Monk - Reach + Trip / Ki Throw

[Kitora]

I have a lvl1 Human Flowing Monk. She is equipped with double chained Kamas.

I found a few threads with similar questions, but the answers are vague; so I want to see if I can get a clearer answer.

In the Ki-Throw's RAW:
"On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller, you may throw the target prone in any square you threaten rather than its own square."

Now, the double chained Kamas is a reach weapon. AND monk can use unarmed attacks while holding weapons with their hands (i.e. kicking)

So, would I be able to trip an enemy unarmed; then throw it to a square within my Kamas' reach (threaten) range?

So, in theory:
1. Monk uses Ki-throw unarmed; she does a Judo throw and the opponent fell prone into a square next to her.
2. Monk uses Ki throw with chained Kama; she kicked and tripped the opponent then throw it with the Kama into a farther spot.

I guess once I wrote it down, I can see that could be 2 separate actions. But I would like what everyone else thinks, and if there has been any official ruling about that. :)

[Diminuendo]

You think this is hard to rule, try a Zen Archer / Archer Fighter build that can trip with a bow.

[Arachnofiend]

How are you using Ki Throw with the kama? It has to be an unarmed strike.

[Kitora]

Diminuendo wrote:

You think this is hard to rule, try a Zen Archer / Archer Fighter build that can trip with a bow.

I don't even want to, man. I like my brain intact. :(

[Kitora]

Arachnofiend wrote:

How are you using Ki Throw with the kama? It has to be an unarmed strike.

If you read my post; I point that out very clearly.

[Cap. Darling]

I Think yes. You Throw them with your unarmed, and they land within your reach.

[Kazaan]

I'd say no because the reach of the kama has nothing to do with the unarmed trip. There's an unstated presumption that it's talking about throwing them in a space you threaten with your Unarmed Strike which is quite obvious and waste precious space to state explicitly. Now, if you were Large and had a 10' natural reach, it would be quite reasonable to trip them from a spot adjacent to yourself into a spot 10' away because you threaten both locations with your Unarmed Strike.

[FLite]

As far as I understand, you cannot wield a two handed weapon, *and* make unarmed attacks. (you can hold them, but while making attacks you do not count as wielding them. Basically, without feats, you can only have two appendages in play at once.)

Now, if you want to make it work, you could build a dwarven monk with the feat that lets him wield the Dwarven dorn-dergar one handed, and then you could indeed, by the rules, trip the attacker into your threatened square 10 feet away.

This is hardly the most ridiculous thing the rules let you do.

[Kazaan]

FLite wrote:

As far as I understand, you cannot wield a two handed weapon, *and* make unarmed attacks. (you can hold them, but while making attacks you do not count as wielding them. Basically, without feats, you can only have two appendages in play at once.)

You understand incorrectly. Anyone can make unarmed attacks regardless of what they may be holding in their hands because Unarmed Strike has been declared, via FAQ, to be an entirely abstracted weapon that's just made with "some handy part of your body." It can be flavored as punches, elbows, knees, kicks, headbutts, or vulgar pelvis thrusts. You can be holding any weapon(s) in your hand(s). You don't even need limbs to make unarmed strikes as an ooze can still make unarmed strikes.

[FLite]

Yes, you can be holding weapons, but you don't count as wielding them.

For example, you can use two weapon fighting with a one handed weapon and an unarmed strike. I do not believe you can two weapon fight with a two handed weapon and an unarmed strike.

I suppose the followup is would you allow a player to unarm "greater trip" a foe while holding a two handed weapon and take an attack of opertunity with the two handed weapon as a result?

It is the same reason you are not allowed to attack with a two handed weapon *and* armored spikes.

[FLite]

link to discussion of this.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

I would agree that one could not TWF with a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon held in two hands, and an unarmed strike, unless one is a monk utilizing flurry of blows, because of the reasons that SKR gives as the background to that FAQ. However, because the description of how unarmed strikes work in the monk class description (which has been clarified to apply to all unarmed strikes, whether one is a monk or not, which makes sense because why do you have to be a monk to give someone a kick in the fruit-and-veg while wielding a sword?) I would say that one certainly can hit someone with a greatsword after tripping them with an unarmed trip attack.

[Kazaan]

This topic has nothing to do with TWF. He isn't asking to be able to TWF with the DC-Kama and Unarmed Strikes, he's asking to make a trip attempt with unarmed strike and use the threaten area of the Kama to deposit the target.

