D&D 3E/3.5 Shuriken have changed in 3.5E

[Ottergame]

From the FAQ:

The description of the flurry of blows ability says there’s no such thing as a monk attacking with an off-hand weapon during a flurry of blows. What does that mean, exactly? Can the monk make off-hand attacks in addition to flurry attacks?

Actually, the text to which you refer appears in the entry for unarmed strikes. When a monk uses his unarmed strike ability, she does not suffer any penalty for an off-hand attack, even when she has her hands full and is attacking with knees and elbows, using the flurry of blows ability to make extra attacks, or both.

The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists. When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk
suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits.
To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains only half Strength bonus to damage. If the off-hand attack is a
weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry (if it can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). For example, a 4th-level monk with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a Strength score of 14 decides to use a flurry of blows and decides to throw in an off-hand attack as well. The monk has a base attack bonus of +3 and a +2 Strength bonus. With a flurry,
the character can make two attacks, each at +3 (base +3, –2 flurry, +2 Strength). An unarmed strike is a light weapon, so the monk suffers an additional –2 penalty for both the flurry and the off-hand attack, and the monk makes three attacks, each at an attack bonus of +1. The two attacks from the flurry are primary attacks and add the monk’s full Strength bonus to
damage of +2. The single off-hand attack adds half the monk’s Strength bonus to damage (+1).

If the monk in our example has two sais to use with the flurry, plus the off-hand attack, she can use both in the flurry (in which case she must make the off-hand attack with an unarmed strike) or one sai for the off-hand attack and one with the flurry. The sai used in the off-hand attack is not available for the flurry and vice versa.

 

[Jesuit]

The thing is, Otter's "point of view" (as well as most other people's) is backed up by the feat and rules as written in 3.5. It isn't so much a point of view as actual fact. Your point of view is not backed up by the rules. It is just the way you "wish/hope/assume the rules worked".



Where are you getting this from? That an extra attack is an "unnamed bonus"? Hyper isn't suggesting it is an "unnamed bonus" or ANY bonus for that matter. You are. As he pointed out earlier, a bonus (named or unnamed) is numerical. You are making this up somehow. I don't know how or why really.

Let me ask this. If a character had a Spiked Chain and the Cleave feat, would you allow them to use their Cleave attempt to Trip someone? By the rules, this is allowed, even though it doesn't say (under Cleave or Trip) that you can "combine" these feats/tactics.

If someone has Cleave and Greater Cleave, do you allow them to take advantage of both? If I kill someone, can I Cleave AND Great Cleave the same opponent? By the rules I beleive this is allowed (someone correct me if I am wrong).

Well, if you read my last post then you would either a) realize that this post was pointless or b) don't actually care and are just trolling. I clearly stated that I'm not budging on this one.

It is not a houserule, nor a matter of how I hope or think that the rules should work. It is our collective gaming groups interpretation of not only how the RAW is worded but also how 3.5 mechanics are supposed to work in conjunction with each other.

When you come right down to it, you are quite simply, not correct. You think you are, you play it that way in your campaign, and that rocks and I'm happy for you. However, it's just how you think the rules work. If you can show me an example in any official source of a Character using Shurikens with Flurry + Rapid Shot +TWF (as in they are named in the example) then and only then will I accept it as an official ruling.

When that happens, I will be more than happy to bring that to the table and we can change to accomodate the ruling. Until then, since I had strong material in 3.0 indicating that they don't stack, and reference in 3.5 that they don't (in that Rapid Shots wording didn't change, and the only reason xbows did was due to the removal of ambidexterity), not to mention the precedent MANY times of additional feats which granting attacks not stacking (circle kick, knockdown + Cleave, etc.) then the rules do not clearly state to our satisfaction that you may use all three of those mechanics at the same time.

You are free to dispute. However, to repeat myself, I'm not budging on this one, and I'm not here to change your mind. Argue if you want, it's a waste of both of our time.

 

[Camarath]

Jesuit, in your opinion would the extra attacks from Haste (or a Speed weapon) and Rapid Shot stack?

 

[green slime]

Actually, you CAN make an off hand attack when unarmed as a monk. The passage in question is worded in such a way that it makes it seem not possible, but this is addressed clearly in the FAQ. You -can- make an unarmed off hand attack, while the passage in the PHB meant to say is that you can strike with any part of your body without is being counted as being offhand for your primary attacks. IE, a swordsman who uses a sword in his left hand (If he is right handed) will only get 50% of his strength bonus to damage, even if its the only attack he makes in a round. With a monk, a monk using primary attacks or a flurry doesn't suffer that. He CAN still make an offhand attacks (at the normal penalties) and will only deal 50% damage on the off hand attacks. Check the FAQ.

