Ye olde classic unarmed strike/natural weapon question.

[Artoomis]

...Can he...

-Hyp.

Good questions, all. I hope it never comes up in a game I am playing.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Actually, it combines normal weapon attacks with the natural weapon to make a full attack. true.

I don't understand how you can make this statement (which I agree with) and then state the opposite by implying that the secondary attacks are not part of the same full attack action.

If I make both iterative attacks from BAB and secondary natural attacks with a full attack action then the full attack action "includes iterative attacks from BAB and secondary natural attacks". There is no reason to think you wouldn't draw the same conclusion - the secondary natural attacks must be "part of" the iterative attacks from BAB.

I agree. What I feel is the error in your inference, however, is that you think the above proves some inconsistency and it doesn't. The rule on combining natural weapons with manufactured ones is an exception to full attack action rules (not just BAB, but TWF). It is not, however, an exception to the flurrying restriction.

Does it (my view) make sense now?

Slightly Off-Topic:

Why is this confusing at all? ...
It's really quite simple. ...
Simple, eh? ...
You guys are over-thinking this.

It's amazing how passive aggressive you can be, Artoomis, particularly when you're simultaneously trying to 'mediate' with statements like "It certainly is possible to read the rules another way..." Be aggressive, even be patronizing, but don't be passive aggressive and patronizing.

 

[Artoomis]

I don't understand how you can make this statement (which I agree with) and then state the opposite by implying that the secondary attacks are not part of the same full attack action....

The secondary attacks are indeed part of the full attack action.

The flurry is also PART of the full attack action.

Note that you do not REPLACE a full attack action with a flurry, you USE a full attack action. That allows for possible secondary attacks, if otherwise permitted - like a natural attacks is.

Better?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Which of the attacks are required to be made with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons?

All of them. They are all part of the flurry of blows because they are all part of the same full attack action.

The extra attack from Haste bears no relation to Monk levels. Can it be made with the longsword?

The interesting side note to this is that if you rule that a feat is an effect then haste cannot be combined with Rapid Shot and perhaps not even Improved TWF: "This effect is not cumulative with similar effects..." One extra attack is one extra attack.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Better?

So, then, how many actions are you taking? One. Why do say then that you can be flurrying and not flurrying in the same action? During that One action, are you not flurrying?

And, please respond to my point about interspersing the attacks.

 

[billd91]

I don't understand how you can make this statement (which I agree with) and then state the opposite by implying that the secondary attacks are not part of the same full attack action.

Sure, they're part of the same full attack action. The question is: If you use flurry of blows, must it take up the whole full attack action if there are other weapons that can be brought to bear? Or is there room in that full attack action to get in other natural attacks?

I think most other situations in D&D that mix manufactured with natural attacks, the implication is that you can fit more attacks into that full attack action.

 

[Artoomis]

So, then, how many actions are you taking? One. Why do say then that you can be flurrying and not flurrying in the same action? During that One action, are you not flurrying?

And, please respond to my point about interspersing the attacks.

I'd ask back how can you take all of your attacks (say, two from a BAB of 6) using the full attack action and yet ALSO get a natural attack?

It's really the same thing.

BTW, I do think it kind of ridculous that you can take your normal full attack PLUS get a natural attack, but, since ytou can do thatg, you can do it with Flurry, too.

Interspersing the attacks?? You'll have to help me understand to what you are referring.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Interspersing the attacks?? You'll have to help me understand to what you are referring.

Apart from extra attacks gained from BAB, there's no order in which your attacks must be taken during a Full Attack action.

Therefore, if I'm a high-level Monk with three natural weapons (and using your interpretation), on my Full Attack I can:

1. Attack with US, and be Flurrying
2. Attack with a claw, and not be Flurrying
3. Attack with US strike, and be Flurrying
4. Attack with a claw, and not be Flurrying
5. Attack with a kama, and be Flurrying
6. Attack with a bite, and not be Flurrying

I can switch between "Flurrying right now" and "Not Flurrying right now" multiple times within the same Full Attack action.

 

[Artoomis]

Apart from extra attacks gained from BAB, there's no order in which your attacks must be taken during a Full Attack action.

Therefore, if I'm a high-level Monk with three natural weapons (and using your interpretation), on my Full Attack I can:

1. Attack with US, and be Flurrying
2. Attack with a claw, and not be Flurrying
3. Attack with US strike, and be Flurrying
4. Attack with a claw, and not be Flurrying
5. Attack with a kama, and be Flurrying
6. Attack with a bite, and not be Flurrying

I can switch between "Flurrying right now" and "Not Flurrying right now" multiple times within the same Full Attack action.

No, actually not. There is an order for your BAB-driven mulitiple attacks- you cannot choose.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

It would seem you have to take the flurry all together, with the extra attacks either before or after.

 

[Storyteller01]

I'm sure this one has been asked a lot, but I haven't had to deal with it as a DM an a 3.5 environment yet, and it may come up soon. What's the official ruling on how monks can use natural attacks? Are they completely incompatible with the unarmed strike damage and flurry of blows, or can some of them officially be used as secondary attacks? What's the official ruling, and have you done it at all differently?

Your call. The sources go either way, so it's best to use what works for your campaign.