Natural attacks and Class attacks confusion

[Cameron]

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.



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.

It also says that there is no off-hand attacks with a Monk's unarmed strikes, so are you allowing full strength bonus to damage when the Monk is TWF-ing with both his fists?

 

[Hypersmurf]

It also says that there is no off-hand attacks with a Monk's unarmed strikes, so are you allowing full strength bonus to damage when the Monk is TWF-ing with both his fists?

I don't allow a monk to TWF with his fists - there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, per the class description.

If he wants to make off-hand attacks, he needs to use a weapon to do it.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

I don't allow a monk to TWF with his fists - there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, per the class description.

If he wants to make off-hand attacks, he needs to use a weapon to do it.

-Hyp.

But the FAQ specifically allows it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But the FAQ specifically allows it.

In contradiction to what the rules say.

If the FAQ says "A medium longsword deals 1d10 damage", it means the FAQ is in error, because it contradicts the rules.

The rules say "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed". If the FAQ says "There is such a thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed", it's incorrect.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

In contradiction to what the rules say.

If the FAQ says "A medium longsword deals 1d10 damage", it means the FAQ is in error, because it contradicts the rules.

The rules say "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed". If the FAQ says "There is such a thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed", it's incorrect.

-Hyp.

Again, that is open to interpretation. The line after that quote clearly states that it refers to the Strength bonus to damage rather than the ability to TWF. This is an oft-made mistake by those that argue that there is no TWF with unarmed strikes. They leave out the context of the quote. Also, that would put a Monk at a disadvantage of sorts since the improved unarmed strike feat doesn't stipulate this restriction, and so the restriction only applies to Monks. Because of this, I believe that this restriction is an absurd interpretation of the rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because of this, I believe that this restriction is an absurd interpretation of the rules.

Me, I've always found it less absurd than the FAQ's alternative: There's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed... unless he's making an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack!

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

Me, I've always found it less absurd than the FAQ's alternative: There's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed... unless he's making an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack!

-Hyp.

Again, you left out the context of that quote. Sorry. It just doesn't wash once you put the context it. At least, not the way you are interpreting it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Again, you left out the context of that quote. Sorry. It just doesn't wash once you put the context it. At least, not the way you are interpreting it.

From the PHB, "A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes" is a consequence of "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed".

It makes sense that you apply full Str bonus to unarmed strikes, since half Str bonus is a consequence of making an off-hand attack... of which there is no such thing for the monk striking unarmed.

Another consequence of there being no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed is that he cannot avail himself of the extra off-hand attacks for fighting with two weapons or the TWF feat chain when striking unarmed, since those, by definition, require off-hand attacks... which do not exist.

I don't see how I'm quoting the PHB out of context - it says there's no such thing, and thus, full Str bonus is always applied. Both sentences fit my reading with no contradiction.

-Hyp.

 

[Cameron]

From the PHB, "A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes" is a consequence of "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed".

It makes sense that you apply full Str bonus to unarmed strikes, since half Str bonus is a consequence of making an off-hand attack... of which there is no such thing for the monk striking unarmed.

Another consequence of there being no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed is that he cannot avail himself of the extra off-hand attacks for fighting with two weapons or the TWF feat chain when striking unarmed, since those, by definition, require off-hand attacks... which do not exist.

I don't see how I'm quoting the PHB out of context - it says there's no such thing, and thus, full Str bonus is always applied. Both sentences fit my reading with no contradiction.

-Hyp.

It is not a consequence. It is the reason behind the previous statement. That statement was made so that people that want to can say they are doing all sorts of unarmed attacks (dual punches, kick, shin-ru-ken combos, whatever) without penalty being applied by over-zealous DMs that will point to the natural attack rules. It is obvious, if you take the FAQ into account, that it was never meant to forbid TWF, just to clarify that you don't get a Strength bonus reduction when you elbow instead of punch.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is not a consequence. It is the reason behind the previous statement.

"Thus" means "consequently".

Statement: There's no such thing as an offhand attack.
Consequence: Thus, apply full Str bonus to damage.

If the full Str bonus were the reason, the sentences would be reversed: A monk may apply full Str bonus to damage with unarmed strikes. Thus, there is no such thing as an off-hand attack.

But the 'thus' defines the Str bonus as the consequence, not the reason.

-Hyp.