| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Sorry if this has been asked before, but a forum search didn't yield any answers. Under monk, the rules state:
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
Normally this is of no concern as monks have flurry of blows. However, for archetypes that lose flurry, like MoMS, they would need to pick up twf. But can they? If you have no off hand attacks, can you make the extra attacks from twf, or are they SOL?
However, I will say that attempting this will probably be disappointing for you.
Monks have poor BAB, by that I mean that have 3/4 BAB and don't have much inherent ability to increase that to hit (ignoring Qigong monks, and maybe some others not coming to mind).
Combine that with TWF and you're looking at a further -2 penalty to all your attacks. You're probably not going to be hitting much of anything with all that stacked against you.
It means you get fulls strength and power attack damage on every hit.
Which can be rather useful if you are just dipping and you plan to go for a full BAB class for the rest of your levels.
Oh, and Claxon- how can you forget the Sohei? They get weapon training, which also qualifies them for dueling gloves. They can also grab light armor, which means they can go with brawling armor. Considering those are two items that normal monks never get to use, I count that as a feature of the archetype. Altogether, that is a potential +7 to attack and damage. Even standard action attacks are on par with an inquisitor, and their flurries are on par with the full BAB classes (and with pummel style, that means they can act like a full BAB class most of the time).
Admittedly, you are right about TWF on a MoMS. TWF typically relies upon a lot of static bonuses on every hit. Normal monks kind of get away with it due to slight advantages like their ability to get full strength and power attack damage on every hit (although it works a lot better if they are getting 1.5x power attack by 2 handing things like temple swords)
Yeah, but my point was that for monks that lose flurry, picking up TWF is generally a bad idea. The Sohei retains flurry. Though, I do forget about Sohei and its bonuses from weapon training.
The other benefit as you note with flurry is getting the extra attacks of TWF without the need to enchant a second weapon and getting the extra bonus from power attack damage for two handing a weapon.
I will say in the MoMS's defense though- since they lack flurry, they can choose to go with armor instead. They only lose their AC bonus (and early on, you are better off just skipping that for armor anyway) and their speed bonus.
Anyone can grab light or mithral medium armor if they have the armor expert trait. That trait lowest armor check penalty by 1. If ACP is 0, then the penalty for using armor you are not proficient in is 0.
I mostly bring this up because...hey, brawling armor. A nice untyped +2 to attack and damage. That means they are at least more likely to hit than a TWF rogue....which is not saying much....Throw pummeling style on top of that, and they can have a decent enough hit chance on a charge at least.
I appreciate the replies, but what I'm really looking for is a rules justification. The problematic bit of text lies in the two weapon fighting rules.
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
Now, the only way I can see around this is to say that while you are not making off hand attacks, you still have a weapon in the off hand and thus qualify for the extra attack, which since it does not count as an off hand attack defaults to a primary hand attack (with all the subsequent bonuses that entails).
Incidentally, the build I have in mind is an unarmed bloodrager who uses dragon and pummeling style, getting both by dipping MoMS, using arcane bloodline to get displacement while raging and the primalist archetype to pick up beast totem for extra ac and two claw attacks. If it works as I hope it will be an offensive and defensive juggernaut with some spellcasting for utility (notably fly).
You cannot combine TWF with natural attacks in such a way.
If you use your hands for claws you cannot make weapon attacks with your hands. Natural attacks such as claws do not recieve iterative attacks ever, so you cannot use them with TWF either.
If you want to focus on claws, two weapon fighting does not help you.
If you want to focus on two weapon fighting claws do not help you. Though Greater Beast Totem will, by giving you pounce allowing you to move and full attack.
Edit: Though, technically unarmed strikes do not need to be made with hands so you could get the claw attacks. But be careful because combining natural attacks with manufactured weapons (which unarmed strikes count as) causes them to become secondary natural attacks, meaning they attack at BAB-5 and deal half strength damage.
You cannot combine TWF with natural attacks in such a way.
If you use your hands for claws you cannot make weapon attacks with your hands. Natural attacks such as claws do not recieve iterative attacks ever, so you cannot use them with TWF either.
If you want to focus on claws, two weapon fighting does not help you.
If you want to focus on two weapon fighting claws do not help you. Though Greater Beast Totem will, by giving you pounce allowing you to move and full attack.
Edit: Though, technically unarmed strikes do not need to be made with hands so you could get the claw attacks. But be careful because combining natural attacks with manufactured weapons (which unarmed strikes count as) causes them to become secondary natural attacks, meaning they attack at BAB-5 and deal half strength damage.
