| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all,
I posted the other day about Fighting Defensively and Pounce.
There doesn't seem to be consensus on whether one can Pounce Defensively, other than maybe don't plan on using it in PFS because of table variance, and ask your GM.
What about Pounce and Medusa's Wrath? RAI, this seems like it should work, but the wording in Medusa's Wrath is the same as Fighting Defensively; it requires a "Full-Attack Action":
Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus. These bonus attacks must be made against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe.
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
We have the Spell Combat FAQ (thank you @Ascalaphus), which is somewhat helpful, but still doesn't address the larger RAW question:
Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
Yes.
Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.
So, does the RAI feel of Medusa's Wrath make us think that Pounce + Medusa's Wrath should be OK? Or is there still the larger RAW issue of the discrepancy between "making a full attack" vs. "taking a full-attack action"?
Much like combining Vital Strike and Spring attack, Medusa's Wrath and Pounce are their own discrete actions, irregardless of type (standard or full).
They cannot be combined.
Pounce (which is a charge -- a full round action). Fighting defensively is also a special full attack, which is a full round action.
You cannot perform or combine multiple swift, standard or full round actions.
Making a full attack is a full round action:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
Your explanation makes sense to me, @Quintain, but I'm curious to hear if others agree.
I would a dev post to clear this RAW issue up.
|
It's not clearly defined. It used to be "clear" that a full attack wasn't the same as a full attack action, but that FAQ suggests it applies to "other things" without being very clear on what they are. This might be one of them, might also not be one of them.
I think the technically correct answer would be: the rules are currently ambiguous.
Thank you, @Calth! I suppose this is the best we can do for now.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon.
Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus.
I myself am going to argue for extrapolating from SKR's dev quote on haste to Medusa's Wrath until a FAQ or errata says otherwise, because it is to me the most straightforward way to deal with the issue, as the two abilities/effects are so similar.
Fun! I guess I'd say you can Pounce and then Whirlwind, but you couldn't Pounce and Whirlwind and then gain the benefits of haste or Medusa's Wrath-like abilities or effects.
So, then, @Ozy, can one Pounce and Fight Defensively, as per my split thread on this issue? RAI it feels off to me, so I would personally not allow the aforementioned RAW extrapolation. Would you agree?
Of course you are right RAW, @Ozy. It's just the idea or feel of Fighting Defensively after a Charge that would have me hesitate to make the above extrapolation as a D/GM. But I suppose if one is going to make the first extrapolation, one has to make them all, as said extrapolation is RAW-based, and not RAI-based, after all.
Charge is a full round action that allows for a single attack after a move. Pounce modifies charge so that you can get a full attack (which means all your iterative attacks), at the end of that movement.
However, pounce does *not* modify the type of action that charge is, which is a full round action, and specifically not a full attack action. Ergo, I do not believe that Pounce and Medusa's Wrath can be combined.
If you read the faq on Haste, it specifically states that Haste being applicable on a charge-pounce is an exception because charge is a full round action, not a full attack action as is required by Haste normally.
Now, Medusa's Wrath is written very much like haste, and it has specifically *not* (yet) been called out as being an exception like Haste. There was no general exception made in the Haste FAQ text to apply to full round/full attacking effects.
I still stand by my no defensive full-attacking during a charge-pounce. Discrete actions. One is a full attack, the other is a full round action. They are distinct. See the FAQ on Haste: "...even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that pounce did not allow the extra attack from haste because pounce wasn't using the full attack action."
Now, all of this being said, this is a strict (and pedantic) RAW interpretation of the rules and FAQs.
The FAQ under Haste, however, has set a precedent of allowing for the combination of effects that require a full attack action to be applied against full round actions -- and this may be RAI.
However, you'll note that they still haven't allowed for a Vital Strike during a spring attack. So, YMMV.
@Quintain, yes, I think one could choose either side of the coin and be completely, or at least mostly, justified.
That FAQ on Haste alludes to the larger issue, of course, but also avoids confronting it. The tenor of the statement seems to be that the devs would like to simplify the issue by making "making a full attack" and "taking a full-attack action" equivalent, but that would be such a major change I imagine they shied away from it.
@Ozy, I certainly understand what you are saying, and can see either side of the argument. Your side is better supported by RAW, however, and I tend to side on the stability of RAW-based arguments/interpretations.
