The Legendary Grappling Monk

[Pbartender]

But then again, grappling isn't technically a weapon, it's a special attack (you won't find it next to unarmed strike on the weapon list). The feat doesn't say that unarmed strike or grappling are weapons is says that you may choose it as your weapon for purposes of the feat.

So, if a grapple check used to deal unarmed damage isn't actually an unarmed strike, then neither is grappling a weapon by your own semantic logic.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But then again, grappling isn't technically a weapon, it's a special attack (you won't find it next to unarmed strike on the weapon list). The feat doesn't say that unarmed strike or grappling is a weapon is says that you may choose it as your weapon for purposes of the feat.

The actual weapon use use for either attack is your body.

Then do you apply both the +1 for WF: Unarmed Strike and the +1 for WF: Grapple when someone grapples 'with their body'?

If either applies but they don't stack, then why would you ever choose WF: Grapple, since under that interpretation it is simply a more limited (or identical) version of WF:US?

If you don't apply WF: US, then you're accepting that an Unarmed Strike is not used to Grapple.

If grappling and unarmed strikes are the same weapon, why does the 'damage your opponent' deal damage equivalent to an unarmed strike, rather than 'as normal for an unarmed strike', for example?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, if a grapple check used to deal unarmed damage isn't actually an unarmed strike, then neither is grappling a weapon by your own semantic logic.

I could go along with that.

In which case grappling could never be part of a Cleave attack, since the Cleave must be with the same weapon... which precludes something that isn't a weapon at all.

It still doesn't permit Grappling to be part of a flurry, since an attack with no weapon at all is still not an attack with an unarmed strike or special monk weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Pbartender]

No...

What I'm saying is that they are two different types of attacks that use the same weapon. Much in the same way you can use a longsword to attack, sunder or disarm. You take two different Weapon Focus feats for them, because the text of the feat tells you to.

Why have grapple on the Weapon Focus options, if you're not going to include Disarm, Sunder, Bull-rush and Trip?

It would have made infinite more sense to leave Grapple off the Weapon Focus options and simply leave the bonus to Improved Grapple.

 

[Pbartender]

In which case grappling could never be part of a Cleave attack, since the Cleave must be with the same weapon... which precludes something that isn't a weapon at all.

Well then, can you not attempt a disarm as a part of a Cleave attack?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What I'm saying is that they are two different types of attacks that use the same weapon.

But we know that Unarmed Strike is a weapon, because it's on the list.

Therefore Grapple - which uses a Weapon Focus feat that is distinct from Unarmed Strike - does not use the weapon 'unarmed strike'. I'm quite happy for it to use no weapon at all - just like a trip made without a special trip weapon. (Which I'll also happily argue does not use an unarmed strike, but is rather an unarmed attack in its own right.)

Why have grapple on the Weapon Focus options, if you're not going to include Disarm, Sunder, Bull-rush and Trip?

That's a question for the people who wrote the rules, and who did include Grapple, but not the others.

It would have made infinite more sense to leave Grapple off the Weapon Focus options and simply leave the bonus to Improved Grapple.

But again, that's not what happened. Grapple is an option for Weapon Focus.

Well then, can you not attempt a disarm as a part of a Cleave attack?

Absolutely you can. A Disarm is made with a weapon, and therefore it can be performed 'with the same weapon' that dropped the original opponent (including a Disarm with an Unarmed Strike, if such was the weapon that dropped him).

A Grapple is not, and therefore it cannot.

-Hyp.

 

[Pbartender]

But we know that Unarmed Strike is a weapon, because it's on the list.

So I'm looking at the weapon list again, just to make certain I read it right...

It seems that even there, an unarmed strike isn't really considered a weapon. The weapon categories are Unarmed Attacks (under which is listed gauntlets and unarmed strike), Light Melee Weapons, One-handed Melee Weapons, Two-Handed Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons. I know it's just terminology, but it seems rather significant that all the other categories are 'weapons' while the unarmed category is just an 'attack'.

Also the descriptive text for Strike, Unarmed states that it is considered a light weapon, as opposed to actually being a light weapon.

I'd be curious as to what one of the D&D Experts, like The Sage, think about it.

(Which I'll also happily argue does not use an unarmed strike, but is rather an unarmed attack in its own right.)

All else aside, this sentence makes an extraodinary amount of sense.

That's a question for the people who wrote the rules, and who did include Grapple, but not the others.

