Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dr_who 10-09-04, 10:28 PM	I know this is probably more suited for a rules discussion board, but since the "good/bad DM behavior" thread has been running for a while I thought I would bring this up. Many of you experienced LG judges seem to be of the opinion that the rules are black and white. However, I have a situation that I and my friends think is pretty clear, but I recently had a very respected, experienced judge rule against me in the matter. I did not argue with him at the time because he is a little intimidating and not from my home region. The more I think about it the more I think I'm right. In any case, no matter who is "right" and who is "wrong" I think it's a good example of how the rules are not so cut and dry, and, in the end, the DM (judge) is always right. I have a 6th level monk with Improved Unarmed Strike (obviously) and Improved Grapple. While grappling (someone has already started the grapple) the PHB tells me that I can do damage "equivalent to an unarmed strike" with a successful grapple check. It also tells me that I can attack with a light weapon, including an unarmed strike, at -4 with a successful grapple check. The difference seems obvious, right? Against opponents with poor AC but high strength I will attack at -4: they keep their Dex modifier against me (because I'm grappling with them), but are still at -2 for being engaged in the grapple. Against opponents with high AC but low strength I'm better of wrestling to do damage (with Improved Grapple I'm at +11). Now, here's the question: Can I use a Flurry of Blows when using opposed grapple checks to cause damage? The description of grapple tells me that a grapple check to cause damage takes the place of an attack, so if my base attack bonus allows me multiple attacks in a round then I get multiple opposed grapple checks to cause damage. In the Flurry description it says that when using my unarmed strike or special Monk weapons I can attack more than usual at the expense of accuracy. It also says quite explicitly that the Flurry changes my "base attack bonus" (that's how it references the attack bonuses in the Monk's table of abilities). So, if my base attack bonus is +3/+3 when using a full-round attack action and striking with special monk weapons or unarmed then I say that my modified base attack bonus allows me multiple grapple checks, because my entire body is my weapon and that's what I'm using to grapple. Anyone disagree with me? There is certainly a difference between attacking vs. AC and making an opposed grapple check, but when you cause damage with an opposed grapple check you are certainly doing it via an unarmed "attack", which is why the damage for such is equivalent to the character's unarmed strike damage, be it lethal or non-lethal.
hustonjj 10-09-04, 11:46 PM	Now, here's the question: Can I use a Flurry of Blows when using opposed grapple checks to cause damage? The description of grapple tells me that a grapple check to cause damage takes the place of an attack, so if my base attack bonus allows me multiple attacks in a round then I get multiple opposed grapple checks to cause damage. In the Flurry description it says that when using my unarmed strike or special Monk weapons I can attack more than usual at the expense of accuracy. It also says quite explicitly that the Flurry changes my "base attack bonus" (that's how it references the attack bonuses in the Monk's table of abilities). So, if my base attack bonus is +3/+3 when using a full-round attack action and striking with special monk weapons or unarmed then I say that my modified base attack bonus allows me multiple grapple checks, because my entire body is my weapon and that's what I'm using to grapple. Heh. Well, there's a problem with that logic. A FLURRY of BLows is NOT iterative attacks based on your BAB. Doesn't matter how you try to justify it, it is not. Your BAB is derived from class levels and th eclass charts only, no special class abilties modify your BAB. No feats modify your BAB. A whole slew of things modify your final Attack Bonus as used in a given situation, and Flurry of Blows is a marvelous example of one of these. There is certainly a difference between attacking vs. AC and making an opposed grapple check, but when you cause damage with an opposed grapple check you are certainly doing it via an unarmed "attack", which is why the damage for such is equivalent to the character's unarmed strike damage, be it lethal or non-lethal. Technically, no, you're not. You quoted the rule earlier yourself. You are REPLACING an attack with a gapple attempt to deal damage. It is NOT an attack. Jeff Huston Spobody Necial
WraithAlcon 10-10-04, 12:11 AM	Personally I would rule that if you wanted to use the grapple method, you could NOT flurry. However, if you wanted to attack with light weapons then you could. Realistically a grapple would be a character squeezing, wrenching, throwing, or pressing against the opponent. You can't exactly "flurry" grappling stuff. Conversely, if someone is grappling you and you try to strike them, it is difficult (-4 Att) but you still can. Picture "rabbit punches", headbutts, elbows, knees, ect... Hope that helps.