I have no real objection to a "defensive charge", just like I have no problem with a vital strike spring attack. But at some point, you have to draw the line on combining actions.
I would hesitate against combing a full round action that includes a full attack (like charge-pounce) with rider effects that are allowed with a full attack action.
You'll be going full plaid, instead of just ludicrous speed.
I would hesitate against combing a full round action that includes a full attack (like charge-pounce) with rider effects that are allowed with a full attack action.
You'll be going full plaid, instead of just ludicrous speed.
You mean, other than the specific FAQs that allow exactly that?
Just to clarify, you are obviously free to play it how you want, but the FAQs and RAW seem to indicate that that's how it is actually supposed to work.
See, e.g., the Pounce and Spell Combat FAQs.
Don't disagree in the least. However, as of this time, only Haste is spelled out as an exception, at least as far as I'm aware. Could you point to the spell combat faq that allows it to be combined with pounce?
Then there are abilities that are permitted 'when taking a full attack action' which work with the above full round/full attack actions:Haste
Medusa's Wrath
Fighting Defensively
Ok, I think the question is: how many of these can be combined as riders to a single full (round/attack) action.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Medusa's Wrath (Combat)
...
Benefit: Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus. These bonus attacks must be made against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe.
Medusa wrath isn't it's own full round action, it is a full attack action, so it should work work all the other abilities that are triggered by the use of a full attack action, figthing defensively included.
If the Development team is really making a full-round action that involves a full attack to be considered a full attack action, this has some serious implications for Monks.
Flurry of Blows is a rull round action that is also a full attack (like charge-pounce) -- if these are synonymous, then all of the monk abilities that are currently restricted to being used only when used with a flurry of blows, can be used when they are simply making a full attack action.
This allows the MOMS archetyhpe to access ki abilities (like ki flurry) that he is currently denied.
This is huge. This *needs* a FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Development team is really making a full-round action that involves a full attack to be considered a full attack action, this has some serious implications for Monks.
Flurry of Blows is a rull round action that is also a full attack (like charge-pounce) -- if these are synonymous, then all of the monk abilities that are currently restricted to being used only when used with a flurry of blows, can be used when they are simply making a full attack action.
This allows the MOMS archetyhpe to access ki abilities (like ki flurry) that he is currently denied.
This is huge. This *needs* a FAQ.
I'm not seeing that. Flurry of Blows has its own special rules and restrictions that don't apply to other full attacks.
All Flurries of Blows are full attacks, but not all full attacks are a Flurry of Blows.
Of course you are right RAW, @Ozy. It's just the idea or feel of Fighting Defensively after a Charge that would have me hesitate to make the above extrapolation as a D/GM. But I suppose if one is going to make the first extrapolation, one has to make them all, as said extrapolation is RAW-based, and not RAI-based, after all.
Yeah, you pretty much have to go by the same principles in all cases in order to have an internally consistent rules set. Applying two different definitions to the same rules term depending on what "feels right" is going to lead to all sorts of confusion at the game table. Especially since most GMs aren't going to be in total agreement on what does and doesn't feel right to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flurry of Blows is a rull round action that is also a full attack (like charge-pounce) -- if these are synonymous, then all of the monk abilities that are currently restricted to being used only when used with a flurry of blows, can be used when they are simply making a full attack action.
Umm...no.
The equivalency doesn't have to work both ways.
All Drow can take Elf feats, because the requirement Elf means "have the Elf subtype" but Elves cannot take Drow specific feats.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
So just because Flurry is considered a Full Attack, doesn't mean you can do something on a Full Attack that specifically requires you to Flurry.
So just because Flurry is considered a Full Attack, doesn't mean you can do something on a Full Attack that specifically requires you to Flurry.
Let's not forget the Ninja Ki Pool allowing a "Ki Flurry" during a full attack and the lack of same for the Monk.
If the dev team doesn't want a universal full-round action + full attack to equal a full attack action, then it means that Haste is a specific exception, not the general rule or even a suggested RAI.
As a result, all exceptions have to be spelled out when conflating full-round actions that have full attacks and full attack actions and their overlapping.
Monks ruin everything. :*(
Huh?
So just because Flurry is considered a Full Attack, doesn't mean you can do something on a Full Attack that specifically requires you to Flurry.
