similarly clear; to illustrate the power and advantages of the monk's unarmed strike. The same authors and editors also wrote the barbarian rules text, and to compare, it's extremely obvious when they mean a basic, core class feature to have a trade-off. It's clear that this text wasn't written with that trade-off in mind. If you read selectively there is a sentence which can be construed to suggest that off-hand attacks are not possible. Of course, two-lines up, they say the monk can attack with either hand, and right afterwards they say that all unarmed strikes apply full strength bonus (which unarmed strikes? oh yeah, a monk can use either hand and more!)

I'm willing to bet than an uninitiated reader, when presented with the relevant paragraph, will see only positive features. If you explain that normally you can attack with your primary hand and off-hand but doing so carries penalties, this blurb suggests the monks attacks are better than normal, not worse. And that's an important target readership - player's that don't yet know the rules.

Take the rules at face value - if they say something's good, then they probably don't mean for it to be a hidden disadvantage. To quote the PHB, "Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so." Nothing following that initial sentence suggests that there's a trade-off for this ability.

In my mind, the intent of the unarmed strike is clear, though the exact wording is unfortunate. And I'm not alone in this view (emphasis mine):

The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists.

At issue is not whether the rules can be interpreted to remove options, which, as you rightly point out is possible, but whether that is the intended reading. Despite an unfortunate choice of words, the intent is clear, this is an advantage, not a drawback.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm willing to bet than an uninitiated reader, when presented with the relevant paragraph, will see only positive features. If you explain that normally you can attack with your primary hand and off-hand but doing so carries penalties, this blurb suggests the monks attacks are better than normal, not worse. And that's an important target readership - player's that don't yet know the rules.

And for some players who read "treats scimitars as light weapons for all purposes", they'll think "Sweet! Lower TWF penalties!" The fact that they can no longer use a scimitar in two hands for 1.5x Str bonus to damage, cannot Power Attack with it to any advantage, and take a penalty on Sunder and Disarm checks may not occur to them... just as it may not occur to them that they may use the scimitar in a grapple where someone else could not, or when swallowed whole, or with a feat like Flick of the Wrist that applies to light weapons. Just because the consequences of a rule are not immediately apparent to a casual reader doesn't change the rule.

Nothing following that initial sentence suggests that there's a trade-off for this ability.

Save that there's no such thing as an off-hand attack?

I disagree with the FAQ's statement that "The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike" - the rules say there's no such thing. And I disagree that "the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise" - there's no element of 'suggestion' to the simple statement the text makes.

Despite an unfortunate choice of words, the intent is clear, this is an advantage, not a drawback.

So if you feel that the PHB, as written, permits a monk to make an off-hand attack when striking unarmed, what Str bonus do you feel that the PHB, as written, intends him to use? Half? All?

Can you find any way of reading the PHB text that allows for a monk being restricted to half his Str bonus on an unarmed strike?

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

And for some players who read "treats scimitars as light weapons for all purposes", they'll think "Sweet! Lower TWF penalties!" The fact that they can no longer use a scimitar in two hands for 1.5x Str bonus to damage, cannot Power Attack with it to any advantage, and take a penalty on Sunder and Disarm checks may not occur to them... just as it may not occur to them that they may use the scimitar in a grapple where someone else could not, or when swallowed whole, or with a feat like Flick of the Wrist that applies to light weapons. Just because the consequences of a rule are not immediately apparent to a casual reader doesn't change the rule.

I disagree. I don't know and can't comment on the dervish, but in principle, a rule should clearly state it's most relevent consequences. If a rule says it improves your attack; it shouldn't actually because of a rules-interaction make it worth less, and similarly, if a rule speaks of a penalty, then the effect mentioned should in normal circumstances actually be detrimental.

If there are multiple possible interpretations (which there often are) don't choose the most literal one, but the one which most closely matches the intent.

If you fail to do so, you quickly encounter a host of degenerate CO problems.

Save that there's no such thing as an off-hand attack?

I disagree with the FAQ's statement that "The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike" - the rules say there's no such thing. And I disagree that "the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise" - there's no element of 'suggestion' to the simple statement the text makes.

