Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sledged 08-19-07, 04:55 PM	...Rapid Strike and Improved Rapid Strike. If monks are allowed to take the Improved Natural Attack feat, are elan monks allowed to take Rapid Strike and Improved Rapid Strike (both in the Draconomicon)?
jaelis 08-19-07, 10:26 PM	I'd say no. A monk's unarmed strike can benefit from effects that improve natural weapon, but Rapidstrike doesn't really improve your weapon, it just lets you use it better. (Compare to Multiattack, for instance.) Also, the fact that unarmed strikes certainly use the manufactured weapon rules for iterative attacks makes me think it would be wrong to apply feats (like Rapidstrike and Multiattack) that explicitly work with the natural weapon attack rules. Edit: actually, I think an elan could take Rapidstrike and apply it to it's natural attacks, but not its unarmed strikes.
Ebonarc 08-19-07, 11:04 PM	I'm inclined to say no as well. The creature type prerequisites indicate to me that it is supposed to be a monster feat (even more than INA and others), so meeting the prereqs as a monk doesn't seem right in my opinion.
EjoThims 08-20-07, 12:53 AM	Quite simply, a Monk does not usually meet the prerequisites, since Unarmed Strike is only one attack form, no matter how many limbs or body parts are used. Even if you did meet the prereqs, you'd have to treat your Unarmed Strike as a natural attack for the round and you'd lose iterative attacks with it, including any TWF or flurry attacks. And if you really think that making all your iterative attacks with a monk weapon (up to 9 with hardly any multiclassing) and then 4 unarmed attacks at the cost of two feats and probably a couple ECL is more powerful than making 9 unarmed attacks as a decent level monk... Then I simply sigh at you.
runestar 08-20-07, 01:37 AM	A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for purposes of effects interacting with it. However, I would say no, because you only have 1 unarmed strike (regardless of which parts of your body you make it with). Thus, you lack the "pair of natural weapons" requirement. I'm inclined to say no as well. The creature type prerequisites indicate to me that it is supposed to be a monster feat (even more than INA and others), so meeting the prereqs as a monk doesn't seem right in my opinion. Well, an elan is an abberation. Accidental or no, an elan monk could in theory take it, assuming he met the other requirements (which BTW, he doesn't).
Meep326 08-20-07, 02:12 AM	However, I would say no, because you only have 1 unarmed strike (regardless of which parts of your body you make it with). Thus, you lack the "pair of natural weapons" requirement. Yes, but you can combine it with the two weapon fighting to get 'off-hand' attacks.
runestar 08-20-07, 02:49 AM	Yes, but you can combine it with the two weapon fighting to get 'off-hand' attacks. Yes, but it still counts as just 1 single natural weapon for purposes of interaction.
jaelis 08-20-07, 09:00 AM	Yes, but you can combine it with the two weapon fighting to get 'off-hand' attacks. That's not at all clear in the rules.
EjoThims 08-20-07, 04:41 PM	That's not at all clear in the rules. Yes it is. Unarmed strikes are one form of attack. It is that same one form no matter which part of the body is used or how many attacks are made.
jaelis 08-20-07, 05:33 PM	Yes it is. Great, could you show me where it says that? Just to be more clear, I'm interested in the question of whether you can use your unarmed strike as both a primary and off-hand weapon at the same time.
Ebonarc 08-20-07, 07:25 PM	Great, could you show me where it says that? Just to be more clear, I'm interested in the question of whether you can use your unarmed strike as both a primary and off-hand weapon at the same time. From page 41 in the PHB, in the first paragraph of the Unarmed Strike description: "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." Bolding mine. In short, unarmed strikes can never be off-hand attacks.
