Forceful Trait
"This weapon becomes more dangerous as you build momentum. When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice, and each subsequent attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice."
Attack Trait
"An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty."
Does this mean if you use an attack action, such as trip, with a forceful weapon that it counts for the bonus damage for that turn?
An interesting question, but are there any weapons with both the forceful and trip traits? I see several with both forceful and sweep, which seem to work well together.
An interesting question, but are there any weapons with both the forceful and trip traits? I see several with both forceful and sweep, which seem to work well together.
Not currently. But there are 2 stances that give unarmed attacks with the Forceful trait. And in those cases I think the bonus would apply. Technically it says the bonus is based on the number of "weapon damage dice", but if we're getting that nitpicky then it wouldn't even work on unarmed strikes.
The other main counterpoint, which is certainly valid, but doesn't convince me personally is that tripping, grappling, etc. aren't really using the associated weapon or stance. Therefore, despite it being an attack, it isn't an attack "with it" (it being the relevant weapon / stance).
I think you look at it as how many damage dice are you doing when doing the attack. If your not using your damage dice, you don't get bonus damage.
I do however like the idea of someone missing and doing the ever hated spin around and using the momentum to trip, grapple, disarm with extra force.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting question, but are there any weapons with both the forceful and trip traits? I see several with both forceful and sweep, which seem to work well together.Not currently. But there are 2 stances that give unarmed attacks with the Forceful trait.
There's also the Knockdown feat which lets you spend 2 actions to strike and then make a trip attack with a 2 handed weapon even if it doesn't have the trip trait.
There's also the Knockdown feat which lets you spend 2 actions to strike and then make a trip attack with a 2 handed weapon even if it doesn't have the trip trait.An interesting question, but are there any weapons with both the forceful and trip traits? I see several with both forceful and sweep, which seem to work well together.Not currently. But there are 2 stances that give unarmed attacks with the Forceful trait.
I thought a good while about this, but was not able to ascertain that the trip of Knockdown is actually made with the weapon.
I thought a good while about this, but was not able to ascertain that the trip of Knockdown is actually made with the weapon.There's also the Knockdown feat which lets you spend 2 actions to strike and then make a trip attack with a 2 handed weapon even if it doesn't have the trip trait.An interesting question, but are there any weapons with both the forceful and trip traits? I see several with both forceful and sweep, which seem to work well together.Not currently. But there are 2 stances that give unarmed attacks with the Forceful trait.
It wouldn't be, since it's an Athletics check afterward, which is separate from the weapon. The feat does consider both checks attacks, since it includes special rules for MAP interactions with the feat.
That being said, I would argue that if you used a weapon's Item Bonus to your attack roll/skill check, then yes, it's considered using the weapon to perform the check, since the weapon is having an impact on the check; assuming it has the appropriate trait or exception, of course, which is the other qualifier needed.
As it stands, though, the only attack that could benefit from any Athletics-based skill as well as Forceful is a Gorilla Slam Unarmed Attack from the Gorilla Stance feat, meaning it's so niche that it might as well be non-existent. But, still certainly possible to, say, Grab/Grapple and then Strike, meaning that second Strike, at reduced MAP, would benefit from Forceful in this case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forceful Trait
"This weapon becomes more dangerous as you build momentum. When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice, and each subsequent attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice."Attack Trait
"An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty."Does this mean if you use an attack action, such as trip, with a forceful weapon that it counts for the bonus damage for that turn?
Yes. Providing the weapon is used in the attack, which means it will need to have the trait Forceful and Trip/Grapple/Shove whatever.
A similar thing applies with the Sweep trait. Its all about attacks with the weapon, so it is still a relevant rule if it is an attack maneuver with the attack trait and not a strike.
The problem being there are very few such weapons around
All I can see for Forceful is Gorilla Stance
There are some for Sweep like a War Flail
I would err on the side of cool and allow it. As long as you are making the attack action using the weapon with the forceful trait in some way (including but not limited to the monk unarmed attacks, the Knockdown feat action, or some future weapon that has forceful and trip).
