Ye olde classic unarmed strike/natural weapon question.

[Sidekick]

Uhh oh. not the old flurry v Natural Attacks debate. Quick hit the switch.

TOO LATE

D&D crashes and re-boots to desktop...

---


As you can see from the intense debate already on this thread (I'm picking this one to go for 6 pages incidentally) that there is no consensus.

if you want to have natural attacks & flurry interact (abeit with a -7 on the secondary natural attack) then so be it.

If you don't there's a case for that too.

Happy gaming,
Sidekick

 

[Artoomis]

...After all, if the limits on FoB apply only to "the Flurry," there's no reason that the limits on WWA shouldn't only apply to "the Whirlwind."

Apples and oranges, my friend.

Whirlwind attack specifically states "...you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." That's pretty straightforward and very limting.

Flurry does not contain language anything like that.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

On the contrary, it is extremely helpfull. People are of course free to give the FAQ as much or as little weight as they wish, but I like to ensure that they do so with their eyes open.

An old hand on these boards like you or I know how the FAQ is regarded, but I am guessing from the question that the original poster is not an old hand.


glass.

It would probably, in that case, be better to say, "but the FAQ has been demonstrated on several occasions to be wrong by comparison to what is actually written in the rule books. Sometimes they apologize for the error and correct it. Sometimes they don't."

 

[Artoomis]

It would probably, in that case, be better to say, "but the FAQ has been demonstrated on several occasions to be wrong by comparison to what is actually written in the rule books. Sometimes they apologize for the error and correct it. Sometimes they don't."

Yes, that's MUCH better.

 

[LordVyreth]

Nimbly dodging the rules debate above (which has been hashed out here numerous times... just do a search...) I will address your two questions pointedly;
1. The "official ruling" is that they *can* be used together, with the natural attacks as secondary attacks after the flurry, as long as all penalties apply to all the attacks. Klaus summed it up above. Whether your GM accepts the FAQ as "official" is another question..!

2. As to 'how to do it', it seems evenly divided between folks allowing it or not. If you do allow it, certainly apply all penalties to each attack as described in the FAQ, or it would be unbalancing. In our game we have followed the FAQ, and it seems very balanced. The extra attacks are at least offset by the frequent misses, especially with a Monk's craptastic BAB.

Wow, I'm sorry I started all this. I didn't know the situation was still this bad about this debate. Like I said, I haven't had to deal with monk attacks + natural weapons since the 3.0 days, which honestly were still more confusing than this.

Anyway, whether the GM accepts the FAQ is fairly unimportant, since I am the GM. I'm more worried that 1) I can use the monk in question without it being unbalanced against my party, and 2) that they won't be understandibly upset if 1 proves to be true.

I guess I normally don't have any problem with the idea of adding, say, a bite attack with the flurry, but visually I have a harder time suspending disbelief with more typical claw attacks if those claws happen to be the same hands the creature normally fights with. I mean, I understand that flurry doesn't require normal weaponry, biologically or otherwise; the creature can just kick, headbutt, body slam, or other use normally harmless body parts for the flurry. But it still strikes me as odd, I guess.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Whirlwind attack specifically states "...you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." That's pretty straightforward and very limting.

Flurry does not contain language anything like that.

Other, of course, then:

When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).

Compare to:

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

How is it possible to read these two in such radically different fashions, given the fact that they are both written "When X, then Y"?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Anyway, whether the GM accepts the FAQ is fairly unimportant, since I am the GM. I'm more worried that 1) I can use the monk in question without it being unbalanced against my party, and 2) that they won't be understandibly upset if 1 proves to be true.

It's unlikely to be unbalancing. At most, you'll be adding 1 attack and that's only in a full attack action, which may not happen often unless the creature has Pounce.

Flurry does not contain language anything like that.

Of course it does, as has been quoted. It's pretty straightforward and very limiting.

 

[Iku Rex]

... and, hence, my Cleave isn't part of the WWA, and therefore can be made.

Why can you decide which attacks are part of a particular modification of a Full Attack in one case, and not the other?

After all, if the limits on FoB apply only to "the Flurry," there's no reason that the limits on WWA shouldn't only apply to "the Whirlwind."

Didn't I already address this argument? [Checks]. Yupp, I sure did: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3212428&postcount=14 .

Before I repeat my answer to your question, perhaps you can do me the courtesy of answering the questions I asked you?

I take it you believe that we HAVE TO rule that anyone using a spiked chain will get a +2 bonus on all disarm attempts made in the round, even with different weapons (such as secondary natural attacks)? After all: "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)."

And we HAVE TO rule that you don't get iterative attacks from a high BAB if you make secondary natural attacks? After all: "Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons".

 

[Artoomis]

Whirlwind attack specifically states "...you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities." That's pretty straightforward and very limting.

Flurry does not contain language anything like that.

Other, of course, then:

When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).

Compare to:

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

How is it possible to read these two in such radically different fashions, given the fact that they are both written "When X, then Y"?

Let's look at what each says, shall we?

Whirlwind say that you get no extra bonues or other attacks form any feats, etc. when using it. That's pretty clear except maybe for what "bonuses" means, but we'll leave that aside for now.

Flurry restricts what weapons you may use to flurry - it says nothing about what else you might be able to do during the round.

The difference is HUGE. For example, you get an extra attack from Haste when you flurry - not when you Whirlwind. You probably cannot cleave with Whirlwind (that would be a bonus or an extra attack), but you most certainly can with Flurry.

So how do we answer the question of, "Can you attack with a natural weapon in the same round you Flurry or Whirlwind, assuming you could do so with a normal attack routine?"

Well, first we need to understand that if you get a natural attack in addition to your weapon attack. that's in addiiton to the normal number of attacks you get from your BAB, correct?

Assuming I have that right:

If you Whirlwind you cannot get any extra attacks because the feat says so, so no additional natural attacks when you Whirlwind with a weapon (or even with an unarmed strike).

Flurry, however, has no restriction on what else you may do in a round, other than as normal for a full attack routine. If, as an addition to your normal full attack routine you can normally attack with a natural weapon, then you should be able to so so also with a Flurry, which does nothing but replace your normal attacks.

Now do you see the enormous differnce between the two?

 

[Artoomis]

... Of course it does, as has been quoted. It's pretty straightforward and very limiting.

See my last post above, It is only limiting in what weapons may be used for the Flurry. It does not address, in any way, what ELSE you might do in the round besides attack with a Flurry of Blows.

It does say, "A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.," but that does not limit what ELSE you might be able to do either as part of your full attack or in addition to it. The only limits are those imposed by what you may do as part of, or in addition to, a full attack.