EjoThims 08-20-07, 07:31 PM	Great, could you show me where it says that? Just to be more clear, I'm interested in the question of whether you can use your unarmed strike as both a primary and off-hand weapon at the same time. It is one attack form. To have multiple natural attacks you need multiple forms of natural attack. Multiple claws, or a bite and horns. Unarmed Strike uses the body as one attack form, and could only be used for one natural attack a round unless you had the rapid strike feats, but that would require getting a ppair of claw or wing attacks. As for TWF with Unarmed Strikes, you can use Unarmed Strikes as both offhand and mainhand in the same round. The post above mine is 100% incorrect. That text refers to making main-hand unarmed strikes with other parts of the body, showing that they will not be treated as off-hand because of it. A monk can choose to make off-hand attacks with unarmed strike in addition to his main-hand attacks with unarmed strike, just as anyone can choose to do so with daggers or swords. When making off-hand unarmed strikes during a TWF sequence, all the off-hand attacks receive 1/2 strength bonus. Honestly... Do I have to dig out the CustServ on this again??
risner 08-20-07, 08:37 PM	Honestly... Do I have to dig out the CustServ on this again?? The cust serv won't help, but I do suggest you send it to Ask Wizards (or is it Sage Advice) now, because if you can get it into the FAQ (and past Andy Collins), then it is something most RAW people will swallow. I for one can't accept that pill from CustServ, since they are admittedly way lower on the authority chain than the FAQ and Errata are on the chain.
jaelis 08-20-07, 09:14 PM	"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." What do monks have to do with it? Arguably, that quote says that a monk can't make an off-hand unarmed strike, but the FAQ says that is not the intention. But it certainly wouldn't apply to any other class. It is one attack form. To have multiple natural attacks you need multiple forms of natural attack. Multiple claws, or a bite and horns. Unarmed Strike uses the body as one attack form, and could only be used for one natural attack a round unless you had the rapid strike feats, but that would require getting a ppair of claw or wing attacks. What do natural attacks have to do with it? Unarmed strikes clearly follow the manufactured weapons rules for how many attacks you get. As for TWF with Unarmed Strikes, you can use Unarmed Strikes as both offhand and mainhand in the same round. Aren't you now contradicting what you just wrote above? Though this is at least a defensible position. But you mentioned above that this was clearly stated in the rules... I was hoping you could show me where, rather than just reiterating your point. Even if it's just a quote from Cust Serv, I'd be happy to see it.
Mojo_Rat 08-20-07, 09:22 PM	Rapid Strike and Improved rapid strike are pretty clearly intended for use with Natural attacks. (and i mean natural attacks in the seconds of claws wing buffets slams etc) First off Monks dont Qualify for Multi attack. a monk has one body which counts as one weapon you can just hit people with different parts of that weapon. This would be like trying to claim the other side of your battle axe allows you to do two weapon fighting. Secondly Monk attacks do not appear to ever be secondary attacks. They never suffer 50% strength damage and you can use power attack with them (which you cannot do with a light weapon) Even in the example given in the Faq involving TWF the monk had a weapon wielded and was using the weapon for its off hand attacks. as part of the example. Lastly I do not think monks of any normal races even qualify to take monsterous feats just because they have 'natural' weapons. Although I am usure the Elan can apply it just fine to any normal monster natural attacks it has.
EjoThims 08-21-07, 12:31 AM	Aren't you now contradicting what you just wrote above? No, one was in reference to a monk being able to use rapidstrike, the other in reference to a monk using TWF with unarmed strikes. And Risner, I know you've seen the direct quote from CustServ on the issue already. And as little as you like it, CustServ ruling are official until they contradict themselves. From Cust Serv: "Because of the FAQ entry that says you can use your unarmed strikes as part of your flurry along with two-weapon fighting, you can indeed use your unarmed strikes as both primary and off-hand weapons in the same round. If a DM feels that is too powerful for their games, they have every right to disallow this. Any ruling they make overrules any rulings or clarifications we can provide." Emphasis is mine. And yes, a monk using unarmed strikes as off-hand attacks g ains 1/2 str bonus to damage on them. Read the FAQ on that.
jaelis 08-21-07, 07:51 AM	From Cust Serv: "Because of the FAQ entry that says you can use your unarmed strikes as part of your flurry along with two-weapon fighting, you can indeed use your unarmed strikes as both primary and off-hand weapons in the same round. If a DM feels that is too powerful for their games, they have every right to disallow this. Any ruling they make overrules any rulings or clarifications we can provide." Thanks. But even so, I don't think it's very fair to say that it's "clear in the rules" when the basis of your argument is a Cust Serv quote providing a potentially questionable interpretation of the FAQ. (The interpretation is questionable because the FAQ doesn't actually give an example of what they claim... the example monk always uses a weapon for either the flurry or the off-hand. Not that it's wrong, I just don't find it very convincing.)
imakuni67 08-21-07, 09:21 AM	Why are Elans abberations anyway?