If you are using a one-handed weapon with forceful and doing an attack like trip with your free hand, then no that wouldn't count.
I used to think "attack" & "attack roll" were equivalent until Paizo clarified that Finesse weapons cannot use Dex to perform maneuver attack rolls, i.e. trip w/ a whip is Str-based.
With that precedent, I'd say the early attack rolls w/ a Forceful weapon have to be Strikes to qualify as an "attack" for the later ones.
A counterargument would be that the weapons have likely (but not always) traded damage w/ the gamble that they might regain that damage by performing more attacks.
Which is why I think it'd be interested to see how a Hasted Flurry Ranger's damage changes w/ such weapons in hand. I recall looking for an Agile, Forceful weapon, but I can't recall if I'd had any success other than via Diamond Fists (Monk 18) which shows the die type for Forceful tradeoff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the attack roll change is relevant here, since Forceful only specifies attacks, not attack rolls.
I don't think the attack roll change is relevant here, since Forceful only specifies attacks, not attack rolls.
Isn't the question whether the early attack rolls (i.e. trip) count as attacks for the later damage bonus on one's Strikes?
I'm pretty sure it's clear the other direction, since the maneuvers typically don't do damage though I suppose some feats or a crit success might, I don't see them adding damage because the damage dice aren't involved.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the forceful trait doesn't mention requiring a strike or making an attack that does damage. All it mentions making an attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the attack roll change is relevant here, since Forceful only specifies attacks, not attack rolls.Isn't the question whether the early attack rolls (i.e. trip) count as attacks for the later damage bonus on one's Strikes?
I'm pretty sure it's clear the other direction, since the maneuvers typically don't do damage though I suppose some feats or a crit success might, I don't see them adding damage because the damage dice aren't involved.
0 + 2 = 2
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
0 + 2 = 2I don't think the attack roll change is relevant here, since Forceful only specifies attacks, not attack rolls.Isn't the question whether the early attack rolls (i.e. trip) count as attacks for the later damage bonus on one's Strikes?
I'm pretty sure it's clear the other direction, since the maneuvers typically don't do damage though I suppose some feats or a crit success might, I don't see them adding damage because the damage dice aren't involved.
However :
undefined + 2 = undefined
If there is no damage occuring, is adding to it valid at all? This part is unclear.
There are feats like Brutal Bulling that do do damage with athletics maneuvers. Trip does do damage on a critical success anyway. So it would make sense here.
0 + 2 = 2I don't think the attack roll change is relevant here, since Forceful only specifies attacks, not attack rolls.Isn't the question whether the early attack rolls (i.e. trip) count as attacks for the later damage bonus on one's Strikes?
I'm pretty sure it's clear the other direction, since the maneuvers typically don't do damage though I suppose some feats or a crit success might, I don't see them adding damage because the damage dice aren't involved.
However :
undefined + 2 = undefined
If there is no damage occuring, is adding to it valid at all? This part is unclear.
There are feats like Brutal Bulling that do do damage with athletics maneuvers. Trip does do damage on a critical success anyway. So it would make sense here.
Right, there's no damage phase to add the damage to.
And there are exceptions where there is damage to add to, yet do those actions with attack rolls/the Attack trait count as attacks?The point about the Finesse/Dex ruling was that not all actions with an attack roll or even the attack trait qualify as an "attack" something I find ridiculous, yet it's canon. :/
So yes, there are other attacks than a Strike, yet if maneuvers are off the table I can't think of any that can be done w/ a weapon.
0 + 2 = 2I don't think the attack roll change is relevant here, since Forceful only specifies attacks, not attack rolls.Isn't the question whether the early attack rolls (i.e. trip) count as attacks for the later damage bonus on one's Strikes?
I'm pretty sure it's clear the other direction, since the maneuvers typically don't do damage though I suppose some feats or a crit success might, I don't see them adding damage because the damage dice aren't involved.
Not correct, since it requires that the attack must deal weapon damage dice for it to be affected.