dr_who 10-10-04, 12:12 AM	I repeat. The <u>exact</u> wording in the PHB indicates that your base attack bonus is different when flurrying. It's in the section that describes the flurry ability and references the class table. How am I misinterpreting this? Again, the point is not whether or not this is correct, but more that there is some room for interpretation. You seem quite resolute in your assessment, but there are several people I know who have independently reached the same conclusion as me on this matter.
dr_who 10-10-04, 12:33 AM	Realistically a grapple would be a character squeezing, wrenching, throwing, or pressing against the opponent. You can't exactly "flurry" grappling stuff. Conversely, if someone is grappling you and you try to strike them, it is difficult (-4 Att) but you still can. Picture "rabbit punches", headbutts, elbows, knees, ect... Normally I would agree with you. However, when a monk hits someone with their unarmed strike it's somehow different (increased damage, and lethal). Their grappling must be different, too, since they get to do their normal unarmed damage while grappling. So, I would say that "flurrying" grapple attempts is certainly realistic for such a trained individual. I'm just trying to go off the exact wording, though, not a sense of realism. The DM discussion is all about whether or not LG judges should be interpreting the rules. My argument is that the rules have to be interpreted. Very little is straight black and white.
WraithAlcon 10-10-04, 01:21 AM	If you can modify your BAB, would that then mean you could also combat expertise or power attack in your grapple check?
dr_who 10-10-04, 01:31 AM	If you can modify your BAB, would that then mean you could also combat expertise or power attack in your grapple check? Well, that would be along the lines of what huston mentioned. Those abilities do not modify your BAB, they modify your overall to-hit bonus. The only reason this issue about grappling exists, in my mind anyway, is that the exact wording in the PHB is that your base attack bonus is modified when you flurry. Perhaps there is an erratum or other clarification on this? I've looked but not found anything yet. Still, my point is that the rules are subject to interpretation. Thus, an LG judge's job is more than to just read a module and tell people when they act in the initiative order. Judges are DMs and must make rulings accordingly.
hustonjj 10-10-04, 04:39 AM	Thus, an LG judge's job is more than to just read a module and tell people when they act in the initiative order. Judges are DMs and must make rulings accordingly. Very specifically, no. An LG judge can not do most of the things a DM can. I recommend you review what the D&D FAQ has to say about this, as it is an official rules SOURCE for LG. Yep, if new rules are inserted into the FAQ in order to cover holes or rework the system or whatever, the FAQ makes them part of LG. Jeff Huston Spobody Necial
Hypersmurf 10-10-04, 07:08 AM	While Grappling, you can Flurry if you use the "Attack opponent with Light weapon" option to attack with unarmed strikes or a special monk weapon. Using the Damage Opponent, Pin, Escape Grapple, etc options are not attacks with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons, and are thus illegal in a Flurry. -Hyp.
dr_who 10-10-04, 02:16 PM	An LG judge can not do most of the things a DM can. I recommend you review what the D&D FAQ has to say about this, as it is an official rules SOURCE for LG. Yep, if new rules are inserted into the FAQ in order to cover holes or rework the system or whatever, the FAQ makes them part of LG. I have looked at the following: LGCS 3.0 All available FAQs and Errata on the Wizards website All Core Rulebooks I see nothing to indicate that a judge in LG is different from a DM/GM. I have seen you post something to this effect many times, but never have I seen a direct reference supporting your stance. However, there are many instances in the LGCS 3.0 that indicate that a judge is a GM and acts accordingly, including on pages 4, 12, and 56. The one restriction that is explicit in the literature is that the GM/judge in a Living campaign cannot alter the plot of a scenario. Now, as to the flurry thing: Hyper's statement is the most convincing I've seen for the opposite camp. Namely, the flurry ability does explicitly say "attack" and "strike". However, it also explicity says "base attack bonus." So, I think this might be a good issue for an erratum. I've asked the Sage, so if anyone sees a response to this from him or some other official source I'd really like to see it. The whole reason this came up is the following: Monks now have the option (in 3.5) to take Improved Grapple instead of Stunning Fist as their first level bonus feat. I have a character who thought that was cool and took the option. Now that CW is out, though, it seems that Stunning Fist is the only reasonable choice. It is a prerequisite for the vast majority of the cool advanced feats for monks. Also, Stunning Fist is harder to qualify for if taking it as a normal feat, and it gets better with advancement, whereas a mere +4 to grapple checks becomes less and less significant as characters advance. So, with the obvious advantage going to those who take Stunning Fist, why would anyone ever take Improved Grapple as a Monk bonus feat unless you could do cool things with it?
