Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 2600484" data-attributes="member: 752">I have language saying that unarmed strikes are considered manufactured weapons. I have language saying that you may make secondary natural attacks with natural weapons in addition to attacks with manufactured weapons without interfering with the primary attack. I have an official clarification from Wizards of the Coast confirming that you may combine secondary natural attacks with a flurry of blows. You have the stubbornly repeated claim that if you're "using flurry of blows" in a round you must be "using flurry of blows" in the entire round. I offer numerous examples of rules using the term "when using" that clearly don't apply to all attacks in the round. I offer several combat actions that require the use of a full attack action without preventing secondary natural attacks. So you insist that I need a special rule stating explicitly that a special rule doesn't apply to flurry of blows.  That's an ... interesting ... standard for rule adjudication, to say the least. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Not in this reality. (And I haven't made any attempt to "prove it", I've simply pointed out the results of that interpretation.)The only "incontrovertible proof" here is your persistent  "if I'm right, you're wrong, and since I'm right you're wrong" argument. But hey - it's "consistent", right?  (Circular reasoning always is.)</blockquote>

Verification