Thrikreen Flurry of Blows?

[Iku Rex]

Accordingly, the bonus attacks from FoB can be taken at any point in a round - just like those gained from [secondary] natural weapons, the one gained from the Haste spell, and off-hand attacks from the TWF rules.

So, no, I don't see the "no forced order = no problem" argument.

Here's what you wrote:

However, there is no reason within the rules that the lizardman couldn't change the order around: claw -3, unarmed strike -1, claw -3, bite -3 -- but here, you'd not allow him to make a second unarmed strike, since his flurry must have ended as soon as he took an attack with a non-unarmed strike or monk weapon.

That's nonsensical.

Now explain to me why "his flurry must have ended as soon as he took an attack with a non-unarmed strike or monk weapon"? The only reason "his flurry must have ended" is if flurry attacks must be made in order. A "forced order", in other words. If his flurry attacks can be taken at any point in the round, why can't they be taken in any point in the round?

 

[Iku Rex]

A monk must use a full-attack action to strike with a a flurry of blows. It doesn't say as part of a full attack action - it says it is a full-attack action.

Here's one of several replies I've already made to this argument.

You "must use a full attack action" to use a flurry of blows. Likewise you "must use the full attack action" to get multiple attacks from a high BAB. (Almost exact same wording in the rules.)

Do you agree that multiple attacks from a high BAB can be combined with natural attacks. Even though you "must use the full attack action" to get them?

Also note the emphasis on the -2 penalty applying to all attacks made until the monk's next action - specifically mentioning AoO.

Indeed. Notice how the penalty applies to "each other attack made that round" , not "each other attack made as part of the flurry of blows". Can you imagine a reason why that might be? Could it be that you might make other attacks in the round that's not "flurry of blows attacks"?

 

[IanB]

I think the important bit of text re: flurry of blows that is being skipped over is:

The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk.

This explicitly shows which attacks are considered part of the actual 'flurry of blows.' That would imply that 'when using flurry of blows' means 'when using the attacks listed in the table' which does not exclude use of additional secondary natural weapon attacks.

 

[IcyCool]

Iku Rex,

If I've got Patryn's arguement correct, his logic is thus:

1. According to the text for flurry of blows (specifically, the second paragraph in the block irdeggman quoted above), you can only use unarmed strikes and special monk weapons in a flurry of blows.

2. While you are in a flurry of blows, all of your attacks in that round suffer a -2 to hit penalty.

3. Since the -2 to hit penalty lasts until your next round, so you are flurry-ing until the beginning of your next action.

4. Therefore, you can't flurry, and then take secondary natural attacks in the same round.

It pretty much hinges on the whole "I'm still suffering the attack penalty for flurry, so I'm still flurrying." I'm not sure I agree with that myself, but it seems fairly sound.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Now explain to me why "his flurry must have ended as soon as he took an attack with a non-unarmed strike or monk weapon"?

Because if his flurry hasn't ended, then he is still bound by the restrictions of FoB - which specifically state that, while flurrying, he can't use non-monk weapons.

The only reason "his flurry must have ended" is if flurry attacks must be made in order. A "forced order", in other words. If his flurry attacks can be taken at any point in the round, why can't they be taken in any point in the round?

Of course they can be taken at any point in the round - that's my point. Ergo, he must be using his FoB throughout the whole round, and is therefore bound by the restrictions on FoB throughout the whole round.

Ergo, no natural weapons.

I think you agree with me - you just don't realize it.

 

[irdeggman]

You "must use a full attack action" to use a flurry of blows. Likewise you "must use the full attack action" to get multiple attacks from a high BAB. (Almost exact same wording in the rules.)

But both are full attack actions not combined for full attack actions.

Do you agree that multiple attacks from a high BAB can be combined with natural attacks. Even though you "must use the full attack action" to get them?

Yes, but they are not the same thing. In order to use a flurry of blows any unarmed attacks and special monk weapons may be used. a flurry of blows is its own full attack action - not part of another full attack action hence the text "A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows." It didn't say as part ofa full attack action a monk may use a flurry of blows. The latter is what you appear to be saying but that is not what the text states.