Indeed, that was the thought. Even at half strength and -5 to hit, the two extra claw attacks are a substantial damage increase.
That being said, I'm still looking for a concrete rules justification. I just want to make sure any mechanical decisions are as iron clad as I can make them.
The concrete rules justification is that Monks not having an off-hand attack doesn't at any point mean they can't make an extra attack via TWF. No "off-hand attack" really does simply mean they don't suffer the penalties to STR associated with making a second attack via TWF.
There's no rules support to suggest that Monks are incapable of making a second US in a round. In fact, it's clear that you can TWF with US, which is actually only one weapon. Anybody can do this. Monks are not prohibited from it.
I understand you're trying to cover all your bases, but you need to accept this one as true on its face. You're reading too much into "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes." The sentences are connected. The second is the direct result of the first. All US use full STR, even those made by way of TWF or Flurry (which is really just a special form of TWF).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the sentences are connected, this does not mean that is the only implication. To say a character with no ability to make off hand attacks can't make an attack with a weapon in the off hand (commonly known in game as an off hand attack) would not be unreasonable. Saying there's no such thing as off hand attacks doesn't automatically imply off hand attacks still exist but become main hand attacks. The rules for two weapon fighting in fact only address off hand attacks. The issue was actually addressed in the 3.5 faq, but not in pathfinder. It has been brought up on the forums before, and people seem to give the same answer, but no one ever says why. Common sense indicates the answer everyone gives is correct, but common sense and rules do not often coincide. A wording that would make tremendously more sense would be to say "treat all off hand attacks a monk makes as primary hand attacks". However it seems that since flurry of blows existed the devs didn't foresee a monk not having flurry. The faq linked to does not at all address the question, which is monk specific.
...
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
...
I belive the above sentence meens that monks using The improved unarmed strike, they get from the class, dosent get to use TWF.
Lots of forumites seem to Think that it lifts the 1/2 str thing from off hand attacks but not the to hit penalty, but that is drawn out of thin air IMOP.But the question have been asked before. I Will FAQ it.
Maybe not the answer I was hoping for, but I appreciate the response. I generally want Pathfinder rules to fit together a little better than they perhaps normally do, but I suppose the more books that are added the more corner cases come up. I'll bring the question up with the gm, I'may sure common sense will prevail.
...
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
...I belive the above sentence meens that monks using The improved unarmed strike, they get from the class, dosent get to use TWF.
Do you mean monks are the only people who cannot TWF with IUS?
While the sentences are connected, this does not mean that is the only implication. To say a character with no ability to make off hand attacks can't make an attack with a weapon in the off hand (commonly known in game as an off hand attack) would not be unreasonable. Saying there's no such thing as off hand attacks doesn't automatically imply off hand attacks still exist but become main hand attacks. The rules for two weapon fighting in fact only address off hand attacks. The issue was actually addressed in the 3.5 faq, but not in pathfinder. It has been brought up on the forums before, and people seem to give the same answer, but no one ever says why. Common sense indicates the answer everyone gives is correct, but common sense and rules do not often coincide. A wording that would make tremendously more sense would be to say "treat all off hand attacks a monk makes as primary hand attacks". However it seems that since flurry of blows existed the devs didn't foresee a monk not having flurry. The faq linked to does not at all address the question, which is monk specific.
Let me put this as objectively as I can. If there are two rules interpretations possible but everybody understands one of them to be how the rule is clearly intended to function and the other one is patently ridiculous, just go ahead and assume that the intended meaning is the only one that actually makes any contextual sense.
You're almost assuredly not going to get official responses on this because it'd be a complete waste of time. As you said, responses to this question are pretty much unanimous. There is no actual confusion about how this works; it's simply not as clear as it might be, that's all. If there's no actual confusion, I imagine the Developers would rather spend their time addressing other things.
Do you mean monks are the only people who cannot TWF with IUS?...
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
...I belive the above sentence meens that monks using The improved unarmed strike, they get from the class, dosent get to use TWF.
They are the only class that seem to have a rule about it. I allow them to use normal IUS with TWF if they want.
But how do you know that it is the damage part that you dont need to reduce and not the to hit part?Wouldent the monk ignore both to hit and damage penalty if your reading was to make sense?
I Think the forum mantra of the specefic overruling the general Can be seen as supporting the position i have taken here.
Do you mean monks are the only people who cannot TWF with IUS?...
