Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sander_Kaa 04-03-07, 01:17 PM	Hiya all, I've read the article about Unarmed Attacks here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a. Especially this part got my attention: Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons Just as a creature can add weapon attacks to a full attack made with natural weapons, so too can it combine unarmed attacks with natural weapons. Two options are available to accomplish this task. A creature can choose to treat its unarmed attacks as its primary attacks and its natural weapons as secondary attacks. (This method is normally used to add weapon attacks to a natural attack routine.) The creature must make all unarmed attacks with its primary limb, which prevents that hand from being used for a natural attack such as a claw or slam. It uses its full base attack bonus for the natural attack, gaining additional attacks as normal for a high base attack bonus, and adds its full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Of course, each of these attacks provokes an attack of opportunity if the target is unarmed (unless the creature has Improved Unarmed Strike). However, its natural weapons all become secondary attacks, taking the -5 penalty on attack rolls (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) and adding only half the monster's Strength bonus on damage rolls. A simpler method is to treat the creature's unarmed attack as an off-hand attack. (After all, an unarmed strike is rarely as effective as a weapon attack would be, so it doesn't really merit the same level of priority in the average monster's attack array.) Instead of using its primary limb to deliver the unarmed attack, it uses a kick, head butt, or other appendage that isn't otherwise used to deliver a natural attack. The creature gains one unarmed strike, which deals damage appropriate to its size plus half its Strength bonus (since it's an off-hand attack). A creature using this method suffers a -4 penalty on all attacks (since it's effectively fighting with two weapons and its off-hand weapon is light). The damage for its natural attacks is unchanged. This method requires fewer calculations on the fly, so it's probably easier to use in play. Does this mean my Monk1/Druid9 can make while wildshaped first his unarmed strikes followed by all natural attacks only with taking -5 on the natural attacks (and only a lousy -2 while you have the multiattack feat). I've heard of the karate-kicking bear at the Optimization Board but never believed it. But now I see it's just fr*cking legal :eek: My DM will just kick me out the gamingroom if I announce this... in karate-kicking-bear-style I'm afraid...
runestar 04-03-07, 10:26 PM	Yes.
Marcus Majarra 04-04-07, 04:53 PM	This has always been the case. It shouldn't be too surprising to see that Monk 1 / Druid * is very synergistic.
ryryguy 04-04-07, 09:28 PM	I'm confused. Wouldn't the Monk/bear have to give up a claw attack in order to use his unarmed strike, due to this part: The creature must make all unarmed attacks with its primary limb, which prevents that hand from being used for a natural attack such as a claw or slam. Or are we extrapolating from the bit about monks using any part of their body to deliver unarmed strikes? Even if so, it doesn't seem like a huge advantage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a Monk 1 / Brown bear using this option end up with this full attack line, assuming flurry and BAB +4: 2 unarmed strikes +9 melee (1d6+8), 2 claws +4 melee (1d8+4) and bite +4 melee (2d6+4) As opposed to this as his regular, bear-only full attack line: 2 claws +11 melee (1d8+8) and bite +6 melee (2d6+4) I'm too lazy to figure out average damages, but it doesn't look all that much more impressive. (And, if the Monk/bear flurries, would he have to apply the -2 penalty to his secondary natural attacks?) (yes, so they are now included in the attack line.)
tos_shai_hulud 04-04-07, 10:20 PM	(And, if the Monk/bear flurries, would he have to apply the -2 penalty to his secondary natural attacks?) Yes, he would.
Frugal 04-05-07, 09:17 AM	Come on, you know you want to play a monk/druid so you can wildshape into a panda and play Genma from Ranma 1/2 :D
Vestrial 04-05-07, 01:24 PM	Yes, he would. From the article: A monk cannot use a flurry when using anything other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon. A nonmonk weapon or a natural weapon can't be combined with a flurry in any way Sounds to me like he cant do it at all...
tos_shai_hulud 04-05-07, 02:14 PM	Sounds to me like he cant do it at all... His flurry has nothing but unarmed strikes. It is his off-hand attacks from two-weapon fighting that possesses a greatsword. He can fight with unarmed strikes for his flurry and a greatsword for his off-hand attack. The rule you quoted has nothing to do with two-weapon fighting.
Vestrial 04-05-07, 02:47 PM	His flurry has nothing but unarmed strikes. It is his off-hand attacks from two-weapon fighting that possesses a greatsword. He can fight with unarmed strikes for his flurry and a greatsword for his off-hand attack. The rule you quoted has nothing to do with two-weapon fighting. Ok. But my response was regarding the question to which you answered yes, which had nothing to do with greatswords or twf. ( at least, last I checked a greatsword is not a natural weapon) :P
tos_shai_hulud 04-05-07, 03:18 PM	Oh, I apologize. There are two similar threads going around with monks. A monk's flurry of blows is considered manufactured weapons, and therefore a primary attack. If he decides to add a natural attack, it is a secondary natural attack. The penalty from flurry of blows applies to the secondary naturaly attack, just as it does to all other attacks during a round. That was what the question was about, so I answered yes, the penalty does apply to the secondary natural attacks. The secondary natural attacks have nothing to do with the flurry of blows.
Vestrial 04-05-07, 03:28 PM	Except that the quote I quoted says that flurry cant be combined with natural weapons in any way. Sounds to me like your combining a flurry and a natural attack in a full-attack action. The explanations in that article were pretty bad though, imo, so perhaps Im just missing something...
Frugal 04-05-07, 03:49 PM	Except that the quote I quoted says that flurry cant be combined with natural weapons in any way. Sounds to me like your combining a flurry and a natural attack in a full-attack action. The explanations in that article were pretty bad though, imo, so perhaps Im just missing something... This also runs completely counter to the official FAQ: Can a monk who has natural weapon attacks (such as a centaur monk) attack unarmed and still use his natural weapons? For example, let’s say he’s a 4th-level monk. Can he use a flurry of blows and attack at +5/+5/+0 unarmed (plus other bonuses) and then at +0/+0 for 2 hooves? If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). Since a centaur can make two hoof attacks in addition to his longsword attack, a centaur monk can make two hoof attacks in addition to his unarmed strike attack (or attacks, depending on his base attack bonus). The monk can’t use his natural weapon attacks as part of a flurry of blows, but he can make natural weapon attacks in addition to his flurry. Such attacks suffer the same –2 penalty as the monk’s flurry attacks in addition to the normal –5 penalty for secondary natural attacks. An 4th-level centaur monk has a base attack bonus of +7 (+4 from his 4 monstrous humanoid Hit Dice, and +3 from his 8 monk levels). If he performs a flurry of blows, he makes three unarmed strikes, at +5/+5/+0. He can add two hoof attacks at –2/–2 (–5 as secondary weapons, and –2 from the flurry).
tos_shai_hulud 04-05-07, 03:51 PM	Can a monk who has natural weapon attacks (such as a centaur monk) attack unarmed and still use his natural weapons? For example, let’s say he’s a 4th-level monk. Can he use a flurry of blows and attack at +5/+5/+0 unarmed (plus other bonuses) and then at +0/+0 for 2 hooves? If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). Since a centaur can make two hoof attacks in addition to his longsword attack, a centaur monk can make two hoof attacks in addition to his unarmed strike attack (or attacks, depending on his base attack bonus). The monk can’t use his natural weapon attacks as part of a flurry of blows, but he can make natural weapon attacks in addition to his flurry. Such attacks suffer the same –2 penalty as the monk’s flurry attacks in addition to the normal –5 penalty for secondary natural attacks. An 4th-level centaur monk has a base attack bonus of +7 (+4 from his 4 monstrous humanoid Hit Dice, and +3 from his 8 monk levels). If he performs a flurry of blows, he makes three unarmed strikes, at +5/+5/+0. He can add two hoof attacks at –2/–2 (–5 as secondary weapons, and –2 from the flurry). Perhaps this will clear it up. A monk may not combine natural attacks into a flurry of blows, but he is not combining the flurry of blows with natural attacks. He is making a separate natural attack. They are not in any way combined, except for the fact that they happen to take place in the same round.
Vestrial 04-05-07, 05:04 PM	Ah k, thanks. That faq is alot more clear than the article. Using 'combine' is a really poor choice I think. It would be more clear to simply say a natural attack cannot be a flurry attack. Because any time one ability impacts the roll of another its easy to construe that as being 'combined.' But anyway, I think I understand how it works now. Now to create my monk/druid build... ;)
AQuebman 04-11-07, 02:03 PM	So essentially you could do your flurry... 2 attacks at -2 and then do your natural attacks at the normal secondary negative + the -2 FoB?? Am I correct in this thinking??
TimelordSimone 04-11-07, 02:14 PM	If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine Surely, since a bear can't make weapon attacks, this would mean that a monk/druid would not be able to use both unarmed strikes and natural weapons?
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 02:34 PM	Surely, since a bear can't make weapon attacks, this would mean that a monk/druid would not be able to use both unarmed strikes and natural weapons? A bear ordinarily does not have the monk training to make unarmed strikes at all. With the monk training, yes, he does seem to have the ability to make both, IMO. I have not seen any FAQ indicating one way or the other. EDIT: Not to mention that a monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for all purposes. That means that they are a natural primary attack (a set of attacks can be a natural primary attack) making all other natural weapons a natural secondary weapon. (Once again, I think this works, but I have not seen any FAQ one way or the other to verify it.)
Marcus Majarra 04-11-07, 03:40 PM	That's pretty much incorrect. If unarmed strikes were natural weapons for all purposes, the following would be true: 1. The unarmed strike would not appear on the manufactured weapon's list 2. The unarmed strike would not be entitled extra iterative attacks, as natural weapons do not allow for iterative attacks 3. The unarmed strike would deal extra damage equal to the character's Str mod x 1.5 if the character had no other natural weapons Simply put: the unarmed strike is a manufactured weapon that counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects.
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 03:53 PM	That's pretty much incorrect. If unarmed strikes were natural weapons for all purposes, the following would be true: 1. The unarmed strike would not appear on the manufactured weapon's list 2. The unarmed strike would not be entitled extra iterative attacks, as natural weapons do not allow for iterative attacks 3. The unarmed strike would deal extra damage equal to the character's Str mod x 1.5 if the character had no other natural weapons Simply put: the unarmed strike is a manufactured weapon that counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects. That's pretty much a misinterpretation of the rules: A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. So, unarmed strikes are always natural weapons, but they are only treated as manufactured weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
Marcus Majarra 04-11-07, 04:01 PM	Actually, you're generalizing a specialized rule: a monk's unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured weapon and as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells an effects. If you're not a monk, it's basically a manufactured weapon that counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects. This coincides with the following: 1. Unarmed strikes allowing for iterative attacks 2. Unarmed strikes being listed as a manufactured weapon 3. Unarmed strikes being a part of the creature's body 4. The recent Rules of the Game articles on unarmed strikes 5. The fact that unarmed strikes only add your Str bonus to damage
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 04:09 PM	Actually, just because unarmed strikes are treated by the game mechanics as manufactured weapons does not make them any less natural weapons. They are natural weapons, but they use manufactured weapon rules. Your point #3 is precisely what makes them natural weapons. Being a natural weapon does not change the way the rules work with them. All it does is classify them as natural weapons.
tos_shai_hulud 04-11-07, 06:54 PM	Anyway, WotC support agrees that a monk/druid in bear form can use flurry of blows and its normal array of natural attacks as secondary natural attacks.
