RotG vs FAQ: Flurry + TWF

[Legildur]

Why bother resolving it? This is a choice bit of evidence to continue undermining the credibility of the FAQ and RotG as a valid rules source...

But even more seriously, it is frustrating as regardless of my general opposition to the FAQ/RotG I do, on occasion, refer to these document/articles, particularly some of the House Rules in the RotG as useful guidance.

 

[Christian]

See, this sort of thing is the reason for my house rule that states "Anytime someone proposes playing a monk that is also a member of a race that has natural weapons, I get to kick them in the groin".


It's tough, but fair.

Yoink. Best house rule ever!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think Sejs wins.

 

[Nail]

But even more seriously, it is frustrating as regardless of my general opposition to the FAQ/RotG I do, on occasion, refer to these document/articles, particularly some of the House Rules in the RotG as useful guidance.

Me too.

Wildshape, Flurry with Natural Weapons, and Grappling with Natural Weapons all fall into my "Way Too Confusing" category. I kinda wish the FAQ/RotG helped....but they don't. (sigh)

 

[hong]

Or pistols at thirty paces?

-Hyp.

One of them would bring two pistols to use John Woo-style, and then they'd get into an argument over whether Rapid Shot stacks with TWF....

 

[billd91]

It would also be easier if they just said Flurry was equivalent to using TWF for special monk weapons and unarmed strikes, just with some special monk-only modifications. Then, any further questions about using TWF with Flurry would be moot.

 

[mvincent]

One of them would bring two pistols to use John Woo-style, and then they'd get into an argument over whether Rapid Shot stacks with TWF....

It certainly does
(... but only if their are doves flying behind your opponent)