EjoThims 08-21-07, 05:14 PM	Thanks. But even so, I don't think it's very fair to say that it's "clear in the rules" when the basis of your argument... Ah... I see where the initial confusion occured. I thought your post stating that it's not clear in the rules was in regards to the post "Yes, but it still counts as just 1 single natural weapon for purposes of interaction." Thus my initial responses to you that seemed out of place. As well, the only thing that could possibly limit a Monk from TWF with Unarmed Strikes is the fluff text in a monk's flurry, which the FAQ clarified to show did not mean a Monk was incapable of making off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes, just that the default main-hand unarmed strike could be made with any part of the body. With that text clarified, nothing but poor interpretations of unarmed strike that conjured limits presented nowhere in the books themselves kept a monk from using unarmed strikes as both weapons in TWF, and the Cust Serv ruling supports that any limits perceived were mere fantasy. It's not a "questionable interpretation," it's evidence that there is indeed nothing preventing this tactic that everyone approaching it with logic and common sense knew was practical in the first place.
jaelis 08-21-07, 05:24 PM	Ah... I see where the initial confusion occured. I thought there was some miscommunication going on, but I couldn't tell what. It's not a "questionable interpretation," it's evidence that there is indeed nothing preventing this tactic that everyone approaching it with logic and common sense knew was practical in the first place. So I have no logic and common sense. Darn.
Ebonarc 08-21-07, 05:26 PM	*Crawls out from trench, surveys no man's land* "Has the shooting stopped?"
EjoThims 08-22-07, 08:24 AM	So I have no logic and common sense. Darn. You said it, not me. I only implied that I didn't think you were using logic and common sense in approaching your stance on the use of Unarmed Strikes as both main-hand and off-hand attacks in the same round. Rather different from saying you simply lack the capability to use them at all. :(
jaelis 08-22-07, 09:32 AM	Rather different from saying you simply lack the capability to use them at all. Fair enough. I'll defend my position a little more though. First, my position, which is basically the same as what runestar said previously: an unarmed strike attack uses your whole body, in a non-specific sort of way. Whatever limbs you have available are used when delivering it. You have only one such "weapon," so you can't TWF with it alone. A right hook followed by a left jab would just represent one single unarmed strike attack. Here are some reasons I have for this: - I have never, in life, TV movies, books, or anything else, seen an example of a person in a fist-fight using just one hand. Even if a person were disarmed but carrying a shield, I would picture him bashing with the shield before simply attacking with the one hand only. (More realistically he might do a combination of both, but I would be content to consider some level of shield work as part of an unarmed strike... the line between striking with the shield and pummeling with your shield hand is gray.) This makes me think that fighting with two fists is _not_ a special ability that only well-trained duelists can pull off. Rather, it reflects the normal way you fight when unarmed. - If you make unarmed strikes with specific parts of your body, why do they all do the same damage? Why does a magic fang spell affect all of them at once? If a "kick" or a "head butt" is a particular kind of attack, why can't you wear steel-toed shoes or a metal helmet and get the same benefit as a gauntlets give? - The PHB rules say A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack. To me, this sounds exactly equivalent to "A medium character deals 1d6 points of lethal damage with a rapier, which may be a thrust, cut, lunge, or other type of attack." This is a reasonable sentence, and does not imply that the character has more than one weapon. - In my interpretation the grapple rules make more sense. You can't make off hand attacks in a grapple; my interpretation has that meaning you can't attack with a dagger and your unarmed strike in the same round, which I can see as sort of reasonable. Your interpretation means you can't attack with your right and left fists in the same round. Why would you be unable to do that?