Compare that section of the rules to the rest of the PHB section on basic rules. Major implications like this one are always spelled out - usually several times. Not so here, where according to your reading, not only is it only mentioned in passing, but it's also squeezed between two sentences which clearly have a positive tone, suggesting that whatever they're saying is an upside, not a downside.

Then there are only two possibilities: The PHB is being deceptive here, and you should cleave close to the literal interpretation, despite the fact, that the rest of the chapter goes to great lengths to avoid that - or - You are deceiving yourself, and should instead follow the clearly positive phrasing rather than an out-of-context literal interpretation.

Do you find the paragraph containing the "off-hand" blurb's tone appropriate, given its consequences and comparing those to the rest of the chapter?

So if you feel that the PHB, as written, permits a monk to make an off-hand attack when striking unarmed, what Str bonus do you feel that the PHB, as written, intends him to use? Half? All? Can you find any way of reading the PHB text that allows for a monk being restricted to half his Str bonus on an unarmed strike?

That's a good question. It's not, however, to me, a key issue, since it's not relevant unless you accept that monk's can make off-hand attacks. I cannot see a reading which would permit the monk to be restricted to half his Str bonus - if you interpret the monk text's reference to "off-hands" to be a game term.

By the sound of it though - it's not a game term. If it's not, you can easily read that section to mean that a monk can use various body-appendages as part of his "normal" "full-strength bonus damage" attack. In other words, the monk's unarmed strike can physically use hands (even off-hands), feet, knees etc. as part of a normal unarmed strike. All of these attacks use full-strength bonus. But this only refers to a normal, unmodified monk attack, and bears no direct relation to other effects which provide attacks - such as two weapon fighting. When two weapon fighting, a monk add's half-strength bonus to her off-hand attacks - off-hand not in the sense of the unarmed strike, but in the sense of Two-Weapon Fighting.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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."

FWIW, I 100% agree with you. I like to use the example of Can you Cleave off of an AoO? The rules in the PHB don't clearly say one way or the other. You can imply that they do (Did you drop an opponent when you took your AoO? Yes? Then you can Cleave). But since it is not explicitly spelled out, some people do not think that is the way it works. This is the type of question the FAQ should be answering for purposes of clarifying.

Not contradicting the Core rules or making up new rules, such as in your quote above.

 

[RigaMortus2]

@Cameron: Are you suggesting that the rule from the PHB under Unarmed Strike which reads There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. becomes invalidated due to the FAQ's "clairifcation" of The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise) when they clearly contradict each other?

If you are suggesting that the FAQ's answer is the correct one (vs. the PHB quote), then what do we do with the PHB one? Should we just ignore that sentence in the PHB, pretend it doesn't exist? Does the PHB quote still have validity at all, but maybe only in certain specific examples? Is there any example where the two quotes can both co-exist and make sense together?

In other words, assuming we go by the FAQ answer, what do you think they were trying to say in the PHB when they stated that There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.? Are you suggesting "they really didn't mean that"? Are you suggesting they "didn't think of all the implications this could have at the time they wrote that rule"? I am just curious...

I can accept that you view the FAQ answer as more valid or official that the PHB quote, but do you at least agree that the two answers (the PHB quote vs. the FAQ answer) are contradictory of one another?

Do you understand that there is a difference between contradiction and clarification?

Do you understand that when one rule contradicts the other, then the "Primary Source" is the one you should go to? And that, only the D&D Eratta can overwrite exisiting rules? And that the FAQ can not overwrite existing rules, only clarify them?

 

[azhrei_fje]

This was directed at Cameron, but I'm going to take a shot at it.

If you are suggesting that the FAQ's answer is the correct one (vs. the PHB quote), then what do we do with the PHB one? Should we just ignore that sentence in the PHB, pretend it doesn't exist? Does the PHB quote still have validity at all, but maybe only in certain specific examples? Is there any example where the two quotes can both co-exist and make sense together?

As you point out later, the FAQ is commentary and nothing more. The PHB text is the rule.

