I don't know where else to post this, but I had a question about a certain feat combination/fighter build I'm working on . . .
Can a non-flurrying character gain the benefits of Two-Weapon Fighting if completely unarmed, but has Improved Unarmed Strike? The Two-Weapon Defense feat specifically mentions that unarmed strikes grant no benefit for that feat, which carries the implication that unarmed strikes are viable for the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
The two-weapon fighting rules state that "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon". A character with Improved Unarmed Strike is considered armed even when s/he isn't . . .
So my question is:
Is an unarmed strike (Improved or not) considered a weapon for the purposes of making additional attacks with an offhand weapon?
I'm sorry if this is kind of an amateur question, I've just never come across this situation before . . .
Thank you!
|
I don't think it is amateur at all.
I've never thought about it, but here is my take:
Yes, you can attempt to strike with an unarmed strike as an off-hand weapon (this could be a kick, headbutt, etc). You incur all the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons (including dealing 1/2 your Str bonus on damage with your off-hand unarmed strike), and you deal nonlethal damage unless you have the Improved Unarmed Strike ability. Unless specified, the Two-Weapon Fighting feats grant their normal benefits in this situation.
Alternatively, you can use an unarmed strike as your primary weapon, and another weapon (including an unarmed strike) as your off-hand weapon. Hello flurry of blows for 1st-level fighters!
Unarmed Strike offers no benefit in two-weapon defense because you cannot block with your body (excepting a few feats).
In retrospect, it is a pretty decent idea. I have an unarmed fighter now with a shield. This encourages me to get him into shield-fighting.
Yet another notch in the belt as to why I like fighters more than monks!
|
I don't think it is amateur at all.
I've never thought about it, but here is my take:
Yes, you can attempt to strike with an unarmed strike as an off-hand weapon (this could be a kick, headbutt, etc). You incur all the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons (including dealing 1/2 your Str bonus on damage with your off-hand unarmed strike), and you deal nonlethal damage unless you have the Improved Unarmed Strike ability. Unless specified, the Two-Weapon Fighting feats grant their normal benefits in this situation.
Alternatively, you can use an unarmed strike as your primary weapon, and another weapon (including an unarmed strike) as your off-hand weapon. Hello flurry of blows for 1st-level fighters!
Unarmed Strike offers no benefit in two-weapon defense because you cannot block with your body (excepting a few feats).
In retrospect, it is a pretty decent idea. I have an unarmed fighter now with a shield. This encourages me to get him into shield-fighting.
Yet another notch in the belt as to why I like fighters more than monks!
Heh, I had a friend who was using a shield-wielding fighter inspired by Captain America; going to the point of picking up the feats from Complete Warrior which allowed him more combat options using his shield: Shield Charge, Shield Slam, Throw Anything, and even having a shield made with the Returning quality.
I've seen this discussed on ENWorld. My understanding is that you can, in fact, combine two-weapon fighting with improved unarmed strike and furthermore, you can combine it with Flurry of Blows. It gets a little tricky keeping track of all those penalties and just exactly how many attacks you get, etc. not to mention the hassle of waiting while the monk gets his/her 8 attacks per round, or whatever.
Yes, but I would strongly suggest going with two spiked guantlets over this route. For one thing it will save you a feat (you won't have to take IUS). For another thing, it is much easier to magic up actual weapons than "natural" attacks. A flaming spiked guanlet is much easier to come by than flaming fists (as cool as that would be). Lastly, if you get swallowed, an unarmed strike isn't going to do you any good, while spiked guantlets will help you punch your way out. Just some things to think about.
Adding on to the same thought process... Why don't you look into the Monster Manual and get the Multiattack feat.
Add that with Roundabout Kick in the complete Warrior (I think that's where it is). And improved crital on one of your limbs.
Tasty Damage!
Actually, the thing to do is to get the Book of Nine Swords, take Superior Unarmed Combat so your UA dmg scales, and add in Snap kick for yet another attack (albeit at another penalty to hit).
Still...a lot of feats to blow on UA and TWF!
===Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding on to the same thought process... Why don't you look into the Monster Manual and get the Multiattack feat.
Add that with Roundabout Kick in the complete Warrior (I think that's where it is). And improved crital on one of your limbs.
Tasty Damage!
Technically, unarmed strike counts as a light weapon, not a natural attack, and so Multiattack and Improved Natural Weapon do not improve it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, unarmed strike counts as a light weapon, not a natural attack, and so Multiattack and Improved Natural Weapon do not improve it.Adding on to the same thought process... Why don't you look into the Monster Manual and get the Multiattack feat.
Add that with Roundabout Kick in the complete Warrior (I think that's where it is). And improved crital on one of your limbs.
Tasty Damage!
Yeah, Unarmed is kinda funky, 'cause its one of those things that counts as a manufactured weapon in some cases, a natural weapon in others, and then both in yet others(namely as the target of spells like Magic Weapon and Magic Fang).
|
|
Yeah, Unarmed is kinda funky, 'cause its one of those things that counts as a manufactured weapon in some cases, a natural weapon in others, and then both in yet others(namely as the target of spells like Magic Weapon and Magic Fang).Technically, unarmed strike counts as a light weapon, not a natural attack, and so Multiattack and Improved Natural Weapon do not improve it.Adding on to the same thought process... Why don't you look into the Monster Manual and get the Multiattack feat.
Add that with Roundabout Kick in the complete Warrior (I think that's where it is). And improved crital on one of your limbs.
Tasty Damage!
I can just picture level 20 monks with Improved Natural Weapon (4d8 damage per attack...ouch). Even if a DM allowed this outside of core, they should probably make a Monk pick which part of their body is "improved" for the purpose of attacks (head, feet, hands, knees) kind of like Odd Job in the Goldfinger novel.
this seems wrong... how can you two weapon fight with flurry to gain extra attacks? aren't you already "two weapon fighting" because of the original flurry penalties? (which get removed later.) when did the sage rule this?
this seems wrong... how can you two weapon fight with flurry to gain extra attacks? aren't you already "two weapon fighting" because of the original flurry penalties? (which get removed later.) when did the sage rule this?
Wow, talk about thread resurrection. Anyway, here is the relevant passage from the 3.5 FAQ (6/30/08 version)
========================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 two-weapon 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.
========================
interesting
Actually, you're right on the money teddy boysen. This was an issue in a game run last year. A character created a monk who specialized in "alot of attacks. Of course, when I caught him combining both two-weapon fighting and flurry together to gain more attacks than a fighter who had burnt all feats into two weapon-fighting, he got pissed off and produced an errata page from wotc website. I have seen alot of the errata published but why I don't accept them is very simple. There is no explanation behind most of the "corrected rules or abilities."
It just showed numbers upon numbers of attacks and what one could do with the combination of two-weapon fighting and flurry. That been said, have to disagree with those feeling that you could combine both. My explanation is a few lines straight from the PHB. The PHB states:"There is no such thing as an off-hand
attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may
thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls
for all her unarmed strikes."
Yeah what made that whole situation feel off, was that the player's handbook said it couldn't be done and then Rob pulls out the errata that says yes oh yes!, but with no rationale why. Flurry is already like two weapon, and in time they lose their penalties which any two weapon melee still has to deal with.
I can just picture level 20 monks with Improved Natural Weapon (4d8 damage per attack...ouch). Even if a DM allowed this outside of core, they should probably make a Monk pick which part of their body is "improved" for the purpose of attacks (head, feet, hands, knees) kind of like Odd Job in the Goldfinger novel.Yeah, Unarmed is kinda funky, 'cause its one of those things that counts as a manufactured weapon in some cases, a natural weapon in others, and then both in yet others(namely as the target of spells like Magic Weapon and Magic Fang).Technically, unarmed strike counts as a light weapon, not a natural attack, and so Multiattack and Improved Natural Weapon do not improve it.Adding on to the same thought process... Why don't you look into the Monster Manual and get the Multiattack feat.
