Thrikreen Flurry of Blows?

[glass]

If the quote on "using" natural weapons above did not convince you, how about the following rule quotes...

"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?

"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?

"When using a spiked chain, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails)." (Spiked chain)
Would a single attack with a spiked chain give you a +2 bonus on all opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent in the round?

Could this be that rarest of beasts, a genuinely new argument on an old, old subject? Definitely some food for thought here.


glass.

 

[irdeggman]

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.

No because the very first line gives the specific detail of what the action entails.

You can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon.

This doesn't exist with the flurry of blows entry. The "details" state it can only be done with unarmed attacks and special monk weapons.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This doesn't exist with the flurry of blows entry. The "details" state it can only be done with unarmed attacks and special monk weapons.

So you have no problem with someone using Flurry of Blows and Rapid Shot (assuming the ranged attack is with shuriken or sai) in the same full attack action, right?

-Hyp.

 

[IanB]

There's definitely a possible reading of the SRD rules, at least, that would allow a single extra thrown weapon attack via rapid shot during a flurry, tacking on an additional -2 to all attacks.

I think the intent is likely that rapid shot is only meant to be used when your normal attack routine is all ranged attacks, but I can see the reading that would allow it.

I don't have a PH in front of me to note any wording differences from the SRD that might make it impossible, though.

 

[Iku Rex]

I'll give this one more go.

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.

I guess I should have worded the question differently.

I'll try to give you a blow-by blow description of what the character in your example is doing, based on your interpretation of when you're allowed to make the attacks in the attack routine.

1. Claw
Natural weapon attack.
The character is now using secondary natural attacks.

2. Unarmed Strike
Flurry of blows attack
The character is now using flurry of blows.
The character is not still using secondary natural attacks. (That would contradict the rules for secondary natural attacks.)

3. Claw
Natural weapon attack.
The character is now using secondary natural attacks again.
The character is not still using flurry of blows. (That would contradict the rules for flurry of blows.)

4. Bite
Natural weapon attack.
The character is now using secondary natural attacks.
The character is not using flurry of blows. (That would contradict the rules for flurry of blows.)

5. Unarmed Strike
Flurry of blows attack
The character is now using flurry of blows again.
The character is not still using secondary natural attacks. (That would contradict the rules for secondary natural attacks.)

The only potential problem is the "not still using" bit. You insist that once you've made an attack with flurry of blows, you will be "using flurry of blows" until you make the last flurry attack in the series. (Yet for some obscure reason you don't feel the same way about starting and stopping using secondary natural attacks.) I am not going to let you divert the debate further because it doesn't matter. Ok? It. Does. Not. Matter.

All that would mean is that your (your, not mine) original premise, that there is no reason within the rules that the lizardman couldn't change the order around, is false. There would be such a reason. It would break a rule. (Attacking with a non-monk weapon in a flurry.) You could still make the secondary natural attacks after the flurry, or even before if we accept your argument from silence. It does not prove that you can't combine a flurry of blows with secondary natural attacks.

Example: Unarmed strike, unarmed strike, claw, claw, bite. Look! Start flurry, end flurry, start secondary natural attacks, end secondary natural attacks. No problem.

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.

What kind of logic is this? "If you can do [something] any time you want you must be doing it constantly, and you can't do anything else". Really? Seriously?

 

[Iku Rex]

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

This sentence does not make any sense to me.

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.

Here are the two rules you insist are so different:

"A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions, below) in order to get more than one attack."

"A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows."

Funny. I don't see anything about "part of a full attack action" in either quote. "It's not what the text states", as you said. Yet we know of several ways to make multiple attacks per round that can be combined with secondary natural attacks. Simply announcing that "a flurry of blows is its own full attack action" won't make it so.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The only potential problem is the "not still using" bit. You insist that once you've made an attack with flurry of blows, you will be "using flurry of blows" until you make the last flurry attack in the series.

No. You must choose to use flurry of blows before you start your full attack action. You would then be considered using flurry of blows for your entire full attack action (i.e. your entire turn). I would argue for the whole round, but would be willing to concede ambiguity in that regard.

(Yet for some obscure reason you don't feel the same way about starting and stopping using secondary natural attacks.) I am not going to let you divert the debate further because it doesn't matter. Ok? It. Does. Not. Matter.

