A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.
Thatss the last part of the description for FoB
EDIT:NINJA'D....gotta stop trying to answer question when on phone lol
|
So *insert random class* can use two-weapon fighting with natural weapons that aren't wielding weapons, but even with a feat monks can't do it during flurry blows.You can only attack with unarmed strikes, or Monk weapons, during FoB.
There is the Feral Combat Training feat, which would allow you to use the wing attacks during FoB, but you would still be limited to the number of attacks provided by FoB.
In a sense, yes.
Monks can however take TWF if they want along with Improved and Greater...you basically get them for FREE when FLURRYING, so while yes it has its limitations its also basically 3 free feats, AND you get FULL STR on each attack when flurrying, any other class has to take Double Slice to do that :)
|
You can as a gm that has the ability to think either do one of two things.
1) you can declare that the max attacks you get period are = the max you get with two arms two weapon fighting...
or
2) since FoB is meant to act as TWF, you simply state that in any situation where you would get more attacks by combining your naturals with twf, you get those in a FOB situation.
The intent of the wording of FoB was clearly to prevent the argument "I have two claws on my hands, so I'll do my FoB with my feet and then add two natural attacks from the claws" The clause seems pretty clearly added to keep monks from tossing natural attacks in that normal two weapon fighters wouldn't be able to add in due to their hands wielding those weapons.
|
|
no rules lawyering would be to say "no you can't add them in end of story because of what FoB states "cannot use natural attacks as part of a FoB""
The whole point of my explanation was that it doesn't make sense that a fighter can two-weapon fight and add them in but a monk cannot.
arguing for a monk to be able to do something EVERYONE ELSE can do is no big deal. Hell you can actually TWF and add them in if you decide to just go with the TWF penalties and not use the FoB.
It's not rules lawyering to say "this is what the rules say, but the intent was probably not that can we go with this"
Thats the exact difference Lantzkev...the fighter that is two-weapon fighting has spent feats to do so...the monk is doing so for FREE...he didnt have to work (use up feats) at it to do so, and he also get Double Slice as well since he get full STR on all his attacks, it sounds like a good trade off for me.
11th level monk can as a full attack make 5 attacks...all of which get full str bonus, and go off a full BAB instead of his normal BAB
11th level fighter can only make 3 with his normal weapon
11th level fighter that has spent 3 feats for TWF get 6 attacks, but only 3 get full STR bonus, the others get 1/2 STR, and has to wield a smaller weapon in his off hand or take larger penalties than the monk, or has to take exotic weapon proficiency to use a double weapon or sawtooth sabres to get the -2 like the monk, AND has to have a DEX high enough to even get those feats, where the monk doesn't have to if he cares not to
LOL..thats so mean kyrt
True...but they are still limited to the normal amount of attacks he can make when using FoB :(
|
|
Drakkiel, the fact that it works as two weapon fighting should mean just that.
I personally believe that if natural attacks were meant to add into TWF like they do now, that the intent of the wording of FoB was to prevent them from being added in beyond normal TWF. IE if you have a weapon in your hand, you can't use the claw attack from that hand.
The argument of "the fighter uses feats" is not a valid argument. The fighter is using a class feature to achieve it, and so is the monk. Like wise a two weapon fighting ranger... they aren't using their feats for it, it's just a class feature.
The point of all this of course though is a gm trying to figure out what to do with his player. The rules to a point, have been pointed out. The intent of everything is the argument here. No one is arguing that monks should be able to flurry with non-monk weapons or something, so I'm failing to see the resistance.
Letting an Aasimar with three feats spent getting wings to get two extra wing attacks is not horrific. And likewise, there's no way this makes monks "better" at twf than anyone else.
He's asking about the rules...the rules say no...period...as BBT pointed out he can take Feral Combat Training and be allowed to use them as part of the flurry but he can never gain extra attacks from having natural weapons if he flurries...thats the RAW, thats what the rules forums is for...if he wants to change that and say he can, then by god he can and thats houserulling it and thats just fine...as for the "intent" of the rule heres a fun FAQ that explains that in conjunction with Feral combat training
*FAQ/ErrataWhat does “with” in the Special line for Feral Combat Training mean for monks making a flurry of blows?
Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows. Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.
The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.