Add that with Roundabout Kick in the complete Warrior (I think that's where it is). And improved crital on one of your limbs.
Tasty Damage!
Ah yes improved natural attack. I've seen this type of cheating before. For a minotaur it means bigger horns, for a troll bigger claws, how does that work with a human/dwarf/elf etc, whose training improves his damage? Monks need levels to get more damage, it doesn't apply to a monk's unarmed attack.
There is no explanation behind most of the "corrected rules or abilities."
It just showed numbers upon numbers of attacks and what one could do with the combination of two-weapon fighting and flurry. That been said, have to disagree with those feeling that you could combine both. My explanation is a few lines straight from the PHB. The PHB states:"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes."
The explanation is that monks may do the same thing that other characters can do, this is something everyone can do. I'm not sure why the fact that examples were giving to see how this interacts would be considered a bad thing. Then again, I tend to agree with Aesop, "Example is better than precept".
The quote from the PHB at most just proves that you can't use an unarmed strike as a secondary weapon, it doesn't not prove that a monk can't use another weapon to do secondary attacks.
Flurry is already like two weapon, and in time they lose their penalties which any two weapon melee still has to deal with.
Sure it is "like" it, but it is not it. Flurry of blows is a class ability that only someone with levels of monk (or similar class) can get it. You have to use a weapon from a very specific list, this weapons are almost entirely light weapons (I think the quarterstaff is the only except and you can only use one end of it at a time). You can also attack with the exact same weapon for every single attack of flurry of blows, so no two-weapon fighting necessary.
A better comparison would be with rapid shot, since rapid shot gives you an extra attack with the exact same weapon you made the other attacks with (if you wish).
Ah yes improved natural attack. I've seen this type of cheating before. For a minotaur it means bigger horns, for a troll bigger claws, how does that work with a human/dwarf/elf etc, whose training improves his damage? Monks need levels to get more damage, it doesn't apply to a monk's unarmed attack.
So because you personally can't come up with fluff to make it work, it must therefore be cheating? The natural weapon need not get bigger to take INA.
"The quote from the PHB at most just proves that you can't use an unarmed strike as a secondary weapon, it doesn't not prove that a monk can't use another weapon to do secondary attacks."
And if you can't use unarmed strikes as secondary weapons, then you can't use two-weapon fighting to get an additional secondary attack. If not A then you cannot follow on to B.
A monk's unarmed strike is not a natural thing, it is honed and perfected through experience. Improved natural attack is a short-cut. Their damage is quite nice, but I have heard the complaint it isn't good enough, or a player wants greatsword damage earlier and don't want to wait. As explained above, they can flurry and the unarmed applies, or at +6/+1 bab, use a weapon for the initial and the unarmed strike for the last attack. If the main is disarmed or sundered, you then go straight to unarmed strike. It is quite versatile.
Allowing it also brings an element of boringness to the monk. If all monks can increase their damage dice early on, what monk wouldn't take it? What monk would take an interesting weapon, or an unusual feat choice if more reliable damage was an option? I let a monk player take this once, his damage compared to the rest of the party really jumped ahead in an unusual fashion. I rolled it back, gave him back his feat. Later he took a monk prestige class, and cheated on the damage of his unarmed strike, raising it by a few die. These are the type of people that want this feat, power gamers.
"The quote from the PHB at most just proves that you can't use an unarmed strike as a secondary weapon, it doesn't not prove that a monk can't use another weapon to do secondary attacks."
And if you can't use unarmed strikes as secondary weapons, then you can't use two-weapon fighting to get an additional secondary attack. If not A then you cannot follow on to B.
I'm not following your logic here, maybe you could explain it a bit clearer. The PHB quote says that an unarmed strike is not an off-hand attack. What does that have to do with a monk striking off-hand with a dagger, for example? A dagger is not an unarmed strike, thus the comment about how unarmed strikes not being off-hand attacks is not relevant.
A monk's unarmed strike is not a natural thing, it is honed and perfected through experience.
If we want to use quotes from the PHB, then I would provide this one:
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.