The obscurity lies in your failure to understand the position properly. I don't find his reasoning obscure at all. I, however, don't understand you second comment. If it doesn't matter, you wouldn't be arguing.

I think the self evident answer to all these questions is "no". So, the words "when using..." are not secret code for "the following applies in the entire round where you're using..."

Your rebuttal to the 'when using' argument is a nonsequitur. Flurry of blows gives a penalty on all attacks that round, period. All of your examples for 'when using' have no such thing. Instead, you're making the improper analogy based solely on when using and not the fact that the action gives a penalty on actions possibly having nothing at all to do with the action. For example, if the non-proficiency penalty gave you a penalty on all attacks that round, then you would be considered 'using a non-proficient weapon' during the whole full-round action.

To actually use your analogy, you'd have to argue that our stance is that you get the -2 penalty on all attacks because you are using flurry of blows during the whole action. But, that's actually the reverse of why it happens that way. Make sense now, hopefully?

 

[Iku Rex]

No. You must choose to use flurry of blows before you start your full attack action. You would then be considered using flurry of blows for your entire full attack action (i.e. your entire turn). I would argue for the whole round, but would be willing to concede ambiguity in that regard.

So what you're saying, once again, is that if you're right then I'm wrong?

Please try to understand. It's not so complicated. PoE was trying to prove my conclusion wrong by claiming that, if true, it leads to absurdity. That, in itself, is a valid technique. When doing that you don't get to make assumptions like "you would ... be considered using flurry of blows for your entire full attack action". That's circular reasoning - assuming what you should be proving. All you're "proving" is that if you're right then I'm wrong. That's not helpful.

The obscurity lies in your failure to understand the position properly. I don't find his reasoning obscure at all. I, however, don't understand you second comment. If it doesn't matter, you wouldn't be arguing.

< sigh > If it mattered to whether or not you can combine a flurry with secondary natural attacks it would be necessary to debate it. It doesn't matter, so debating it is a waste of time. That doesn't mean that it's waste of time to explain why it doesn't matter.

Flurry of blows gives a penalty on all attacks that round, period. All of your examples for 'when using' have no such thing. Instead, you're making the improper analogy based solely on when using and not the fact that the action gives a penalty on actions possibly having nothing at all to do with the action.

Iku Rex: So, the words "when using..." are not secret code for "the following applies in the entire round where you're using..."

Infiniti2000 (paraphrasing): Oh yeah? Well that doesn't prove that this other argument I just introduced can't prove that you're always considered to be using flurry of blows for your entire turn!
***
Not only are you complaining about how a counterargument intended to prove a specific argument faulty is an "improper analogy" because it doesn't cover another argument, you're completely ignoring the fact that I've already addressed that argument too.

To actually use your analogy, you'd have to argue that our stance is that you get the -2 penalty on all attacks because you are using flurry of blows during the whole action. But, that's actually the reverse of why it happens that way. Make sense now, hopefully?

No, to use my analogy I'd have to recognize that it's possible to rebut an argument without simultaneously rebutting all possible arguments leading to the same conclusion.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So what you're saying, once again, is that if you're right then I'm wrong?

Are the positions mutually exclusive? If yes, then proving one side right or one side wrong is both necessary and sufficient. If no, then I'd be interested in a reasoning why -- and then I'll reconsider my position. However, I think you'll have to agree that they're mutually exclusive. Fwiw, I agree it's not so complicated -- right back at ya.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Are the positions mutually exclusive? If yes, then proving one side right or one side wrong is both necessary and sufficient. If no, then I'd be interested in a reasoning why -- and then I'll reconsider my position. However, I think you'll have to agree that they're mutually exclusive. Fwiw, I agree it's not so complicated -- right back at ya.

I think we can take for granted that they're mutually exclusive. Iku Rex is, I believe, frustrated that you're apparently trying to show that, despite it being taken for granted, if you're right then he's wrong. Which is, of course, trivial and tangential to the argument.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing, because I haven't sifted through your posts the way he has to figure out the logic you're using. I don't want to get involved in that part of the thread. I'm just trying to make sure you understand what he's getting at, because it bugs me to watch people "argue past one another." So I figured I'd throw in my two cents for clarity.