[FLite]

My point is that he can't threaten with a two handed weapon while attacking with a third limb, for the same reason you can't two weapon fight with a two hander and a kick, and the same reason you cannot threaten with a two handed reach weapon and armor spikes or spiked boots at the same time.

at any given time, you can only have two limbs making attacks, and switching which two limbs are doing what is a free action. So when you switch to kicking with one leg, you only have one arm available to threaten.

hence why I said it could be done if you had a one handed reach weapon.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

SKR's discussion of the rules at your link makes no mention of threatening. There is no mechanism by which the weapon you choose to attack with prevents you from threatening with another one you are wielding. If you are wielding a long spear but use unarmed strike or armor spikes to attack someone adjacent to you, you still threaten using the spear.

The language of the feat makes me believe it was not intended to be used in conjunction with weapons, but it is not clear and it is certainly a possibility that the other interpretation is correct.

[Kitora]

FLite wrote:

My point is that he can't threaten with a two handed weapon while attacking with a third limb, for the same reason you can't two weapon fight with a two hander and a kick, and the same reason you cannot threaten with a two handed reach weapon and armor spikes or spiked boots at the same time.

From Corebook:

" 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."

So actually, a monk can. Heck, monk could ride a skateboard duel wielding icecream cones and still flurry 5 different enemies with his head. *Just monkly things*

FLite wrote:

at any given time, you can only have two limbs making attacks, and switching which two limbs are doing what is a free action. So when you switch to kicking with one leg, you only have one arm available to threaten.

Why is this even related? The monk's potential threaten range has nothing to do with which part of her body is needed for attack.

Thanks, Kazaan and Paladin; I guess it's up to my GM to decide whether she can actually throw with the chained Kama or only with her own body parts. And the rules are never clear; that's why we are having so much fun debating, aren't we..? :)

[FLite]

yes, but you cannot threaten with the long spear *and* the armor spikes. That is already settled rules. You can attack with the long spear, and (free action) "change hands" so you threaten with the armor spikes when it is not your turn. (Note that once your turn ends, you can't switch between threatening with the long spear or the armor spikes, because doing so is a free action.)

In the link I posted, SKR clarifies that each PC (absent powers) gets two notional "hands" which are an abstraction. If they use a leg to kick, they only have one hand left to be doing something else.

So the character tripping with his leg cannot threaten with a two handed weapon at the same time.

Quote:

Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.

The same logic applies. Character A is wielding a two handed weapon, and tries to trip while threatening reach, describing it as, I grab him with my hand, throw him (Greater Trip + Ki Throw) ten feet in front of my long spear and stab him. GM disallows it as that involves at least 3 hands. Character B tries the same thing saying I reach out my foot and trip him, sending him stumbling ten feet in front of my long spear, and stab him (greater trip + ki throw) GM allows it. Player B has now received a substantial mechanical advantage from flavor text.

[FLite]

Kitora wrote:

FLite wrote:

at any given time, you can only have two limbs making attacks, and switching which two limbs are doing what is a free action. So when you switch to kicking with one leg, you only have one arm available to threaten.

Why is this even related? The monk's potential threaten range has nothing to do with which part of her body is needed for attack.

Thanks, Kazaan and Paladin; I guess it's up to my GM to decide whether she can actually throw with the chained Kama or only with her own body parts. And the rules are never clear; that's why we are having so much fun debating, aren't we..? :)

because your threat range is based on you having two hands to wield the chained Kama. so you need to have three "hands" (Game term meaning limbs capable of making an attack simultaneously) operating at once, and without a monster feat, you don't have that.

[Kazaan]

FLite wrote:

yes, but you cannot threaten with the long spear *and* the armor spikes. That is already settled rules.[citation needed]

No where is that brought up. Not being able to combine the two for TWF does not, in any way, mean you don't threaten with a Longspear just because you made attacks with your armor spikes, nor vice versa. All the FAQ states is that you can't make an off-hand attack with armor spikes in the same round you use a 2-h weapon; threatening rules have nothing to do with off-hand, main-hand, nor anything else of that nature. You can make an attack with your longspear and still threaten with armor because the lack of ability to make an off-hand attack doesn't interfere with the definition of "threatened space": You have the potential to attack the square in question with an available weapon. AoOs are neither main-hand nor off-hand and neither are the weapons themselves. Just as you can wield two Longswords and make your normal BAB allowance of attacks without tagging TWF rules, you can wield a reach weapon and make attacks with both it and your armor spikes, just not off-hand attacks. If your BAB is +11, you can make 3 attacks with spikes, 3 attacks with longspear, or 2 attacks with the one and 1 attack with the other at your option, following the +11/+6/+1 attack sequence. All the FAQ states is that you can't make 3 attacks with the Longspear plus 1 more with the spikes.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