Again, if he as the GM wants to say that if he takes this feat that he can use them then sure, its his game, his rules. I have no issue there no matter how he even wanted to rule the bonuses they do/don't get from STR and BAB differ from the RAW either...rules forum=rules answer though and thats what I was trying to give him
|
|
I never once said it wasn't in the rules, but I was pointing out the problem inherent with that narrow interpretation of things, and not factoring in intent when you're gaming.
The intent was that it use all the rules for flurry of blows. It was also the intent that you couldn't just add in natural attacks, because unlike other characters a monk can make an unarmed strike from anywhere and not sacrifice attacks(potentially) from natural attacks that use their hands.
By being narrow like you insist, you've now assumed the position that a TWF unarmed fighter can make two wings + all his normal twf attacks, but a monk cannot. Which makes no sense game wise.
It matters not to you apparently that the intent was that it be identical to two weapon fighting but in a more monkey way. When you're left with the scenario of say an Aasimar with wings and claws being able to two weapon fight with all four natural attacks AND all his TWF but if he's flurrying they suddenly are all unuseable, is just ridiculous.
The wording for flurry of blows in the Core Rulebook was written by Jason (and as that TWF reference isn't in the Beta, it was probably added very late in the design process for the Core Rulebook). At the time, Jason felt his intent was clear. The blog preview for PFRPG monks shows flurry-as-TWF was his intent. "Sean's ruling" on how flurry works isn't my personal belief (derived independently with no input from Jason) of how the rule should work, it's the result of me checking and re-checking with Jason about it over the course of the boards discussion to make sure I understand what he meant by the text in the Core Rulebook.
As it turns out, the rules for the monk flurry aren't clear. I got it wrong when answering an earlier FAQ (perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough to Jason when addressing that FAQ issue, perhaps Jason misrembered that he changed how flurry works in PF). Other people on staff got it wrong when they built or developed stat blocks. Freelancers got it wrong when they wrote archetypes for the monk. Like much of the rules text in the Core Rulebook, the flurry text could really benefit from being rewritten and reworded. The design team hasn't decided what to do about that yet, but that doesn't change that Jason intended it to work like TWF. This isn't "Sean's ruling," this is "how Jason the designer wanted it to work."
If you want to insist on the iron clad RAW, which I have never stated was incorrect go for it... or if you want to be reasonable and not have every other class able to be better hand to handers than monks... let the aasimar monk with wings add in two natural attacks following the normal rules for TWF and if it happens to have claws, drop those unless you don't make an unarmed TWF drop em.
I also said that he can rule it however...I was trying to give him RAW because that is what this forum is for...I even agreed 2 times that its his choice to change that and that I would even go with it if he were my GM...thats homebrew/houserule at that point though, I wasn't giving my "suggestion" I was giving him the rules...he is free to do what he wants with them
I point you to the OP...
So I'm trying to figure out a rules clarification here. If we have an aasimar Monk with the Metallic Wings feat, if they make a Flurry of Blows attack, do they receive the two wing attacks in addition to the FoB, or is it either/or? Your help is appreciated.
I answered his question...and I'm not even arguing with you about ANYTHING...I agree that its reasonable to allow it, but he wasn't asking what "we" allow, he wanted a "rules clarification" and that's what he got man....I don't know why you are trying to attack me like I'm some nazi saying he is "NEVER ALLOWED TO DO IT AND YOU WILL DIE IF YOU LET HIM"...I'm all for houseruling something if it adds to the PC's fun and enjoyment especially in a case where he spent feats just to get wings for weapons...if this is a personal issue with me or the rules themselves then please continue with messaging me personally or going to the suggestion forum, the OP was answered, its done
|
|
If your intent was just the rules, when I made a suggestion you would not of argued otherwise, even when adding "you can do what you want" clause.
The rules had already been stated at that point. To argue against what I wrote is to argue against my suggestion.
You then proceeded to lay an argument against the intent... when it's clear the intent is otherwise. how rules have interacted as written since then is all you've pointed out when the original intent was it to work like TWF.
From my very first post you argued against my claim as to what the intent was specifically. To then claim you're not arguing with me about anything is ignoring what you have already written. If you were here for only raw, you'd of never bothered posting after the first answer which is "no you literally do exactly as it says, which is you may not add natural attacks"
The fact that the discussion went elsewhere after the answer was given apparently means little to your ire.