dr_who 10-10-04, 02:39 PM	I know this probably doesn't count for beans, but it kind of helps my ego. The following is a quote from Steve Reynolds' home page (formerly employed by TSR and Wizards and involved in game development): "Monks may use their favorable attack rate for grapple attacks." This is in reference to all grapple checks made to cause damage as well as those involved in establishing or escaping a pin and a few others, and it was written after the 3.5 conversion. He also mentions, by the way, that either grappler may attempt to end the grapple as a free action by just letting go. If the other person also wants to end the grapple then the grapple is over. This was an issue with another judge I had one time. Common sense and a feeling for the spirit of the rules is what is needed. On complicated issues (and I think we all agree that grappling is pretty complicated) we need to work together as players and judges to resolve differences in interpretation. In the end, though, the GM, head GM, and event coordinator (in that order) have the final, final say.
Arksorn 10-10-04, 04:21 PM	As a judges for Living Greyhawk we are not allowed to change rules. That is the difference between Living Greyhawk and a home game. That being said, I agree that this is not a clear cut ruling. I rule "no" at my tables and I use the following references. If someone on this list could point out references that indicate that I am wrong, I will be happy to change as I do not really care one way or the other. flurry of blows: cannot use to start/escape grapple (ph 40, must use monk weapon w/ flurry of blows, grapple not monk weapon [not same as unarmed strike per Weapon Focus ph 102])
Hypersmurf 10-10-04, 05:49 PM	grapple not monk weapon [not same as unarmed strike per Weapon Focus ph 102]) Right - that's exactly the reference I use whenever I get drawn into a debate on this question :) -Hyp.
dr_who 10-10-04, 05:59 PM	flurry of blows: cannot use to start/escape grapple (ph 40, must use monk weapon w/ flurry of blows, grapple not monk weapon [not same as unarmed strike per Weapon Focus ph 102]) So now you can't even start a grapple with a flurry? That I cannot agree with. I can see some very good reasons for not being able to flurry multiple grapple checks while grappling; but to start a grapple requires an unarmed touch attack, followed by a grapple check to maintain it. If a monk's unarmed strike doesn't count for the purposes of melee touch attacks then I think there is something very wrong. I don't understand your reference to the Weapon Focus feat description. Can you elaborate?
Hypersmurf 10-10-04, 06:05 PM	So now you can't even start a grapple with a flurry? It's not an attack with an unarmed strike or special monk weapon... I don't understand your reference to the Weapon Focus feat description. Can you elaborate? Weapon Focus adds to attack rolls. Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike and Weapon Focus: Grapple are two different feats. Thus, when you make the attack roll to initiate a grapple, the feat used is Weapon Focus: Grapple, not Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike. Since you're not using an unarmed strike to initiate the grapple (as evidenced by the two distinct feats), and since grapple is not on the list of special monk weapons, it is not legal in a flurry. -Hyp.