Sander_Kaa 04-13-07, 06:55 AM	Hi, here's the OP again. Damn, lots of dicussion still going on. ] Can I conclude that its is allowed to first make all unarmed strikes (with full STR bonus) (with or without flurry of blows) and then all natural attacks (with only half STR bonus) against a -5 penalty (only -2 when I have the MultiAttack feat) and a possibly -2 becuase af "flurrying" my unarmed strikes. However only those natural attacks can be used if the appropriate limb has not been used yet for an unarmed strike. A bit harder for me though is to find exactly how to explain this with only my PHB to my DM. Only saying: "some wizards guy wrote an article on the net about it" is not convincing him I'm afraid! Sander
runestar 04-13-07, 10:27 AM	However only those natural attacks can be used if the appropriate limb has not been used yet for an unarmed strike. You are correct. However, since you are allowed to use any part of your body to make an unarmed strike, the point above should not be a problem.:)
Steely_Dan 04-13-07, 10:32 AM	It breaks down like this: 20th level monk polymorphed into bear shape: Full attack: flurry of blows +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 and claws +10 each and bite +10 Or: 18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and 4 claws +13 each and bite +13 19 attacks per round. Remember, natural attacks can be made as secondary natural attacks in addition to a flurry, not part of.
starfire311 04-13-07, 10:50 AM	Full Attack: [/B]Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and 4 claws +13 each and bite +13 19 attacks per round. this doesn't seem correct, the "off-hand" attacks should replace the claw attacks when using TWF. then again, the whole monk unarmed strike and natural weapon and manufactured weapon, and normal unarmed strike and improved unarmed strike all need to be completly redone so it makes infinatly mroe sense.
tos_shai_hulud 04-13-07, 10:59 AM	18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and 4 claws +13 each and bite +13 19 attacks per round. Remember, natural attacks can be made as secondary natural attacks in addition to a flurry, not part of. And a thri-kreen monk 16/fighter 2 with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and a 10 Str and a 10 Dex: Full Attack: Flurry of blows: +12/+12/+12/+12/+7/+2 (2 attacks must be with shuriken) and unarmed strike +12/+12/+12/+7/+7/+7/+2/+2/+2 and 4 claws +12 each and bite +12. 20 attacks per round
meabolex 04-13-07, 12:15 PM	The ever lawful-neutral druid/monk combo looks good initially, but it quickly becomes subpar in the later game. The difficulty revolves around: Equipment now completely melds into forms, so you can't benefit from most gear (with a few notable exceptions like wild armor). You'll be heavily reliant on buffs. You have no way to deal with damage reduction other than form selection and buffs. Your low base attack bonus means no hitting creatures with average-for-CR AC without significant bonuses (flanking, inspire courage, buffs). So, while you could buff yourself like crazy, targeted dispel magic and antimagic fields will be your bane.
Frugal 04-13-07, 12:33 PM	You have no way to deal with damage reduction other than form selection and buffs. Well, you can get around some with more monk levels but then you're losing out on druid power.
Marcus Majarra 04-13-07, 02:06 PM	18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and 4 claws +13 each and bite +13 19 attacks per round. Remember, natural attacks can be made as secondary natural attacks in addition to a flurry, not part of. This doesn't make sense: the unarmed strike is a single weapon. You can't use it as if it were multiple weapons when fighting with two or more weapons. If that were true, we'd be assuming that any body part can be an unarmed strike (as opposed to an unarmed strike being done with any body part), and every monk literally has an infinite arsenal of off-hand unarmed attacks.
tos_shai_hulud 04-13-07, 02:15 PM	This doesn't make sense: the unarmed strike is a single weapon. You can't use it as if it were multiple weapons when fighting with two or more weapons. If that were true, we'd be assuming that any body part can be an unarmed strike (as opposed to an unarmed strike being done with any body part), and every monk literally has an infinite arsenal of off-hand unarmed attacks. The RAW provides the rules for the number of attacks you can make. It does not care how you make them. A human monk holding a quarterstaff in two hands can make a flurry of blows using only unarmed strikes. Logically, he has two hands left for off-hand attacks with his quarterstaff. Why is he only allowed one? Why is he ineligible for Multiweapon Fighting? He has two arms and two legs, after all. The RAW is flawed in this regard. And because of that flaw, the thri-kreen can take advantage of its flaw. It doesn't matter with what the monk makes off-hand attacks, his number of attacks is limited by his arm-like appendages. Even though he is headbutting, kicking, shoulder thrusting, elbowing, backhanding, kneeing, hip thrusting, and punching, it is only taking into account his number of arm-like appendages. Since his hands are free, that leaves his claws available for clawing.
starfire311 04-13-07, 03:11 PM	The RAW provides the rules for the number of attacks you can make. It does not care how you make them. A human monk holding a quarterstaff in two hands can make a flurry of blows using only unarmed strikes. Logically, he has two hands left for off-hand attacks with his quarterstaff. Why is he only allowed one? Why is he ineligible for Multiweapon Fighting? He has two arms and two legs, after all. The RAW is flawed in this regard. And because of that flaw, the thri-kreen can take advantage of its flaw. It doesn't matter with what the monk makes off-hand attacks, his number of attacks is limited by his arm-like appendages. Even though he is headbutting, kicking, shoulder thrusting, elbowing, backhanding, kneeing, hip thrusting, and punching, it is only taking into account his number of arm-like appendages. Since his hands are free, that leaves his claws available for clawing. yes but if your hands are full, or being used for somethng else, like attacking, theny uo do not get to make off-hand attacks with your unarmed strike. if a lizardman can make a primary unarmed strike, then an offhand unarmed strike, then attack 2 times with his claws as secondary natural attacks, why could he not attack with say 2 weapons in place of those claw attacks, since a weapon attack can take the place of a claw attack. In other words with MWF you get 1 off hand attack for each additional limb you have, if you are using that limb to make a claw attack you cannot also use it for making an unarmed strike. The rule is basically, if you can normally make weapon attacks and natural attacks as part of the same full attack routine then you can use Unarmed strikes in place of the weapon attacks. So if a thri-kreen could normally make say 4 shortsword attacks and 4 claw attacks as part of a full attack routine then you can use unarmed strikes in place of the shortsword attacks. If he cannot do this, which he cannot, he could make unarmed strikes in place of the shortsword/claw attacks. you must remember that Unarmed strike takes the place of a manufactured weapon attack the creature would normally have, the big thing about wildshaping into forms that don't normally have manufactured weapon attacks is that you will get your unarmed strike attacks in addition to your natural attacks. At elast that is teh current ruling, but since this is really not covered anywhere in the books, it is My opinion that a Wildshaped bear for example, would have to give up a claw attack to use his unarmed strike, and he could give up his other claw attack to make an "off hand" unarmed strike, but it is perfectly legal to rule, IMO that since bears don't have manufactured weapon attacks they cannot make unarmed strikes.
tos_shai_hulud 04-13-07, 06:18 PM	yes but if your hands are full, or being used for somethng else, like attacking, theny uo do not get to make off-hand attacks with your unarmed strike. if a lizardman can make a primary unarmed strike, then an offhand unarmed strike, then attack 2 times with his claws as secondary natural attacks, why could he not attack with say 2 weapons in place of those claw attacks, since a weapon attack can take the place of a claw attack. In other words with MWF you get 1 off hand attack for each additional limb you have, if you are using that limb to make a claw attack you cannot also use it for making an unarmed strike. The rule is basically, if you can normally make weapon attacks and natural attacks as part of the same full attack routine then you can use Unarmed strikes in place of the weapon attacks. So if a thri-kreen could normally make say 4 shortsword attacks and 4 claw attacks as part of a full attack routine then you can use unarmed strikes in place of the shortsword attacks. If he cannot do this, which he cannot, he could make unarmed strikes in place of the shortsword/claw attacks. you must remember that Unarmed strike takes the place of a manufactured weapon attack the creature would normally have, the big thing about wildshaping into forms that don't normally have manufactured weapon attacks is that you will get your unarmed strike attacks in addition to your natural attacks. At elast that is teh current ruling, but since this is really not covered anywhere in the books, it is My opinion that a Wildshaped bear for example, would have to give up a claw attack to use his unarmed strike, and he could give up his other claw attack to make an "off hand" unarmed strike, but it is perfectly legal to rule, IMO that since bears don't have manufactured weapon attacks they cannot make unarmed strikes. All of your points would make sense for any class other than monk. A monk's unarmed strikes ARE manufactured weapons. They do not HAVE an off-hand. You don't need to make them with limbs. So long as you have not used the natural weapon, you can make an attack with it. So the thri-kreen gains all of the attacks according to the RAW. While it might make sense to rule "NO", it is definitely within the rules. It is perfectly legal to rule anything that you like, but what the rules say and DMs rule never needs to be the same. The RAW is there as a guideline for making judgements. In the end, you need to rule whatever you think is correct. That doesn't change what the RAW says, though. And according to the RAW, a monk bear can make unarmed strikes and natural attacks and a thri-kreen monk can make unarmed strikes and off-hand unarmed strikes while still making his full complement of natural attacks.
starfire311 04-13-07, 07:15 PM	All of your points would make sense for any class other than monk. A monk's unarmed strikes ARE manufactured weapons. this is absoluty correct, Monks unarmed strikes are manufactured weapon. When using manufactured weapons in conjunction with natural weapons that could be used to wield a natural weapon, then it replaces that natural weapon. For example a thri-kreen gets 4 claw attacks. if he chooses to wield a manufactured weapon it will replace 1 of the claw attacks, and make all his remaining natural weapons into seconday attacks... wether that is a longsword, unarmed strike or armor spike it matters not. If he chooses to use Multi weaponfighting and wield 4 Manufactured weapon it will replace all 4 of his claw attacks.
tos_shai_hulud 04-14-07, 12:04 AM	this is absoluty correct, Monks unarmed strikes are manufactured weapon. When using manufactured weapons in conjunction with natural weapons that could be used to wield a natural weapon, then it replaces that natural weapon. For example a thri-kreen gets 4 claw attacks. if he chooses to wield a manufactured weapon it will replace 1 of the claw attacks, and make all his remaining natural weapons into seconday attacks... wether that is a longsword, unarmed strike or armor spike it matters not. If he chooses to use Multi weaponfighting and wield 4 Manufactured weapon it will replace all 4 of his claw attacks. Only IF the monk chooses to use his hands for unarmed strikes. His hands could be completely full and still make a full complement of unarmed strikes (as flurry of blows) AND off-hand attacks. Here is the relevant information from the Monk entry: A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. So, if their hands are full, they can make unarmed strikes with elbows, knees, and whatever else they choose. Multiweapon fighting only tells them how many attacks they can make, not what limbs they must use to make the attacks. So, choosing to not use any of their claw limbs leaves those claws free for natural weapon attacks.