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
...I belive the above sentence meens that monks using The improved unarmed strike, they get from the class, dosent get to use TWF.
They are the only class that seem to have a rule about it. I allow them to use normal IUS with TWF if they want.
But how do you know that it is the damage part that you dont need to reduce and not the to hit part?
Wouldent the monk ignore both to hit and damage penalty if your reading was to make sense?
I Think the forum mantra of the specefic overruling the general Can be seen as supporting the position i have taken here.
Because it says so...
There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
I don't know what you mean by the "to hit" penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the sentences are connected, this does not mean that is the only implication. To say a character with no ability to make off hand attacks can't make an attack with a weapon in the off hand (commonly known in game as an off hand attack) would not be unreasonable. Saying there's no such thing as off hand attacks doesn't automatically imply off hand attacks still exist but become main hand attacks. The rules for two weapon fighting in fact only address off hand attacks. The issue was actually addressed in the 3.5 faq, but not in pathfinder. It has been brought up on the forums before, and people seem to give the same answer, but no one ever says why. Common sense indicates the answer everyone gives is correct, but common sense and rules do not often coincide. A wording that would make tremendously more sense would be to say "treat all off hand attacks a monk makes as primary hand attacks". However it seems that since flurry of blows existed the devs didn't foresee a monk not having flurry. The faq linked to does not at all address the question, which is monk specific.Let me put this as objectively as I can. If there are two rules interpretations possible but everybody understands one of them to be how the rule is clearly intended to function and the other one is patently ridiculous, just go ahead and assume that the intended meaning is the only one that actually makes any contextual sense.
You're almost assuredly not going to get official responses on this because it'd be a complete waste of time. As you said, responses to this question are pretty much unanimous. There is no actual confusion about how this works; it's simply not as clear as it might be, that's all. If there's no actual confusion, I imagine the Developers would rather spend their time addressing other things.
I'm not really sure why you're taking such a condescending tone. As a poster said above, by strict RAW it actually doesn't work. Just because you are incapable of seeing an interpretation in another way doesn't mean you should speak to someone in that manner. I'd suggest you open the two weapon fighting rules if you fail to see the issue, as the rules for making extra attacks in a round depend on those attacks being off hand. Taking primary attacks in place of off hand attacks requires a logical leap that the rules do not actually support. Saying things like "Let me put this as simply as I can" and implying my question is a waste of time do not make for a positive response.
While I thank you for your input, as I stated the question had been asked before, and a while there is consensus there appears to be no justification beyond common sense. You know how can't vital strike on a sprint attack or a charge? Makes very little sense, but RAW it is correct. That is why I am unwilling to accept non rules arguments as justification. If you have a rules argument, however, I would love to hear it, as rules like this are pretty irksome.
I'm not really sure why you're taking such a condescending tone. As a poster said above, by strict RAW it actually doesn't work. Just because you are incapable of seeing an interpretation in another way doesn't mean you should speak to someone in that manner. I'd suggest you open the two weapon fighting rules if you fail to see the issue, as the rules for making extra attacks in a round depend on those attacks being off hand. Taking primary attacks in place of off hand attacks requires a logical leap that the rules do not actually support. Saying things like "Let me put this as simply as I can" and implying my question is a waste of time do not make for a positive response.
While I thank you for your input, as I stated the question had been asked before, and a while there is consensus there appears to be no justification beyond common sense. You know how can't vital strike on a sprint attack or a charge? Makes very little sense, but RAW it is correct. That is why I am unwilling to accept non rules arguments as justification. If you have a rules argument, however, I would love to hear it, as rules like this are pretty irksome.
I wasn't being condescending. I was legitimately trying to tell you why you're not going to get a response on this - it is common sense. Whether you think the Spring Attack and Vital Strike interaction is common sense is irrelevant. Unless and until you're presented with Developer commentary contradicting the common sense interpretation, you go with the common sense interpretation. It's actually pretty uncommon for the rules to bely common sense, particularly when the context of the rules is kept in mind.
That is why I said it'd be a waste of time for Developers to respond - because there's no actual confusion about what is supposed to happen here. You can continue to wait, if you like. But you'll likely be waiting a long time. Because, again, I'd rather they spend their time discussing and clarifying rules about which there isn't a consensus, since it is a limited resource.