dr_who 10-10-04, 06:35 PM	Weapon Focus adds to attack rolls. Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike and Weapon Focus: Grapple are two different feats. Thus, when you make the attack roll to initiate a grapple, the feat used is Weapon Focus: Grapple, not Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike. Since you're not using an unarmed strike to initiate the grapple (as evidenced by the two distinct feats), and since grapple is not on the list of special monk weapons, it is not legal in a flurry. -Hyp. OK, now the can of worms is completely open! A grapple check is not an attack, so you can clearly not take Weapon Focus (Grapple) and have it apply to grapple checks (which is what my original point was about - not starting a grapple). As for starting a grapple, the rules state that 2 things must happen. 1) you make a melee touch attack to start the grapple and 2) you make opposed grapple checks to maintain. Weapon Focus (Grapple) is not the same as Weapon Focus (Melee Touch Attack), so it doesn't apply to #1, and it can't apply to #2 because a grapple check is not an attack! Unarmed Strikes and Rays are considered weapons. You roll attack rolls with them and you can crit when trying to attack for damage. "Grapple" is definitely not a weapon (though, in my opinion, you are using your unarmed attack while grappling). This deserves official clarification, I believe. A friend of mine who is kind of in with some of the PHB contributors is going to check into it for me. I would love to have it settled one way or the other!
dr_who 10-10-04, 06:39 PM	Of course, all of this supports the real focus of my original post: rules need to be interpreted sometimes. An LG judge does not have the right to do whatever he/she wants as in a home game, but they have every right to assign situational modifiers and apply a dose of common sense to whatever situations arise in the modules they run.
Hypersmurf 10-10-04, 06:41 PM	As for starting a grapple, the rules state that 2 things must happen. 1) you make a melee touch attack to start the grapple... That's right. If I make a melee touch attack with a heavy flail to Trip you, I add my bonus from Weapon Focus: Heavy Flail. If I make a melee touch attack to Grapple you, I add my bonus from Weapon Focus: Grapple. -Hyp.
dr_who 10-10-04, 06:49 PM	Sorry, I meant to say Sean Reynolds, not Steve Reynolds, in my earlier quote. The link is here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/grappling.html
dr_who 10-10-04, 06:50 PM	That's right. If I make a melee touch attack with a heavy flail to Trip you, I add my bonus from Weapon Focus: Heavy Flail. If I make a melee touch attack to Grapple you, I add my bonus from Weapon Focus: Grapple. -Hyp. By this reasoning, wouldn't you need Weapon Focus: Trip to make a melee touch attack to trip me?
dr_who 10-10-04, 06:53 PM	That's right. If I make a melee touch attack with a heavy flail to Trip you, I add my bonus from Weapon Focus: Heavy Flail. If I make a melee touch attack to Grapple you, I add my bonus from Weapon Focus: Grapple. -Hyp. So, in order to make an unarmed trip attempt, is there any Weapon Focus feat that will give me a +1 to the melee touch attack to initiate the trip? Don't say "unarmed strike," because then I will just turn around and ask why it isn't the same with initiating a grapple. :) There are some contradictions in the core rulebooks on this matter, it seems.
Hypersmurf 10-10-04, 06:53 PM	By this reasoning, wouldn't you need Weapon Focus: Trip to make a melee touch attack to trip me? There is no Weapon Focus: Trip. A Trip is performed either a/ with a Trip weapon (each of which have their own Weapon Focus feat), or else b/ as an unarmed melee touch attack (which doesn't have an applicable Weapon Focus feat). There is a Weapon Focus: Grapple, so that's what's used when initiating a grapple. The link is here: And note that he says "I don't think this article is necessary if you're playing 3.5". The reference to a monk's 'favorable attack rate' is a 3E rule, like the whole article. -Hyp.
Hypersmurf 10-10-04, 06:55 PM	So, in order to make an unarmed trip attempt, is there any Weapon Focus feat that will give me a +1 to the melee touch attack to initiate the trip? Nope. (And that's also why a Flurrying monk can only Trip if he's using a Kama.) -Hyp.
dr_who 10-10-04, 07:03 PM	There is no Weapon Focus: Trip. ...and so, you see my point, right? There is no Weapon Focus for any other melee touch attack, so why would grapple be special? It's either an oversight or an outright mistake to include grapple as a candidate for Weapon Focus if it is to be used in the sense that you are suggesting. It's not a weapon. That's interesting about the 3E reference. I must have mis-read that originally. So, here's one for you: You're saying that the touch attack to start a grapple is not made with the monk's Unarmed Strike, right? So, does a monk without Improved Grapple provoke an attack of opportunity from his melee touch attack to start a grapple? A monk is "never" unarmed according to the PHB, and he explicitly does not suffer an AOO from his unarmed disarm attempts because of that.