Marcus Majarra 04-14-07, 01:18 AM	It's not about what limbs make the attacks. The unarmed strike is a single weapon. As such, it can only be used to substitute a single weapon when used with multi-weapon fighting (or two-weapon fighting, for that matter). Allowing for the monk to use the unarmed strike on both primary hand and off-hand attacks is like allowing a ranger to switch the same weapon from one hand to the next in order to use two-weapon fighting. The flurry of blows is an exception scenario that only involves the primary hand attacks and that allows for multiple weapons to be used with the primary hand (which effectively locks them out of use for off-hand attacks).
tos_shai_hulud 04-14-07, 02:06 AM	Unarmed strike is not one weapon. It is many weapons grouped together. It has no off-hand. You can keep using it for each off-hand attack you possess. Now, I have not checked the thri-kreen entry, but now that I think about it, do they usually get claw attacks when they also use weapon attacks? If not, then by the rules, they would not get their claw attacks, even if it seems like they are still available. I am pretty sure they still get their bite, but I would need to check. Does anyone have their XPH handy? Do they get claw attacks combined with melee attacks if they do not use the claws during their attack?
Marcus Majarra 04-14-07, 04:01 AM	Do you have any RAW to support your claim that the unarmed strike is more than one weapon? All that RAW says is that an unarmed strike can be performed with more than one part of the body, not that it's multiple weapons. The reference you quoted from the monk's unarmed strike indicating that "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" is simply there to indicate that, while attacking with a weapon in your off-hand would be considered an off-hand attack, merely making an unarmed strike with that off-hand is not considered an off-hand attack. In this respect, the monk's unarmed strike remains the same, regardless of the body part used to make the strike (even if that body part is the off-hand).
calronmoonflower 04-14-07, 04:50 AM	I think this should cover it. Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her penalties on attack rolls? A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for twoweapon fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows. For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember can normally make one attack per round at a +4 bonus. When using flurry of blows, she can make two attacks (using unarmed strikes or any special monk weapons she holds), each at a +3 bonus. If she wants to make an extra attack with her off hand, she has to accept a –4 penalty on her primary hand attacks and a –8 penalty on her off-hand attacks (assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand). If Ember has Two-Weapon Fighting, she has to accept only a –2 penalty on all attacks to make an extra attack with her off hand. Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks, each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to be with her off-hand weapon. A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows. Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this: +11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand.
tos_shai_hulud 04-14-07, 07:32 AM	Do you have any RAW to support your claim that the unarmed strike is more than one weapon? All that RAW says is that an unarmed strike can be performed with more than one part of the body, not that it's multiple weapons. The reference you quoted from the monk's unarmed strike indicating that "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" is simply there to indicate that, while attacking with a weapon in your off-hand would be considered an off-hand attack, merely making an unarmed strike with that off-hand is not considered an off-hand attack. In this respect, the monk's unarmed strike remains the same, regardless of the body part used to make the strike (even if that body part is the off-hand). Your interpretation of the quote that I made does not make sense to me. Consider a fighter, not even a monk, who is in a bar brawl. He is a first level fighter, so he has one attack. He decides to punch his foe, then with his off-hand attack, punch his foe. According to you, this is not legal because he has already used his unarmed strike for his main hand attack. But, as we have already read, unarmed strike does not HAVE an off-hand, so he didn't "use" it up for his main hand, nor does it have an off-hand. Any body part could be used. So, he makes a punch with one fist, then with the other. Or, he makes a kick, then a shoulder thrust. He can mix and match. It makes perfect sense that he could. He does not "use-up" his unarmed strike. It is not a single weapon.
Frugal 04-14-07, 09:53 AM	Reead the recent rules of the game articles on unarmed strikes.
starfire311 04-14-07, 11:41 AM	Reead the recent rules of the game articles on unarmed strikes. yeah I have and I hate his ruling, but whatever, according to his ruling the thri-kreen in the previous exmples with greater MWF and BAB +16 and and Improved unarmed strike and Flurry of blows would have a few options. Option 1 replace primary attack with with unarmed strike and make off-hand attacks with unarmed strike and use all but 1 natural attack as secondary attacks giving 5 primary Unarmed strikes and 3 x 3 off hand unarmed strikes and 3 secondary claw attacks and 1 secondary bite attack(18 total attacks) Option 2 perform natural attacks as normal, and use unamred strikes as off-hand attacks. Giving 4 claws as primary natural attacks, 1 bite as a scondary natural attack and 3 x 3 unarmed strikes as off-hand attacks(14 total attcks)
Frugal 04-14-07, 12:19 PM	yeah I have and I hate his ruling, but whatever, according to his ruling the thri-kreen in the previous exmples with greater MWF and BAB +16 and and Improved unarmed strike and Flurry of blows would have a few options. Option 1 replace primary attack with with unarmed strike and make off-hand attacks with unarmed strike and use all but 1 natural attack as secondary attacks I'm not entirely sure you even lose the 1 claw attack with this option. I do find the ruling a bit cheesy in that you're claiming the benefit of the extra limb for both unarmed strikes and a natural attack on that limb. Personally, I think it makes more sense to say that you give up the claw attack for any limb used in with unarmed strikes.
tos_shai_hulud 04-14-07, 01:08 PM	I'm not entirely sure you even lose the 1 claw attack with this option. I do find the ruling a bit cheesy in that you're claiming the benefit of the extra limb for both unarmed strikes and a natural attack on that limb. Personally, I think it makes more sense to say that you give up the claw attack for any limb used in with unarmed strikes. Personally, I think it makes sense to say that multiweapon fighting is more difficult that two-weapon fighting. I mean, you have extra limbs getting in the way. The penalty should be greater. At least, when a PC is using it. Otherwise, it just seems way too powerful to me. Even limiting it to no claw attacks being available still seems like way too many attacks.
starfire311 04-14-07, 02:53 PM	I'm not entirely sure you even lose the 1 claw attack with this option. I do find the ruling a bit cheesy in that you're claiming the benefit of the extra limb for both unarmed strikes and a natural attack on that limb. Personally, I think it makes more sense to say that you give up the claw attack for any limb used in with unarmed strikes. yeah option one from Rules of the game A creature can choose to treat its unarmed attacks as its primary attacks and its natural weapons as secondary attacks. (This method is normally used to add weapon attacks to a natural attack routine.) The creature must make all unarmed attacks with its primary limb, which prevents that hand from being used for a natural attack such as a claw or slam this means it must give up a claw attack to get unarmed strike as a primary, and then treat all his other natural attacks as secondary. he then goes on to say option 2 A simpler method is to treat the creature's unarmed attack as an off-hand attack. (After all, an unarmed strike is rarely as effective as a weapon attack would be, so it doesn't really merit the same level of priority in the average monster's attack array.) Instead of using its primary limb to deliver the unarmed attack, it uses a kick, head butt, or other appendage that isn't otherwise used to deliver a natural attack. The creature gains one unarmed strike, which deals damage appropriate to its size plus half its Strength bonus (since it's an off-hand attack). A creature using this method suffers a -4 penalty on all attacks (since it's effectively fighting with two weapons and its off-hand weapon is light). The damage for its natural attacks is unchanged. This method requires fewer calculations on the fly, so it's probably easier to use in play. this lets you keep all your natural attacks as normal, but take unarmed strikes as off-hand attacks
tos_shai_hulud 04-14-07, 03:11 PM	While I have never DMed with a character with more than two arms, I think I would change multiweapon fighting to be an extension of Two-Weapon Fighting. Each limb beyond the first imposes an additional -2 to main hand and all off-hand attacks. So, the thri-kreen in my game would have a -6 to all attacks instead of a -2. That would at least make it more difficult for it to hit with its numerous attacks.
Marcus Majarra 04-14-07, 03:49 PM	Neither the FAQ nor the recent Rules of the Game articles indicate in any example or explanation that a creature is entitled to more than one unarmed strike (keep in mind that iterative attacks simply run off the same weapon). Regarding your bar brawl example, tos_shai_hulud, the fighter making the second jab is basically making a second iterative attack. He's not attacking with a second weapon, since the unarmed strike is a single weapon. I think this is where you're giving rise to the confusion: weapons do not have off-hands. Creatures do. You state that an unarmed strike does not have an off-hand, and you're right because a weapon doesn't have an off-hand. It can be used by the off-hand, however. The fighter cannot fight with two weapons if he doesn't have two weapons to begin with. To attack more than once with the same weapon, you need iterative attacks (or any effect that provides additional attacks with the same weapon).
Frugal 04-14-07, 03:59 PM	Yeah, I wish they'd do a multiple limb example and answer the whole Thri-kreen monk thing once and for all.
starfire311 04-14-07, 05:47 PM	Yeah, I wish they'd do a multiple limb example and answer the whole Thri-kreen monk thing once and for all. maybe he could show what he thinks a thri-kreen monk can do.
tos_shai_hulud 04-14-07, 07:05 PM	Neither the FAQ nor the recent Rules of the Game articles indicate in any example or explanation that a creature is entitled to more than one unarmed strike (keep in mind that iterative attacks simply run off the same weapon). Regarding your bar brawl example, tos_shai_hulud, the fighter making the second jab is basically making a second iterative attack. He's not attacking with a second weapon, since the unarmed strike is a single weapon. I think this is where you're giving rise to the confusion: weapons do not have off-hands. Creatures do. You state that an unarmed strike does not have an off-hand, and you're right because a weapon doesn't have an off-hand. It can be used by the off-hand, however. The fighter cannot fight with two weapons if he doesn't have two weapons to begin with. To attack more than once with the same weapon, you need iterative attacks (or any effect that provides additional attacks with the same weapon). A first level fighter does not have iterative attacks. He is first level. He can, however, attack with his main hand and with his off-hand using unarmed strike and two-weapon fighting. Unarmed strike for his main hand and unarmed strike for his off-hand.
tos_shai_hulud 04-14-07, 07:12 PM	Ah, here we go: You also need a weapon or two, though you can use unarmed strikes as your "weapons" in a two-weapon attack (see page 160 in the Player's Handbook). Note the plural form of weapons. Unarmed strike can be used as your weapons indicates both main hand and off-hand.
Frugal 04-14-07, 09:16 PM	maybe he could show what he thinks a thri-kreen monk can do. It'd be nice. But at least an example of any creature with more than 2 arms and claw attacks would clear it up completely.
WolfHati 04-15-07, 01:41 AM	Anyone who tries to attack with a weapon (in this case unarmed strike) and a claw on the same hand/limb/whatever during a round deserves the business end of the DM's improved critical (player's handbook).
calronmoonflower 04-15-07, 03:16 AM	Anyone who tries to attack with a weapon (in this case unarmed strike) and a claw on the same hand/limb/whatever during a round deserves the business end of the DM's improved critical (player's handbook). A monk can use an unarmed strike with other parts of their body besides their hands.
