| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The monk class description states "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."
Does this mean there is "no such thing" as an off-hand attack because you aren't allowed to make them, or because they all count as main hand? If someone actually took the the TWF chain, would this force them to use a weapon in one hand or just function as a freebie Double Slice for unarmed strikes?
Basically, I want to make the 6 kick / 2 claw / bite pouncing Barbarian even more abusive by taking the Dragon Style chain. A dip into Martial Artist (the any alignment monk archetype) would make this much easier. But I can't tell, by RAW, if this one silly line of text makes the idea worthless or even better.
Guidance would be greatly appreciated.
The monk class description states "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."
Does this mean there is "no such thing" as an off-hand attack because you aren't allowed to make them, or because they all count as main hand? If someone actually took the the TWF chain, would this force them to use a weapon in one hand or just function as a freebie Double Slice for unarmed strikes?
Basically, I want to make the 6 kick / 2 claw / bite pouncing Barbarian even more abusive by taking the Dragon Style chain. A dip into Martial Artist (the any alignment monk archetype) would make this much easier. But I can't tell, by RAW, if this one silly line of text makes the idea worthless or even better.
Guidance would be greatly appreciated.
If you want your monk to TWF with unarmed strikes and not take penalties, then use the flurry ability. If you're looking at multiclass, then I have taken the wording of the ability to mean that a monk's headbutt is as viable an attack as his fist, and isn't considered offhand. This doesn't apply to TWF where you would still take all the relevant penalties. The 3.5 FAQ supports my view and the wording hasn't changed.
The monk class description states "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."
Does this mean there is "no such thing" as an off-hand attack because you aren't allowed to make them, or because they all count as main hand? If someone actually took the the TWF chain, would this force them to use a weapon in one hand or just function as a freebie Double Slice for unarmed strikes?
Basically, I want to make the 6 kick / 2 claw / bite pouncing Barbarian even more abusive by taking the Dragon Style chain. A dip into Martial Artist (the any alignment monk archetype) would make this much easier. But I can't tell, by RAW, if this one silly line of text makes the idea worthless or even better.
Guidance would be greatly appreciated.
In 3.5, that line just meant you never take 1/2 hand penalties when TWFing.
Monks could still Twf when flurrying.So it meant Double slice for free back than (before it was named doible slice). THey even FAQ it on website.
But since Pathfinder is its own game: it that history may not be important.
The monk class description states "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."
Does this mean there is "no such thing" as an off-hand attack because you aren't allowed to make them, or because they all count as main hand? If someone actually took the the TWF chain, would this force them to use a weapon in one hand or just function as a freebie Double Slice for unarmed strikes?
Basically, I want to make the 6 kick / 2 claw / bite pouncing Barbarian even more abusive by taking the Dragon Style chain. A dip into Martial Artist (the any alignment monk archetype) would make this much easier. But I can't tell, by RAW, if this one silly line of text makes the idea worthless or even better.
Guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Starbuck is correct in that the 3.5 FAQ does not apply here. Even if it were true that the wording is the same (it's not) 3.5 FAQ never applies to Pathfinder. But so much about the monk and flurrying has changed that it certainly doesn't apply anymore.
If I understand correctly, you want to make a Barbarian who takes the beast rage totem powers to grab pounce, two claws, and a bite. Then dip 1 level in monk to get the monk's IUS ability. You are also taking the full TWF chain to get 3 "off-hand" attacks.
Then, when you pounce, you make your 3 main attacks and your 3 "off-hand" attacks unarmed, flavoring it to your legs, since your hands are occupied. You will also make 2 claw attacks and a bite attack as secondary natural weapons, since you are combining them with manufactured weapons (your kicks) in a full-attack. Is this correct?
In that scenario, then all your unarmed strikes would be at full STR bonus to damage. That is what the monk text means. That is why the language is present in BOTH the IUS section of the monk class and the flurry section--it applies in both situations.
EDIT: Your natural weapons will get 1/2 STR, though since they are secondary. If your BAB is +16 and your str mod is +2, then these attacks will be at:
kicks: +18/18/13/13/8/8, dmg: d6+2, 20/X2
claws: +13/13, dmg: d8+1, 20/X3
bite: +13, dmg: d4+1, 20/X2 (assuming the bite is from animal fury; if from another source, adjust the damage die accordingly).
The 18 is from 16(BAB)+2(STR)+2(charging)-2(TWF)=18.