When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice
Even barring the whole "unarmed attacks aren't weapons" shenanigans that can ensue, which is obviously not intended since the rules still give them a weapon damage dice. Even simple "Damage equal to Strength modifier" rules don't apply, since those aren't weapon damage dice.
To be clear, a more accurate equation would be if we took Forceful to equal X, which is equal to Y, which can be solved as the number of strikes being made (equal to Z) minus 1.
So, if 1X = 1Y = Z - 1, and we plug in 1 for Z, it all equals 0, simulating a first strike in the turn. But, as we add in 2 and 3, it becomes 1 and 2, respectively. Throwing in Striking Runes just means we just put each side of the equation (or all of it entirely) in parentheses with a 2, 3, or 4, since those mimic Striking, Greater Striking, and Major Striking runes, respectively.
A more interesting interaction would be if feats that involve weapon damage like Improved Knockdown would actually trigger off of weapon traits like Forceful, since the Trip damage is equal to your Weapon Damage Dice. I don't think it does, but a RAW reading would indeed say that yes, you would add Forceful's benefits to that Trip effect, even if RAI, I don't think it would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
0 + 2 = 2Isn't the question whether the early attack rolls (i.e. trip) count as attacks for the later damage bonus on one's Strikes?
I'm pretty sure it's clear the other direction, since the maneuvers typically don't do damage though I suppose some feats or a crit success might, I don't see them adding damage because the damage dice aren't involved.
Not correct, since it requires that the attack must deal weapon damage dice for it to be affected.
When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice
Fair enough. I'll admit I skimmed the ability while replying to that post and missed that the forceful trait seems to be related to the number of weapon damage dice of the attack and not of the weapon, which makes it pretty clearly 0, so we have 0 + 0 = 0, not 0 + 2 = 0. I stand corrected.
That being said this:
undefined + 2 = undefined
And this:
Right, there's no damage phase to add the damage to.
Are far from convincing. There are many affects and abilities in the game that add damage to an ability that otherwise wouldn't have damage in it, so to say that a circumstance bonus can't apply without damage already being there is an odd way of reading it IMO. I mean, it's a reasonable interpretation, but the fact that the number of damage dice = 0 for the purposes of figuring out the bonus is a much stronger counter point.
Either way, though, the result is the same. I got that wrong for sure.
P.S.
The point about the Finesse/Dex ruling was that not all actions with an attack roll or even the attack trait qualify as an "attack" something I find ridiculous, yet it's canon. :/
So yes, there are other attacks than a Strike, yet if maneuvers are off the table I can't think of any that can be done w/ a weapon.
You may want to read the errata again. All actions with the attack trait are still attacks, and all of them still add to and suffer from your MAP, but not all of them use an "attack roll".
For reference:To clarify the different rules elements involved:
An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.
An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game (along with saving throws, skill checks, and Perception checks). They are used for Strikes and spell attacks, and traditionally target Armor Class.
Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.
Yah, looks like I switched it in my memory. :O
Which means if trip (etc.) are an attack (& skill roll, but not an attack roll), the later Strikes from a Forceful weapon should get the bonus to damage.
0 + 2 = 2Isn't the question whether the early attack rolls (i.e. trip) count as attacks for the later damage bonus on one's Strikes?
I'm pretty sure it's clear the other direction, since the maneuvers typically don't do damage though I suppose some feats or a crit success might, I don't see them adding damage because the damage dice aren't involved.
Not correct, since it requires that the attack must deal weapon damage dice for it to be affected.
When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage diceFair enough. I'll admit I skimmed the ability while replying to that post and missed that the forceful trait seems to be related to the number of weapon damage dice of the attack and not of the weapon, which makes it pretty clearly 0, so we have 0 + 0 = 0, not 0 + 2 = 0. I stand corrected.