Sander_Kaa 04-15-07, 10:33 AM	higha folks (the OP is back again). Looks like there;s some discussion going on in this thread.. I'm playing tonight with my character (Monk1/Druid9) where my initial question (see OP) came from. It's my first opportunity to use the rules to combine the Monk's Unarmed Strike and the Wildshape's Natural Attacks. Anyone who tries to attack with a weapon (in this case unarmed strike) and a claw on the same hand/limb/whatever during a round deserves the business end of the DM's improved critical (player's handbook). However, the above thing will probably my DMs reaction so I'm still doubting.. And pointing him on this thread will not help anymore I guess, I'm still trying to point out using the PHB as RAW why I can combine the attacks like we all say in this thread.
tos_shai_hulud 04-15-07, 11:05 AM	higha folks (the OP is back again). Looks like there;s some discussion going on in this thread.. I'm playing tonight with my character (Monk1/Druid9) where my initial question (see OP) came from. It's my first opportunity to use the rules to combine the Monk's Unarmed Strike and the Wildshape's Natural Attacks. However, the above thing will probably my DMs reaction so I'm still doubting.. And pointing him on this thread will not help anymore I guess, I'm still trying to point out using the PHB as RAW why I can combine the attacks like we all say in this thread. Contact Wizard's Customer Support. They are the ones who told me that it was legal. Also check the Rules of the Game. It also demonstrates that this is legal.
Metafictional 04-15-07, 11:20 AM	Ok, perhaps Rule 0 has to be invoked here? All of this seems a bit confusing, and really, it all boils down to two situations: 1) characters wishing to use Two Weapon Fighting as a Monk. Not generally the best scenario, but it can be done. A Monk can, as near as I can tell, wield a Kama. The Monk could make any of their Flurry attacks with either the Kama or the Unarmed Strike interchangeably. The funny part of this is which weapon is then considered to be the off-hand attack? If I was allowed to switch up Kama attacks and Unarmed Strikes during my normal Flurry sequence, then exactly which weapon would I end up having to use for the bonus attack of TWF? The Kama, or an Unarmed Strike? While I'd be inclined to say "either", that's pretty darned odd sounding; obviously, we don't want Monks making all of their Flurry Attacks AND the off-hand attack with the Kama. That's somewhat broken; if you could do that, you wouldn't need to carry around two weapons for the TWF Feat. But wait, Flurry of Blows also states that your Flurry Attacks are all pretty much considered primary attacks, none of them suffer a 1/2 Strength Bonus, even if, in the above example, you're beating up your enemy with a single Kama and your Unarmed Strike. It's only the bonus attack with TWF that would have 1/2 Strength. At this point, my head is spinning. You have an ability (Flurry) saying you can use Unarmed Strike, or a single Kama during your iterative attacks as a primary weapon interchangeably. But if you use TWF, you make a secondary attack using one or the other at 1/2 Strength? The arguments above saying that you only have ONE Unarmed Strike (thus preventing you from using it as an off-hand attack) make sense...but. Let's examine the Gauntlet. It's presented as a manufactured weapon, but it uses the rules for Unarmed Strike. It simply adds the feature that you wouldn't provoke AoO by punching with it if you lack Improved Unarmed Strike. But characters can (and often do) wear two gauntlets. Several suits of armor feature them for free (read the descriptions). And you could enchant a gauntlet like any other manufactured weapon. So a Fighter could use TWF with twin gauntlets, right? This is starting to imply that you can use Unarmed Strike as both a primary AND a secondary weapon, if using TWF. A boxer uses both hands in a fight, even if one is their "dominant" hand, so this makes sense (although WotC attempts to avoid specifically defining Unarmed Strikes). I consider TWF + Flurry to be a bad idea, since few Monks can take the -4 penalty to all attacks and get very far, especially for a rather weak additional attack. Rule 0 to disallow TWF + Flurry would prevent a lot of confusion in most games; use Flurry as presented. Alternately, you can force the player to actually have a secondary weapon equipped (or allow them to use Unarmed Strike as a secondary, but only if they do not use it as a primary attack that turn). This may create a few odd problems, however, so examine it closely. It does appear, however, that RAW games allow the Unarmed Strike to be either a primary or secondary weapon if it darned well wants to be, and apparently, special monk weapons can be used in the same way with Flurry, although I would be quick to jump on someone using, as mentioned before, a Kama for both a primary and secondary attack. Come to think of it, couldn't a Monk theoretically use a Staff in Flurry two handed for 1.5 Str bonus damage, and then use TWF to clock someone upside the head with the other end as a secondary attack??!! Gee, why do we have two-bladed swords again? 2) and after all that, here's the big one. Monstrous Monks. Ie; monks who have access to natural weaponry. Honestly, this is the biggest bone of contention, the RAW and the FAQ's do seem to contradict somewhat. Here's what I have ruled in my own games. Whether this is legal or not by RAW, well...I don't care, it was done for sanity (I made a Half-Fiend Centaur Monk once as an NPC and quickly realized I was in over my head once battle started). Scenario A-Creature has a single Natural Weapon. The character may use the parameters of their Natural Weapon interchangeably with the Unarmed Strike; ie, if they have a claw, I would allow their Unarmed Strike to inflict slashing damage, lethal damage, and avoid AoO. However, they are otherwise considered to be using the Unarmed Strike, so if some other special is attached to the Natural Weapon (ie, energy drain for Vampire Slam Attacks), this special DOES NOT come into play with the Unarmed Strike. I would, however, allow the player to use TWF to make an off-hand secondary attack (but with TWF's -2 penalty to hit; since the creature doesn't normally have secondary attacks I won't afflict them with a -5) with the natural weapon (at 1/2 Str damage). Scenario B-Creature has multiple Natural Weapons. This is where it gets a bit stickier. The character can perform either of the following options: Not using Flurry: full attack with normal natural weapon routine, the character can designate any of their natural weapons to be an Unarmed Strike, subject to the limitations above. Thusly, a Bear Monk is still full attacking with Claw/Claw/Bite, but can use their Unarmed Strike damage, while retaining the other parameters of the natural weapons; the primary attacks are at full BAB, the secondary is at -5, with the appropriate STR damage penalty. Using Flurry: standard attack progression; mixing parameters of unarmed strike and natural weapons as above. No secondary attacks. Using Flurry + TWF: this is tougher, but what I'd been doing is allowing the character to make their flurry as above, and then making all primary attacks as secondary attacks, and then all of their normal secondary attacks at an additional -5 penalty. The "off-hand" attacks are actually natural weapon attacks in this case. So the bear would be doing this; Flurry progression attacks at -4 to hit, full Str. 2 claws at -4 to hit, 1/2 Str, 1 bite at -9 to hit, 1/2 Str. This option is still a bit rough, especially with improved TWF...maybe Multiweapon Fighting would be better. 3) creature allowed to use manufactured and natural weapons; ie, centaur. Flurry progression as above, with natural weapon attacks made at an additional -5 and 1/2 Str, so a centaur would have flurries at -2, and two regular hoof attacks at -7, 1/2 Str. This allowed my Half Fiend Centaur, Nemys, to do the following, as a Monk 1; unarmed/unarmed/unarmed/hoof -5/hoof -5. Flurry would be a bad option until a higher level of Monk was achieved.
tos_shai_hulud 04-15-07, 11:52 AM	Ok, perhaps Rule 0 has to be invoked here? All of this seems a bit confusing, and really, it all boils down to two situations: 1) ... The funny part of this is which weapon is then considered to be the off-hand attack? If I was allowed to switch up Kama attacks and Unarmed Strikes during my normal Flurry sequence, then exactly which weapon would I end up having to use for the bonus attack of TWF? The Kama, or an Unarmed Strike? The FAQ is pretty explicit on this topic. If he used the Kama during the Flurry, he could only use Unarmed Strike for his off-hand. ... If the monk in our example has two sais to use with the flurry, plus the off-hand attack, she can use both in the flurry (in which case she must make the off-hand attack with an unarmed strike) or one sai for the off-hand attack and one with the flurry. The sai used in the off-hand attack is not available for the flurry and vice versa. (Note that nothing is mentioned about using unarmed strike in both the primary and off-hand attack. This is because, as noted in the Rules of the Game, unarmed strike can be used in both places). But wait, Flurry of Blows also states that your Flurry Attacks are all pretty much considered primary attacks, none of them suffer a 1/2 Strength Bonus, even if, in the above example, you're beating up your enemy with a single Kama and your Unarmed Strike. Flurry of blows is not the same as two-weapon fighting. None of your extra attacks are "off-hand". They are all primary attacks. A monk may attack faster than most other characters. A good epic build would be Fighter 20/Monk n (where n is any number of monk levels you like). This would make a very powerful monk who could have very powerful two-weapon fighting. It's only the bonus attack with TWF that would have 1/2 Strength. At this point, my head is spinning. You have an ability (Flurry) saying you can use Unarmed Strike, or a single Kama during your iterative attacks as a primary weapon interchangeably. But if you use TWF, you make a secondary attack using one or the other at 1/2 Strength? As noted above, if the Kama is used during the flurry, it is not available as an off-hand attack. The unarmed strike is available (because unarmed strike involves multiple limbs, headbutts, etc.). The arguments above saying that you only have ONE Unarmed Strike (thus preventing you from using it as an off-hand attack) make sense...but. Having only one unarmed strike does not make sense to me. Let's examine the Gauntlet. It's presented as a manufactured weapon, but it uses the rules for Unarmed Strike. It simply adds the feature that you wouldn't provoke AoO by punching with it if you lack Improved Unarmed Strike. But characters can (and often do) wear two gauntlets. Several suits of armor feature them for free (read the descriptions). And you could enchant a gauntlet like any other manufactured weapon. So a Fighter could use TWF with twin gauntlets, right? Gauntlets are different from unarmed strike. While they augment your unarmed strike, look at these rather contradictory entries in the FAQ right next to each other: Can a monk wear a gauntlet and still use her flurry of blows? Does she gain any other special abilities of the gauntlets with her unarmed strikes? Technically, a gauntlet isn’t an unarmed strike (it has a separate line on Table 7–5: Weapons in the Player’s Handbook), and thus can’t be used as part of a flurry of blows. A monk could wear gauntlets and still use flurry of blows, she just couldn’t attack with the gauntlets as part of the flurry (she’d be using her feet, elbows, knees, and so forth instead). If that’s too much hairsplitting for you, treat a gauntlet attack as effectively identical to an unarmed strike, except that it always deals lethal damage (even when worn by a monk). Many magic items called gauntlets aren’t necessarily using the same terminology. Gauntlets of ogre power, for example, aren’t always metal gloves. It’s conceivable that a monk might be wearing magic gauntlets that grant a special benefit on her unarmed strikes without those gauntlets also serving as weapons in their own right. In this case, the monk is making unarmed strike attacks, not gauntlet attacks. Can a monk treat an attack with a gauntlet as an unarmed strike? A monk could wear such an item and treat it as an unarmed strike (since the Player’s Handbook says that “a strike with a gauntlet is . . . considered an unarmed attack”), although the damage dealt by the gauntlet would always be considered lethal damage (as noted in the gauntlet entry) and the monk would suffer a nonproficiency penalty (since the gauntlet is a simple weapon). The monk could even use gauntlet attacks as part of a flurry of blows. The underlined statements highlight the contradiction. Rule 0 to disallow TWF + Flurry would prevent a lot of confusion in most games; use Flurry as presented. Why? Come to think of it, couldn't a Monk theoretically use a Staff in Flurry two handed for 1.5 Str bonus damage, and then use TWF to clock someone upside the head with the other end as a secondary attack??!! Gee, why do we have two-bladed swords again? No, Flurry of blows never allows 1.5 str. If you read the description, all attacks are at full strength, regardless of how many hands are on the weapon. 2) and after all that, here's the big one. Monstrous Monks. Ie; monks who have access to natural weaponry. Honestly, this is the biggest bone of contention, the RAW and the FAQ's do seem to contradict somewhat. The only contention is the number of natural attacks that are allowed to be combined, and which creatures are capable of combining natural attacks and unarmed strikes. There is little contradiction in the RAW and the FAQ because there is simply not enough information. The one thing that is consistent is that if the creature could normally use manufactured weapons and natural weapons, then it still could. The question is really if a druid/monk could. The monk's special training is not lost when it goes into animal form. It still knows martial arts (unlike normal animals). WotC Customer Support agreed that this would allow the bear to make unarmed strike attacks and still gain its full compliment of natural attacks, but it is really up to the DM to make the final call.