Basically, I want to make the 6 kick / 2 claw / bite pouncing Barbarian even more abusive by taking the Dragon Style chain. A dip into Martial Artist (the any alignment monk archetype) would make this much easier. But I can't tell, by RAW, if this one silly line of text makes the idea worthless or even better.
Guidance would be greatly appreciated.
The flurry of blows ability precludes its use when combined with natural attacks. So you could take six kicks, or claw-claw-bite, or bite-claw-3nonflurrykicks
I'd looked into this when I was considering combining monk and the savage style ranger to get flurry + 2 claws.
note, this is a restriction on flurry, not on normal two weapon fighting. why, I'm not exactly certain. :)
Basically, I want to make the 6 kick / 2 claw / bite pouncing Barbarian even more abusive by taking the Dragon Style chain. A dip into Martial Artist (the any alignment monk archetype) would make this much easier. But I can't tell, by RAW, if this one silly line of text makes the idea worthless or even better.
Guidance would be greatly appreciated.
The flurry of blows ability precludes its use when combined with natural attacks. So you could take six kicks, or claw-claw-bite, or bite-claw-3nonflurrykicks
I'd looked into this when I was considering combining monk and the savage style ranger to get flurry + 2 claws.
note, this is a restriction on flurry, not on normal two weapon fighting. why, I'm not exactly certain. :)
This is why he is taking the full TWF chain, to get those extra 3 attacks. As the barbarian is taking only a single level of Martial Artist, he would not be able to flurry for more than one extra attack anyways.
kicks: +18/18/13/13/8/8, dmg: d6+2, 20/X2
claws: +13/13, dmg: d8+1, 20/X3
bite: +13, dmg: d4+1, 20/X2 (assuming the bite is from animal fury; if from another source, adjust the damage die accordingly).
This is what I was hoping for. Thanks.
Although the kicks would actually be 1d6+3. Dragon Style gives an extra 1/2 STR to unarmed damage, along with a giant pile of other benefits. Because you know, a nine attack pounce isn't excessive enough as it is.
kicks: +18/18/13/13/8/8, dmg: d6+2, 20/X2
claws: +13/13, dmg: d8+1, 20/X3
bite: +13, dmg: d4+1, 20/X2 (assuming the bite is from animal fury; if from another source, adjust the damage die accordingly).This is what I was hoping for. Thanks.
Although the kicks would actually be 1d6+3. Dragon Style gives an extra 1/2 STR to unarmed damage, along with a giant pile of other benefits. Because you know, a nine attack pounce isn't excessive enough as it is.
Ah, cool. As I said, don't have the book yet, and d20pfsrd took it down from their work area because all we non-subscribers were messing up their work flow (genuinely sorry about that one, guys).
Glad to help.
In 3.5, that line just meant you never take 1/2 hand penalties when TWFing.
Monks could still Twf when flurrying.So it meant Double slice for free back than (before it was named doible slice). THey even FAQ it on website.
This is not correct. The 3.5 FAQ says:
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 PH) and the monk adds only half her
Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed
strike hits.
The language has changed somewhat from 3.5 to PF, so whether the Devs intended for a multiclassed monk to get a "free" Double Slice when using TWF (as long as the off hand weapon was an IUS) is unknown. I do not believe they have commented on that issue.
In 3.5, that line just meant you never take 1/2 hand penalties when TWFing.
Monks could still Twf when flurrying.So it meant Double slice for free back than (before it was named doible slice). THey even FAQ it on website.
This is not correct. The 3.5 FAQ says:
The language has changed somewhat from 3.5 to PF, so whether the Devs intended for a multiclassed monk to get a "free" Double Slice when using TWF (as long as the off hand weapon was an IUS) is unknown. I do not believe they have commented on that issue.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 PH) and the monk adds only half her
Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed
strike hits.
And until they do, all that we are left with is language saying that a monk's unarmed strike is never an off-hand attack. So it gets full damage. Always.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And until they do, all that we are left with is language saying that a monk's unarmed strike is never an off-hand attack. So it gets full damage. Always.
No. We are left with an issue that is, at best, unclear, so it is up to the DM.
|
"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."
It seems to me like you are trying to interpret this in the most beneficial way possible.
For a monk striking unarmed, there is no such thing as an off-hand attack.