Patinho_Amarelo 08-22-07, 10:12 AM	EjoThim is 100% correct. The mainfaq already fixed this, and the Cust Serv just make clear.
jaelis 08-22-07, 10:16 AM	The mainfaq already fixed this, and the Cust Serv just make clear. I have no dispute about the Cust Serv response, I'm happy to take that as official. But people have claimed for a long time that the FAQ addresses this, but I've yet to see a quote that actually does.
runestar 08-22-07, 10:34 AM	Is this the article you are talking about? The description of the flurry of blows ability says there’s no such thing as a monk attacking with an off-hand weapon during a flurry of blows. What does that mean, exactly? Can the monk make off-hand attacks in addition to flurry attacks? Actually, the text to which you refer appears in the entry for unarmed strikes. When a monk uses her unarmed strike ability, she does not suffer any penalty for an off-hand attack, even when she has her hands full and attacks with her knees and elbows, using the flurry of blows ability to make extra attacks, or both. The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists. When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits. To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains only half Strength bonus to damage. 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). For example, a 4th-level monk with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a Strength score of 14 decides to use a flurry of blows and decides to throw in an off-hand attack as well. The monk has a base attack bonus of +3 and a +2 Strength bonus. With a flurry, the character can make two attacks, each at +3 (base +3, –2 flurry, +2 Strength). An unarmed strike is a light weapon, so the monk suffers an additional –2 penalty for both the flurry and the off-hand attack, and the monk makes three attacks, each at an attack bonus of +1. The two attacks from the flurry are primary attacks and add the monk’s full Strength bonus to damage of +2. The single off-hand attack adds half the monk’s Strength bonus to damage (+1). 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. Basically, my point is that while a monk can TWF with his unarmed strikes, those are ultimately still just 1 natural weapon - his unarmed strike.
jaelis 08-22-07, 11:01 AM	Basically, my point is that while a monk can TWF with his unarmed strikes, those are ultimately still just 1 natural weapon - his unarmed strike. Exactly... just because a monk can use her unarmed strike as an off-hand weapon doesn't mean that she can use it as primary and off-hand at the same time. The only potential support is If the off-hand attack is a weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry. If you interpret "weapon" as "manufactured weapon" then this suggests unarmed strikes aren't limited this way. But you can equally well interpret weapon as "any weapon" (as opposed perhaps to a grapple attempt), in which case it would say that unarmed strikes are limited this way. I think either reading is defensible, but it gets my dander up when people deny the possibility of the second.
EjoThims 08-22-07, 08:16 PM	Fair enough. I'll defend my position a little more though. First, my position, which is basically the same as what runestar said previously: an unarmed strike attack uses your whole body, in a non-specific sort of way. Whatever limbs you have available are used when delivering it. You have only one such "weapon," so you can't TWF with it alone. A right hook followed by a left jab would just represent one single unarmed strike attack. It could, just as fighting with two daggers (ranged or melee) does not have to invoke TWF penalties if you only your BAB attacks, no matter which hand they are in. - I have never, in life, TV movies, books, or anything else, seen an example of a person in a fist-fight using just one hand. Nor have I. But that is 100% not what this question is about. The question is whether or not someone can use all parts of their body for more quick strikes if they train themselves to make simultaneous attacks. If you make unarmed strikes with specific parts of your body, why do they all do the same damage? Why does a magic fang spell affect all of them at once? because your body is one object capable of making multiple attacks, all of the same form, from different areas. If a "kick" or a "head butt" is a particular kind of attack, why can't you wear steel-toed shoes or a metal helmet and get the same benefit as a gauntlets give? Firstly, they're not seperate forms of attack and I have never claimed they are. Secondly, simply because such items do not exist in the rules. To me, this sounds exactly equivalent to "A medium character deals 1d6 points of lethal damage with a rapier, which may be a thrust, cut, lunge, or other type of attack." This is a reasonable sentence, and does not imply that the character has more than one weapon. Ah... The ultra-literal... And in response remember... Unarmed Strikes are a weapon with no cost and no weight. One could buy, carry, and use as many as one had 'hands' (Again, different from hands. 'Hands' is the number of independent attack strings a creature can make, with only one being considered the 'main-hand' in most circumstances.) If you are to approach it in this light (limiting it to just one weapon because of the description), remember, nothing prevents two of these weapons from being wielded. Your interpretation means you can't attack with your right and left fists in the same round. Why would you be unable to do that? What? Not at all. 'Main-hand' and 'Off-hand' have no (zero, nada, zilch, the opposite of any) correlation to which physical hand is used. If wielding a dagger and unarmed strikes, one can make main-hand attacks with the dagger, no matter which hand it's in, and then make off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes, even if none of those strikes come from a hand. One could also make main-hand attacks with unarmed strikes even if never using a hand to do so, and then make off-hand attacks with a dagger. Now, why should relying on a weapon with more avenues of attack present you with fewer options? Using unarmed strikes as main-hand and off-hand, one could make all main-hand attacks with the head and all off-hand attacks with feet if desiring, or even all of both attack strings with the hips. As for not using the same weapon in a flurry? Of course not, whichever method of unarmed strikes is being used for the flurry cannot be used for the off-hand attacks, but that does not limit others. The easiest way to think of it if you haven't come to terms with it yet is to consider unarmed strieks as a double weapon. One weapon with multiple points of attack. Double weapons allow TWF and usually have only two ways to attack. Yet the unarmed strfike, which itself list a far vaster set of attack options limits you more? It does not make sense to limit the ability of unarmed strikes to be used as both weapons in TWF, nor is it supported in the rules.