Steely_Dan 04-16-07, 06:50 AM	Okay, so how about this: 18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and bite +13 15 attacks per round.
tos_shai_hulud 04-16-07, 07:11 AM	Okay, so how about this: 18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and bite +13 15 attacks per round. You could definitely rule that those are the only attacks he could make. The rules are definitely unclear if he could make claw attacks.
grydrilnrad 04-16-07, 07:45 AM	As a DM, any player that takes 1 level of monk and then goes cleric or druid deserves whatever fast and painful death he gets. Its metagaming plain and simple to get the plus to AC for wisdom. As for the attacks. Claws and bite are a creatures full attack. If you use them, that's it, you dont get to use unarmed monk attacks too. Its like having a dragon claw, claw, bite, breath, cast spell, wing buffet, tail slap and rend for the finale. You show me where anything gets 2 sets of full attacks in any book?
Sander_Kaa 04-16-07, 09:22 AM	As a DM, any player that takes 1 level of monk and then goes cleric or druid deserves whatever fast and painful death he gets. Its metagaming plain and simple to get the plus to AC for wisdom. As for the attacks. Claws and bite are a creatures full attack. If you use them, that's it, you dont get to use unarmed monk attacks too. Its like having a dragon claw, claw, bite, breath, cast spell, wing buffet, tail slap and rend for the finale. You show me where anything gets 2 sets of full attacks in any book? This was my initial reaction too. However, I am playing a Monk/Druid right now (with a good backstory) and the Rules of the Game article (please see OP) clearly shows how my PC can first make unarmed strikes and the natrual attacks (with penalty to hit and only half STR to damage). However I didn't introduce it to my DM. I'm afraid of the sharp corners of his DMG. And optimizing = metagaming.. we have pages of discussion on this board so I will not feed the troll...
starfire311 04-16-07, 09:27 AM	Okay, so how about this: 18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and bite +13 15 attacks per round. RAW it looks like you could also take 3 of his claw attacks as secondary natural attacks, however what you have posted is how I would rule it. As a DM, any player that takes 1 level of monk and then goes cleric or druid deserves whatever fast and painful death he gets. Its metagaming plain and simple to get the plus to AC for wisdom. As for the attacks. Claws and bite are a creatures full attack. If you use them, that's it, you dont get to use unarmed monk attacks too. Its like having a dragon claw, claw, bite, breath, cast spell, wing buffet, tail slap and rend for the finale. You show me where anything gets 2 sets of full attacks in any book? 1st it is quite clear that you know how you think the rules hsould be, but your clearly don't know the rules, it is under the most rare circumstances that a dragon would be able to claw, claw, bite, cast a spell, and breath, you jsut used 1 full attack, and 2 standard actions. the dragon in your example could choose to make an unarmed strike as an offhand attack if it was a dragon monk with Greater TWF it could make 3 unarmed strikes as iterative off hand attacks. Lets look at level 12 monk great wyrm red dragon(amazing this is a freak of nature it is LE), it has Multi attack and perfect TWF it could have on a full attack with FoB, while hasted, w/ superior unarmed strike and monk's belt, and 3 stat bumps in strength Primary Attack: Unarmed strike +59/+59/+59/+59/+54/+49/+44 12D8+19 Off-hand: Unarmed strike +59/+54/+49/+44 12D8+19 Secondary Natural attacks: 2 Claws +57 4D6+9, 2 Wings +57 2D8+9, 1 Tail Slap +57 4D6+28 Oh BTW his AC not counting gear(other than Monks belt) is 53 and yes this critter is CR 38
calronmoonflower 04-16-07, 04:19 PM	You could definitely rule that those are the only attacks he could make. The rules are definitely unclear if he could make claw attacks. I would have to disagree. A character would lose those claw attacks if they use an unarmed strike with that hand, but a monk doesn't have to use their hands for an unarmed strike.
tos_shai_hulud 04-17-07, 02:55 PM	I would have to disagree. A character would lose those claw attacks if they use an unarmed strike with that hand, but a monk doesn't have to use their hands for an unarmed strike. I understand your disagreement, but the rules state in one location that he only gets the natural attacks that he could normally make with manufactured weapons in one place (meaning he could only get his bite attack), and they say that he could get three claw attacks in another (Rules of the Game). This makes it unclear, as I stated. So, while I understand your disagreement, there is definitely a rules discrepancy.
Steely_Dan 04-18-07, 06:47 AM	I understand your disagreement, but the rules state in one location that he only gets the natural attacks that he could normally make with manufactured weapons in one place (meaning he could only get his bite attack), and they say that he could get three claw attacks in another (Rules of the Game). This makes it unclear, as I stated. So, while I understand your disagreement, there is definitely a rules discrepancy. Exactly, so our safest bet is: 18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and bite +13 15 attacks per round.
Merestil Haye 04-18-07, 07:17 AM	Consider the same Thri-Kreen monk who is also proficient with shortswords, and is holding one in each claw. Attack routine is Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and bite +13. 18 attacks per round. Now whether you allow the creature to substitute an unarmed strike routine for each shortsword attack routine is a judgement call, but I suspect that most people have not tried it. I've actually put a stronger1 (NPC) creature into a high level gestalt game. It could not hit for toffee, even with higher BAB, good Strength, multiple enchanted weapons, enhanced unarmed strikes (Kensai 10) and everything else it could throw in. Most of the time it was in natural 20 only territory. The PCs outclassed it, pure and simple. This is likely to suffer the same fate. It will just be outshone. 1"Stronger" means I built it to have better than 15 BAB, with levels of fighter and ranger to complement the Monk. Higher BAB => better chance of hitting. I also gave it Oversized TWF so it was swinging one-handed weapons instead of light ones. It managed to scratch a Marilith once...
runestar 04-18-07, 07:31 AM	I think that a fighter wielding a greatsword is able to make an additional offhand unarmed strike(such as kicking with his foot), suffering all the drawbacks of TWFing in this case....:P
Steely_Dan 04-18-07, 08:39 AM	I think that a fighter wielding a greatsword is able to make an additional offhand unarmed strike(such as kicking with his foot), suffering all the drawbacks of TWFing in this case....:P Absolutely, and with Improve Buckler Defence he can also enjoy a shield bonus at the same time he THF's and TWF's.
starfire311 04-18-07, 01:03 PM	Consider the same Thri-Kreen monk who is also proficient with shortswords, and is holding one in each claw. Attack routine is Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and bite +13. 18 attacks per round. this is actually not possible, thri-kreen only get 3 off-hand attacks not 4.
Marcus Majarra 04-18-07, 02:39 PM	Consider the same Thri-Kreen monk who is also proficient with shortswords, and is holding one in each claw. Attack routine is Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and shortsword +13/+8/+3 and bite +13. 18 attacks per round. Now whether you allow the creature to substitute an unarmed strike routine for each shortsword attack routine is a judgement call, but I suspect that most people have not tried it. This is where I see a problem. Your MWF Kreen is actually wielding multiple weapons. The short swords are not being passed around from one claw to the next. By allowing to substitute unarmed strikes for short sword attacks, you're implying that the character can use the same weapon (i.e. the unarmed strike) for multi-weapon fighting.
tos_shai_hulud 04-18-07, 03:04 PM	This is where I see a problem. Your MWF Kreen is actually wielding multiple weapons. The short swords are not being passed around from one claw to the next. By allowing to substitute unarmed strikes for short sword attacks, you're implying that the character can use the same weapon (i.e. the unarmed strike) for multi-weapon fighting. I don't understand what you are saying is being implied. Monks can use Unarmed strike for multi-weapon fighting. No implication is necessary. That is simply true. So, the poster was saying that he could use unarmed strike for his flurry of blows, then for his off-hand attacks, he could use shortswords. The issue here is that MWF is a game mechanic. It does not actually relate to how you perform your attacks. All it does is tell you how many attacks you can make with your primary attack. It does not, however, tell you how many attacks you can make if you keep all of your hands free. Even if you never use a single hand during your flurry of blows, it does not change the game mechanic which only granted you three off-hand attack iterations, not four. So, you cannot attack with the fourth short sword. It may seem silly, but it is just a game mechanic. You are effectively using up one of your hands, even if you never use the hand. (I received this response in an inquiry that I sent to WotC Customer Service. I have had problems with their answers in the past, but this one really makes sense. I was trying to put together pretty much exactly what you are describing.) Using that rules as simply a game mechanic, and not trying to figure out what makes sense, you can balance it a little better. It doesn't matter how they are attacking, you give them the same number of attacks regardless.
Merestil Haye 04-18-07, 03:25 PM	this is actually not possible, thri-kreen only get 3 off-hand attacks not 4.No, they do not. The primary weapon is their unarmed strike, and that weapon is not limb-specific. The text on the Monk's unarmed strike is quite specific about that. The thri-kreen may make one offhand attack routine with each of his claws, or weapons held in his claws. Plus his bite, of course. This is where I see a problem. Your MWF Kreen is actually wielding multiple weapons. The short swords are not being passed around from one claw to the next. By allowing to substitute unarmed strikes for short sword attacks, you're implying that the character can use the same weapon (i.e. the unarmed strike) for multi-weapon fighting.I have not made up my mind whether I will allow it; if I don't that will be the reason (and to be quite honest I'm inclining not to).
starfire311 04-18-07, 03:59 PM	No, they do not. The primary weapon is their unarmed strike, and that weapon is not limb-specific. The text on the Monk's unarmed strike is quite specific about that. The thri-kreen may make one offhand attack routine with each of his claws, or weapons held in his claws. Plus his bite, of course. Yes, but a thri-kreen will alway have 1 primary hand and and 3 "off-hands" just like a human will always have 1 primary hand and 1 off-hand. When using an unarmed strike as a primary attack it replaces the attacks for your primary hand.
tos_shai_hulud 04-18-07, 04:05 PM	Yes, but a thri-kreen will alway have 1 primary hand and and 3 "off-hands" just like a human will always have 1 primary hand and 1 off-hand. When using an unarmed strike as a primary attack it replaces the attacks for your primary hand. Exactly. What they are not clear on is the natural attacks that are available. If the thri-kreen uses only unarmed strikes for flurry and all off-hand attacks, the claw attacks might be free per the rules. That is what remains to be answered definitively. What makes the most sense, as Steely_Dan mentioned, is to disallow claw attacks during the same round as any manufactured weapon attack. The Monster Manual does seem to indicate that, although the clarification in the Rules of the Game contradicts it. For purposes of balance, it seems to be the most even across the board.