Perhaps you should have read my post, you know, the one just above yours?

 

[Jesuit]

Jesuit, in your opinion would the extra attacks from Haste (or a Speed weapon) and Rapid Shot stack?

Just a qualifier, my dispute with TWF + Rapid Shot + Flurry is regarding Shuriken's in the example.

Shuriken's are not a melee weapon (in essence they are ammo anyway, and to my knowledge you can't have ammunition of speed), and are by name a Ranged Weapon. In such, I believe they fall under Rapid Shot and not TWF.

*disclaimer*
This is not to say that TWF does not grant additional off-hand attacks to Melee Weapons with a Range Increment. In the case of throwing daggers or hammers, since they are listed as melee weapons, the mechanic of TWF would govern them.

Logically (to me) since there is already a mechanic in place for granting additional attacks for Ranged Weapons, there is no reason to also assume that a completely separate game mechanic would govern the same weapon. If a Monk Flurry's with a Sai, they get TWF, if they flurry with a Shuriken it's Rapid Shot. Never both.

As far as Speed goes regarding Rapid Shot, and correct me if I'm wrong, you can only put Speed as a mod on Projectile launchers such as Bows, Crossbows, and Slings. I was under the impression that it was a weapon mod, not an ammo mod.

As far as the Spell, it grants one additional attack. It would stack, since either Rapid Shot or TWF (not both) are giving you additional attacks from a Feat. Basically Haste + Speed doesn't stack (same effect) and Rapid Shot + TWF don't stack (same effect).

 

[Scion]

Not to quote myself or anything, but twf does not state it requires melee weapons.

I am afraid that the burden of proof is on you since the rules state nothing like what you are saying.

shuriken is a ranged weapon.

twf never states the need to use it with melee weapons.

SRD:
TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

Crossbow, Heavy: You draw a heavy crossbow back by turning a small winch. Loading a heavy crossbow is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
Normally, operating a heavy crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a heavy crossbow with one hand at a –4 penalty on attack rolls. You can shoot a heavy crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two one-handed weapons. This penalty is cumulative with the penalty for one-handed firing.

RAPID SHOT [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point Blank Shot.
Benefit: You can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon. The attack is at your highest base attack bonus, but each attack you make in that round (the extra one and the normal ones) takes a –2 penalty. You must use the full attack action to use this feat.

 

[RigaMortus]

Well, if you read my last post then you would either a) realize that this post was pointless or b) don't actually care and are just trolling. I clearly stated that I'm not budging on this one.

If my post was so pointless, why did you respond? And as far as "trolling" goes... I'm "trolling" no more than you are...

It is not a houserule, nor a matter of how I hope or think that the rules should work. It is our collective gaming groups interpretation of not only how the RAW is worded but also how 3.5 mechanics are supposed to work in conjunction with each other.

How is it not a house rule? You are clearly basing your "interpretation" off of old 3.0 rules, not 3.5. No where, as it is written in the 3.5 rules, does it suggest that TWF + Flurry + Rapid Shot don't stack. It does in 3.0, but not 3.5. There is a also a difference between how the "3.5 mechanics are supposed to work" and how they actually DO work. One is written in the rule book, the other is being made up by you...

When you come right down to it, you are quite simply, not correct. You think you are, you play it that way in your campaign, and that rocks and I'm happy for you. However, it's just how you think the rules work. If you can show me an example in any official source of a Character using Shurikens with Flurry + Rapid Shot +TWF (as in they are named in the example) then and only then will I accept it as an official ruling.

I fail to see how I am not correct when I am simply using the rules as given to me in the PHB. You, on the other hand, are coming up with new rules (restrictions actually) based on (a) old 3.0 rulings and (b) how you wish/hope/assume the rules work. In 3.5, the rules as written do not support your way of thinking in the terms of TWF + Flurry + Rapid Shot. There is nothing written to dispute that they DON'T work, so therefore, they DO.

It really is a lot simplier than you are making it out to be. If the rules (mechanics) do not DISALLOW it, then it is quite simply allowed. When 3.0 first came out, the designers would frequently mention that D&D 3E was a game of "options, not restrictions".

Until then, since I had strong material in 3.0 indicating that they don't stack,

See, there ya go... You are basing your "interpretation" on 3.0 rules. I know, I know, there is more, so allow me to finish your quote...

and reference in 3.5 that they don't (in that Rapid Shots wording didn't change, and the only reason xbows did was due to the removal of ambidexterity),

Says you. How do you know that is the reason the XBow wording was changed based on the removal of ambidexterity? Where is this officially stated? Hey, maybe it is stated somewhere and I just put my foot in my mouth, I'd really like to see it though.