I realize it "feels" munchkiny but please don't use the same approach that Paizo developers use, going on feeling rather than logic and game balance.
Improved natural attack is a short-cut. Their damage is quite nice, but I have heard the complaint it isn't good enough, or a player wants greatsword damage earlier and don't want to wait. As explained above, they can flurry and the unarmed applies, or at +6/+1 bab, use a weapon for the initial and the unarmed strike for the last attack. If the main is disarmed or sundered, you then go straight to unarmed strike. It is quite versatile.
Doing damage isn't nearly as important as actually hitting. Attacking is harder for a monk to increase, being 3/4 BA class and being MAD on top of that (Str for Att/Dam, Dex for AC since can't wear armor, Con for HP since d8 but is a front-line fighter in order to use flurry, Wis for additional AC since again they can't wear armor). It is actually pretty dumb for monks to full attack (including flurrying), since they lack the defenses and staying power to do it. Monks work better being strike and run fighters. So trying to gimp flurry of blows by not allowing TWF is kind of silly, since you are gimping a method that is a poor choice anyway.
Allowing it also brings an element of boringness to the monk. If all monks can increase their damage dice early on, what monk wouldn't take it? What monk would take an interesting weapon, or an unusual feat choice if more reliable damage was an option? I let a monk player take this once, his damage compared to the rest of the party really jumped ahead in an unusual fashion. I rolled it back, gave him back his feat. Later he took a monk prestige class, and cheated on the damage of his unarmed strike, raising it by a few die. These are the type of people that want this feat, power gamers.
All good points but part of the problem with that charcater who was playing a monk with enhanced damage actually surged far ahead on damage. That in itself isn't a problem but additional attacks are a BAB thing. second attack at +6/+1 etc. The monk while at a penalty at flurrying eventually flurries at no penalty. Later on their flurry gains them an second addiinal attacl on top of the additional first one at no penalty. This coupled with the enhanced damage was monstrous. A fighter who had gone the weapon focus and spec tree could perhaps equal it but thats a fair number of feats.
The point is that the monk already gets enough from this flurry. You could go high strength to improve damage and to hit and weapon focus to beef it up even more. They can't take weapon spec but other classes also can't anyway. They already somewhat get around the problem of waiting for additional five points of BAB for a second attack with flurry. As with game balance however, somethings gotta give. Additional attacks are unlocked by their flurry but at 3/4 BAB and everything else on top . This is what makes it balanced.
Hello pres man,
Okay, getting into it.
"I'm not following your logic here, maybe you could explain it a bit clearer. The PHB quote says that an unarmed strike is not an off-hand attack. What does that have to do with a monk striking off-hand with a dagger, for example? A dagger is not an unarmed strike, thus the comment about how unarmed strikes not being off-hand attacks is not relevant."
The dagger idea is an interesting one, because I've never known or encountered a player who used flurry and two-weapon fighting to add a dagger attack on the end. It is always done to add another unarmed strike, which for a monk starts okay, becomes good, and later becomes very nice indeed. It is used to add another attack, at the light weapon penalties (-2). As equalizer points out, flurry gives another added attack later. So at a decent level, they want to add a two-weapon given attack, on to two from the flurry, on to the base from bab, and probably would then want to add another from improved two weapon fighting. It starts to become a bit silly, so I stick to the base flurry, and do not allow this path of additional two weapon to be entered.
"Doing damage isn't nearly as important as actually hitting. Attacking is harder for a monk to increase, being 3/4 BA class and being MAD on top of that (Str for Att/Dam, Dex for AC since can't wear armor, Con for HP since d8 but is a front-line fighter in order to use flurry, Wis for additional AC since again they can't wear armor). It is actually pretty dumb for monks to full attack (including flurrying), since they lack the defenses and staying power to do it. Monks work better being strike and run fighters. So trying to gimp flurry of blows by not allowing TWF is kind of silly, since you are gimping a method that is a poor choice anyway."