Let's not forget the Ninja Ki Pool allowing a "Ki Flurry" during a full attack and the lack of same for the Monk.
If the dev team doesn't want a universal full-round action + full attack to equal a full attack action, then it means that Haste is a specific exception, not the general rule or even a suggested RAI.
As a result, all exceptions have to be spelled out when conflating full-round actions that have full attacks and full attack actions and their overlapping.
Monks ruin everything. :*(
Yeah, I'm totally lost.
Ok, allow me to explain:
It is my understanding is that we are talking about the differences between a what is termed a "full attack" and a "full attack action".
The examples given are: "Full attack" is a charge-pounce combination, which is more correctly a "full-round action (charge) with a full attack (pounce). And this being equal in all ways to a Full attack action, insofar as other actions "being able to be used with a full attack action" such as defensive fighting or haste or medusa's wrath, etc. -- Note that there is nothing in the description of pounce that changes the type of action used from full round action to full attack action.
It has been established that with the FAQ to haste, the FAQ to Spell combat, etc, that a "full round action with a full attack" (charge-pounce ) can be used with things that are described as being added to a "full attack action". Despite the implication in their text stating that they can only be used in the latter.
So, with flurry of blows being in every way a functionally equivalent to a charge-pounce+TWF, as well as the ki pool ability of the ninja being identical to that of the monk barring only the difference in terminology between flurry of blows and a full attack action, I believe that logically we would have to come to the conclusion that any ability calling for a requirement of "flurry of blows" is no different from being simply a "full attack with two-weapon fighting unarmed strikes", with the result being that a monk with the MOMS archetype regains full access to all those ki powers that have a requirement of flurry of blows.
Fin.
Yeah, just gonna second everything Ozy said. He even broke out the exact same metaphor I was planning to use to explain the difference.
Dude, no.
All full-attack actions are not functionally equivalent anymore than all rectangles are squares.
A flurry of blows is a full attack action.
A full attack at the end of a pounce is a full attack action.
No, and no.
A charge is a "special full round action". Pounce does not, within it's text change the type of action that is used when you charge. It is still a "special full round action". All pounce does is modify that "special full round action" to allow a full attack sequence instead of a normal single attack action. No more, no less. It is demonstrably NOT a full attack action. By strict RAW (ignoring for the moment the Haste FAQ).
If you happen to be wielding two weapons at the same time, you will be still making a special full round action with a full attack, it just so happens that you will be making an additional attack with your off hand weapon.
Flurry of blows is also defined as a "full round action" that involves a full attack with an extra attack, it also calculates in the penalty for two weapon fighting with light weapons with a boost in BAB equal to your class level.
Monk level 1 = BAB 1 + (Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2/–2) = Flurry of Blows
Fighter Levle 1 with improved unarmed strike, and two weapon fighting = Monk Flurry of Blows: Same number of attacks and same modifiers to those attack rolls.
Without the Haste FAQ, the fighter would get an additional attack from Haste, but the Monk could not. Why? Because haste said full attack action, and not full round action (which is what FoB is).
Now, seeing the disparity, Haste has been FAQ'd to allow it to be used by both a full round-full attack (charge-pounce-twf, or flurry of blows) and a simple full attack action. Why? Because they are functionally equivalent. There is no disparity between the results of applying haste in either scenario, ergo, no reason to allow one and not the other.
The same idea was posed with spell combat -- which is also defined as a "full round action" (not a full attack action).
If the FAQ for Haste is not simply an exception, and as we have seen, it is likely not, due to many "full attack actions" having riders that apply to "full round action-full attack" like charge-pounce (as well as flurry of blows), then the only difference between a full round action-full attack and a "full attack action" is nomenclature. Which means "flurry of blows" is nothing more than a fancy name given to a full attack-TWF-Unarmed Strikes by monks
You could give monks the equivalent of flurry of blows by rewriting the ability, saying that flurry of blows is just a BAB improvement to the class level and give the monk the two weapon fighting feat at 1st level and improved two weapon fighting later on (for the 2nd off hand attack) with the restriction that they can only two weapon fight with unarmed strikes or monk weapons -- the only hitch in this equivalency is being able to get off hand attack iteratives with a single weapon as long as it is a monk weapon -- and you'll recall a lot of resistance by the dev team to issuing that particular FAQ.