That being said this:
undefined + 2 = undefinedAnd this:
Right, there's no damage phase to add the damage to.Are far from convincing. There are many affects and abilities in the game that add damage to an ability that otherwise wouldn't have damage in it, so to say that a circumstance bonus can't apply without damage already being there is an odd way of reading it IMO. I mean, it's a reasonable interpretation, but the fact that the number of damage dice = 0 for the purposes of figuring out the bonus is a much stronger counter point.
Either way, though, the result is the same. I got that wrong for sure.
P.S.
...The point about the Finesse/Dex ruling was that not all actions with an attack roll or even the attack trait qualify as an "attack" something I find ridiculous, yet it's canon. :/
So yes, there are other attacks than a Strike, yet if maneuvers are off the table I can't think
Those are specifically spelled out, though, whereas Forceful is more of a general approach. Forceful only applies to attacks that deal weapon damage dice. If an Attack deals 0 weapon damage dice, such as from a Trip, Grab, Shove, or Disarm, then it deals 0 bonus damage when it succeeds or critically succeeds.
As another interesting interaction, if you use a Forceful weapon with a feat like Certain Strike, a weapon trait you would think would be best suited for this type of feat, you would not benefit from Forceful simply because it deals no weapon damage dice.
Your attack deals any damage it would have dealt on a hit, excluding all damage dice.
Which means on a failure with a Certain Strike, you would only deal flat damage modifiers, like Strength and Weapon Specialization (which is a maximum of 15 by 20th level for Fighters). While Forceful is also a flat damage modifier, its benefit scales with the number of Weapon Damage Dice you use for the Attack, and with this feat, you deal 0 damage from Forceful.
Yeah... so we agree. I already admitted that I was wrong before XD
A level 4 elf monk character takes Elven Weapon Familiarity, Monastic Weaponry, Ancestral Weaponry, and Flurry of Maneuvers. The weapon chosen is the Elven curved blade.
First action is Flurry of Blows with a trip (from weapon allowed from combination of feats) followed by a strike. Next two actions are both strikes.
Based on the debate in this thread, which of those strikes gain the benefit of forceful?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A level 4 elf monk character takes Elven Weapon Familiarity, Monastic Weaponry, Ancestral Weaponry, and Flurry of Maneuvers. The weapon chosen is the Elven curved blade.
First action is Flurry of Blows with a trip (from weapon allowed from combination of feats) followed by a strike. Next two actions are both strikes.
Based on the debate in this thread, which of those strikes gain the benefit of forceful?
The trip does not gain any benefits because you are not doing weapon damage, but it's still an attack, so it counts towards the benefits of Forceful for future strikes. To break down the Forceful benefits of your action sequence with a basic Elven Curved Blade:
Trip: +0 damage, but has the Attack trait, so counts as an Attack for Forceful progression. This would be no different than if this was the first Strike in a round.
Strike 1: +1 damage, counts as an Attack for Forceful progression
Strike 2 and Strike 3: +2 damage, Forceful progression does not proceed past the benefits gained from Strike 2, but continues to apply to any future strikes made in the round, such as Strike 3.
Now, if you (interestingly) decided to Trip after making a Strike to begin with, the Trip wouldn't get any damage bonus regardless of MAP simply because it has no weapon damage dice associated with the damage, if any, being inflicted. An argument could be made with the likes of Improved Knockdown from Fighters, but that's a corner case that I suspect the RAI would be against since it's not actual weapon damage.
A level 4 elf monk character takes Elven Weapon Familiarity, Monastic Weaponry, Ancestral Weaponry, and Flurry of Maneuvers. The weapon chosen is the Elven curved blade.
First action is Flurry of Blows with a trip (from weapon allowed from combination of feats) followed by a strike. Next two actions are both strikes.
Based on the debate in this thread, which of those strikes gain the benefit of forceful?
How is the Trip made with the weapon? Without Ancestral Weaponry it wouldn't be done with an unarmed attack but simply with a free hand. I fail to see what let's the curve blade do the Trip. I'd say only the last two Strikes get the bonus damage:
1) Flurry Trip. First attack, but not with the weapon. Just a normal free-hand maneuver.