dr_who 10-10-04, 07:21 PM	And that's also why a Flurrying monk can only Trip if he's using a Kama. I could not disagree more. An unarmed melee attack is an attack you make with your body. Improved Unarmed Strike is exactly that, except done more expertly so that you deal lethal damage if you desire. If it's a touch attack, then you don't do damage, you just touch. This is why you can use your Weapon Focus: Heavy Flail on both attack rolls and trip attempts using the Heavy Flail; and it's also why Weapon Focus: Grapple is an oversight/mistake (I think). Anyway, I hope to hear something official this week. Until then, I'm keeping my big fat trap shut to avoid looking too stupid if ruled against by the powers that be! :cool:
Hypersmurf 10-10-04, 07:34 PM	It's either an oversight or an outright mistake to include grapple as a candidate for Weapon Focus if it is to be used in the sense that you are suggesting. Or an exception. So, does a monk without Improved Grapple provoke an attack of opportunity from his melee touch attack to start a grapple? Absolutely! There's nothing to say he doesn't. The AoO isn't provoked because you're making an unarmed attack; it's because you're initiating a grapple. "Certain monsters do not provoke attacks of opportunity when they attempt to grapple, nor do characters with the Improved Grapple feat." No exclusion for IUS or for monks. -Hyp.
Hypersmurf 10-10-04, 07:36 PM	I could not disagree more. An unarmed melee attack is an attack you make with your body. Yup. But a Trip with no trip weapon is not performed with an unarmed strike. It's an unarmed attack, but not an unarmed strike. Note that all weapons that can be used to trip state such in their description. Unarmed Strike has no such statement. As opposed to a Disarm, for example, which can be performed with any weapon (including an unarmed strike), and can thus be executed by an unarmed Flurrying monk. -Hyp.
dr_who 10-10-04, 07:50 PM	It's an unarmed attack, but not an unarmed strike. Hmmm. You may be winning me over here, albeit on a symmantic technicality. Common(uncommon?) sense tells me that unarmed attack and unarmed strike are the exact same thing. However, it seems that you are right about them being treated differently in the text. I don't have to like it, though. A monk's first and best strength is the unarmed attack. There is a lot that the monk sacrifices for that. Enchantments are much, much harder to come by, Hardness and DR are much harder to overcome, etc. It just seems right to me to allow Unarmed Strike to be the "weapon" that makes all unarmed melee attacks. However, I am acutely aware that my sense of what is fair is not the question. In LG, for the sake of uniformity, it is the written law that matters. The spirit of the law must be considered, but it never supercedes the letter. That being said, I revert to an earlier position. If you are right about this, then it makes no sense whatsoever to take Improved Grapple as your first level bonus feat as a monk, unless for some reason you want it for a prereq for something else and you don't plan on staying a monk for very long.
Eyeohn 10-11-04, 02:32 AM	I disagree, if what has been said earlier in this thread is correct, than improved grapple is a great feat if you plan to do any grapple attempts and don’t want to provoke an attack of opportunity.
dark_poet 10-11-04, 07:04 AM	Common(uncommon?) sense tells me that unarmed attack and unarmed strike are the exact same thing. I agree on the common sense bit. If a fighter using a trip weapon touch attack does not provoke an AoO, why then should a mong using a unarmed touch attack provoke one when in all other respects it is the same as the fighter's weapon. That's the way I see it. And I would actually agree with you on the grapple issue too (considering your unofficial clarifications as well). However, this is LG. Common sense holds no weight.
lutherreed 10-11-04, 09:13 AM	Unless that fighter has Improved Trip, he does provoke an AoO.
dr_who 10-11-04, 02:09 PM	Unless that fighter has Improved Trip, he does provoke an AoO. Not when using a weapon. A monk is never unarmed (his hands are his weapons), so he shouldn't provoke when making unarmed attacks.