That tells me that if you make an unarmed attack, then you no longer have an off-hand that round. Which means that you can't use two-weapon fighting because twf requires the additional attacks to come from your off-hand -- and you no longer have one. Even if you're holding a weapon in one hand, you've still had your off-hand negated by the line.
The second sentence moves in with a "thus", implying that you only get full strength bonus on your unarmed strikes BECAUSE you have no off-hand.
If you want to use unarmed strikes in conjunction with off-hand attacks, it makes sense then that the second sentence would no longer apply, leaving you without your full strength bonus on your unarmed strike. And even then, doing so requires ignoring the part about no longer having an off-hand attack.
Still, as long as you remove the full strength damage, I don't see it being too unbalancing, and I'd probably allow it under those circumstances.
That tells me that if you make an unarmed attack, then you no longer have an off-hand that round. Which means that you can't use two-weapon fighting because twf requires the additional attacks to come from your off-hand -- and you no longer have one. Even if you're holding a weapon in one hand, you've still had your off-hand negated by the line.
This is the other possibility that kept going through my mind. From the line alone, this seems like the most logical reading. Honestly, I originally took it as a generality and thought you couldn't dual wield unarmed attacks at all until someone pointed out Greater Brawler to me.
Requiring the actual Double Slice feat seems like a good compromise, providing a dev doesn't pop in from on high and settle the issue.
"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."
...
That tells me that if you make an unarmed attack, then you no longer have an off-hand that round. Which means that you can't use two-weapon fighting because twf requires the additional attacks to come from your off-hand -- and you no longer have one. Even if you're holding a weapon in one hand, you've still had your off-hand negated by the line.
The second sentence moves in with a "thus", implying that you only get full strength bonus on your unarmed strikes BECAUSE you have no off-hand.
No, just...no. There is nothing here to even suggest that a Monk, or anyone else, can't use TWF. There just isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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."
...
That tells me that if you make an unarmed attack, then you no longer have an off-hand that round. Which means that you can't use two-weapon fighting because twf requires the additional attacks to come from your off-hand -- and you no longer have one. Even if you're holding a weapon in one hand, you've still had your off-hand negated by the line.
The second sentence moves in with a "thus", implying that you only get full strength bonus on your unarmed strikes BECAUSE you have no off-hand.
Err... the Off-hand they refer to is in regards to damage rolls (hence the comment about the STR bonus) not the ability to make an off-hand attack.
In the context of damage rolls: When TWF off-hand attacks normally do 1/2 STR. A monk's unarmed attack is never considered to be Off-hand (regards to damage categories) thus the normal 1x STR.
Note: An off-handed attack only exists in context of the Two Weapon Fighting Action. Otherwise an off-handed attack without two weapon fighting is simply a normal attack. This note would be meaningless if it did not apply to TWF since Unarmed Strikes normally do full STR.
|
|
I understand the thought process behind that. However, the entry is pretty explicit.
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
This being the rules forum, I have to say that the rules just come right out and say it blatantly.
Now, if you can twf without an off-hand, go for it. Otherwise, the monk looks like he's stuck twf'ing with weapons and not unarmed strikes.
Whether that's reasonable... honestly, I don't see a problem with it either way. It's not game breaking to allow, or deny the option. And likely, it's just another case of poor phrasing. However, again, the actual entry is pretty explicit.
I understand the thought process behind that. However, the entry is pretty explicit.
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
This being the rules forum, I have to say that the rules just come right out and say it blatantly.
Now, if you can twf without an off-hand, go for it. Otherwise, the monk looks like he's stuck twf'ing with weapons and not unarmed strikes.
Whether that's reasonable... honestly, I don't see a problem with it either way. It's not game breaking to allow, or deny the option. And likely, it's just another case of poor phrasing. However, again, the actual entry is pretty explicit.
Thats what flurry is for its essentially TWF for the monk without having to take feats. Its limiter is that it only works unarmed or with certain weapons.
I understand the thought process behind that. However, the entry is pretty explicit.
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
This being the rules forum, I have to say that the rules just come right out and say it blatantly.
I believe that this a classic example of taking something Out Of Context. Taken out of context, the Christian Bible says, "There is no God." Any rule has to be read in context of how it interacts with other rules.
If anything, it's an example of something not being contextually segmented enough. Because the section isn't specifically limited enough, it is more generally applicable than it probably was meant to be.
We can definitely agree that something is wrong with the wording.
On the other hand there is this FAQ
Edit: just noticed the necro.