2) Flurry Strike. Second attack but first attack with the curve blade. Forceful requires previous attacks with that weapon so no bonus.
3) Strike. Second attack with the curve blade. It gets weapon dice as bonus damage.
4) Strike. Third attack with the curve blade. It gets double weapon dice as bonus damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A level 4 elf monk character takes Elven Weapon Familiarity, Monastic Weaponry, Ancestral Weaponry, and Flurry of Maneuvers. The weapon chosen is the Elven curved blade.
First action is Flurry of Blows with a trip (from weapon allowed from combination of feats) followed by a strike. Next two actions are both strikes.
Based on the debate in this thread, which of those strikes gain the benefit of forceful?How is the Trip made with the weapon? Without Ancestral Weaponry it wouldn't be done with an unarmed attack but simply with a free hand. I fail to see what let's the curve blade do the Trip. I'd say only the last two Strikes get the bonus damage:
1) Flurry Trip. First attack, but not with the weapon. Just a normal free-hand maneuver.
2) Flurry Strike. Second attack but first attack with the curve blade. Forceful requires previous attacks with that weapon so no bonus.
3) Strike. Second attack with the curve blade. It gets weapon dice as bonus damage.
4) Strike. Third attack with the curve blade. It gets double weapon dice as bonus damage.
A little indirect, but I believe there is something that allows this to happen. Let's start with Flurry of Maneuvers:
You can replace one or both of your attacks during a Flurry of Blows with Grapples, Shoves, or Trips.
So, this lets us utilize Grapple, Shove, and Trip with our attacks made with Flurry of Blows. Simple enough, and doesn't add any weapon traits to our weapons, but we do have Monastic Weaponry:
You can use melee monk weapons with any of your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks, though not if the feat or ability requires you to use a single specific type of attack, such as Crane Stance.
Okay, this still doesn't add any weapon traits, but it does give us express permission to utilize Monk weapons with Monk class feats and Monk class abilities which are reliant on unarmed attacks, and not specific ones tied to a stance feat.
So, for example, a Katar would be usable with monk feats and abilities that require unarmed attacks, such as Flurry of Blows, and even Flurry of Maneuvers, since those do require Unarmed Attacks to execute, since Flurry of Maneuvers just lets you replace attacks with, well, maneuvers.
Lastly, we have Ancestral Weaponry:
Choose an ancestry for which you have access to all weapons with that trait. For you, melee weapons with that ancestry trait and either the agile or finesse trait gain the monk trait.
All this feat does is expand ancestral weaponry with certain traits to also be considered Monk weapons, which ties into Monastic Weaponry, and by proxy, Flurry of Blows and Flurry of Maneuvers.
By RAW, you would not be able to utilize an Elven Curved Blade to Trip as an action by itself, but it appears possible to be done with the likes of Flurry of Blows transformed into Flurry of Maneuvers.
But, I can definitely see a GM ruling otherwise, even with the likes of the Knockdown feat:
Make a melee Strike. If it hits and deals damage, you can attempt an Athletics check to Trip the creature you hit. If you’re wielding a two-handed melee weapon, you can ignore Trip’s requirement that you have a hand free.
Nothing in the feat's text says you use the weapon to make the Trip. It wouldn't even technically be until Improved Knockdown where you could argue that you're using the Weapon to trip based on it altering the Critical Trip damage, but even then there's no rule stating you're making the Trip with the weapon, even if it doesn't have the Trait, all it does is give you an automatic Critical Success with the Trip check and alter the bonus damage dealt, though the flavor text would suggest it's a single attack in this case.
I think with your interpretation, though, a GM can still rule that because the weapon doesn't have the Trip trait, you still don't fulfill other requirements with the weapon, such as needing a free hand. In that case, you would have also forgot that the weapon needs to be re-gripped to use, which takes an action, which can't be done in the middle of Flurry of Blows. The turn order would have to be:
Free Action Drop Grip
1 Action Free-Hand Trip
1 Action Re-Grip Weapon
1 Action Flurry of Blows with Elven Curved Blade
In the above case, only the last attack on the Flurry of Blows would benefit from a +1 bonus to damage, since Forceful isn't MAP reliant, but weapon strike reliant. That is, you can still be at -10 with a weapon, but if you never swung with the weapon in question, it won't get the bonus damage until the future attacks are made.