Even if this is the case, Rapid Shot's wording not changing has nothing to do with if should or shouldn't stack with TWF or Flurry. Nothing what so ever. The wording didn't change because it was assumed by the writers that people could understand how it works by the original wording. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

not to mention the precedent MANY times of additional feats which granting attacks not stacking (circle kick, knockdown + Cleave, etc.) then the rules do not clearly state to our satisfaction that you may use all three of those mechanics at the same time.

I'm not too familiar with Circle Kick. What does it do? What are you claiming it does not stack with? Is this 3.0 or 3.5?

The reason Knockdown and Cleave don't stack is because you need to "drop" someone for Cleave to work. Knockdown doesn't "drop" your opponent or kill them, it makes them fall prone. There is no defined term for "dropping" someone in D&D. There is for killing them and for knocking them prone (which is what Knockdown does). This has been clarified in the FAQ I believe. What exactly it means to "drop" someone with Cleave. Anyway, they are two seperate feats (Knockdown and Cleave) that don't stack because they don't have any effects that relates to one another. That is like saying, Maximize Spell doesn't "stack" with Run... huh? Exactly... Oh yeah, not to mention Knockdown is 3.0. If you ran a 3.5 game, and used 3.5 rules, you'd have a lot less headaches, trust me. Our group is better off with 3.5. And please don't take this the wrong way, as I am not trying to MAKE you use 3.5 rules, I am simply trying to show you how they are better than 3.0 rules in most cases. They are better to base interpretations off of as well. I personally try to forget the 3.0 rules as I often get them confused with 3.5 rules.

You are free to dispute. However, to repeat myself, I'm not budging on this one, and I'm not here to change your mind. Argue if you want, it's a waste of both of our time.

I am not asking you to budge, play the way you want. I am just agreeing with the other people that said how you are playing it is basically a house rule. How is my "arguing" (though I am not arguing with anyone, I am trying to have a civil debate here) about it going to waste both our time? If anything, I am simply wasting my time (which I am alright with). If you choose to read and respond to me, you are wasting your own time. Don't pin that one on me

I noticed you didn't adress my other questions. Perhaps you overlooked them or simply didn't have an answer for me. So I'll ask again, as I am curious to how you would rule them:

If a character had a Spiked Chain and the Cleave feat, would you allow them to use their Cleave attempt to Trip someone? By the rules, this is allowed, even though it doesn't say (under Cleave or Trip) that you can "combine" these feats/tactics.

If someone has Cleave and Greater Cleave, do you allow them to take advantage of both? If I kill someone, can I Cleave AND Great Cleave the same opponent? By the rules I beleive this is allowed (someone correct me if I am wrong).

 

[Camarath]

As far as the Spell, it grants one additional attack. It would stack, since either Rapid Shot or TWF (not both) are giving you additional attacks from a Feat. Basically Haste + Speed doesn't stack (same effect) and Rapid Shot + TWF don't stack (same effect).

Speed is stated not to stack with Haste. TWF is not stated not to stack with Rapid Shot.

Shuriken's are not a melee weapon (in essence they are ammo anyway, and to my knowledge you can't have ammunition of speed), and are by name a Ranged Weapon. In such, I believe they fall under Rapid Shot and not TWF.

But Shurikens are stated to useable with TWF and are weapon because they are listed as such.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

If a Monk Flurry's with a Sai, they get TWF, if they flurry with a Shuriken it's Rapid Shot. Never both.

But then how do you use Rapid Shot with a bow? Do you have to be using two bows? Rapid shot is just throwing very quickly...Two Weapon Fighting is using weapons in BOTH hands. You can use thrown weapons in both hands. And you can also throw them QUICKLY out of both hands.

Another question. What about throwing axes? They're ranged but you can use one in each hand and throw them from each hand. Is that not TWF? And if it isn't, what IS it? It isn't Rapid Shot because that would just be throwing them quickly.

 

[RigaMortus]

Not to quote myself or anything, but twf does not state it requires melee weapons.

I am afraid that the burden of proof is on you since the rules state nothing like what you are saying.

You know, the funny thing is, you don't even NEED TWF in order to attack with another weapon. All it does it reduce your penalities for doing so.

Correct me if I am wrong here Jesuit, but are you suggeting that if I have the Rapid Shot feat, I am somehow incapable of using an off-hand weapon at the same time as Rapid Shot? Yet if I do not have the Rapid Shot feat, I am suddenly capable of using an off-hand weapon (be it a ranged or melee weapon, it doesn't matter)?

I thought feats were supposed to be a benefit, not a drawback.