You'll notice that the Unchained Monk's description of Flurry of Blows is exactly this (just without penalties). It even changes flurry of blows from the core monk's description over to a full attack action.
Now, getting over to my point:
A MOMS Monk does not gain "Flurry of Blows" but can get the functional equivalent (given relative BAB values) by grabbing twf and itwf and having them used with improved unarmed strikes, you get a equivalent flurry of blows that can even use it with charge-pounce.
<insert phrase here about walking and quacking ducks>
One is a square, and the other is a diamond with equal sides. It is just a matter of perspective.
I see no real reason why you should be denied the use of a rider ability like the ki pool simply because you lack the special title bestowed upon an ability that you essentially have due to nomenclature -- which IMO is really what is behind the reason for the Haste FAQ in the first place. Which, interestingly enough is allowed for a Ninja, but not allowed by a MOMS monk.
I'm simply expanding what seems to be a pattern with the FAQs between haste and spell combat, and the discussion here, to be internally consistent. Which is lacking in RAW at the moment. Which is why I was thinking there needs to be a FAQ.
I'm just detecting a trend and would like to know if it is correct or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A charge is a "special full round action". Pounce does not, within it's text change the type of action that is used when you charge. It is still a "special full round action". All pounce does is modify that "special full round action" to allow a full attack sequence instead of a normal single attack action. No more, no less. It is demonstrably NOT a full attack action. By strict RAW (ignoring for the moment the Haste FAQ).
There's no difference between a full attack and a full attack action. They're the same thing.
Flurry of blows is also defined as a "full round action" that involves a full attack with an extra attack, it also calculates in the penalty for two weapon fighting with light weapons with a boost in BAB equal to your class level.
False. Both Core Monk flurry and Unchained Monk flurry never say anything about being full round actions. In fact, both entries start off with "At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action." (Emphasis added)
A MOMS Monk does not gain "Flurry of Blows" but can get the functional equivalent (given relative BAB values) by grabbing twf and itwf and having them used with improved unarmed strikes, you get a equivalent flurry of blows that can even use it with charge-pounce.
No. Seriously, just no. Flurry of Blows is not remotely the same thing as TWF. Core Flurry changes BAB, can be done with a single weapon instead of two, changes how you apply strength modifiers to damage, and can only be done with a select group of weapons. The only thing it has in common with TWF is granting additional attacks at a -2 penalty. Unchained Flurry doesn't even that much in common with TWF.
Your explanation makes sense to me, @Quintain, but I'm curious to hear if others agree.
I would a dev post to clear this RAW issue up.
Quintan is correct.
Every action that is done requires an action type. There are some things such as manyshot that can be done that modify a full attack, but anything that calls out taking a full attack or full attack action are the same thing. I linked to them being the same in the other thread.
A charge requires a full round action. Pounce allows you to full attack at the end instead of getting a just one attack.
Medusa's wrath requires its own full attack. The two can not be conbined.
Also pounce is not a full round action that "counts as" a full attack. It actually grants you a full attack. There is no disparity.
Your explanation makes sense to me, @Quintain, but I'm curious to hear if others agree.
I believe Quintain has the right of it for the reasons he has already stated.
I'm certain that Fighting Defensively stacks with any type of attack including weird stuff like spell attacks (ray of frost) and touch attacks (Lay on hands). Not with the actual spell casting/casting defensively though, you only benefit from the AC rise after you make the attack.
Fighting Defensively is, at it's core, a way to attack something in a sissy, careful kind of fashion and is usually good to do at the start of a fight if you don't know what sort of attack the enemy might make (Raise that touch AC just in case!)
You can Fight Defensively and charge, which sounds really dumb but if you're running into a bunch of braced spears you might want to be more careful. FD gives you this option.
I've also seen it used when making a ranged attack at melee range, provoking. Sadly the bonus doesn't start to apply until after you eat the AoO- but it's doable!
If you're not attacking you can't FD, you can't 'defensively drink a potion' or 'defensively disable this trap' or even 'stand here doing nothing defensively' . That's the only time I know when FD doesn't apply.
I'm trying to think of a swift action that might allow you to FD... I know that some immediate actions allow it (Mythic Guardian Path: Beasts Fury) but that's really just getting a bonus standard attack.