I am perfectly familiar with how TWF works. I understand why you get the interpretation you do. The interpretation is simply unsound. The rules language used limits it to the relevant STR penalty (that's why the next sentence says "thus" - the statements are inextricably connected). Could it have been worded better? Sure. But lots of things could be. The whole point of Flurry in PF was to be a better version of TWF (that's why you can't combine them like you could in 3.5). Flurrying really is just TWF. So why would a Monk which loses the better class version of TWF be prevented from doing the worse, regular version?
Also, I didn't say "simply", I said "objectively".
Do you mean monks are the only people who cannot TWF with IUS?...
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
...I belive the above sentence meens that monks using The improved unarmed strike, they get from the class, dosent get to use TWF.
They are the only class that seem to have a rule about it. I allow them to use normal IUS with TWF if they want.
But how do you know that it is the damage part that you dont need to reduce and not the to hit part?
Wouldent the monk ignore both to hit and damage penalty if your reading was to make sense?
I Think the forum mantra of the specefic overruling the general Can be seen as supporting the position i have taken here.Because it says so...
There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.I don't know what you mean by the "to hit" penalty.
good point on the str thing i was only remembering that under flurry. But i am still inclined to Think that there is no such thing as a off-hand attack mens that they dont get to make it. If you allow monks to TWF how do you use power attack on the left hand strike?
good point on the str thing i was only remembering that under flurry. But i am still inclined to Think that there is no such thing as a off-hand attack mens that they dont get to make it. If you allow monks to TWF how do you use power attack on the left hand strike?Do you mean monks are the only people who cannot TWF with IUS?...
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
...I belive the above sentence meens that monks using The improved unarmed strike, they get from the class, dosent get to use TWF.
They are the only class that seem to have a rule about it. I allow them to use normal IUS with TWF if they want.
But how do you know that it is the damage part that you dont need to reduce and not the to hit part?
Wouldent the monk ignore both to hit and damage penalty if your reading was to make sense?
I Think the forum mantra of the specefic overruling the general Can be seen as supporting the position i have taken here.Because it says so...
There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.I don't know what you mean by the "to hit" penalty.
The same way as with the right hand?
good point on the str thing i was only remembering that under flurry. But i am still inclined to Think that there is no such thing as a off-hand attack mens that they dont get to make it.There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
The strength thing is actually the reason that the previous sentence is there: "thus" is a connecting word describing cause and effect, so the first sentence is the direct cause of the second sentence (the effect). If might be more clear if you rearrange that sentence as follows:
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. Thus, a monk may apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes."Our options for reading this passage are:
1) The first sentence is the one that matters: this means this statement stands alone, and there are multiple effects of the monk having no off-hand attack.
2) The second sentence is the one that matters: this means that the first sentence only describes the cause of the second sentence.
Since nothing else in the passage indicates any other effects of the first sentence, the "correct answer on a reading test" is #2: the stated effect ("a monk may thus") is the only effect of the first sentence.
If the author intended multiple effects, why would (s)he state only one effect in the passage, without even any hint that there are multiple effects? There are numerous ways the author could show that there are multiple effects without describing them:
"One result of this is that a monk may"
"The most important result is..."
So unless the author is trying to trick you, the correct answer is 2.
If you allow monks to TWF how do you use power attack on the left hand strike?
Lots of threads discussing this, and the general conclusion seems to be that the monk gets 1x power attack bonus on all attacks when using unarmed strikes.
Note: if the monk is using weapons to TWF or flurry, the "off hand" attack gets 1/2 the power attack bonus, because the "no off hand attack" statement applies to unarmed strikes.
I'm not really sure why you're taking such a condescending tone. As a poster said above, by strict RAW it actually doesn't work. Just because you are incapable of seeing an interpretation in another way doesn't mean you should speak to someone in that manner. I'd suggest you open the two weapon fighting rules if you fail to see the issue, as the rules for making extra attacks in a round depend on those attacks being off hand. Taking primary attacks in place of off hand attacks requires a logical leap that the rules do not actually support. Saying things like "Let me put this as simply as I can" and implying my question is a waste of time do not make for a positive response.
While I thank you for your input, as I stated the question had been asked before, and a while there is consensus there appears to be no justification beyond common sense. You know how can't vital strike on a sprint attack or a charge? Makes very little sense, but RAW it is correct. That is why I am unwilling to accept non rules arguments as justification. If you have a rules argument, however, I would love to hear it, as rules like this are pretty irksome.
I wasn't being condescending. I was legitimately trying to tell you why you're not going to get a response on this - it is common sense. Whether you think the Spring Attack and Vital Strike interaction is common sense is irrelevant. Unless and until you're presented with Developer commentary contradicting the common sense interpretation, you go with the common sense interpretation. It's actually pretty uncommon for the rules to bely common sense, particularly when the context of the rules is kept in mind.