Marcus Majarra 04-18-07, 06:08 PM	I don't understand what you are saying is being implied. Monks can use Unarmed strike for multi-weapon fighting. No implication is necessary. That is simply true. So, the poster was saying that he could use unarmed strike for his flurry of blows, then for his off-hand attacks, he could use shortswords. The issue here is that MWF is a game mechanic. It does not actually relate to how you perform your attacks. All it does is tell you how many attacks you can make with your primary attack. It does not, however, tell you how many attacks you can make if you keep all of your hands free. Even if you never use a single hand during your flurry of blows, it does not change the game mechanic which only granted you three off-hand attack iterations, not four. So, you cannot attack with the fourth short sword. It may seem silly, but it is just a game mechanic. You are effectively using up one of your hands, even if you never use the hand. (I received this response in an inquiry that I sent to WotC Customer Service. I have had problems with their answers in the past, but this one really makes sense. I was trying to put together pretty much exactly what you are describing.) Using that rules as simply a game mechanic, and not trying to figure out what makes sense, you can balance it a little better. It doesn't matter how they are attacking, you give them the same number of attacks regardless. You're missing the entire point. I never said unarmed strikes (a monk's or otherwise) couldn't be used with multi-weapon fighting. I'm saying that the unarmed strike cannot be used to substitute for more than one weapon since it is essentially a single weapon. This is what I stated was being implied. You can't use the same weapon for multi-weapon fighting, and the unarmed strike is no exception. Heck, the equipment entry for the unarmed strike explicitly states that it's always considered a light weapon. No creature has more than one unarmed strike.
tos_shai_hulud 04-18-07, 06:13 PM	You're missing the entire point. I never said unarmed strikes (a monk's or otherwise) couldn't be used with multi-weapon fighting. I'm saying that the unarmed strike cannot be used to substitute for more than one weapon since it is essentially a single weapon. This is what I stated was being implied. You can't use the same weapon for multi-weapon fighting, and the unarmed strike is no exception. Heck, the equipment entry for the unarmed strike explicitly states that it's always considered a light weapon. No creature has more than one unarmed strike. You also need a weapon or two, though you can use unarmed strikes as your "weapons" in a two-weapon attack (see page 160 in the Player's Handbook). Note the plural form of weapons. Unarmed strike can be used as your weapons indicates both main hand and off-hand.
Marcus Majarra 04-18-07, 06:33 PM	I find it convenient that no RAW example actually exists of two-weapon fighting with only unarmed strikes. Not even the RotG article expands beyond that statement. Still, the point is somewhat minor, and I'm willing to let it come down to a disagreement, although I'll stick to my argument that the unarmed strike is not an almighty natural weapon that not only uses manufactured weapon mechanics, but can also be used as a substitute for each and every weapon used with multi-weapon fighting. Doesn't anyone else think the unarmed strike is wonky, all of a sudden?
tos_shai_hulud 04-18-07, 06:57 PM	I think it makes perfect sense. Ignoring all other uses, assuming that the attacker uses only fist attacks, then the thri-kreen would be attacking with each fist the exact same number of times as he would be attacking if he had weapons in his hands. Since each fist attack is an unarmed strike, it fits perfectly. It only becomes wonky when you start substituting non-fists for your attacks. Why would he be able to attack with the hand if he had a weapon in it, but as soon as the weapon goes away, so too does his attack? To me, that is a little suspicious. The intent seems clear to me that Unarmed Strike is not a single weapon, but is used to describe any attack being made with a part of the body. What part of it seems wonky to you? Edit: Gauntlets are weapons, yet you can wear more than one. One for each limb. Do you also think that you can only make one Gauntlet attack because Gauntlet is only one weapon? This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. Since gauntlets are Unarmed Strikes, this seems like by your rules, no matter how many gauntlets you have (two for a human, four for a thri-kreen), you could only attack with one of them because Unarmed Strike is just one weapon.
WolfHati 04-18-07, 07:04 PM	Note that the monk unarmed strike cannot be used offhand, however. They would merely be the standard 1d3 + 1/2 str unarmed strikes, and unless you want to spend a lot of feats on multiweapon and greater multiweapon fighting, you might as well just use the claw attacks.
starfire311 04-18-07, 07:09 PM	Note that the monk unarmed strike cannot be used offhand, however. They would merely be the standard 1d3 + 1/2 str unarmed strikes, and unless you want to spend a lot of feats on multiweapon and greater multiweapon fighting, you might as well just use the claw attacks. yes, indeed, a monk's unarmed strike can be used as an off-hand attack... and no I am not going to bother to provide link's here it is already well established, try looking up Rules of the game, you might find something interesting there.
tos_shai_hulud 04-18-07, 07:10 PM	Note that the monk unarmed strike cannot be used offhand, however. They would merely be the standard 1d3 + 1/2 str unarmed strikes, and unless you want to spend a lot of feats on multiweapon and greater multiweapon fighting, you might as well just use the claw attacks. This was clarified in the FAQ. They can use their unarmed strike as an off-hand weapon and during two-weapon fighting. Check page 15-16 of the FAQ.
WolfHati 04-18-07, 09:47 PM	Even the FAQ admits that its ruling is a little shaky... and I can't really make that reasonably fit with the phrase "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed." Especially since the next sentence would allow them to apply their full strength to all unarmed attacks, which would include the offhand ones, of which there is no such thing, according to the previous. In my games, the FAQ never overrides what is written in the rulebooks, and if I can't figure out a way to make it fit in logically with the existing text, I tend to view it as wrong.
Frugal 04-18-07, 10:06 PM	The problem is that the FAQ doesn't really directly address this question. The example they use is a Centaur, I think we can all agree that it's reasonable for the centaur to get his hoof attacks in addition to his normal flurry. Even the recent Rules of the Game articles didn't get into multi-limbed situations either, so it's still not really ruled on for that either, although it could probably be assumed from what was written.
Marcus Majarra 04-18-07, 11:50 PM	I think it makes perfect sense. Ignoring all other uses, assuming that the attacker uses only fist attacks, then the thri-kreen would be attacking with each fist the exact same number of times as he would be attacking if he had weapons in his hands. Since each fist attack is an unarmed strike, it fits perfectly. It only becomes wonky when you start substituting non-fists for your attacks. Why would he be able to attack with the hand if he had a weapon in it, but as soon as the weapon goes away, so too does his attack? To me, that is a little suspicious. The intent seems clear to me that Unarmed Strike is not a single weapon, but is used to describe any attack being made with a part of the body. What part of it seems wonky to you? Edit: Gauntlets are weapons, yet you can wear more than one. One for each limb. Do you also think that you can only make one Gauntlet attack because Gauntlet is only one weapon? Since gauntlets are Unarmed Strikes, this seems like by your rules, no matter how many gauntlets you have (two for a human, four for a thri-kreen), you could only attack with one of them because Unarmed Strike is just one weapon. First, the fact that you can use any body part to make an unarmed strike is a clear indicator that it is indeed a single weapon. If you consider that every fist, or limb, or appendage capable of dealing unarmed strike damage to be a distinct weapon (as would be the case for the example you provided of a fighter using two-weapon fighting with both his fists), then the only limit on the number of off-hands a creature has is the imagination of the player of said creature. Here's a concrete example, using RAW. Consider, if you will, armor spikes. There's no argument saying that armor spikes can be used to make off-hand attacks, correct? However, armor spikes are not wielded in a creature's hands, like other weapons are. If unarmed strikes can indeed substitute any other weapon used, then we have to assume that every creature can now make unarmed strikes in lieu of armor spikes attacks. Thus, we could have someone wielding a two-handed weapon, and making off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes. Now, if that person isn't wearing armor spikes, can those off-hand unarmed strikes still be made? What if, instead of using a two-handed weapon, our creature only had a shield strapped to one of its arms and no weapon in the other. Let's say our creature makes unarmed strikes with its primary hand, and decides to make off-hand attacks with armor spikes. Everything seems legal, correct? What if the creature wants to use two-weapon fighting with only unarmed strikes. Can the creature substitute his armor spikes off-hand attacks for unarmed strikes? Let's take this example even further. If you've allowed the character to substitute armor spikes off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes, then it's established that a third body part can be used as a separate way to make unarmed strikes. So now, we've got a creature with one source of primary attacks, and two sources of off-hand attacks. Now, armor spikes don't allow for off-hand attacks when you've already made an off-hand attack and vice-versa. Unarmed strikes do not follow this rule, so by RAW, you should be entitled to make unarmed strikes with the "armor spikes" off-hand even if you've already made an off-hand attack, and vice-versa. This is where unarmed strikes as the universal do-it-all get wonky. The entire concept of unarmed strikes is that you're attacking without a specific body part. Whether you're attacking with your left fist, or your right first, or your head, or any other part of your body, it's all the same weapon. To assume that any specific body part is responsible for the attack makes no sense, since the unarmed strike is not defined by any specific body part. In this respect, someone using two-weapon fighting with two unarmed strikes makes no sense. Attacking with the left fist is no different than attacking with the right fist. Or a head butt. Or a body slam. What happens when both the character's hands are occupied? What if he's wielding a wand and a shield? Can he still use two-weapon fighting? I mean, he's still got both legs. And his body. And his head. Those are all viable ways to deal unarmed strike damage. What's preventing him from fighting with his left foot and his head? Under normal circumstances, he couldn't even be fighting with a single weapon. And yet, he would be allowed to attack with two body parts and remain perfectly legal. Let's take this even further. What's keeping the same character from attacking with his right foot too? Or a body slam? If we start assuming that specific body parts act as individual unarmed strikes, then there is no limit to the number of weapons any creature is actually wielding (or, to be more precise, the only limit is the player's imagination, as stated above). This is why I consider the unarmed strike to constitute a single weapon. This actually resolves a lot of issues when fighting with more than one weapon. You said the Thri-Kreen was perfectly legal when wielding four short swords and that substituting those four swords for unarmed strikes would make sense. This, however, is not true, since the four swords are four distinct weapons. Your argument requires that the four fists be distinct weapons, but this contradicts the nature of unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes can be made with any body part. Attacking with one fist is equivalent to attacking with the other. The way unarmed strikes are described in the RAW, a character is allowed to make unarmed strikes as long as he has a free appendage capable of dealing unarmed strike damage. This translates to the unarmed strike being available to a character, as a weapon, whenever any valid appendage is available. If more than one such appendage is available, it doesn't make the unarmed strike even more available. This information is only worthwhile in the case of special cases that affect your unarmed strikes, such as the gauntlets, as you mentioned above. Strikes with gauntlets are considered to be unarmed attacks. They allow a character to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes. In essence, a strike with a gauntlet is the same as an unarmed strike, except that the character now has the option of dealing lethal damage. Thus, if the hand wearing the gauntlet is free, the character can deal lethal damage with his unarmed strike. If that hand is otherwise occupied, the character can still make unarmed strikes, albeit he no longer has the option of dealing lethal damage.
