Unchained Monk and TWF

[jmclaus]

Can an Unchained Monk who has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and is not using Flurry of Blows make two unarmed attacks as a full round action? I am asking this because their Unarmed Strike class feature reads:

Quote:

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks can be with fists, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk can make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

A very close reading of the rules would say that they are unable to make offhand attacks with a an unarmed attack and therefore cannot use TWF because it includes an offhand attack.

[Torbyne]

Do you ask because there is a situation where a full round action to TWF is a better option than using a full round action to Flurry?

[jmclaus]

Both for that reason and just for arguments' sake. One situation where it's better is if the monk has natural attacks.

[fretgod99]

The "no such thing as an off-hand attack" bit is tied to the next sentence, which is "A monk can apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes."

It's copy pasta from the original CRB entry. It was a more obvious reading when Flurry worked like TWF rather than just giving an extra attack.

So Monks can still TWF with UAS, they just don't do .5 STR on the second attack with an UAS like everybody else would.

[Imbicatus]

I still don't think it's better to TWF even if you have natural attacks. Three attacks at -5 and spending feats to have a -2 penalty on your unarmed strikes, and the inability to use style strikes make it much worse than using Flurry and ignoring your natural attacks. Especially post FCT nerf.

[graystone]

Imbicatus wrote:

I still don't think it's better to TWF even if you have natural attacks. Three attacks at -5 and spending feats to have a -2 penalty on your unarmed strikes, and the inability to use style strikes make it much worse than using Flurry and ignoring your natural attacks. Especially post FCT nerf.

You assume no multiattack feat and no multiclassing. So that can be -2 to all attacks and not having style strikes to lose. So it doesn't have to be as bad as you make it out to be.

As to TWF vs flurry, it's true FCT nerf stings. However, it really depends on what riders you bring to the party. It you're an unchained monk 1/rogue 10 with the Outflank feat and a pile of sneak attack dice on each attack, the natural attacks [3+] plus unarmed might be a better deal. For a straight class unchained monk though, yeah it's unlikely to ever be a good tactic.

[Imbicatus]

graystone wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

I still don't think it's better to TWF even if you have natural attacks. Three attacks at -5 and spending feats to have a -2 penalty on your unarmed strikes, and the inability to use style strikes make it much worse than using Flurry and ignoring your natural attacks. Especially post FCT nerf.

You assume no multiattack feat and no multiclassing. So that can be -2 to all attacks and not having style strikes to lose. So it doesn't have to be as bad as you make it out to be.

As to TWF vs flurry, it's true FCT nerf stings. However, it really depends on what riders you bring to the party. It you're an unchained monk 1/rogue 10 with the Outflank feat and a pile of sneak attack dice on each attack, the natural attacks [3+] plus unarmed might be a better deal. For a straight class unchained monk though, yeah it's unlikely to ever be a good tactic.

Yeah, I always assume no monster feats unless you have the natural weapon ranger style. If your gm allows them cool, but It's not a given.