Ye olde classic unarmed strike/natural weapon question.

[Artoomis]

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

Well, now, that is the conclusion you are I are reaching, but it is not fair to claim the PHB actually sstates that, either, as you are implying, at least.

It simply states you USE a full attack to Flurry.

 

[glass]

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.

No, if it replaced a full attack then you would no longer be using the full attack action.

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

No; if it did say 'replace' the answer would be the same in this instance, but it would have consequences in other aspects.


glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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: ...

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

(selective quoting so as to not inflate my post unnecessarily) I don't agree that those two situations are comparable (first quoted paragraph) but I do agree with your second paragraph. Using a special attack and using a weapon are not equivalent. This is why WWA was an okay analogy, because it is, in effect, a special attack. If you have a reference to another, similar, special attack I would rule it in the same way as I do flurry of blows.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, now, that is the conclusion you are I are reaching, but it is not fair to claim the PHB actually sstates that, either, as you are implying, at least.

It simply states you USE a full attack to Flurry.

Well, considering that you must use a full attack action to use iterative attacks, off-hand attacks, or natural weapons, and these are not mutually exclusive, I take it that other language that requires the use of the full attack action would call out exclusive options. Flurry of blows doesn't do that, so I assume that by default it's not exclusive.

I'm not certain that's the issue under scrutiny, is it? I was under the impression that the problem with a monk using off-hand attacks after a flurry boiled down to one side which says that a monk must use monk weapons (which also prohibits natural attacks entirely), and the other side which says that any weapon could be used since the off-hand attacks are not part of the flurry.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

Well, if you really think I am being rude, please report my "rude" posts to the moderators if ignoring it is not enough for you.

Getting discussions closed because of rude behavior does not happen from a single comment, but from folks building on that comment and sniping at each other. I refuse to play that game. If more folks would simply ignore behavior that they think comes across as rude, far fewer threads would get closed. That's all I am going to say about it.

I will not comment about this again. Any more of my comments on this thread will be on-topic only.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

(selective quoting so as to not inflate my post unnecessarily) I don't agree that those two situations are comparable (first quoted paragraph) but I do agree with your second paragraph. Using a special attack and using a weapon are not equivalent. This is why WWA was an okay analogy, because it is, in effect, a special attack. If you have a reference to another, similar, special attack I would rule it in the same way as I do flurry of blows.

This might be another definitional issue. The way I interpret the Flurry of Blows ability is that it adds an additional option to the list of things you can do during a full attack action, along with "make multiple attacks due to a high BAB", "make off-hand attacks", and "make natural weapon attacks in addition to manufactured weapon attacks". But that's again just an interpretation of what is, on reflection, a vaguely worded rule.

 

[Artoomis]

...I'm not certain that's the issue under scrutiny, is it? I was under the impression that the problem with a monk using off-hand attacks after a flurry boiled down to one side which says that a monk must use monk weapons (which also prohibits natural attacks entirely), and the other side which says that any weapon could be used since the off-hand attacks are not part of the flurry.

I think that's pretty much it. Restating in the form of a question:

If you are otherwise allowed an attack with a natural in addition to your normal full attack with weapons (your full attack becomes your normal full attack plus natural weapon attack) and you Flurry, is that natural weapon prohibited because it is not a monk weapon.?

1. Yes, it is prohibited. All monk attack when Flurrying MUST be with a monk weapon or unarmed strike, and a natural weapon is neither.

2. No, it is allowed. The Flurry itself ends up being only part of the Full Attack, with the attack from the natural weapon making up the other part of the full attack routine.

I think number (2) is correct, though I am not averse to folks from the number (1) side of this discussion re-phrasing my number (1) to make it more convincing.

Maybe if is was re-phrased I might be convinced, though I doubt it.

At this point the answer of number (2) seems incredibly obvious to me since it works this way when using other weapons for a full attack.

 

[Artoomis]

This might be another definitional issue. The way I interpret the Flurry of Blows ability is that it adds an additional option to the list of things you can do during a full attack action, along with "make multiple attacks due to a high BAB", "make off-hand attacks", and "make natural weapon attacks in addition to manufactured weapon attacks". But that's again just an interpretation of what is, on reflection, a vaguely worded rule.

I tend to think so, too. In fact, I tend to think it was meant to REPLACE off-hand attacks, though later interpretations from WotC (in the FAQ) have allowed off-hand attacks even when using a Flurry.

It is pretty clear at this point that WotC thinks that the rules allow for off-hand attacks and a natural attack in addition to a Flurry. That's the "offical" answer for whatever that's worth. But I guess this discussion is not about what WotC thinks the rules are, bit what they say in the PHB.

 

[Artoomis]

That massively understates the case, IMO.

EDIT:
Um, since we are pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum re the FAQ, and accurate stating of your position on it would hardly be 'better' from my POV, would it?


glass.

Slightly off-topic, but returning to FAQ validity sub-topic...

But, when trying to get a new poster to look at the FAQ with a critical eye, is it not better to enourage hm or her to look at it with a critcal eye - neither dismiising it out of hand nor blindly accepting it?

Your statement encourages them it dismiss it out-of-hand and is this overly-strong. It seems to me a miuch better statement might be:

"When veiwing the FAQ keep in mind that even though WotC positions it as "official" rules interpretations, it has been shown, on more than several occasions, to be in contradiction to the written rules. Some of these contradicitons have been later corrected. The FAQ should definately be looked at with a critical eye."

Is that not much more accurate and neutral? It's a bit wordy yet, though.

 

[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.

As an aside, is it not true that when combining weapon attacks with natural weapons, you get only one natural weapon attack? That's an aside because it is not really material to the discussion at hand.