tos_shai_hulud 04-19-07, 01:50 AM	First, the fact that you can use any body part to make an unarmed strike is a clear indicator that it is indeed a single weapon. If you consider that every fist, or limb, or appendage capable of dealing unarmed strike damage to be a distinct weapon (as would be the case for the example you provided of a fighter using two-weapon fighting with both his fists), then the only limit on the number of off-hands a creature has is the imagination of the player of said creature. No. By the RAW, the only limit on the number of off-hands a creature has is the number of hands that the creature has. Having spiked shoes, armor spikes, a double weapon, spiked knees, and a spiked codpiece does nothing but give you options for how you want to assign your attacks for the round. Assuming that a first level fighter was wielding these weapons, he could choose a single main-hand and a single off-hand attack. Let us say he chooses his double weapon for main-hand and off-hand attacks (one end each). He cannot attack with any of his other weapons, even though he is wearing cool looking spiked shoes, armor spikes, and his incredibly painful codpiece. Should he choose, he could attack with his spiked shoes and his codpiece, but he could not attack with either end of his double weapon. It doesn't matter how many weapons he is carrying (and each body part capable of making an unarmed strike could be considered a different weapon), all that matters is how many attacks he is permitted based on the fact that he has two hands. A thri-kreen could make four attacks at first level because he has four hands and uses multiweapon fighting instead of two-weapon fighting. He can wear all of the extra weapons he wants to strap to himself, but he cannot make any more than four attacks. All of the attacks could be unarmed strikes, but there must be no more than four. If he wants five attacks, he must use natural weaponry to add an additional attack or he must reach a base attack bonus of +6, granting him an extra iterative attack. Here's a concrete example, using RAW. Consider, if you will, armor spikes. There's no argument saying that armor spikes can be used to make off-hand attacks, correct? However, armor spikes are not wielded in a creature's hands, like other weapons are. If unarmed strikes can indeed substitute any other weapon used, then we have to assume that every creature can now make unarmed strikes in lieu of armor spikes attacks. Thus, we could have someone wielding a two-handed weapon, and making off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes. Now, if that person isn't wearing armor spikes, can those off-hand unarmed strikes still be made? Yes, if you want to make unarmed strike attacks instead of attacking with the off-hand part of your double weapon, you are free to do so. If you want to make an armored spike attack instead of the off-hand portion of your double weapon you are free to do so. In each case, you have one additional attack. You cannot, on the other hand, attack with the main portion of your double weapon AND the off-hand portion AND armored spikes any more than you could attack with both ends of your double weapon and an unarmed strike. What if, instead of using a two-handed weapon, our creature only had a shield strapped to one of its arms and no weapon in the other. Let's say our creature makes unarmed strikes with its primary hand, and decides to make off-hand attacks with armor spikes. Everything seems legal, correct? What if the creature wants to use two-weapon fighting with only unarmed strikes. Can the creature substitute his armor spikes off-hand attacks for unarmed strikes? Sure, but then he isn't making armor spike attacks. Let's take this example even further. If you've allowed the character to substitute armor spikes off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes, then it's established that a third body part can be used as a separate way to make unarmed strikes. So now, we've got a creature with one source of primary attacks, and two sources of off-hand attacks. Now, armor spikes don't allow for off-hand attacks when you've already made an off-hand attack and vice-versa. Unarmed strikes do not follow this rule, so by RAW, you should be entitled to make unarmed strikes with the "armor spikes" off-hand even if you've already made an off-hand attack, and vice-versa. No, you get one off-hand attack unless you take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Regardless of how many weapons you are holding, you can only attack once per attack granted. At first level, you can make one attack normally, two attacks when fighting two-handed (one is off-hand), or three attacks as a monk (two flurry, one off-hand). This lasts until you reach a BAB of +6 where you gain an additional primary attack, then you can take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting where you get an additional off-hand attack. Having spikes does not give you an additional attack any more than having unarmed strikes gives you additional attacks. Your number of attacks are set by your Base Attack Bonus and the Two-Weapon Fighting (or Multiweapon Fighting) progression. It doesn't matter what weapon or weapons you wield. Your unarmed strike can replace any or all of them because it is many weapons, all grouped together. It is not one weapon that can be used more than once. This is where unarmed strikes as the universal do-it-all get wonky. The entire concept of unarmed strikes is that you're attacking without a specific body part. Whether you're attacking with your left fist, or your right first, or your head, or any other part of your body, it's all the same weapon. To assume that any specific body part is responsible for the attack makes no sense, since the unarmed strike is not defined by any specific body part. In this respect, someone using two-weapon fighting with two unarmed strikes makes no sense. It only makes no sense when you add in extraneous attacks from sources that don't actually add any attacks. Attacking with the left fist is no different than attacking with the right fist. Or a head butt. Or a body slam. What happens when both the character's hands are occupied? What if he's wielding a wand and a shield? Can he still use two-weapon fighting? I mean, he's still got both legs. And his body. And his head. Those are all viable ways to deal unarmed strike damage. What's preventing him from fighting with his left foot and his head? Under normal circumstances, he couldn't even be fighting with a single weapon. And yet, he would be allowed to attack with two body parts and remain perfectly legal. If he had a Base Attack Bonus of +6 or higher, yes, it would be perfectly legal to attack with his primary weapon, an unarmed strike, then an off-hand unarmed strike. Let's take this even further. What's keeping the same character from attacking with his right foot too? Or a body slam? If we start assuming that specific body parts act as individual unarmed strikes, then there is no limit to the number of weapons any creature is actually wielding (or, to be more precise, the only limit is the player's imagination, as stated above). His Base Attack Bonus and Two-Weapon Fighting progression is preventing this. If he has two arms, he is not eligible for Multiweapon Fighting and cannot use more unarmed strikes per round than he has attacks, primary or off-hand. If he were a thri-kreen, he would be able to make three off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes, should he choose to. This is why I consider the unarmed strike to constitute a single weapon. This actually resolves a lot of issues when fighting with more than one weapon. You said the Thri-Kreen was perfectly legal when wielding four short swords and that substituting those four swords for unarmed strikes would make sense. This, however, is not true, since the four swords are four distinct weapons. Your argument requires that the four fists be distinct weapons, but this contradicts the nature of unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes can be made with any body part. Attacking with one fist is equivalent to attacking with the other. It resolves nothing because your concept of extra attacks with unarmed strikes is not in the rules or even being discussed by anyone but you. When wielding four short swords, he can substitute as many hands for unarmed strikes as he likes so long as he does not use more unarmed strikes than he has attacks. The way unarmed strikes are described in the RAW, a character is allowed to make unarmed strikes as long as he has a free appendage capable of dealing unarmed strike damage. This translates to the unarmed strike being available to a character, as a weapon, whenever any valid appendage is available. If more than one such appendage is available, it doesn't make the unarmed strike even more available. Yes, it does. If he has attacks left, he can make them with unarmed strikes. This information is only worthwhile in the case of special cases that affect your unarmed strikes, such as the gauntlets, as you mentioned above. Strikes with gauntlets are considered to be unarmed attacks. They allow a character to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes. In essence, a strike with a gauntlet is the same as an unarmed strike, except that the character now has the option of dealing lethal damage. Thus, if the hand wearing the gauntlet is free, the character can deal lethal damage with his unarmed strike. If that hand is otherwise occupied, the character can still make unarmed strikes, albeit he no longer has the option of dealing lethal damage. Correct, my point exactly. If he has attacks, they can be made with unarmed strikes. Throughout this entire post, I have not seen a single reason why you would prevent unarmed strikes being made with each primary and off-hand attack. In fact, I don't even think that we are discussing the same issue. You are indicating that you think that attacks are being added that should not be. This is not the case. No extra attacks are being made. The only attacks that are being made are with the attacks granted during the round. A thri-kreen is granted more attacks than a human because he has more limbs. A human can fight with a punch and a punch, or a kick and a kick, or a short sword and a kick, or a kick and a shield bash, or any combination there-of. If he has armor spikes, he must choose if he wants to attack with the armor spikes or with his primary weapon, or with unarmed strikes. All are valid attack choices. But, all attacks could be made with unarmed strikes. They are not a single weapon and it makes no sense to think of them as a single weapon.
starfire311 04-19-07, 10:01 AM	First, the fact that you can use any body part to make an unarmed strike is a clear indicator that it is indeed a single weapon. If you consider that every fist, or limb, or appendage capable of dealing unarmed strike damage to be a distinct weapon (as would be the case for the example you provided of a fighter using two-weapon fighting with both his fists), then the only limit on the number of off-hands a creature has is the imagination of the player of said creature. Here's a concrete example, using RAW. Consider, if you will, armor spikes. There's no argument saying that armor spikes can be used to make off-hand attacks, correct? However, armor spikes are not wielded in a creature's hands, like other weapons are. If unarmed strikes can indeed substitute any other weapon used, then we have to assume that every creature can now make unarmed strikes in lieu of armor spikes attacks. Thus, we could have someone wielding a two-handed weapon, and making off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes. Now, if that person isn't wearing armor spikes, can those off-hand unarmed strikes still be made? yes he can wield a 2 handed weapon such as a greatsword, and make off-hand attacks with an unarmed strike, even sans armor spikes. What if, instead of using a two-handed weapon, our creature only had a shield strapped to one of its arms and no weapon in the other. Let's say our creature makes unarmed strikes with its primary hand, and decides to make off-hand attacks with armor spikes. Everything seems legal, correct? What if the creature wants to use two-weapon fighting with only unarmed strikes. Can the creature substitute his armor spikes off-hand attacks for unarmed strikes? yes he can indeed make unarmed strikes with his primary hand, and make unarmed strikes with his off-hand, now the question would become, do you lose the benefit of the shield when using your off-hand attacks. Let's take this example even further. If you've allowed the character to substitute armor spikes off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes, then it's established that a third body part can be used as a separate way to make unarmed strikes. So now, we've got a creature with one source of primary attacks, and two sources of off-hand attacks. Now, armor spikes don't allow for off-hand attacks when you've already made an off-hand attack and vice-versa. Unarmed strikes do not follow this rule, so by RAW, you should be entitled to make unarmed strikes with the "armor spikes" off-hand even if you've already made an off-hand attack, and vice-versa. no, because you are only allowed one off-hand attack, unless you have more than one off-hand. This is where unarmed strikes as the universal do-it-all get wonky. The entire concept of unarmed strikes is that you're attacking without a specific body part. Whether you're attacking with your left fist, or your right first, or your head, or any other part of your body, it's all the same weapon. To assume that any specific body part is responsible for the attack makes no sense, since the unarmed strike is not defined by any specific body part. In this respect, someone using two-weapon fighting with two unarmed strikes makes no sense. Attacking with the left fist is no different than attacking with the right fist. Or a head butt. Or a body slam. What happens when both the character's hands are occupied? What if he's wielding a wand and a shield? Can he still use two-weapon fighting? I mean, he's still got both legs. And his body. And his head. Those are all viable ways to deal unarmed strike damage. What's preventing him from fighting with his left foot and his head? Under normal circumstances, he couldn't even be fighting with a single weapon. And yet, he would be allowed to attack with two body parts and remain perfectly legal. Let's take this even further. What's keeping the same character from attacking with his right foot too? Or a body slam? If we start assuming that specific body parts act as individual unarmed strikes, then there is no limit to the number of weapons any creature is actually wielding (or, to be more precise, the only limit is the player's imagination, as stated above). This is why I consider the unarmed strike to constitute a single weapon. This actually resolves a lot of issues when fighting with more than one weapon. You said the Thri-Kreen was perfectly legal when wielding four short swords and that substituting those four swords for unarmed strikes would make sense. This, however, is not true, since the four swords are four distinct weapons. Your argument requires that the four fists be distinct weapons, but this contradicts the nature of unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes can be made with any body part. Attacking with one fist is equivalent to attacking with the other. The way unarmed strikes are described in the RAW, a character is allowed to make unarmed strikes as long as he has a free appendage capable of dealing unarmed strike damage. This translates to the unarmed strike being available to a character, as a weapon, whenever any valid appendage is available. If more than one such appendage is available, it doesn't make the unarmed strike even more available. This information is only worthwhile in the case of special cases that affect your unarmed strikes, such as the gauntlets, as you mentioned above. Strikes with gauntlets are considered to be unarmed attacks. They allow a character to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes. In essence, a strike with a gauntlet is the same as an unarmed strike, except that the character now has the option of dealing lethal damage. Thus, if the hand wearing the gauntlet is free, the character can deal lethal damage with his unarmed strike. If that hand is otherwise occupied, the character can still make unarmed strikes, albeit he no longer has the option of dealing lethal damage. can't argue with a lot of the thoughts behind this, since I feel that the whole mechanic needs to be revisted, and they need to fix everything.