So my input is that,
Medusas fist is an attack, so it works
Pounce is an attack, so it works
Two Weapon Fighting is an attack, so it works
Your explanation makes sense to me, @Quintain, but I'm curious to hear if others agree.
I would a dev post to clear this RAW issue up.
Quintan is correct.
Every action that is done requires an action type. There are some things such as manyshot that can be done that modify a full attack, but anything that calls out taking a full attack or full attack action are the same thing. I linked to them being the same in the other thread.
A charge requires a full round action. Pounce allows you to full attack at the end instead of getting a just one attack.
Medusa's wrath requires its own full attack. The two can not be conbined.
I'm not following you at all. The first part of your post says that the guy claiming full attack and full attack actions are different is right. Then the second part of your post says they're the same thing. They you go back to saying they're different things. Which is it?
Or are you saying he's right about Two Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows being the same thing?
Ok, it's my fault for the confusion on the flurry of blows thing: goes to show you that you shouldn't rely on internet search summaries below the links for the full description. Or I could have been reading something else (spell combat) and got them conflated.
Mea culpa.
Either way, I'll try to clarify this mess (although I'll probably just mess it up further):
The basic idea for all of this is this: similar to not being able to combine attacks that are standard actions, you cannot combine full attack actions with other actions that are full attacks - as long as those actions are attacks in and of themselves or full round actions that include full attacks and vice versa.
Charge with pounce is a full round action that includes a full attack, fighting defensively as a full round action. Note: full round action for both. Because they use the same action type, they cannot be combined, just like two standard actions cannot be combined. So, FRA + FRA = Bad, even if they allow for full attacks -- in general.
However when it comes to the definition of whether you can combine effects that apply to each action when it comes to full attacks and full round actions that include full attacks, it gets a hell of a lot murkier. So, FRA + FAA is a maybe.
Example: Spell Combat/Haste treats a full-round action as a full attack, that leads to a whole lot of stacking questions for rider effects that are simply not mentioned, but are alluded to in the FAQs.
As of right now, there are currently only two exceptions to the rule of full-round action w/ full attack and full attack action being discrete.
SKR put out this about Haste: link
But he is speaking specifically only about haste and spell combat.
What I want to see is a clear statement as to whether the Dev team intends on expanding those FAQ rulings to include other "rider" type effects that can be used in the same way. Because as it stands, you can't use medusa's wrath with charge/pounce or defensive fighting, like the way you can with haste despite the fact that both include full attacks (because they are full round actions).
It seems very odd and contradictory to me to treat full attacks (even "named full attacks" such as flurry of blows) as simply an ability that is wholly stackable with a multitude of other effects (even other named full attack actions like Spell Combat or Pounce), but treat standard action attack related effects (see Vital Strike and a normal charge) as oil and water.
---
Now, as for two weapon fighting and flurry of blows being the same thing: In the core rulebook, they are basically equivalent. Flurry of blows even references two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting.
The reason they could potentially be "considered the same" is due to the Spell Combat/FAQ murkiness I spoke of above. If you have a "named ability" (flurry of blows) that can be duplicated wholly by taking a different path (in this case improved unarmed strike + two weapon fighting line), then I see no reason for not allowing a class that has to take the harder path from using abilities like Ki Pool from using them just because you don't have the "name" ability.
I call it my acts like a duck, quacks like a duck rule of gaming.
So, what a monk gets as a "named" ability, the fighter can get by taking a few feats. One attacks with "flurry of blows" and the other just makes a full attack -- one is a specific type of full attack and the other is generic, but the mechanics of the use of the ability are the same.
Here's a way to prove it:
Build a fighter, give him two light weapons, and two weapon fighting feats: notice that his attack modifiers for his main and off hand are -2, -2. The same modifiers applies to the monk using flurry of blows -- mechanically, they are identical (as long as you use light weapons for the fighter -- which is what improved unarmed strikes are).
The progression follows identically up to the point where the monk gets his 2nd and 3rd additional attack -- which can be remedied for the fighter by taking improved two-weapon fighting, and greater two weapon fighting.
I hope with all my editing I just didn't make a complete hash out of my ramblings.
