Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Korak]

I hope it is not against forum rules to simply say that this thread is entertaining me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

So when they say "You can't use any natural weapon along with a flurry", what they really meant was "You can use any natural weapon along with a flurry"? I wouldn't have thought it would require a professorship to see that those two are different!

The question asks both 'in' and 'with'. The answer uses 'with' consistently.

-Hyp.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

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

Translation: I lost this argument.

Also: if you prefer to believe a "big name" gaming celebrity over an ENWorld poster just because they wrote some books, why even bother talking? Just to argue?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Translation...

Keep it civil, please.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Cameron]

So when they say "You can't use any natural weapon along with a flurry", what they really meant was "You can use any natural weapon along with a flurry"? I wouldn't have thought it would require a professorship to see that those two are different!

The question asks both 'in' and 'with'. The answer uses 'with' consistently.

-Hyp.

Yes it does, but it clearly asks how many of the three attacks you get when you Flurry can you use a dagger in. Thus, it is asking for using dagger as part of the Flurry sequence, which is obviously wrong.

As for the professorship, well, let's just say that, given the quality of employees they have on the WotC boards, I would be surprised if any of them passed primary school reading comprehension I'd be happy if they don't drag their knuckles on the ground when they walk (j/k for the humourless)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes it does, but it clearly asks how many of the three attacks you get when you Flurry can you use a dagger in. Thus, it is asking for using dagger as part of the Flurry sequence, which is obviously wrong.

The RotG answer covers it, though (didn't you say you'd take Skip's word?):

Unarmed Attacks (Part Three)
By Skip Williams

Monks and Natural Weapons

As we saw in Part Two, a creature with natural weapons can use them for secondary attacks when using the full attack action. A monk character with natural weaponry has the same option.

For example, an 8th-level lizardfolk monk with a Strength score of 17 has a base attack bonus of +7 (+1 for its 2 humanoid Hit Dice and +6 for its monk levels). The character has three natural weapons: two claws (1d4) and one bite (1d4). For this example, we'll assume the character also has the Multiattack feat.

With the full attack action, our example monk can make two unarmed attacks thanks to its +7 base attack bonus. After adding in the +3 bonus from the monk's Strength score of 17, our example character's unarmed attacks have the following attack bonuses: +10/+5. Thanks to the monk's class level and Strength score, damage for the unarmed strikes is 1d10+3.

The example monk also can attack with its claws and bite as secondary natural attacks at a -2 penalty (thanks to the character's Multiattack feat). Each natural weapon uses the character's +7 base attack bonus and +3 Strength modifier, except that the Strength bonus on damage is halved because these are secondary attacks: 2 claws +8 (1d4+1) and bite +8 (1d4+1).

As noted last week, there are no two-weapon or off-hand penalties for these attacks.

The example monk cannot use a flurry of blows because a flurry doesn't work with natural weaponry.

According to Skip, the monk can make his unarmed strikes and also make secondary natural attacks; he cannot, however, use a flurry of blows if he wishes to make those secondary natural attacks.

To be honest, and if you will pardon me, I prefer to believe Skip over you.

There you go, then.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

The RotG answer covers it, though (didn't you say you'd take Skip's word?):

Unarmed Attacks (Part Three)
By Skip Williams

Monks and Natural Weapons

As we saw in Part Two, a creature with natural weapons can use them for secondary attacks when using the full attack action. A monk character with natural weaponry has the same option.

For example, an 8th-level lizardfolk monk with a Strength score of 17 has a base attack bonus of +7 (+1 for its 2 humanoid Hit Dice and +6 for its monk levels). The character has three natural weapons: two claws (1d4) and one bite (1d4). For this example, we'll assume the character also has the Multiattack feat.

With the full attack action, our example monk can make two unarmed attacks thanks to its +7 base attack bonus. After adding in the +3 bonus from the monk's Strength score of 17, our example character's unarmed attacks have the following attack bonuses: +10/+5. Thanks to the monk's class level and Strength score, damage for the unarmed strikes is 1d10+3.