Marcus Majarra 04-19-07, 10:32 AM	The point of my entire post was to illustrate how unarmed strikes should and do disregard body parts. Using the unarmed strike as multiple weapons only makes sense if you start to assume that a specific body part is making the unarmed strike, which goes against the idea of unarmed strikes as a whole. Your support for this claim is based around the idea that non-fists should not be making unarmed strikes (see post #79). Let's say a character's primary hand is his right hand and his left hand is off-hand. When making a primary hand attack with an unarmed strike, is he striking with his right fist? Possibly. Is he striking with his left fist? That's also possible. Why? Because an unarmed strike doesn't involve a specific body part. Heck, he could be making it with his right foot, and it would still be a primary hand attack, even though he is not using the primary hand. Let's assume that he makes a right jab in this instance. Now, let's introduce two-weapon fighting in this scenario. If he can make unarmed strikes as both primary hand and off-hand attacks, it's possible for the off-hand attack to also be a right jab (since the unarmed strike can be performed with any body part). The end result is that you're fighting with two weapons, and that both your weapons are right jabs. This is no coherent with the idea that you're fighting with two weapons, when both your weapons are actually a single, non-double weapon. This is where the entire idea of using the unarmed strike as more than one weapon makes no sense. Your only support in claiming that you can substitute the unarmed strike for multiple weapons is a weak statement from a Rules of the Game article: [...] You can use unarmed strikes as your "weapons" in a two-weapon attack. It's weak because the author doesn't bother to elaborate on the matter, making this entirely subject to interpretation (especially since all other scenarios are nicely covered in that article). I prefer to use a case example from the FAQ to generalize the rule. Consider the following statement, on the matter of monks combining flurry of blows with two-weapon fighting: If the off-hand attack is a weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry (if it can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). Since the unarmed strike is a light weapon, using it to make off-hand attacks makes it unavailable to use as part of the flurry, which is used implicitly here to make primary hand attacks. The general rule you can understand from this is that weapons used to make primary hand attacks and weapons used to make off-hand attacks are mutually exclusive. Thus, using the unarmed strike to make primary hand attacks automatically excludes it from being also able to make off-hand attacks. Similarly, if the unarmed strike is used to make off-hand attacks, it cannot also be used to make primary hand attacks.
tos_shai_hulud 04-19-07, 12:19 PM	The point of my entire post was to illustrate how unarmed strikes should and do disregard body parts. Using the unarmed strike as multiple weapons only makes sense if you start to assume that a specific body part is making the unarmed strike, which goes against the idea of unarmed strikes as a whole. Your support for this claim is based around the idea that non-fists should not be making unarmed strikes (see post #79). I don't see how you can interpret "let's assume [a case]" to mean "[a case] should be the standard". I used an example in post #79, not set any standards. If you would like an outline of all of the possible combinations of unarmed strikes, check an anatomy book and mix and match. Throughout the SRD, Unarmed Strikes are referred to in the plural form. "An unarmed strike" is one member of that group. If you use an unarmed strike in a flurry, you may NOT use the SAME unarmed strike as an off-hand weapon, I will grant you that, but it makes no sense to say that a creature only has ONE unarmed strike. It has one group of weapons named unarmed strikes, but much like a creature carrying four short swords, all creatures have as many unarmed strikes as the player can imagine (once again, I refer you to an anatomy book). Thinking that a character has only one unarmed strike is akin to thinking that a character with four short swords only has one short sword because they are all named the same. That is wrong. It is four different weapons, all named short sword, not one weapon. The idea is not to combine all unarmed strikes into a single weapon, but to combine all weapons of a single type into a single game mechanic (for purposes of damage, lethality, etc.) That is the reason you don't see Punch 1d3 nonlethal. Kick 1d3 nonlethal. Headbutt 1d3 nonlethal... They say, you can punch. When you do, it is an unarmed strike. You can kick. When you do, it is an unarmed strike. You can headbutt. When you do, it is an unarmed strike. These are three different weapons, like three different short swords, but just like short swords, they have the same name, unarmed strike. The only creature type that would only have one unarmed strike is a creature with no limbs. (Perhaps a single-celled organism? And then, if they use up their "cell slam", they would have no more unarmed strikes.) Any other interpretation would be a gross misunderstanding of anatomy in general, never mind the game mechanics. While I agree it is unfortunate that the authors have not given an example with unarmed strikes in both the flurry and the off-hand, one of the guidelines given is that if there is no rule, you should use common sense. So, let's break it down. A thri-kreen holding four sais (special monk weapon) with 18 levels of monk and Greater MWF can make sai attacks at: +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 flurry +13/+13/+13/+8/+8/+8/+3/+3/+3 off-hand. We both agree that he can use unarmed strikes instead of the sai in his flurry, provided that he uses sai attacks in his off-hand. (He can attack with any body part. I am not attempting to create a standard that he should only hit with fists. They are simply a convenient example, since his current weapons are held in his hands making fist attacks impossible). Where we differ is that I say that if he wishes, he could also replace any of his off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes. You are saying that if the Thri-Kreen drops two sais and uses his fists instead, if he makes unarmed strikes for his flurry (using one of his fists which used to hold a sai that could make the exact same number of attacks), all of a sudden, his other fist stops working (it can no longer make the same attacks as it could when it was holding something) because both fists are adjudicated as unarmed strikes. (I use fists here as one type of unarmed strike, used for simplicity of the example, and nothing more. Once again, no implication is being made that only fist attacks should be permissible.) In my example, it is against common sense that the thri-kreen's second arm would fail to function once it dropped the sai. Now, what is to prevent him from holding on to both sais and making kicks and headbutts in place of his main hand and off-hand unarmed strikes? Nothing. It does not make sense to restrict the monk's unarmed strikes to a single weapon. That actually has no meaning at all, except as a definition. Game mechanics support multiple unarmed strikes for a character. Disregarding body parts, the game mechanics are simple. When a character attacks unarmed, I don't care which body part he is using. It is an unarmed strike. Some abstract concept relating to any body part. And, when he makes another unarmed strike, it is a different weapon, because, just as you are saying, it refers to a different body part. Let's say a character's primary hand is his right hand and his left hand is off-hand. When making a primary hand attack with an unarmed strike, is he striking with his right fist? Possibly. Is he striking with his left fist? That's also possible. Why? Because an unarmed strike doesn't involve a specific body part. Heck, he could be making it with his right foot, and it would still be a primary hand attack, even though he is not using the primary hand. Let's assume that he makes a right jab in this instance. Now, let's introduce two-weapon fighting in this scenario. If he can make unarmed strikes as both primary hand and off-hand attacks, it's possible for the off-hand attack to also be a right jab (since the unarmed strike can be performed with any body part). The end result is that you're fighting with two weapons, and that both your weapons are right jabs. This is no coherent with the idea that you're fighting with two weapons, when both your weapons are actually a single, non-double weapon. This is where the entire idea of using the unarmed strike as more than one weapon makes no sense. No, your example makes no sense. The idea of two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes makes perfect sense. In six seconds, do you really think that a 1st level thri-kreen character with four short swords is going to strike once with each short sword in succession? No. The idea is that, within six seconds, he is only skilled enough to make a single attack with each weapon. It is possible that he strikes fifty times with each, but only one of them is included for damage. And it is the sum of the damage from all two-hundred strikes (I am exaggerating here, I realize. I have never been in a combat with short swords, so I don't know how many times he could attack with each, but I can assume it is more than one each). Since the idea of wielding four short swords indicates that it is possible that all of the damage dealt came from one short sword, not all four, even if all four attack rolls hit, should we now rule that it doesn't make sense to allow him off-hand attacks with his short sword? No. That doesn't make sense. Your example doesn't make sense. Your entire concept of a single unarmed strike doesn't make sense. Your only support in claiming that you can substitute the unarmed strike for multiple weapons is a weak statement from a Rules of the Game article: [...] You can use unarmed strikes as your "weapons" in a two-weapon attack. It's weak because the author doesn't bother to elaborate on the matter, making this entirely subject to interpretation (especially since all other scenarios are nicely covered in that article). I prefer to use a case example from the FAQ to generalize the rule. Consider the following statement, on the matter of monks combining flurry of blows with two-weapon fighting: If the off-hand attack is a weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry (if it can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). Since the unarmed strike is a light weapon, using it to make off-hand attacks makes it unavailable to use as part of the flurry, which is used implicitly here to make primary hand attacks. The general rule you can understand from this is that weapons used to make primary hand attacks and weapons used to make off-hand attacks are mutually exclusive. Thus, using the unarmed strike to make primary hand attacks automatically excludes it from being also able to make off-hand attacks. Similarly, if the unarmed strike is used to make off-hand attacks, it cannot also be used to make primary hand attacks. My example is weak? Ok, here are some more quotes: Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on). Hey, now they are light weapons, plural! When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack. Unarmed Strikes count as two weapons, but not for the purposes of Two-Weapon Defense. Seems pretty clear-cut to me! Regardless of which body part you use, you are using an unarmed strike, yes, but that is not a single weapon. Unarmed strikes are different weapons every time you use it. If you were capable of making 100 off-hand attacks, you could use unarmed strike for each one. Don't even bother to figure out which one you are using for which, because it doesn't matter. It is all classified as "unarmed strike". It is not a single weapon, it is many weapons. Each one is called Unarmed Strike. Edit: Hecatoncheires monk anyone?