hustonjj 10-11-04, 05:18 PM	And starting from the title line I gave, let me refer everybody to the Infinite Monkees Yahoo Group. (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Infinite_Monkeys) They were chartered to provide a consensus on how the game mechanics work in the LG campaign, and will apply all valid resources for that campaign in the order of priority dictated by campaign management. Don't like what you're hearing here? Do like what you're hearing here but don't know how to explain your side to the other guys? Ask the people who are supposed to understand the rules, as they apply to LG. Want to hold an ongoing rules debate that does NOT apply to LG? Take it somewhere else. Jeff Huston Spobody Necial
dr_who 10-11-04, 07:34 PM	Want to hold an ongoing rules debate that does NOT apply to LG? Take it somewhere else. huston, do you even read my posts? At the heart of the matter is something exclusively LG related. Namely, the fact that there are some situations in which the core rulebooks are not specific enough to convince everyone at the table that there is a black and white answer. In these cases, a "judge" must act as a "DM" (if there is, indeed, a difference) in interpreting and modifying the text from core sources to fit the given situation. Did you find those references that I asked you for? The ones that say that members of the circle are the only DMs in LG?
hustonjj 10-11-04, 07:53 PM	huston, do you even read my posts? No, I've stopped even noticing you've posted. Can't you tell? At the heart of the matter is something exclusively LG related. Namely, the fact that there are some situations in which the core rulebooks are not specific enough to convince everyone at the table that there is a black and white answer. In these cases, a "judge" must act as a "DM" (if there is, indeed, a difference) in interpreting and modifying the text from core sources to fit the given situation. A core rules debate is NOT inherently LG related. And when you want a hard interpretation of what is right for the LG campaign, the ongoing definitive source for that answer is the Infinite Monkees. They will provide all the exaplantion you desire about why the correct ruling is the correct ruling, and that explanation will include specific references to the campaign specified rules material. If you really want the LG answer, they will provide it for you. Did you find those references that I asked you for? The ones that say that members of the circle are the only DMs in LG? Well, let's see. An LG judge is not authorized to modify a module, or even an encounter, but must run it as written. An LG judge is not authorized to grant or deny access to a specific class, tool, feat, or other toy. An LG judge is not authorized to change a game mechanic he disagrees with, but must implement it as given in the books. These are functions of a DM managing his campaign. An inability to perform these functions requires that you not be a DM. An LG judge IS authorized to interpret ambiguous rules, but is required to follow the rules EXACTLY as identified in the 3 core rulebooks, their errata, and the D&D FAQ. An LG judge IS authorized to adapt play during a module for a group that goes outside the box (literally or figuratively), but can not provide any experience, access, or financial awards not explicitly called out in the module he was given. An LG judge simply does not have the authority of a DM. Do you disagree with the limitations I stated above? Do you need me to dig through the campaign documentation you should be familiar with to identify chapter and verse on the source of these limitations? Or do you recognize them? Jeff Huston
dr_who 10-11-04, 08:05 PM	I'm sorry that you are not able to understand my question about what an LG judge is and isn't. Perhaps if I had been an english major I could phrase it so that we could communicate better.
Nidome 10-12-04, 11:20 AM	I'm sorry that you are not able to understand my question about what an LG judge is and isn't. Perhaps if I had been an english major I could phrase it so that we could communicate better. Actually it seems that he understood your question fine, it appears that you have failed to understand his answer. I will attempt to break things down into an easy to understand format: DMs control the campaign as a whole. Judges arbitrate an adventure within the campaign according to the rules and guidelines provided by the campaign controller(s). In the case of LG, the campaign controllers are the circle which means that they are the DMs. DMs can make rules which are official for the entire campaign, Judges can only make judgements which are only official for that table that they are running, and even then the "Senior GM" for the event has the right to overrule such judgements. Is that an easier way to understand the difference between DMs and Judges? Nick.
