Rules lawyers: text parsing opinions (Hypersmurf?)

[mvincent]

The Rules of the Game says:
""A monk using one or two special monk weapons simply substitutes one attack from each weapon (or from one or both ends of a quarterstaff) as part of a full attack (including a flurry of blows). The monk need not take any penalties for off-hand or two-weapon attacks. The monk, however, does not get an extra attack from a second weapon. If the monk is using a flurry of blows, she adds her full Strength bonus to damage from any successful attack, even if she uses what normally would be her off hand, or uses one end of a quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon.

If a monk is not using her flurry of blows ability, she can claim an extra attack from a second weapon. If she does, she takes all the penalties for attacking with two weapons and for attacking with off-hand weapons. A monk using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack does not suffer any off-hand penalties; however, under the regular rules for two-weapon fighting you get only one extra attack for an off-hand weapon.

What is (just) this text saying about combining flurry with TWF'ing? Per this text, can a monk get the extra attacks from both flurry and TWF'ing at the same time? Does the text address this?

(I ask because not everyone seems to read it the same)

 

[pawsplay]

It does not forbid it, but by my reading, the primary weapon has to be flurryable and the extra off-hand attack cannot be with the primary weapon.

And in my general interpretation, "monk's unarmed strike" is one weapon.

 

[Deper]

Nevermind.

 

[irdeggman]

The text states that flurry of blows "as part of a full attack" - that rules out combining it with TWF (which is also a full attack action).

Now having said that, using Rules of the Game as a singular rules text is just asking for trouble. It, like other WotC articles and FAQ, is supposed to be an adjunct to the rules and not something that stands alone.



SRD:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a –2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to –1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

 

[pawsplay]

The text states that flurry of blows "as part of a full attack" - that rules out combining it with TWF (which is also a full attack action).

How does that rule it out? That sounds like, "Use these together" to me. TWF is not a full attack action; it is an option for use with a full attack. Likewise, flurry does not state it is a full attack or full round action, but rather, it can be used with it.

 

[mvincent]

using Rules of the Game as a singular rules text is just asking for trouble.

I'm not necessarily doing that (I'm already well aware that the FAQ and the core rules have different information), but I'm just solely curious about how others parse just the above text (whether the text is correct or not is an entirely different matter that I did not intend this particular thread for).

 

[Deset Gled]

If a monk is not using her flurry of blows ability, she can claim an extra attack from a second weapon.

...

What is (just) this text saying about combining flurry with TWF'ing? Can a monk get the extra attacks from both flurry and TWF'ing at the same time? Does the text address this?

(I ask because not everyone seems to be reading it the same)

The contra-positive of the bolded text is: If a monk can claim an extra attack from second weapon, she is not using flurry of blows. According to this article, the two cannot be combined.

Of course, this article also says "A monk using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack does not suffer any off-hand penalties" when the rules clearly state that "The is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed", so I don't really think I can trust it much.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

Of course, this article also says "A monk using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack does not suffer any off-hand penalties" when the rules clearly state that "The is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed", so I don't really think I can trust it much.

While poorly worded, I think those two statements mean the same thing. The latter statement isn't saying you can't make an attack with your non-primary hand, just that it's not considered an off-hand attack (and therefore subject to penalty).

Edit: Speaking of poorly worded, I just reread what I said - the not continues through the sentence to include striking with your second hand not being subject to offhand attack penalties (if you're a monk).

 

[mvincent]

Looks like I think I'm going to need a heavyweight to parse the text and weigh in.

Hypersmurf?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Using just that text?

Not the whole article, but just what you've quoted?

When it says "A monk using one or two special monk weapons simply substitutes one attack from each weapon (or from one or both ends of a quarterstaff) as part of a full attack (including a flurry of blows)."... what assumptions are we allowed to make as to what she's substituting them for?

Out of context, that sentence doesn't seem to make any sense...

-Hyp.