A level 4 elf monk character takes Elven Weapon Familiarity, Monastic Weaponry, Ancestral Weaponry, and Flurry of Maneuvers. The weapon chosen is the Elven curved blade.
First action is Flurry of Blows with a trip (from weapon allowed from combination of feats) followed by a strike. Next two actions are both strikes.
Based on the debate in this thread, which of those strikes gain the benefit of forceful?How is the Trip made with the weapon? Without Ancestral Weaponry it wouldn't be done with an unarmed attack but simply with a free hand. I fail to see what let's the curve blade do the Trip. I'd say only the last two Strikes get the bonus damage:
1) Flurry Trip. First attack, but not with the weapon. Just a normal free-hand maneuver.
2) Flurry Strike. Second attack but first attack with the curve blade. Forceful requires previous attacks with that weapon so no bonus.
3) Strike. Second attack with the curve blade. It gets weapon dice as bonus damage.
4) Strike. Third attack with the curve blade. It gets double weapon dice as bonus damage.
Yeah, this part is still in debate, or more accurately just never got a clear answer because there's multiple valid interpretations, with the question being what counts as an attack with that weapon. Sounds like an upto the GM kind of thing for whether the attack is thematically happening with the weapon or not unless it actively has that trait on the weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
So, for example, a Katar would be usable with monk feats and abilities that require unarmed attacks, such as Flurry of Blows, and even Flurry of Maneuvers, since those do require Unarmed Attacks to execute, since Flurry of Maneuvers just lets you replace attacks with, well, maneuvers.
...
I understand that Monastic Weaponry lets you use weapons with stuff like Flurry of Blows. But Flurry of Maneuvers in particular DOESN'T require unarmed attacks - you can use it without possessing any natural attacks if you only use free-hand-maneuvers.
If I go with your reading, would I be able to Shove or Grapple at reach by using Flurry of Maneuvers with a Bo staff?
...
So, for example, a Katar would be usable with monk feats and abilities that require unarmed attacks, such as Flurry of Blows, and even Flurry of Maneuvers, since those do require Unarmed Attacks to execute, since Flurry of Maneuvers just lets you replace attacks with, well, maneuvers.
...I understand that Monastic Weaponry lets you use weapons with stuff like Flurry of Blows. But Flurry of Maneuvers in particular DOESN'T require unarmed attacks - you can use it without possessing any natural attacks if you only use free-hand-maneuvers.
If I go with your reading, would I be able to Shove or Grapple at reach by using Flurry of Maneuvers with a Bo staff?
Flurry of maneuvers allows to replace the strikes with: disarm, trip, grapple. One would not be able to shove.
0 + 2 = 2I don't think the attack roll change is relevant here, since Forceful only specifies attacks, not attack rolls.Isn't the question whether the early attack rolls (i.e. trip) count as attacks for the later damage bonus on one's Strikes?
I'm pretty sure it's clear the other direction, since the maneuvers typically don't do damage though I suppose some feats or a crit success might, I don't see them adding damage because the damage dice aren't involved.
Not correct, since it requires that the attack must deal weapon damage dice for it to be affected.
When you attack with it more than once on your turn, the second attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice
I have always read that as being: 'the second attack gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice of the weapon.'
Though I agree with (what I think is) the conclusion that if the attack being made with the weapon doesn't normally deal damage, then the forceful trait doesn't add its own.
Flurry of maneuvers allows to replace the strikes with: disarm, trip, grapple. One would not be able to shove.
AoN and pf2.easytools both say Grapple, Shove and Trip.
Flurry of maneuvers allows to replace the strikes with: disarm, trip, grapple. One would not be able to shove.AoN and pf2.easytools both say Grapple, Shove and Trip.