Indeed. Notice how the penalty applies to "each other attack made that round" , not "each other attack made as part of the flurry of blows". Can you imagine a reason why that might be? Could it be that you might make other attacks in the round that's not "flurry of blows attacks"?

Yes - because the round lasts until the monks next action (as specified) and they wanted to make it clear that any attacks made until the monk's next action suffer the penalty. They even pointed out that all AoO suffer it too (including if the monk gets additional AoO from things like combat reflexes).

 

[Hypersmurf]

But both are full attack actions not combined for full attack actions.

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.

If I 'must use the full attack action' to use Rapid Shot, does that mean that it's a separate full attack action that can't be combined with the ordinary full attack action to use iterative attacks?

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

"When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled." (Improved Critical)
Would a single attack with a weapon you have the Improved Critical feat for double your threat range for all attacks in the same round?

No. Not because of the When using condition, but because of the weapon you selected condition.

"When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls." (Several feats)
Would a single attack with a weapon you are not proficient with give you a -4 penalty on all attacks in the round?

No. Not because of the When using condition, but because of the weapon with which you are not proficient condition.

 

[Iku Rex]

It pretty much hinges on the whole "I'm still suffering the attack penalty for flurry, so I'm still flurrying." I'm not sure I agree with that myself, but it seems fairly sound.

It's not.

If you use a flurry of blows you'll suffer a penalty on all attacks in the round. When you are using a flurry of blows you have to use monk weapons to attack. It does not follow that suffering the effects of using a flurry of blows forces you to use monk weapons to attack.

Looks like a false casue fallacy . I'll see if I can think of a good DnD-ish example, but it's getting late.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No. Not because of the When using condition, but because of the weapon you selected condition.



No. Not because of the When using condition, but because of the weapon with which you are not proficient condition.

What about when using a flurry of blows? Surely the same logic must apply. I think the point Iku Rex is trying to make here is that these other two situations use identical language, but while one might want to suggest that the flurry of blows restriction applies to all attacks made in the round, one wouldn't want to suggest that the Improved Critical benefit applies to all attacks made in the round. And the correlate question is, isn't this inconsistent?

If "when using flurry of blows" means you flurry the entire round, then "when using the weapon you selected" must mean that you use the weapon you selected the entire round, regardless of your ability to make off-hand attacks, natural attacks, etc. So by this logic, Improved Critical forces a fighter who take IC: longsword, to fight with two longswords if he wants to do any two-weapon fighting, because he's "using a longsword," which applies to all his attacks during the round. Weirdly, that he's "using a longsword" might actually mean that his light off-hand weapon transmogrifies into a longsword in order to satisfy the logic of the feat, when read in this way.

I read "when using flurry of blows" as meaning "when making flurry of blows attacks". I don't see any problem of consistency with Whirlwind Attack under this reading, because with Whirlwind Attack you "give up your regular attacks," when making a full-attack action, which covers your iterative, off-hand, and natural attacks for the remainder of your round, and you "forfeit" any other attacks you might have got from another source. While you forfeit the actions only while you "use the Whirlwind Attack feat," they are then forfeited. You can't forfeit something and then unforfeit it afterward. It seems nicely consistent and rules-agreeable to me.

edit:

And also, if you somehow get a 3.0-style haste effect (by being a choker, or something), you can spend your extra standard action to make a single attack after whirling. To use the feat, you give up your regular attacks when you use the full attack action. But afterward, you have the ability to use your regular attacks again. Of course, you don't have any more actions, unless you get an extra action from said haste effect, and you may then make an attack using one of your regular attacks (whichever would be legal to make using a standard action). If we are to read as others have suggested, that once you are using a feat or ability (in this case, the full attack action), you count as using it for the rest of the round, you couldn't make that attack using the extra standard action, because you're still "using the full attack action" and are still giving up your other attacks.