Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Cameron]

Because it contradicts the PHB, and thus falls afoul of the primary source rule.

-Hyp.

It only contradicts the PHB if you take the literal meaning of the sentences without context. If you are going to apply that here, why are you not applying that to the gauntlets? This is clear bias.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It only contradicts the PHB if you take the literal meaning of the sentences without context.

It contradicts the PHB unless you make up complete new sentences and add them in. The difference between the PHB and the FAQ is not a contextual one. It's one source saying the opposite of the other source.

What context makes "apply full Str bonus to damage" mean "apply half Str bonus to damage"?

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

It contradicts the PHB unless you make up complete new sentences and add them in. The difference between the PHB and the FAQ is not a contextual one. It's one source saying the opposite of the other source.

What context makes "apply full Str bonus to damage" mean "apply half Str bonus to damage"?

-Hyp.

In the context that the Monk's Unarmed Strike has an added advantage in that he can use either hand interchangeably in his *normal* attack routine (including Flurry), just like any other manufactured weapon. And just like any other weapon, it will suffer penalties when used in a TWF format.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the context that the Monk's Unarmed Strike has an added advantage in that he can use either hand interchangeably in his *normal* attack routine (including Flurry), just like any other manufactured weapon. And just like any other weapon, it will suffer penalties when used in a TWF format.

That's pretty much how the FAQ puts it - there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, unless he elects to strike unarmed as an off-hand attack.

I believe the phrase was "we'll let that one speak for itself"?

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

By one weapon, then all instances of it is affected.

... so long as you're using the gauntlets, yes.

If you aren't using the gauntlets (e.g., you're wielding a two-handed sword at the same time and decide to kick as your US), then your unarmed strike isn't affected. If you elect to use a hairpin as an improvised tool to pick a lock in order to show off to your Rogueish apprentice, you don't get the +2 Circumstance bonus and the +5 Competence bonus from your Master Thieves' Tools on your Disable Device roll. Why is this any different?

Note that, just in case it ever becomes important, I also allow helmets to do the same thing for headbutts, steel shoes (like in the heavier armors) for kicks, etc.

Generally, however, this is never an issue because people rarely make unarmed strikes without the IUS feat, thus negating the whole reason for using the gauntlets in the first place.

Can I attack with a dagger, and do slashing damage?

Then, next round, can I attack with the same dagger, and do piercing damage?

If it is a *class* of weapons, then different instances can have different effects,

Where is this rule found? Page number or SRD link, please.

 

[eamon]

I've said - more than once - that I can sympathise with a non-literal reading of Monk unarmed strike... your reading, in fact, wherein a monk's off-hand unarmed strikes gain full Str bonus to damage.

But there's a difference between reading non-literally, and outright contradiction, and the FAQ's answer crosses that line and leaves it off in the dust somewhere.

I must have missed that. But in such a thread...

 

[eamon]

Unarmed strike is a single weapon. A two-bladed sword is also a single weapon. Clearly this doesn't strictly imply any particular limitation when it comes to TWF. Just as a double weapon, unarmed strike has two ends which can be used in combat. A monk's unarmed strike explicitly even includes other body appendages, but TWF won't let you take advantage of that.

 

[eamon]

That's pretty much how the FAQ puts it - there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, unless he elects to strike unarmed as an off-hand attack.

I believe the phrase was "we'll let that one speak for itself"?

A monk can use the unarmed strike class feature as an off-hand attack. If you're claiming otherwise based on one sentence in the PHB saying "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed":

As evidenced by its history in 3.0 it, along with other flavor, was copied verbatim from 3.0, which also explicitly allowed unarmed, off-hand attacks), you're misreading the only phrase suggesting that a monk can't strike off-hand.

As evidenced by the tone of that paragraph, you're misreading the phrase.

As evidenced by the FAQ, which explicitly states that it's an unintentional meaning of the wording, You're misreading the phrase.

As evidenced by "rules of the game", which has quite a different interpretation (and less sane IMHO) than the FAQ, an unarmed strike can be used as an off hand weapon.

If you're not saying that, then please don't be offended - but I've not seen you agree that this is definitely possible. The question remaining is how can you TWF not if you can TWF with your unarmed strike.

 

[eamon]

2. Yes it does. It directly addresses whether US is a *class* of weapons or a *single* weapon. Two different things.

Why bother with the distinction?

 

[Hypersmurf]

A monk can use the unarmed strike class feature as an off-hand attack. If you're claiming otherwise based on one sentence in the PHB saying "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed":

As evidenced by its history in 3.0 it, along with other flavor, was copied verbatim from 3.0, which also explicitly allowed unarmed, off-hand attacks), you're misreading the only phrase suggesting that a monk can't strike off-hand.

Note that in 3E, it allowed the monk unarmed off-hand attack if he were wielding a weapon - it didn't permit him to use Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes alone.

As evidenced by the FAQ, which explicitly states that it's an unintentional meaning of the wording, You're misreading the phrase.

The FAQ's interpretation is not a meaning of the wording at all, intentional or otherwise.

As evidenced by "rules of the game", which has quite a different interpretation (and less sane IMHO) than the FAQ, an unarmed strike can be used as an off hand weapon.

So if the RotG and the FAQ both read it differently, how can you use both as evidence? At least one must, presumably, be incorrect.

If you're not saying that, then please don't be offended - but I've not seen you agree that this is definitely possible.

I think it's possible, by stretching and twisting the wording, to come up with an interpretation that permits a monk to make an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike. I don't think it's possible to come up with the FAQ's interpretation, that permits a monk to make an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike adding half Str bonus to damage, while maintaining any relationship to the wording at all.

The question remaining is how can you TWF not if you can TWF with your unarmed strike.

And if we take a reading that doesn't state that there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, then there's no reason he can't use an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack... but he can't use it for both his primary attack and his off-hand attack, any more than he can use a single shortsword for both his primary attack and his off-hand attack.

-Hyp.