smerwin29 10-12-04, 11:47 AM	A core rules debate is NOT inherently LG related. And when you want a hard interpretation of what is right for the LG campaign, the ongoing definitive source for that answer is the Infinite Monkees. They will provide all the exaplantion you desire about why the correct ruling is the correct ruling, and that explanation will include specific references to the campaign specified rules material. If you really want the LG answer, they will provide it for you. Well, let's see. An LG judge is not authorized to modify a module, or even an encounter, but must run it as written. An LG judge is not authorized to grant or deny access to a specific class, tool, feat, or other toy. An LG judge is not authorized to change a game mechanic he disagrees with, but must implement it as given in the books. These are functions of a DM managing his campaign. An inability to perform these functions requires that you not be a DM. An LG judge IS authorized to interpret ambiguous rules, but is required to follow the rules EXACTLY as identified in the 3 core rulebooks, their errata, and the D&D FAQ. An LG judge IS authorized to adapt play during a module for a group that goes outside the box (literally or figuratively), but can not provide any experience, access, or financial awards not explicitly called out in the module he was given. With all due respect, the Infinite Monkeys Yahoo list is a tool that LG judges can certainly use to help them make judgments regarding ambiguous rules, but it is by no stretch of the imagination a definitive source. They are not the "LG answer," although they can certainly help Judges sort out rule questions which they may not understand or may need help interpreting. LG judges are not DMs in the sense that they can't control the adventure much past what is published in the module, but they are called on to make rules decisions that are ambiguous or not covered in the Core rules, errata, the LGCS, and the FAQ. The players at a judge's table also have the right to question the call of an LG judge, and appeal a judgment to a Senior DM, Triad, or the Circle if possible. But outside of those avenues, the player is stuck with the call of the Judge, for better or worse. Regards, Shawn
CruelDM 10-12-04, 12:59 PM	As pertaining to the topic of this thread..... There is a big difference for all character classes, including monks, between an unarmed attack (strike) and an unarmed touch attack. The first is that an unarmed attack (strike) is an attack against an opponant that has to first get by that opponants full defenses (armor, shield, natural armor, dex, and any enhancements in place) to deal damage (lethal or not). An unarmed TOUCH attack bypasses most of the defenses of the opponant to establish a grapple or produce some other non damaging effect (trip, etc.). It bypasses those defenses because the intent is merely to TOUCH the opponant. A Monks unarmed strike (or improved unarmed strike) is a melee attack not a melee TOUCH attack, and therefore grants no benefit to a melee TOUCH attack. Without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a monk using no weapon that attacks an armed foe provokes an AoO from that opponant. Additionally without this feat, that monk cannot make an AoO against an unarmed foe that attacks him while he (the monk) is unarmed. The trip rules are much the same, if you attempt a trip without a weapon you provoke an AoO, Improved Trip allows you not to provoke an AoO if you dont have a weapon (the rules state that, even though a monk is always considered armed if he has Improved Unarmed Strike, he still doesnt have a weapon). I believe the difference here is that to attempt a trip with a weapon you still maintain your own square and defenses, while attempting a trip without a weapon (including a monks unarmed attempt) you must invade the opponants square to TOUCH him and you temporarily drop your own defense to make the attempt. It is flawed reasoning to assume a monk would automaticaly gain the benifits of Improved Trip simply because he has Improved Unarmed Strike and he is considered armed. If you read the Improved Trip feat you will see the feat is specificaly allowed as bonus feat for the monk at 6th level should he want to take it, even if he hasn't met the prerequisites. I find it very clear that an unarmed attack (strike) and a TOUCH attack (grapple/trip) are two very different modes of melee, and that the rules are pretty clear about each, including providing the applicable feats to overcome the drawbacks to making each type of attack. So now you can't even start a grapple with a flurry? That I cannot agree with. I can see some very good reasons for not being able to flurry multiple grapple checks while grappling; but to start a grapple requires an unarmed touch attack, followed by a grapple check to maintain it. If a monk's unarmed strike doesn't count for the purposes of melee touch attacks then I think there is something very wrong. A monk cannot start a grapple with a flurry of blows simply because of the difference between the two attack methods as stated earlier. A flurry is an unarmed attack (strike), not a TOUCH attack. You appear to assume (or so I think) that because the monk is unarmed he had to have touched the opponant, and I would agree, but the intent of the Flurry is not to start a grapple (or trip for that matter) but to damage the opponant. By the same token, a class with multiple attacks (not using the flurry of blows) using the full attack option could substitute any of their regular attacks for a grapple/trip/disarm attempt. The attack would be an touch attack (using the opponants touch AC) and would follow the rules as given on pages 155-156 and 158 of the PH. It should be noted that with regards to a disarm attempt the attack roll is not a touch attack so both participants get their full AC bonus. Also, unless the class had Improved Grapple/Trip/Disarm they would provoke the AoO before the attempt is made. Because the disarm attempt is not a touch attack I would allow a flurry to include the ability to attempt a disarm during any or all of the flurries blows should the player want to.