FLite wrote:

yes, but you cannot threaten with the long spear *and* the armor spikes. That is already settled rules. You can attack with the long spear, and (free action) "change hands" so you threaten with the armor spikes when it is not your turn. (Note that once your turn ends, you can't switch between threatening with the long spear or the armor spikes, because doing so is a free action.)

In the link I posted, SKR clarifies that each PC (absent powers) gets two notional "hands" which are an abstraction. If they use a leg to kick, they only have one hand left to be doing something else.

So the character tripping with his leg cannot threaten with a two handed weapon at the same time.

Quote:

Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.

The same logic applies. Character A is wielding a two handed weapon, and tries to trip while threatening reach, describing it as, I grab him with my hand, throw him (Greater Trip + Ki Throw) ten feet in front of my long spear and stab him. GM disallows it as that involves at least 3 hands. Character B tries the same thing saying I reach out my foot and trip him, sending him stumbling ten feet in front of my long spear, and stab him (greater trip + ki throw) GM allows it. Player B has now received a substantial mechanical advantage from flavor text.

The quote says NOTHING about threatening. What you are claiming to be settled rules is nothing of the sort. You can threaten at reach and adjacent at the same time with a longspear and unarmed strike, or armor spikes. There's nothing stopping player A from using their leg to trip the character either, even if they were one of the very rare situations where you could get Ki Throw without IUS (Tengu with racial trait claws is the only one I can think of) because there's nothing about a trip attack that requires you to use your weapon for it. Being able to threaten at range and adjacent is one of the inherent benefits of Improved Unarmed Strike.

[Byronus]

Ki Throw Feat states that, "On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller, you may throw the target prone in any square you threaten rather than its own square."

Since the sentence is referring specifically to unarmed trip attacks, it implies using the threat range of those unarmed attacks. For your Human Monk, that's 5 feet.

If you want to use Ki Throw with Reach, you need Lunge.

:Byronus

[Claxon]

The answer is no, the unwritten assumption with the feat is that it is referencing your unarmed strike's threatened area and reach.

If you were large sized or larger you would be able to select any square within your threatened area to deposit, but still only the threatened area of your unarmed strike. Not a reach weapon or other weapon.

[Kitora]

Byronus wrote:

Ki Throw Feat states that, "On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller, you may throw the target prone in any square you threaten rather than its own square."

Since the sentence is referring specifically to unarmed trip attacks, it implies using the threat range of those unarmed attacks. For your Human Monk, that's 5 feet.
:Byronus

Yeah, we already covered that and concluded the question. FLite is just going on about some unrelated rules. lol.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

That does appear to be the rules as intended. If someone wanted to build a character that made use of the alternative interpretation, it would behoove them to clear it with their GM first, or if playing PFS, to discuss it with the judge prior to play and make the case that the RAW support that usage, to avoid game - delaying arguments.

[FLite]

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The quote says NOTHING about threatening. What you are claiming to be settled rules is nothing of the sort. You can threaten at reach and adjacent at the same time with a longspear and unarmed strike, or armor spikes.

Actually, no, you can't, I don't have time right now to go look, but there are many, many long threads on the forum about this.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

I've found a number of threads, but none indicate a definitive consensus in favor of your position. If you have a link to one, please share it when you get a chance. As mentioned upthread, the discussion you linked to with SKR'S post only disallowed using two - weapon fighting to attack with a two - handed weapon and an unarmed strike or armor spikes (except flurrying monks), and did not in any way forbid attacking with both within the same turn if you have iterative attacks or get a chance to make an attack of opportunity.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

So... nothing of the sort then?

Reach weapons + Improved Unarmed Strike / Catch Off-Guard feats
Whirlwind attack: monk with reach weapon + unarmed
Whirlwind Attack + Improved Unarmed Strike + Reach (+ Greater Trip)
Armor Spikes + Reach Weapon Rules ?
Monk Question: Flurry of Blows + Reach Weapons

Seems the consensus is in the opposite direction.