|
What does it mean by "The monk still threatens squares he could reach with unarmed strikes"?
Does that mean that he can make attacks of op. within his/her bow range, or does it mean 5ft.?
^Is his bow considered an unarmed strike? <-He can use his bow for flurry blows
Reflexive Shot (Ex): At 9th level, a zen archer can make attacks of opportunity with arrows from his bow. The monk still threatens squares he could reach with unarmed strikes, and can still only make one attack of opportunity per round (unless he has Combat Reflexes). This ability replaces improved evasion.
See I read this different but it is poorly written so seems to send mixed messages. As written it effectively says that you get one benefit, from this 9th lvl ability, that allows you to make AOO with your bow. It doesn't define a range and this is what opens the confusion.
A totally separate item is the second line that is only reminding you that you still have the ability to threaten utilizing your unarmed strike at your natural reach and that you only get one AOO unless you have a the necessary feats. This line does not imply that your AOO reach is only the reach of your unarmed attack. Most prominently evident from the use of "The monk still" opening to the sentence.
Normally you cannot make AoOs with a bow, you don't threaten when using that weapon. The ability allows you to threaten an area the same reach as your IUS.
'Threat' range is defined as a nil value for a missle/ranged weapon, as in you don't have the ability to do it, this ability grants a theatening range equal to your IUS (typically 5' for a PC).
Poorly worded? Yes, not necessarily poorly written. A monk using a ranged weapon exclusively doesn't threaten a square, just like any other character. This ability grants a monk character who is exclusively using a bow to 'still threaten squares he could reach with unarmed strikes'. If he were using unarmed strikes he would threaten the square, when using the bow he still threatens the same square.
A monk using a ranged weapon exclusively doesn't threaten a square, just like any other character.That's incorrect. A monk threatens all squares to which he has reach, even when 'exclusively' using a bow, due to having IUS. (unless he is flat footed or otherwise rendered non-threatening)
I think you're right about how the feat is supposed to work, but it is very poorly written.
Go read the definition of 'exclusively,' it would mean they weren't using IUS. Therefore, they wouldn't threaten with the bow.
It means exactly what it says. You gain the ability to threaten at the range of your normal reach with a bow. Which you cannot normally do. It definitely defines a range. That range is the reach of your unarmed strikes. So, if you're a medium creature, that range is 5'. Large creature (unless specified) is 10'.
Improved Unarmed Strike does not apply to using a bow, not even for a Zen Archer since using a manufactured weapon is not an unarmed strike. In fact, both the feat AND the monk ability of Unarmed Strike clearly dictate that these are for unarmed strikes only.
Using a bow during his flurry of blows does not make that bow an Unarmed Strike. It means the Zen Archer has the special ability to use his bow in place of his Unarmed Attacks during a flurry. As a matter of fact, a Zen Archer CANNOT use his unarmed attacks or even monk weapons during a flurry due to the wording of the ability.
Go read the definition of 'exclusively,' it would mean they weren't using IUS. Therefore, they wouldn't threaten with the bow.For threatening squares it does not matter if you are attacking with one weapon or not attacking at all.
You threaten squares with potential attacks.
A monk with a polearm wielded that simply double moved last turn would threaten adjacent squares with unarmed strikes, and squares 10' away with attacks from the polearm.
The Zen Archer always threatens adjacent squares (when not flatfooted, etc) with unarmed strikes. The ability, as I read it, allows the Zen Archer to threaten those very same squares with attacks from his bow. Thus should someone provoke in those squares the Zen Archer would have the choice of kicking them or shooting them. By that level the difference in damage and chance to hit should be considerable.
-James
I understand and agree, but exclusively was a word I used intentionally and specifically to differentiate the situation from a normal gaming situation where all available weapons were being used. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it.
Typical game situations no character is ever exclusively using a weapon unless we are talking stark naked human without any abilities available, in which case unarmed strike is what you are left with.
Exclusively in this context means not using IUS even if it is available. No offense, but I'm not asking much more than grade school reading comprehension and understanding the use of a specific word to make a point.
|
A monk using a ranged weapon exclusively doesn't threaten a square, just like any other character.
That's simply untrue - and confusing on account that it's completely opposite of what is written in the rule book. You know the part that says "This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."
I understand and agree, but exclusively was a word I used intentionally and specifically to differentiate the situation from a normal gaming situation where all available weapons were being used. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it.
You could have been a lot clearer by not using a Monk as your example. Any Monk (not just a Zen Archer) can and does threaten adjacent squares with their Unarmed Strikes, even if they are using a bow (or sling), or have their hands full.
They can choose not to attack, but I don't know how they stop themselves from threatening.
I understand the rules quite well thank you, I was posting a situation to show where the writing of said ability makes sense. There is a difference between thinking your superior and getting tired of trying to make ones point then throwing your hands up in the air verbally. If you think I'm being condescending, unfortunately that is your problem.
If someone chose to use a weapon exclusively and disregard other options to make attacks, you choose to not use a weapon so you aren't threatening with it. A very simple situation but apparently hard to understand from all the responses. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to... there are situations where you woudn't want to hit something with an unarmed strike - any number of abilities/auras that exist to debuff or damage attackers. It may not happen often or at all in a normal game situation, but in theory of rules discussion it could.
If I recall, there are later feats that allow you to threaten with a bow at longer ranges? Because that being so would clear up the intent somewhat I think.