The example monk also can attack with its claws and bite as secondary natural attacks at a -2 penalty (thanks to the character's Multiattack feat). Each natural weapon uses the character's +7 base attack bonus and +3 Strength modifier, except that the Strength bonus on damage is halved because these are secondary attacks: 2 claws +8 (1d4+1) and bite +8 (1d4+1).

As noted last week, there are no two-weapon or off-hand penalties for these attacks.

The example monk cannot use a flurry of blows because a flurry doesn't work with natural weaponry.

According to Skip, the monk can make his unarmed strikes and also make secondary natural attacks; he cannot, however, use a flurry of blows if he wishes to make those secondary natural attacks.



There you go, then.

-Hyp.

He is saying using natural attacks. That is true. You can't use natural attacks in a Flurry. However, natural attacks are *not* unarmed strikes. This has been made clear in the past.

There is nothing that he said that says you cannot use unarmed strikes for the Flurry and then adding secondary natural attacks afterwards.

What he has described there is the same as the FAQ question that you posted earlier except that the FAQ question used Dagger instead of Natural Attacks. They are essentially the same.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He is saying using natural attacks. That is true. You can't use natural attacks in a Flurry.

He's saying the monk, who is making secondary natural attacks in addition to his unarmed strikes, cannot use flurry of blows.

If he felt that the monk could flurry and, in the same full attack action but separate to the flurry, also make secondary attacks, he wouldn't have said that.

His answer doesn't say "The monk can't make secondary natural attacks as part of the flurry". He's saying "The monk, who is using natural attacks, cannot flurry".

By your reading, the monk who is using natural attacks can flurry. Skip says he can't.

He says you can make unarmed strikes and secondary natural attacks... but if you're doing it, you can't flurry. What he says is the opposite of what you're advocating.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

He's saying the monk, who is making secondary natural attacks in addition to his unarmed strikes, cannot use flurry of blows.

If he felt that the monk could flurry and, in the same full attack action but separate to the flurry, also make secondary attacks, he wouldn't have said that.

His answer doesn't say "The monk can't make secondary natural attacks as part of the flurry". He's saying "The monk, who is using natural attacks, cannot flurry".

By your reading, the monk who is using natural attacks can flurry. Skip says he can't.

He says you can make unarmed strikes and secondary natural attacks... but if you're doing it, you can't flurry. What he says is the opposite of what you're advocating.

-Hyp.

Hmm... I misread that. Skip went back on that in the FAQ, though, explicitly stating that Flurry stacks with TWF and the like. You just add the penalties.

Well, you post the RofG, I post the FAQ.

You follow RotG, I follow FAQ. Which is more legal, I don't know. Short of errata's (which I personally hate and ignore most of the time) I think they are both quite valid. I tend to stick more to the FAQ and that the RotG if there is no answer in the FAQ. You can take either, but to be fair to my players, I follow a more clearly defined structure.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmm... I misread that. Skip went back on that in the FAQ, though, explicitly stating that Flurry stacks with TWF and the like. You just add the penalties.

Like I say, I have a feeling it was Andy Collins who wrote that FAQ answer. Skip is no longer the man writing the FAQ.

You follow RotG, I follow FAQ. Which is more legal, I don't know. Short of errata's (which I personally hate and ignore most of the time) I think they are both quite valid. I tend to stick more to the FAQ and that the RotG if there is no answer in the FAQ. You can take either, but to be fair to my players, I follow a more clearly defined structure.

I'm not 'following the RotG'; I'm making a judgement based on the wording in the core rules - when using flurry of blows, you may only attack with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons.

I'm quoting the RotG (the example monk cannot use a flurry of blows because a flurry doesn't work with natural weaponry) and the FAQ (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) merely to illustrate that the FAQ answer that says you can use natural weapons in addition to a flurry is not the only interpretation that appears in the supporting documentation.

There are instances where I feel that both the FAQ and the RotG contradict the rules, in which case I'll tend to use what the rules say - that's my 'clearly defined structure'.

In this case, to me what the rules say is that when using flurry of blows, you may only attack with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons... so I don't allow natural attacks or non-monk off-hand weapons when using flurry of blows.

-Hyp.