To this, yes hitting can be difficult for a monk. Flurry can make it harder, but also keep in mind that the penalties for flurry eventually disappear! And in pathfinder they have the penalties depart a little earlier than the 3.5 monk (the ki ac also goes up quicker, as a side note).
On monks being better as strike and run fighters, I respectfully disagree. I've seen this tried, yes they skirmish well with spring attack, but scouts with a decent weapon or polearm (feat required to unlock this potential) do that quite a bit better. Where monks have been most effective in my many games is getting in and going the flurry, but, with a high stacking of the dodge feat (dodge bonuses stack, but it takes up a lot of feats to do it well) and wisdom build so as to be able to dodge the attacks that come back in response to the flurry. Hp can be a monk problem, so you don't try and outlast in hp, you push ac up high so few attacks hit at the consequence of not having many feats for other interests. If you are mixing fighter with monk, or monk with a better bab prestige class like drunken master, ignoring flurry and piling on the power attack can also be quite effective (don't forget to activate the dodge).
"Boring? So what? If the player gets bored, then they will not play that type of character again, if others get bored, they also won't play that type of character in the future. It is not the DM's job to make sure that only the most exciting choices are allowed. "
A fixation on damage can be to the detriment of the wider game. With higher damage dice, every problem can also seem like a nail to this hammer. Higher damage can be good, it seems obvious in a game with combat, but allowing a monk to step out and above the standard monk damage progression also begs the question, why is this guy so good and different to martial artists which are already not the norm? If he gets up to the damage potential of a level 20 and is not level 20, is this right?
On natural I have also pointed out there is nothing natural about a monk's unarmed strike if we look at the essence of what it is. A minotaur naturally has horns, no character is born knowing eastern attack techniques, it is most certainly a learnt skill, as a simple hand or foot is turned into an effective weapon. Improved natural attack is a feat to increase the damage of monsters, to raise their natural attacks. The feat does not say it can be used by a monk to increase the damage of their unarmed strike. Therefore I am not going on emotion here, it is not allowed int he standard rules, allowed only in a very questionable looking errata which does not apply to my games.
"Why not take it? Because there are better choices for feats than this perhaps?"
There are indeed. Monks can shoot energy balls or make great flying kick charges, they are much better than a questionable feat intended for monster attacks.
"Weapons suck for monks since they don't scale as he levels like the unarmed strike does. Not to also mention that the monk gets crap for starting money, and there is almost zero chance for a monk weapon to be found in treasure loot."
Only later in levels is unarmed the absolute best bet. Early on, the rich parents trait, a feat and a masterwork greataxe could be a great choice for a monk. The monk may be more likely to survive to high levels. If the weapon is lost or broken, the back-up is as close as the monk's hands (at hand if you will). If he can use masterwork greataxes he might also find a nice magic greataxe if he is fighting orc or human barbarians. If he goes polearms he can have a bonus to trip/disarm/gain reach. If at low levels a monk uses two feats to allow a great crossbow and put a focus in it, suddenly this close skirmisher can double as ranged support, and be able to defend themselves in a pinch if set upon from their sniping roost. There are a lot that can be done with weapons for any class. Monk players should not always think unarmed is a sure thing (spiked chain longspear fighters can really injure a monk moving around too much).
"Crappy player is crappy? So what, you had a bad experience, big deal, don't go telling everyone else it is wrong just because you played with bad players. The problem in your case was the player, not the feat(s)."
On these experiences, a repeated crappy experience through a trick used by a bad player can be very illustrative of what to avoid and disallow in games. We all have these stories, and they guide our experiences. It feels wrong, it comes across as wrong for one monk to jump ahead and do better base dice damage than a higher level monk who didn't take a feat intended for monsters, and in application it seemed off and wrong in comparison to the damage of the wider party--the monk had left balance and stepped beyond it. Balance between the party members is key.
Frankly Loyalist, I am not sure what game system you are discussing here. Are you talking about 3.5? PF? Homebrew?
For example, you discuss the Dodge feat being taken multiple times and the benefits stacking, but in 3.5 RAW, the benefits do not stack. I'm not sure how discuss things here since we seem to be discussing different systems.