That is why I said it'd be a waste of time for Developers to respond - because there's no actual confusion about what is supposed to happen here. You can continue to wait, if you like. But you'll likely be waiting a long time. Because, again, I'd rather they spend their time discussing and clarifying rules about which there isn't a consensus, since it is a...
I don't particularly care what you'd rather the devs spend their time doing, nor did I ever say I wanted a dev response. You assumed as such, for what reason I have no idea. The only thing I requested was rules backup.
At no point has your argument been anything other than "common sense". I could list numerous examples of instances where common sense and the rules fail to intersect, but I suspect the exercise would be futile.
You seem to be stuck on the word thus. I'll give you a logical example:
Humans are alive. Thus they are made up of cells.
Does that mean the only logical outcome of them being alive is that they are made up of cells? Of course not, it just means that was the pertinent point in that particular instance.
What I was looking for was a RAW justification. What you have been repeating is that since RAI is obvious, none is necessary. This is where you and I differ. It may offend you that I could potentially use up the "limited resource" of dev time, but that is no reason to be uncivil.
I don't particularly care what you'd rather the devs spend their time doing, nor did I ever say I wanted a dev response. You assumed as such, for what reason I have no idea. The only thing I requested was rules backup.
At no point has your argument been anything other than "common sense". I could list numerous examples of instances where common sense and the rules fail to intersect, but I suspect the exercise would be futile.
You seem to be stuck on the word thus. I'll give you a logical example:
Humans are alive. Thus they are made up of cells.
Does that mean the only logical outcome of them being alive is that they are made up of cells? Of course not, it just means that was the pertinent point in that particular instance.
What I was looking for was a RAW justification. What you have been repeating is that since RAI is obvious, none is necessary. This is where you and I differ. It may offend you that I could potentially use up the "limited resource" of dev time, but that is no reason to be uncivil.
I wasn't being uncivil. It's the internet, so tone can be difficult to decipher. I wasn't condescending. I didn't call you stupid or silly for asking the question. I said you're not going to get any further clarifying statements from developers because this isn't the sort of thing they're going to use their time on. That's it.
The rules have been provided to you. There are no other relevant rules. Thus, the only other possible option is a developer statement clarifying that, yes those words mean what everybody understands them to mean.
"Humans are alive. Thus they are made up of cells." Unhelpful. Devoid of context. Taken in a vacuum it is unclear. The analogous line regarding Monks is not similarly devoid of context.
Additionally, I've told you the express purpose of Flurrying - it is TWF, but better. Monks with the Flurry ability attack as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. So if they can flurry as if using the TWF feat, why could they simply not just use the TWF feat? They are still making an off-hand attack when flurrying, it just uses a different BAB and the off-hand attack benefits from full STR.
If you're worried about hyperliteralism, are you also concerned with the apparent conflict of rules between Flurry and Unarmed Strike?
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
What to make of this? If a Monk flurries unarmed, does that Monk not get to make a second attack? If a Monk flurries while armed, does the Monk avoid the "no off-hand attack" issue?
Or, is it patently obvious that context shows that the intent is the "no off-hand attack" language really is just restricted to the STR penalty?
If there are two possible rules interpretations available and only one of them can even conceivably be understood to be intended by the rules, just assume the sensible interpretation is the one that is intended and move on.
And yes, there are times when the rules and ambiguous common sense might not intersect. But the times when the rules and common sense as seen within the context of the rules themselves contradict is actually much rarer.
... Note: if the monk is using weapons to TWF or flurry, the "off hand" attack gets 1/2 the power attack bonus, because the "no off hand attack" statement applies to unarmed strikes...
I Think you May be alone with the flurry part of this one.
And wouldent your gramma part force you to refer back full text piece? ""Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes."
And therefore force you to conclude that the point about using the knees, foot and elbows?
I think the bottom line here is that your asking for answer that many have asked for before and not officially received an answer for. You're not very likely to get an official response considering no one else has either, but feel free to wait for an answer.
Aaaaand there it is, a rules backup. That flurry bit is precisely what I was looking for, and definitely something I missed. Didn't occur to me to look at the flurry rules for support of an archetype that loses flurry.
Thank you for your effort and response. That certainly does make it obvious. You'll excuse my need for backing evidence, but I find in rules questions it is nearly essential.