Now, what does 'other effects' mean? As it is not further qualified, the only reasonable explanation is any other effect that depends on a full attack action, like e.g. fighting defensively.Finally, the devs have indicated that they see no advantage to differentiating between full attacks, full attack actions, and actions which give you your full attack sequence. IOW, they believe these are all identical. That isn't RAW, but it seems to be RAI.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the particulars. I don't think I can convince you that some can be combined and some cannot. I see a distinction between "being able to be used when making a full attack" (medusa's wrath) and a full round action that includes a full attack. -- And the main reason for this is that this is the basis for the FAQ for Haste, and the FAQ for Haste does not list any other exceptions other than Haste. The same applies to Spell Combat.
However, the destination that you reached with your last two sentences is exactly where I am. I would like a more definitive statement from the developers to find out for sure whether "other effects" is just a series of exceptions to be named later, or the establishment of a general rule going forward. My only remaining question is just how many of these rider effects (the "while making a full attack") can you stack.
As a side note: Flurry of blows (the core version) and two weapon fighting are definitely cannot be used together -- but that is because flurry of blows and two weapon fighting are essentially the same thing -- the text of flurry of blows referring to "as if using the two weapon fighting feat...as if using improved two weapon fighting...as if using greater two weapon fighting. So, they don't stack. It doesn't have anything to do with them both being full attack actions per se.
Incidentally, this is where I was getting at with MOMS monks and their flurry of blows related abilities being able to be used if you have all 4 feats referenced in the "as if" qualifications of flurry.
If Flurry of Blows has improved unarmed strike and works "as if" you have the two weapon fighting tree at various class levels, do you not have the exact same thing when you actually have improved unarmed strike and those feats in actuality (as in no-as-if)?
If not, why not? Because one is a name and the other is a series of feats? Seems arbitrarily restrictive.
End Side Note.
Your explanation makes sense to me, @Quintain, but I'm curious to hear if others agree.
I would a dev post to clear this RAW issue up.
Quintan is correct.
Every action that is done requires an action type. There are some things such as manyshot that can be done that modify a full attack, but anything that calls out taking a full attack or full attack action are the same thing. I linked to them being the same in the other thread.
A charge requires a full round action. Pounce allows you to full attack at the end instead of getting a just one attack.
Medusa's wrath requires its own full attack. The two can not be conbined.
I'm not following you at all. The first part of your post says that the guy claiming full attack and full attack actions are different is right. Then the second part of your post says they're the same thing. They you go back to saying they're different things. Which is it?
Or are you saying he's right about Two Weapon Fighting and Flurry of Blows being the same thing?
I thought Quintain was saying they were the same. Did he say full attacks, and full attack actions were not the same?
I am saying those two are the same.
Medusa's Wrath (Combat)
...
Benefit: Whenever you use the full-attack action and make at least one unarmed strike, you can make two additional unarmed strikes at your highest base attack bonus. These bonus attacks must be made against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe.Medusa wrath isn't it's own full round action, it is a full attack action, so it should work work all the other abilities that are triggered by the use of a full attack action, figthing defensively included.
To be even more distinct, Medusa's Wrath is neither it's own action or a full-round attack. It's checking for a full-round attack in order to activate, and can be activated during the same full-round attack (for instance, a monk flurries a creature and uses Stunning Fist or a similar move on the same creature during this flurry. The effect sticks, activating Medusa's Wrath, and allowing for additional attacks. The creature was not stunned before, but was at some point during the attack, allowing for the effect to occur.)
But on the topic of attack-like full-round actions and full attack actions, most of these abilties call themselves out to be full attack actions, and therefore ARE full attack actions, and not their own distinct full-round action. If it was ruled the other way, I'm pretty sure Magus and Monk completely stop functioning with a vast majority of content and the rules in their entirety, including much of their own content. And obviously that would be ridiculous. In addition, Pounce is a full-attack action. It states that it is a full-attack action in the rules.
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
It is an exception to the normal rule that charge is it's own standard action and that only one attack can be made. Instead, when you charge, you perform a full-attack action instead at the end of the charge, adding all effects that work with a full-attack action.
Being even more specific, full-round action abilities usually inform you that they are full-round actions and go to lengths to separate them from full-attack actions. Full-round attacks are usually full-round actions, that is true, but that does not mean other abilities that are like a full-attack actions are distinct from full-attack actions. They are, in fact, an additional form of a full-attack action granted by your abilities that can be used interchangeably.