In other words, assuming we go by the FAQ answer, what do you think they were trying to say in the PHB when they stated that There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.? Are you suggesting "they really didn't mean that"? Are you suggesting they "didn't think of all the implications this could have at the time they wrote that rule"? I am just curious...

The PHB was simply stating that the monk doesn't take the penalties normally associated with off-hand attacks when using unarmed strikes. We already know that the unarmed strikes of a monk are different than unarmed strikes of someone who does not have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. This text simply says that the monk has one additional benefit: they don't pay a penalty in terms of damage dealt.

The authors understood that a monk would be a weak class and this was to bolster it. They knew that a monk would not typically find a +3 kama in a treasure hoard and they tried to help balance things by allowing the monk to do full damage on every (unarmed strike) attack. Another balancing move was to add any BAB to the FoB AB.

I definitely agree that only the errata can modify the rules. And I agree that the "official" FAQ is only official insofar as it comes from Wizards. I don't see what you quote from the FAQ as being diametrically opposed to what the PHB says, if the PHB rule is interpreted as I did above.

Just my $.02. I'll go back to lurk-mode now.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This text simply says that the monk has one additional benefit: they don't pay a penalty in terms of damage dealt.

I definitely agree that only the errata can modify the rules. And I agree that the "official" FAQ is only official insofar as it comes from Wizards. I don't see what you quote from the FAQ as being diametrically opposed to what the PHB says, if the PHB rule is interpreted as I did above.

But the FAQ says they do 'pay a penalty in terms of damage dealt' - the FAQ contradicts the way you've interpreted the PHB rule as well.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

The PHB clearly states *first* that the Monk can hit with hands, feet, elbows, knees, etc. *Then* it says that there is no off-hand attacks. It is clear to me that they are referring to the fact that you can hit things with your knees, elbows feet, etc. without penalty. These attacks are not classed as secondary attacks or off-hand attacks. It is also clear to me that the writers were trying to head off arguments at the table with regards to overly stiff DMs trying to impose penalties on the "broken" Monk for attacking with his hands full.

That is why, coupled with the general accepted fact that you *can* TWF with unarmed strikes, I think that those two sentences mean nothing if they were not viewed within the context in which they were proposed.

In other words: "Nice selective copy and paste, but I ain't buying"

 

[eamon]

As azhrei_fje and Cameron point out, normally, TWF should be possible with the unarmed attack. The PHB simply says that even when striking with other body-parts, those parts don't take "off-hand" penalties. The context of that sentence is very important, and very positive - an interpretetion which introduces penalties in the form of actually banning off-hand attacks makes no sense. I know what the sentence says, you don't need to quote it - but I also see the rest of the paragraph and how that sentence naturally fits in an explanation of how the monk's other appendages aren't penalized. Certainly, nobody has suggested that the paragraph is anything but positively phrased (esp. when compared with other paragraphs in the PHB core classes section), which simply makes no sense if their intent was to heavily penalize.

To simplify and clarify a positive reading, which is in matching with the tone of the paragraph, simply consider that off-hand might mean different things in different contexts. In the monks case, it means that other appendages aren't automatically off, and in the TWF case, it means that additional, simultaneous attacks with another appendage do take penalties. Those can certainly be combined.

And it makes sense to - if every other fighting technique can make simultaneous attacks with two limbs at a certain cost, why not a monk?

Maybe it's a fundamental difference in our approaches to D&D rule mechanics. I fundamentally allow pretty much any interpretation by my players provided it is (A) consistent, and (B) it doesn't break the game. I'm sure there are untold ways of combining D&D rules, but if a player wants to pay a -2 penalty on attack bonus, and a feat, for the ability to make an extra attack, and they have a good logically consistent way how this makes sense in D&D (such as this interpretation), why not let them?

It's not crazy to forbid TWF with unarmed attacks, but I don't see the advantage in doing so.

 

[glass]

That is why, coupled with the general accepted fact that you *can* TWF with unarmed strikes, I think that those two sentences mean nothing if they were not viewed within the context in which they were proposed.

Didn't this tangent start with an argument about whether you could use your unarmed strike as two weapons for TWF? It certainly isn't 'generally accepted'.


glass.