EjoThims 08-22-07, 08:19 PM	Back on topic though... If you were to use your unarmed attacks as a natural weapon for the round to gain the benefits of rapidstrike, you'd lose your iterative attacks with it. As well, meeting the requirements are difficult (unarmed strikes won't cut it). It's just a sub optimal option as well as being rules-iffy.
runestar 08-22-07, 08:55 PM	If you were to use your unarmed attacks as a natural weapon for the round to gain the benefits of rapidstrike, you'd lose your iterative attacks with it. Assuming a monk could some qualify for it, I don't think he would lose his iterative attacks this way. My rationale is that his unarmed strikes are treated as natural weapons only for purposes of effects interacting with it. They are not actually natural weapons, and thus do not need to be subject to the same limitations. Nor is there anything saying that a monk must use his fists like natural weapons. For example (purely hypothetically simply to illustrate my point), if your DM ruled that a monk was treated as such while TWFing, he would get the extra rapidstrike attacks in addition to his normal full attack/flurry/TWF routine. Nothing is lost this way.
EjoThims 08-22-07, 09:04 PM	My rationale is that his unarmed strikes are treated as natural weapons only for purposes of effects interacting with it. They are not actually natural weapons, and thus do not need to be subject to the same limitations. Unarmed strikes normally allow iterative attacks like manufactured weapons, and they normally cannot be usd for secondary attacks like other natural attacks could. To use Rapidstrike with them, you'd have to attack with them as if they were natural weapons, meaning you'd give up your iterative attacks and use them as a secondary weapon. I'd love to think a Monk could get 4 extra unarmed attacks in a round, but from the iteraction it seems to me that the best you could do with this trick was five unarmed attacks in addition to attacks with a monk weapon.
strenoth 08-22-07, 11:29 PM	Still doesn't work. No matter what or how you use it, you still only have ONE unarmed attack. you do NOT have a pair of them. the rapid strike feats specifically state you need PAIRED weapons. Secondary or nto is besides the point. Primary Claw weapons can be used with RS/IRS, but any way you look at it, you have to be able to list the weapons as Claws(2) +xx Unarmed strike is NEVER listed as Unarmed Strike(2) +xx. It is listed as Unarmed Strike +xx/+yy/+zz now, Slams could be used, if you have a pair of them. Hell, a dragon can use it's wings. I'm flexible enough that I would allow a creature with multiple pairs (say, 4 arms, like a thrikreen) to take each feat twice, once for each pair but even when unarmed strike is some how used as a secondary weapon, you still do NOT have a pair of unarmed strikes.
EjoThims 08-23-07, 06:32 PM	Still doesn't work. No matter what or how you use it, you still only have ONE unarmed attack. you do NOT have a pair of them. Whoops. What I get for just glancing when it's been a while since actually reading it... Forgot it had to be the same weapon that qualified for the feat... Was thinking it was a case of using something else to qualify while this other thing I want gets the benefits. :embarrass
Mojo_Rat 08-23-07, 06:52 PM	would slam really qualify? I had always gotten the impression that slam used iterative attacks like unarmed did. Since Slam like unarmed attacks are a undefined use of the body.
EjoThims 08-23-07, 06:57 PM	would slam really qualify? I had always gotten the impression that slam used iterative attacks like unarmed did. Since Slam like unarmed attacks are a undefined use of the body. Slam works just like any other natural attack (other than unarmed strikes), so if you had a pair of slams, which isn't likely, you'd be able to use them with rapidstrike.