That is correct. I misread the feat.
I believe the disarm was wishful thinking on my part for a character build idea I had.
Flurry of maneuvers allows to replace the strikes with: disarm, trip, grapple. One would not be able to shove....
So, for example, a Katar would be usable with monk feats and abilities that require unarmed attacks, such as Flurry of Blows, and even Flurry of Maneuvers, since those do require Unarmed Attacks to execute, since Flurry of Maneuvers just lets you replace attacks with, well, maneuvers.
...I understand that Monastic Weaponry lets you use weapons with stuff like Flurry of Blows. But Flurry of Maneuvers in particular DOESN'T require unarmed attacks - you can use it without possessing any natural attacks if you only use free-hand-maneuvers.
If I go with your reading, would I be able to Shove or Grapple at reach by using Flurry of Maneuvers with a Bo staff?
Actually, you can't Disarm with it, Shoves are perfectly legal. For reference:
You can replace one or both of your attacks during a Flurry of Blows with Grapples, Shoves, or Trips.
And with my initial reading, you would be able to Shove and Grapple with the Bo Staff. The Shove doesn't seem problematic, but the Grapple could be. To be fair, though, if you're using the Bo Staff to grapple, you wouldn't be able to use it for Striking the enemy, which is no different than if you were to use a weapon with the Grapple trait. Consequently, you also would be out of reach with your other attacks unless you took, say, the Lunge feat from a Fighter multi-class for your Unarmed Strikes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flurry of Maneuvers doesn't remove the requirements of having a free hand or a weapon trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flurry of Maneuvers doesn't remove the requirements of having a free hand or a weapon trait.
Monastic Weaponry does when combined with FoM
Flurry of Maneuvers doesn't remove the requirements of having a free hand or a weapon trait.Monastic Weaponry does when combined with FoM
For those wondering, the relevant text:
You can use melee monk weapons with any of your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks, though not if the feat or ability requires you to use a single specific type of attack, such as Crane Stance.
You flurry is a combination of maneuvers. You can replace one or both of your attacks during a Flurry of Blows with Grapples, Shoves, or Trips.
Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As it has the flourish trait, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn.
And, then, of course, the subordinate actions "Grapple", "Shove", and "Trip", which each have:
Requirements You have at least one hand free. Your target can’t be more than one size larger than you.
Feel free to decide for yourself. Personally, I agree with SuperBidi, as there's nothing in the wording of Flurry of Maneuvers to overcome the free hand requirement. In my mind this is the same concept as an ability that says that I can "Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon." Having this feat doesn't guarantee that I'll always have a weapon near me, or that I can always strike with said weapon. I still need to have a weapon that's drawable, and an enemy I can attack with the weapon in range.
That being said, if the weapon had the Trip trait, if it was a 1-handed weapon and the character's other hand was free, or anything else that satisfies the requirements of the referenced subordinate action[s], then it would certainly be allowed.
I have to agree with Aw3som3 and SuperBidi. FoM lets you perform one of those actions as part of your flurry, but nothing suggests you get to treat your weapon or unarmed attack as if it had the maneuver trait.
I have to agree with Aw3som3 and SuperBidi. FoM lets you perform one of those actions as part of your flurry, but nothing suggests you get to treat your weapon or unarmed attack as if it had the maneuver trait.
Or that you perform the maneuver with the weapon in particular, meaning no item bonuses and stuff apply.
Eh, I obviously interpret it as I’ve stated. It’s more corner case as the set-up requires several feats and the resulting math isn’t as favorable as it sounds; there is a low chance of successful strikes beyond the flurry. It may be just as (poorly) profitable by using action one to trip via unarmed, then follow it with a flurry. Two fewer points of potential damage at early levels with a striking rune or one without...
As a GM, I go with what is more fun for the players especially if they are willing to pay the taxes and it doesn’t break the math. I have yet to find anything that breaks the math.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monastic Weaponry does when combined with FoM
Sure, and with Monastic Archery you Grapple at 60 feet.