dr_who 10-12-04, 04:39 PM	A flurry is an unarmed attack (strike), not a TOUCH attack. You appear to assume (or so I think) that because the monk is unarmed he had to have touched the opponant, and I would agree, but the intent of the Flurry is not to start a grapple (or trip for that matter) but to damage the opponant. This seems to be the real heart of the matter, I think, since it pertains to both initiating a grapple and trying to trip. There are several places in the text that seem to use unarmed attack and unarmed strike interchangeably. Note, for example, that I can make a normal "unarmed attack" to deal damage while simultaneously discharging a spell that normally requires only a touch attack (PHB 141-142). Also, the definition of Attack Roll on page 134 says that an attack is an attempt to strike. In that same section, it tells me how to calculate one's attack bonus when using a weapon, but nowhere in the book does it give a different formula for calculating one's "touch attack" bonus (though it does contain a formula for computing one's AC vs. touch attacks). Additionally, from the glossary in the PHB we see that a touch attack is merely an attack that ignores certain contributions to the subject's AC. Are you saying that someone with Improved Unarmed Strike, who is always considered armed, is less adept at reaching out to simply touch someone than they are at striking for damage? Despite the purely semantic argument (attack vs. strike; attack vs. touch attack), I think that this is contrary to the philosophy of unarmed combat in D&D.
CruelDM 10-12-04, 06:32 PM	Are you saying that someone with Improved Unarmed Strike, who is always considered armed, is less adept at reaching out to simply touch someone than they are at striking for damage? It is very possible for a character who is adept at making unarmed attacks to not be very skillful at grappling (imagine the differences between a boxer and a wrestler if that helps), another good reason to get the Improved Grapple feat if you plan to use grapple alot. I am merely pointing out the inherent differences between the two attack forms, and how the rules handle each of the different actions. I believe the first misconception is that a monk has a weapon once he gains the Improved Unarmed Strike Feat. That feat states he is considered armed, it states it clearly and I have no argument to this, it does not state he is wielding a weapon, and thats a big difference. I believe the feat was written the way it was to clarify that a character with this feat can make an AoO when attacked by an unarmed opponant, and that the same character does not provoke an AoO when melee attacking an armed opponant "weaponless". Note that without this feat even a monk, skilled at unarmed combat, would provoke an AoO with every attack he made unarmed (but he gets this feat for free, so its a moot point). An unarmed strike is not the same thing as a touch attack, though a successful unarmed attack does indeed touch an opponant. An unarmed strike is also harder to accomplish than a mere touch attack against an armored opponant, but it deals damage whereas a mere touch would not. An unarmed strike is not a trip attempt, nor a grapple attempt, it is an unarmed strike. It does not grant any bonus or benefit to a trip or grapple attempt, and neither would Improved Unarmed Strike. To gain a benefit to the trip or grapple attempt the character would need Improved Trip or Improved Grapple as evidenced by the fact that these feats exist. Because a character with Improved Unarmed Strike is still "weaponless" he would provoke an AoO when attempting to trip (he is armed, but wields no actual weapon with which to make the trip attack) unless he also had Improved Trip. I maintain that a character without an actual weapon has to partially enter an opponants square to initiate these attack forms and therefore provokes attacks of opportunity unless they have the improved feats to negate these AoO's.