But again, that's not what happened. Grapple is an option for Weapon Focus.

Yeah, I know, I was just grumbling rhetorically... The questions weren't really directed toward you. I just despise rule inconsistancies and rules that are needlessly complicated.

My point was that the 'special attack' rules, especially with regards to unarmed combat if all types could be improved.

Absolutely you can. A Disarm is made with a weapon, and therefore it can be performed 'with the same weapon' that dropped the original opponent (including a Disarm with an Unarmed Strike, if such was the weapon that dropped him).

A Grapple is not, and therefore it cannot.

Right. And that the crux of my whole arguement... Grappling is gross inconsistancy within the general rules and guidelines for special attacks. All the other special attacks are just that, actions that you can substitute for an attack. Grappling, on the other hand, sometimes gets treated as a special attack, sometimes gets treated as a completely different and unique type of action, and sometimes as a weapon. It's silly, it's needlessly complicated, and it doen't make sense.

I'm not saying that the rule don't work the way you say they do. I'm saying I just realized I don't like the way it works.

By the way, thanks for the discussion, it's been quite enjoyable. Right or wrong, it's these sorts of debates that force me to produce a better understanding of the rules, and better justifications for house rules.

 

[angry monkey]

No, I'm saying it's not an attack with a special monk weapon or an unarmed strike.

As for the lower iterative bonuses:

If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.

-Hyp.

Ok, then I'll say it, "a grapple check is not an attack". There, it doesn't use an attack roll, it doesn't use a weapon (or weapon-like noun), therefore it's not an attack.

And though I don't think I would ever allow a grapple-cleave (different type of combat, and I'm not sure if you really "drop" someone who is grappling with you) , I still have some sticky points on the flurry/grapple.

An attack with an unarmed strike IS an attack with no weapon at all. An action to damage an opponent durring a grapple is also done with no weapon at all.

Are the italics a quote? If so, could you point me to where they came from?

If we are comparing trip to grapple, I'll skip the discussion about what kind of weapon is used, and just ask, "Don't you get to flurry with trip attacks?"

 

[angry monkey]

.

By the way, thanks for the discussion, it's been quite enjoyable. Right or wrong, it's these sorts of debates that force me to produce a better understanding of the rules, and better justifications for house rules.

I'm with you on that one -
hey
wait a minute

Or for that matter, wait 110 minutes!

It's only 10:10 in California!


Arrrrrrgh.


Well, as I feared, I now think that The Darn Tiny Blue (as Pirate Smurf is known in these waters) was onto somethin' when he started all this talkin' he did. I was afraid that when I stepped out onto the Poopdeck an' yelled out: "I say he may be wrong" I'd end out on the wet side of an oar...

It was a quote, an' I found it.

The dern SARRRR!D.

If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.

Plain as th' hook on the end o' me arm.

It mentions nothin' about bein' able to flurry, or use two-weapon-fighting style to grapple with different parts of yer body, no bonuses for bein' good lookin (that's the one that's gonna cost me a mint when these rules get all straightened out), no bonuses fer tryin' to bring 40 pounds of sheep meat with ya into Japan (the only Kiwi I ever met sober almost spent time in a Japanese prison because one of the bags they brought with them into the country had only meat in it. Cool/weird at the same time.)

All it says is that you can get extra grapple checks if you have extra attacks due to a high BAB.

Plus, to take it another step in a different direction, even if you consider Unarmed Strike to be a weapon like ... thingy, and unarmed strike to be just hitting someone without a weapon in your hands, then you would be left at the spot where that Darn Pequeno De Azul* started at (i.e. NO, you can't flurry).
See, a grapple isn't a strike. You're not hitting someone, you're squeezing or twisting them. There's no "blow" to flurry...




*sorry, bastardizing language again. Roughly translated means "little blue guy", which I assume is what Pirate Smurf is known as in the Spanish Seas.

 

[Coredump]

But we know that Unarmed Strike is a weapon, because it's on the list.

-Hyp.

Perhaps it is listed because it is not a weapon, and therefore needs to be specifically listed so it is known to be an acceptable choice. The listing is not defining it as a weapon, but as an acceptable exception.

I have not checked, but I really doubt that any definition of unarmed strike lists it as a weapon. In fact, I seem to remember that the description states how the whole body is the weapon that is used for a Monk unarmed strike.

.