Number of attacks with monk weapons


Rules Questions


Now as I understand it you can mix unarmed and armed monk attacks as part of a flurry of blows
additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon

e.g. +10/+10/+5/+5/+0

If I'm using e.g. ONE temple sword one handed can I make 3 attacks with the sword 2 unarmed or even 5 attacks with sword no unarmed.

and if thats the case is that not a great way to get multiple attacks using only one weapon and thus only one lot of enchament costs.

also means you've still got one free hand for feats.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

also as a side question if you used 2 temple swords would your flurry penalty increase to -4 as per TWF rules ?


AFAIK, if a weapon can be used with flurry, you can use it for EVERY attack. Or you can alterntate the attacks of the flurry as you want.

You can, say, make 2 attacks with a kama, 2 with a sai and one with the kick (unarmed).

On the flip side, flurry does not stack with TWF. If you have a temple sword in both hands, you just choose what sword use for each attack (for some enemy could matter).


As far as I can tell, flurry works like two-weapon fighting in progression but has some exceptions that make it very different.
First you always use 1x strength bonus whether attacks are off hand or wielded two handed.
Second you can use *any* combination of weapons or unarmed strikes which would include using the same weapon for every attack.

Edit: ninja'ed


Phasics wrote:
also as a side question if you used 2 temple swords would your flurry penalty increase to -4 as per TWF rules ?

I would say that this is a fair expectation.

When the monk class was written, the only weapons that could be used with Flurry of Blows were all light weapons, hence the -2 penalty. The addition of the temple sword created an option for a non-light monk weapon in his off-hand (if he chooses to fight this way), so it seems reasonable to apply the usual penalty for TWF using a non-light off-hand weapon.


DM_Blake, then why ever use two temple swords? Especially since you can get all those attacks with one temple sword at the -2 penalty?

Dark Archive

Abraham spalding wrote:
DM_Blake, then why ever use two temple swords? Especially since you can get all those attacks with one temple sword at the -2 penalty?

for 2 weapon defense maybe?

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:
DM_Blake, then why ever use two temple swords? Especially since you can get all those attacks with one temple sword at the -2 penalty?

You shouldn't, really. Unless you have one Flame sword and one Shocking sword, or whatever.

But really, you just shouldn't.


Austin Morgan wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
DM_Blake, then why ever use two temple swords? Especially since you can get all those attacks with one temple sword at the -2 penalty?

You shouldn't, really. Unless you have one Flame sword and one Shocking sword, or whatever.

But really, you just shouldn't.

Agreed.

There isn't any mechanical benefit to using two of them at the same time. Not if you're a monk. Carry a golf bag full of temple swords with different magical properties, then use the one you like the most.


Abraham spalding wrote:
DM_Blake, then why ever use two temple swords? Especially since you can get all those attacks with one temple sword at the -2 penalty?

If the two swords in question have differing enchantments, (say, Ki Focus and Spell Storing, both have a +1 bonus cost) the wielder might want the opportunity to affect his foe with both enchantment effects in a single attack sequence, especially if the Spell in the one blade was going to apply a penalty to the save against his Ki strike. Two +2 weapons (8,000+8,000=16,000) are less expensive than a +3 weapon (18,000).


So basically carry a +5 temple sword , and some source of enlargement and you can overcome any damage reduction and be hitting on every attack with a 2d6 sword, which pretty much solves the unarmed vs DR issue

cool


Phasics wrote:

So basically carry a +5 temple sword , and some source of enlargement and you can overcome any damage reduction and be hitting on every attack with a 2d6 sword, which pretty much solves the unarmed vs DR issue

cool

Unless it's DR XX/Piercing

:)


Jarl wrote:
Phasics wrote:

So basically carry a +5 temple sword , and some source of enlargement and you can overcome any damage reduction and be hitting on every attack with a 2d6 sword, which pretty much solves the unarmed vs DR issue

cool

Unless it's DR XX/Piercing

:)

hrmm let me think what would a monk use agaisnt DR/Peircing .... oh yes flurry of SHURIKEN !


At lower levels you could use an adamantine temple sword & wear a silver cestus on one hand, cold iron cestus on the other, & have special materials, bludgeoning, piercing & slashing all covered without needing quick draw. Almost went this route myself.


urodivoi wrote:
At lower levels you could use an adamantine temple sword & wear a silver cestus on one hand, cold iron cestus on the other, & have special materials, bludgeoning, piercing & slashing all covered without needing quick draw. Almost went this route myself.

at low levels how often do you really need DR overcomming weapons ?


Phasics wrote:
urodivoi wrote:
At lower levels you could use an adamantine temple sword & wear a silver cestus on one hand, cold iron cestus on the other, & have special materials, bludgeoning, piercing & slashing all covered without needing quick draw. Almost went this route myself.
at low levels how often do you really need DR overcomming weapons ?

I don't really know. I think my last DM(3.5) let +1 magic weapons bypass everything except hardness, so lower levels was the only time it mattered at all.


urodivoi wrote:
Phasics wrote:
urodivoi wrote:
At lower levels you could use an adamantine temple sword & wear a silver cestus on one hand, cold iron cestus on the other, & have special materials, bludgeoning, piercing & slashing all covered without needing quick draw. Almost went this route myself.
at low levels how often do you really need DR overcomming weapons ?
I don't really know. I think my last DM(3.5) let +1 magic weapons bypass everything except hardness, so lower levels was the only time it mattered at all.

Strange house rule.

It surely removed a few strategic options for him and limited some tactical decisions for his players. Not to mention it was probably fairly hard on barbarians.


DM_Blake wrote:
urodivoi wrote:
Phasics wrote:
urodivoi wrote:
At lower levels you could use an adamantine temple sword & wear a silver cestus on one hand, cold iron cestus on the other, & have special materials, bludgeoning, piercing & slashing all covered without needing quick draw. Almost went this route myself.
at low levels how often do you really need DR overcomming weapons ?
I don't really know. I think my last DM(3.5) let +1 magic weapons bypass everything except hardness, so lower levels was the only time it mattered at all.

Strange house rule.

It surely removed a few strategic options for him and limited some tactical decisions for his players. Not to mention it was probably fairly hard on barbarians.

There are existing rules at +3 overcomes silver/cold iron

+4 overcomes adamantium
and
+5 overcomes alignment based DR

+1 weapons are pretty common


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:


When the monk class was written, the only weapons that could be used with Flurry of Blows were all light weapons, hence the -2 penalty. The addition of the temple sword created an option for a non-light monk weapon in his off-hand (if he chooses to fight this way), so it seems reasonable to apply the usual penalty for TWF using a non-light off-hand weapon.

The quarterstaff has always been a weapon with which you can flurry and it is not a light weapon. While the temple sword is a superior weapon to the quarterstaff, I hardly think it needs to incur an extra penalty.


Maezer wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:


When the monk class was written, the only weapons that could be used with Flurry of Blows were all light weapons, hence the -2 penalty. The addition of the temple sword created an option for a non-light monk weapon in his off-hand (if he chooses to fight this way), so it seems reasonable to apply the usual penalty for TWF using a non-light off-hand weapon.

The quarterstaff has always been a weapon with which you can flurry and it is not a light weapon. While the temple sword is a superior weapon to the quarterstaff, I hardly think it needs to incur an extra penalty.

quater staff is a double weapon though and the "offhand" end of the staff is consider light and not one handed as well.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Number of attacks with monk weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.