Ye olde classic unarmed strike/natural weapon question.

[Iku Rex]

1. The Flurry of Blows replaces a full attack action.

The way this is usually handled is to make the action in question a separate full-round action. "Charging is a special full-round action..." "Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action." "You can run as a full-round action."

The monk's flurry on the other hand uses almost word-for-word the same wording as the rules for iterative attacks from BAB and two-weapon fighting.

"Full attack: If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

(The reason the full attack description refers to the full attack action as "a full-round action" is that they're explaining what a "full attack action" is and obviously can't make it circular. You can replace "full-round action" with "full attack action" and the rule will still be 100% correct.)

Compare this with the monk's flurry:

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

 

[Infiniti2000]

Also, I'd like to see someone respond to Iku Rex's questions regarding iterative attacks due to BAB and disarm checks due to using a spiked chain. I think those are relevant to this debate, but I notice that nobody's been willing to pick up the ball.

I missed it, since it wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond.

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)."

A close analogy, but not good enough. It fails when you realize that "spiked chain" is a specific weapon, and "flurry of blows" is not. Flurry of blows is a special attack, spiked chain is not. Flurry of blows requires a full attack action, a spiked chain does not. Therefore, this is a straw man.

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".

I've answered this one multiple times. Allowing secondary natural weapons is an explicit exception. You know this is true, so this argument is a straw man, a red herring, or both.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Your primary attacks come before or after secondary attacks, not interspersed, I think, per the rules on using an off-hand wepoan under "full attack.

What does off-hand rules have to do with secondary natural attacks? They are not equivalent.

Not that it matters, really. Who cares?

Obviously, I care because I asked the question. I can see that my request for you to stop being patronizing and PA has fallen on deaf ears.

 

[glass]

Are you seriously suggesting that using Flurry of Blows he should then strike 3 times with unarmed strikes but must give up the gore attack?

Yes of course I am.

On what basis?

On the basis that that is what the PHB says. On the basis that the gore is neither an anarmed strike nor a monk weapon. On the basis that I2k and I, and others, have explained dozens of times across numerous threads.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

What does off-hand rules have to do with secondary natural attacks? They are not equivalent.

Obviously, I care because I asked the question. I can see that my request for you to stop being patronizing and PA has fallen on deaf ears.

As for what off-hand rules have to do with secondary natural attacks; its a precendent, that's all, really.

Really, what difference does it really make if you can intersperse any extra natural attacks or not? It has no bearing on whether they are allowed, which is the real topic here.

BTW, can you name a creature that uses multiple natural attacks along with a weapon? I can't think of one off the top of my head, and I'd like to take a look at how that is written up.

As to "being patronizing and PA has fallen on deaf ears," I won't even comment on it. I try to stay clear of anything that might be taken personally, and, generally, don't comment on or answer anything I see that I might take personally unless it appears to really cross over the line of the site rules.

Thus, other than to say "I have no response, " I will not comment on it. If you don't like it, just ignore it, okay? That's what I do. Nothing makes such things go away faster that simply ignoriing them.

There. That's two paragraphs just to say I won't say anything.

 

[Artoomis]

Yes of course I am.

On the basis that that is what the PHB says. On the basis that the gore is neither an anarmed strike nor a monk weapon. On the basis that I2k and I, and others, have explained dozens of times across numerous threads.

glass.

But your argument is fatally flawed as it presumes something not in the PHB - that is, that a Flurry REPLACES a full attack as opposed to USES a full attack.

Surely you are not saying that those two are the same thing, are you?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I missed it, since it wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond.

A close analogy, but not good enough. It fails when you realize that "spiked chain" is a specific weapon, and "flurry of blows" is not. Flurry of blows is a special attack, spiked chain is not. Flurry of blows requires a full attack action, a spiked chain does not. Therefore, this is a straw man.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's assume that the spiked chain is being wielded by a 6th level fighter, who wants to get iterative attacks with it. This must be performed as part of a full attack action. In order for the monk to use a flurry of blows, it must be part of a full attack action as well.

The description of each rule is framed as "When using [the ability or weapon], [description of consequences]. If we take "when using" to imply "if you use it, you are considered to be using it for the duration of the full attack action", it seems as though there are a particular set of consequences:

Using a flurry of blows during the full attack action prohibits using secondary attacks that are not also special monk weapons, and using a spiked chain during the full attack action grants a +2 bonus to disarm checks. However, once the fighter has used the spiked chain, he is considered to be using it for the remainder of the full attack action, no matter what else he does. He makes one attack with the chain, then lets go with one hand, pulls a dagger, and attempts to disarm with it. Since he is still considered to be using the chain, he satisfies the conditions required to gain the +2 to the disarm attempt. Even if he drops the chain entirely, he should still gain the bonus.

If we take "when using" to imply "when making rolls directly related to the ability or weapon in question", we get a different set of consequences:

In his dagger attack, the fighter does not gain the bonus because he is not making a roll to disarm with the chain. However, that changes the monk's options. As part of a full attack action, he rolls for his flurry of blows attacks. Then, he makes an off-hand attack. Since this action is not directly related to the flurry of blows, it need not be made with a special monk weapon. Since a flurry is made as part of a full attack action, but is not necessarily the entire full attack action since other things may also be part of a full attack action and the flurry of blows description does not explicitly prohibit these things also being used, the weapon requirements are only applied to those rolls which are made "as part of a flurry of blows".

I think that the issue here, and the issue with Iku's other example, is that there are two interpretations of the words "when using". Under one interpretation, "using" is a state that lasts for the duration of the full attack action, and under the other it's not. But in the former case, we run into the spiked chain disarm problem, and in the latter, monks can use longswords as off-had attacks. Of course, the latter is only a problem if the rules prevent it, but the former just doesn't make any sense. Still, that might not be a good enough reason to go with one interpretation over the other.

So I think the problem is that the words "when using" are poorly defined, and this leads to multiple incommensurable interpretations.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But you argument is fatally flawed as it presumes something not in the PHB - that is, that a Flurry REPLACES a full attack as opposed to USES a full attack.

More specifically, is performed as part of a full attack action.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If you don't like it, just ignore it, okay? That's what I do.

Of course you want me to ignore it. You're the one being rude. Your attitude is why discussions like this, and especially "the other one", always end up in lockdom.

I would like to hear Iku Rex's response on that issue, however.

 

[billd91]

Yes of course I am.

On the basis that that is what the PHB says. On the basis that the gore is neither an anarmed strike nor a monk weapon. On the basis that I2k and I, and others, have explained dozens of times across numerous threads.


glass.

You may be reading something into the PH that isn't there. WotC apparently thinks it's not there. They contradict this interpretation in the FAQ. And back in February 2006, they published a stat block for a Fight Club that rejects your interpretation as well.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060224a

An ethereal filcher monk named Taibo may be silly, but he's kitted up using flurry of blows along with his bite attacks.