Rules lawyers: text parsing opinions (Hypersmurf?)

[mvincent]

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

Ah. Well, if the rest of the article gives more context to the intent of that section, by all means, I don't want to restrict that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah. Well, if the rest of the article gives more context to the intent of that section, by all means, I don't want to restrict that.

Well, using the rest of the article in addition...

Note that using a longspear as an off-hand attack is presented as an alternative to Flurry of Blows. Also note that it states a monk using a secondary natural attack cannot Flurry, because "a flurry doesn't work with natural weaponry".

The article seems to take the stance that you cannot use a non-flurry weapon in the same full attack action as a flurry (as opposed to the FAQ answer which takes the opposite position).

It also seems to take the odd position that a monk with two special monk weapons cannot gain an extra attack with the second weapon, and takes no TWF penalties, whether or not she is flurrying... though given that it continues on, one paragraph later, to note that she can gain the extra attack if she is not flurrying, I suspect that's just poor paragraph structure. The implication of the text is that a flurrying monk cannot gain an extra attack from TWF.

So what I get, taking that article by itself, is that a monk may either use a flurry of blows, or may gain extra attacks from a second weapon; in addition, a monk using flurry of blows may not use natural weapons or non-monk weapons in the same round.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

As your attorney, I recommend you drink the contents of the brown bottle.

 

[mvincent]

So what I get, taking that article by itself, is that a monk may either use a flurry of blows, or may gain extra attacks from a second weapon; in addition, a monk using flurry of blows may not use natural weapons or non-monk weapons in the same round.

Thank you! I was positive that particular article indicated such, but so many* other readers were not seeing it that I needed someone that I know can read to corraborate it.

* I felt like the only one able to see the 3-D image in a magic-eye picture, and wanted to scream "how can you not see that!"

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thank you! I was positive that particular article indicated such, but so many* other readers were not seeing it that I needed someone that I know can read to corraborate it.

Well, it does seem to say something different to the FAQ, which says something different again to the core rules.

That's why we have a primary source rule. When we have three sources, and they don't agree, we need to know which ones to ignore.

-Hyp.

 

[tomBitonti]

Bad text

Logicwise, the statement below doesn't help to say what the monk can do when they flurry.

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

The statement is only useful for when the monk does not flurry.

If I say, "If it raining, and you go outside, you will go wet," what will happen if it is not raining? Perhaps it is not raining, but the lawn sprinklers are running, and you will get wet anyways. Or perhaps it is a bright sunny day, and you will remain dry.

 

[tomBitonti]

An attempt at a parse ...

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.

Lets strip that down a little, since we are not concerned with strength bonuses:

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 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.

Further, lets re-arrange a little, and consider the following to be equivalent to the monk wielding two special monk weapons: Using either end of a quarterstaff, and using a special monk weapon in conjunction with an unarmed strike.

1)

A monk performing a full attack, with or without a flurry of blows, and wielding two monk special weapons, may substitute one attack from each weapon as a part of the attack. In doing so, the monk takes no penalties for making an attack from their off hand, or from attacking with two weapons.

And:

2)

A monk performing a full attack, with or without a flurry of blows, and wielding two monk special weapons, may substitute one attack from each weapon as a part of the attack. In doing so, the monk does not get an extra attack from a second weapon.

And:

3)

A monk performing a full attack, but not performing a flurry of blows, and wielding two monk special weapons, may claim an extra attack from a second weapon. However, if they do so, their attack has the normal penalties for attacking with two weapons, including the restriction gaining only one extra attack with their off-hand weapon.

(1) and (2) seems to forbid (3), however, we accept the statement (3) as a modification of the first two statements, that is:

A monk performs a full attack, using two monk special weapons. The monk may perform a flurry of blows, but in this case they do not gain an extra attack from the off-hand weapon. However, they may use either weapon for any single attack roll. A monk that performs a full attack and that does not perform a flurry of blows may still choose to use either weapon for any single attack roll. A monk that performs a full attack and that does not perform a flurry of blows may chose to gain an extra attack from the second weapon, but if they do so they accept the normal penalties from attacking with two weapons.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A monk performs a full attack, using two monk special weapons. The monk may perform a flurry of blows, but in this case they do not gain an extra attack from the off-hand weapon. However, they may use either weapon for any single attack roll. A monk that performs a full attack and that does not perform a flurry of blows may still choose to use either weapon for any single attack roll. A monk that performs a full attack and that does not perform a flurry of blows may chose to gain an extra attack from the second weapon, but if they do so they accept the normal penalties from attacking with two weapons.

I endorse this analysis

I also note again that it differs from both the core rules and from the FAQ (in different ways). For example, there's nothing in the monk description in the PHB to suggest that a monk is not subject to off-hand penalties with an off-hand special monk weapon if he is not using Flurry of Blows.

-Hyp.