In multiple instances in 3.5, but not directly below the dodge feat, it is stated dodge bonuses stack. Dodge gives a dodge bonus, if dodge bonuses stack then you can stack your dodge bonus. D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-odge!
Yeah I do experiment with a fair bit of homebrew, life is too short to drink domestic. Editing the rules, trying out new things is part of what I do.
Dodge was actually a matter of long discussion in the group I am apart of. It is a simple solution for added survivability, burn the feats in defence. I have been amused by people who insist dodge does not stack, and cannot be stacked, because I've done a lot of fencing and martial arts and there are many levels of defence and skill in dodging. You can take two people that are about the same coordination, give one an extra year of defensive fencing training (i.e. more dodge feats) and they will parry and dodge away from stabs or cuts far more effectively. Turn that over to the fantasy equivalent, one has no dodge feats, one has more than a +1 bonus to ac.
Or as a friend put it another way, compare a level 1 to a level 10 or 20, no armour, same dex. Both take dodge once, as some insist is the valid choice. Now shouldn't the higher level logically be harder to hit from his skill and experience, especially if he has a defensive focus? At any time during their long career, they could have improved their defence, got harder to hit, studied defensive techniques in detail and trained longer. These and the repeated point that dodge bonuses stack is why I allow them to.
"Dodge Bonus
A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items. Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have. Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses apply against touch attacks."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm
So now you can go and make some interesting defensive characters. Many dodges and expertise to tailor your ac further is a good swashbuckler-type build.
Says the one who posted on this "silly" thread.
A monk can also have a two-handed weapon equipped and use leg attacks to flurry, neglecting to use the weapon that round. The focus of attention and what is being used is key.
If a monk was in his stance, using his flurry through one hand, which is a full round action, then how does he alter stance, use the other hand to make another attack or two (if more feats are added). There are no actions left.
For two-weapon fighting it is clear, you can use all those extra attacks at penalties when doing a full round attack. If a monk had two weapon fighting he could dual wield, or he could flurry when disarmed, he could not combine the both, because that would be using two full round actions in one round.
Ah I love the mechanics of this game.
You have to use the full attack action to flurry. There are no actions left in that round. Check the PHB.
TWF: an additional attack, when you fight with two weapons, as part of a full round action, with no mention in flurry or the two weapon fighting description that TWF and its additional attacks from its feat tree can be combined with flurry. Flurrying unarmed strike involves no off-hand attack, monks never have an attack that counts as off-hand to enable TWF to be used.
TWF does require an action, you get the additional attack when you make a normal full round attack, the to-hits are modified as a consequence. What you are requesting is that the additional attack be added on to a full-round flurry, treating the flurry as if it were merely the normal full round attack, it isn't, it is a flurry, which cannot be modified with an additional off-hand attack as none exist for the monk.
On stances I was making a description point, what a monk is doing if they were flurrying with one hand. Six seconds later, the one handed flurry is over, there is no time in the round for the two weapon extra attack/s to be used. On martial arts, all martial arts have stances, I was not making a point on the rules in this instance, more describing what is being done, and not done (no TWF off-hand attack).
|
Okay, you had me confused, since you were responding to my opinion with rules, so I had to shift gears to rules.
And no, Flurry is not a separate full round action. It states it is a full attack action, of which there is only one. It modifies your full attack action in much the same way TWF does. You get an extra attack for a -2 penalty. This does not require any extra action, nor does TWF's extra attack. It only requires that you be making a full attack action.
Cool, but by making a full round to do one thing - flurry, you cannot make a full round to do another thing - TWF.
They are indeed separate things, separate actions in combat, and the only place I've seen them authorised and fused together is in a very questionable errata document, with no explanation why. Some people say yeah, I say very much no. Especially since later flurry is two additional attacks.
But in a full round of attacking, can you use both? That is the real question.
Can one combine TWF with Rapid Shot, if say the person had quick draw and was throwing daggers?
|
|
(Warning, there are multiple goats in this thread.)
