Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Hypersmurf]

"Keeping things tidy" is not a reason for legality of a rule...

No. But when a sentence can be read two ways, with the FAQ and RotG supporting one, and the FAQ (in a different place) supporting the other, and the first being the tidier, it lends weight to selecting the tidier and more-supported as the legal one.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

No. But when a sentence can be read two ways, with the FAQ and RotG supporting one, and the FAQ (in a different place) supporting the other, and the first being the tidier, it lends weight to selecting the tidier and more-supported as the legal one.

-Hyp.

Not really. There is no weight either way. It just is. In fact, in any legal system, the more convoluted the interpretation, the more likely it is to be the right one, although I won't really apply it here. There is a reason why legalese is the way it is (you know, the whole "the subject shall bear no responsibility for any damages or part thereof resulting from the use of that item from xyz which shall hereafter be referred to as the Company in which the improper and unintended use of said item be..." on and on for another 10-20 lines, when all they are saying is, "use it properly, dunce!").

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not really. There is no weight either way. It just is.

And by my reading, what 'just is' is that when using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons... which precludes attacking with natural weapons and non-monk off-hand weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

And by my reading, what 'just is' is that when using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons... which precludes attacking with natural weapons and non-monk off-hand weapons.

-Hyp.

That is, by your own admission, "your reading". I read it as different, as borne out by the FAQ ruling of TWF stacking with Flurry.

To be honest, and if you will pardon me, I prefer to believe Skip over you. No offense

 

[Hypersmurf]

To be honest, and if you will pardon me, I prefer to believe Skip over you. No offense

I suspect we'd find that was Andy Collins.

Skip certainly wrote the RotG article that prohibits a character using secondary natural attacks from making a Flurry of Blows, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote the FAQ answer that says a natural attack may not be used along with Flurry of Blows.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I suspect we'd find that was Andy Collins.

Skip certainly wrote the RotG article that prohibits a character using secondary natural attacks from making a Flurry of Blows, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote the FAQ answer that says a natural attack may not be used along with Flurry of Blows.

-Hyp.

Using it *in* a Flurry is different from using it *with* a Flurry. I think it was Skip that said you can TWF and Flurry. It came out in a Sage article as well, I think, and Skip was the Sage at the time...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Using it *in* a Flurry is different from using it *with* a Flurry.

And the FAQ says you can't use a natural attack with a Flurry!

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

And the FAQ says you can't use a natural attack with a Flurry!

-Hyp.

Every question I have every read is *in* a Flurry, not *with*. They ask along the lines of "can I use the vampire's slam attack during a Flurry?" which is a *with*, not an *in*.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Every question I have every read is *in* a Flurry, not *with*. They ask along the lines of "can I use the vampire's slam attack during a Flurry?" which is a *with*, not an *in*.

That's okay, I can quote it for you again.

Exactly how often can a monk attack with a single
manufactured weapon when using the flurry of blows
ability? For example, if I have a +1 alchemical silver dagger,
and I’m allowed three attacks in a flurry, how many of
those attacks can be dagger attacks? What if I have two
daggers? How about with natural weaponry, such as a claw
or bite? For example, if I have a vampire monk, can I
flurry with a slam attack and drain energy multiple times
from one living foe? If natural weaponry doesn’t work with
a flurry, why not?

You can’t use a dagger with a flurry of blows at all. When
you use the flurry ability, you must attack with either unarmed
strikes or with special monk weapons. Only six of the latter are
included in the Player’s Handbook (kama, nunchaku,
quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). A natural weapon
(any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special
monk weapon, so you can’t use it along with a flurry.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

That's okay, I can quote it for you again.

Exactly how often can a monk attack with a single
manufactured weapon when using the flurry of blows
ability? For example, if I have a +1 alchemical silver dagger,
and I’m allowed three attacks in a flurry, how many of
those attacks can be dagger attacks? What if I have two
daggers? How about with natural weaponry, such as a claw
or bite? For example, if I have a vampire monk, can I
flurry with a slam attack and drain energy multiple times
from one living foe? If natural weaponry doesn’t work with
a flurry, why not?

You can’t use a dagger with a flurry of blows at all. When
you use the flurry ability, you must attack with either unarmed
strikes or with special monk weapons. Only six of the latter are
included in the Player’s Handbook (kama, nunchaku,
quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). A natural weapon
(any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special
monk weapon, so you can’t use it along with a flurry.

-Hyp.

The question describes *in* a Flurry. The FAQ answered that. As I have said, the people in WotC are far from English professors. They mix up the "with" and "in" terms pretty consistently. Your quote only supports my interpretation of it. Read the question, please.