But in a full round of attacking, can you use both? That is the real question.
Yes, you can. A creature has to use a full round attack in order to attack more than once. When using a full round attack, the creature gets all of the attacks to which he is entitled, from whatever source. Attacks that require a standard action (such as Manyshot in 3.5), cannot be added in. But, flurry with added TWF and/or added natural attacks are fine. This stuff is covered in fairly extensive detail in the final 3.5 FAQ, pages 19 and 20.
Can one combine TWF with Rapid Shot, if say the person had quick draw and was throwing daggers?
Yes.
Warning, many talking goats ahead!
Well thank you for providing that Howie23. Read it, interestingly, the no off-hand is dropped and now unarmed strike apparently can be off-hand when using TWF, which changes how unarmed strike is done, since the monk cannot apply their full strength bonus to the last attack. It is halved as per normal TWF (which is good for balance).
It still smells a bit of cheese, but at least their strength is not fine and dandy for all attacks. Bringing the cheese, we have the goats.
In multiple instances in 3.5, but not directly below the dodge feat, it is stated dodge bonuses stack. Dodge gives a dodge bonus, if dodge bonuses stack then you can stack your dodge bonus. D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-odge!
Yeah I do experiment with a fair bit of homebrew, life is too short to drink domestic. Editing the rules, trying out new things is part of what I do.
Dodge was actually a matter of long discussion in the group I am apart of. It is a simple solution for added survivability, burn the feats in defence. I have been amused by people who insist dodge does not stack, and cannot be stacked, because I've done a lot of fencing and martial arts and there are many levels of defence and skill in dodging. You can take two people that are about the same coordination, give one an extra year of defensive fencing training (i.e. more dodge feats) and they will parry and dodge away from stabs or cuts far more effectively. Turn that over to the fantasy equivalent, one has no dodge feats, one has more than a +1 bonus to ac.
Or as a friend put it another way, compare a level 1 to a level 10 or 20, no armour, same dex. Both take dodge once, as some insist is the valid choice. Now shouldn't the higher level logically be harder to hit from his skill and experience, especially if he has a defensive focus? At any time during their long career, they could have improved their defence, got harder to hit, studied defensive techniques in detail and trained longer. These and the repeated point that dodge bonuses stack is why I allow them to.
"Dodge Bonus
A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items. Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have. Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses apply against touch attacks."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm
So now you can go and make some interesting defensive characters. Many dodges and expertise to tailor your ac further is a good swashbuckler-type build.
Except that the SRD says: If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
SRD Feats
Yep ghettowedge, but I have already explained above why differing levels of dodge make sense to me. It has worked in a few games I've played in and run. Some foes will be quite hard to put down with 3-5 dodges. If you want a safe-bet character in a high combat nasty monster game, it becomes a very desirable option. I once played a rogue with a flaw system (grants more feats for flaws) and almost pure dodge taken as feats. There were many tpks and characters killed, but he did not die.
On the two weapon fighting and the FAQ I am still bugged by the fact a monk's strike is never an off-hand attack and TWF gives an off-hand attack. I can see how the interpretation has gone in the FAQ, and the problem is acknowledged, but I won't allow the flurry TWF build. The ranger is the quintessential two weapon fighter or the fighter-tempest, and the monk with TWF, GTWF goes far above those. So it's more a balance thing. Balance is important.
Ambidexterity removes offhand attacks in its own description and is required for greater two weapon fighting. If you take it, under the clause of not being able to make offhand attacks, you can never benefit from greater two weapon fighting. Claiming you can't benefit from two weapon fighting because you're trained with fighting with both hands equally makes zero sense.
Unarmed strike is a thing you do, and when you do it, it acts like a weapon. But it's not a "wielded" weapon (in the Two-Weapon Defense sense) nor do you have two weapons because you have two hands (it's one weapon like attack that is not specific to any part of the body). Previous editions mostly treated an unarmed strike as an alternative to a normal attack, and 3e has mostly followed that lead... except when it doesn't.