Monastic Weaponry does when combined with FoMSure, and with Monastic Archery you Grapple at 60 feet.
Yeah, I think that's a very good argument against that maneuvers are made with the weapon when using FoM. The wording on Monastic Archery and Monastic Weaponry is the same so if you allow it with one you should allow it with the other.
You can use weapons only in place of unarmed attacks with the monk weapon feats. If you don't normally make an unarmed attack during a monk ability you don't use the weapon with that ability.
Monastic Weaponry does when combined with FoMSure, and with Monastic Archery you Grapple at 60 feet.
Let’s see. As the point of grapple is to immobilize the enemy...have you seen the critical specialization of bows? Looks a lot like a grapple. Hmm. Maybe within that first range increment, the answer is yes. So 60’? No. But 30’ with a shortbow and 50’ with a longbow, maybe yes.
I know it sounds like a rather heavy push to possible tear of the suspension of disbelief, but I would argue so does jumping 60’ in the air just because one has a skill feat.
To be honest, it's not just a skill feat: you must also be legendary, which means level 15+.
Grappling at range is problematic not because you can't find a way to explain it narratively, but because it needs adjustments to the basic rule for this case specifically.
Monastic Weaponry does when combined with FoMSure, and with Monastic Archery you Grapple at 60 feet.Let’s see. As the point of grapple is to immobilize the enemy...have you seen the critical specialization of bows? Looks a lot like a grapple. Hmm. Maybe within that first range increment, the answer is yes. So 60’? No. But 30’ with a shortbow and 50’ with a longbow, maybe yes.
I know it sounds like a rather heavy push to possible tear of the suspension of disbelief, but I would argue so does jumping 60’ in the air just because one has a skill feat.
lol, so we're definitely not talking about rules anymore XD
I mean, where did the first range increment (or 50' for longbow) even come from there? Sounds like 100% homebrew, which is fine and all, but this was a thread asking about how a rule is supposed to work, right? XD
Monastic Weaponry does when combined with FoMSure, and with Monastic Archery you Grapple at 60 feet.Let’s see. As the point of grapple is to immobilize the enemy...have you seen the critical specialization of bows? Looks a lot like a grapple. Hmm. Maybe within that first range increment, the answer is yes. So 60’? No. But 30’ with a shortbow and 50’ with a longbow, maybe yes.
I know it sounds like a rather heavy push to possible tear of the suspension of disbelief, but I would argue so does jumping 60’ in the air just because one has a skill feat.
lol, so we're definitely not talking about rules anymore XD
I mean, where did the first range increment (or 50' for longbow) even come from there? Sounds like 100% homebrew, which is fine and all, but this was a thread asking about how a rule is supposed to work, right? XD
The range increments are stated directly in the feat -
APG pg.128“MONASTIC ARCHER STANCE [one-action] FEAT 1
Requirements You are unarmored and wielding a longbow, shortbow, or a bow with the monk trait.
You enter a specialized stance for a unique martial art centered around the use of a bow. While in this stance, the only Strikes you can make are those using longbows, shortbows, or bows with the monk trait. You can use Flurry of Blows with these bows. You can use your other monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks with these bows when attacking within half the first range increment (normally 50 feet for a longbow and 30 feet for a shortbow), so long as the feat or ability doesn’t require a single, specific Strike.”
To be honest, it's not just a skill feat: you must also be legendary, which means level 15+.
Grappling at range is problematic not because you can't find a way to explain it narratively, but because it needs adjustments to the basic rule for this case specifically.
But do we agree that cloud jump is a comic book style super heroic feat? Whether one has to have enough “levels” under their belt to break laws of physics without magic doesn’t alter that the act is available potentially to all and only via being skillful enough at athletics. By the very existence of feats like cloud jump, it seems fair to me to determine that the PCs are intended to be more comic style super than regular fantasy levels. Therefore, I don’t immediately scoff at what may seem “too good to be true” until it has been proven through practice to be so.
I am fully willing to accept that RAI was never to allow ranged grapples, shoves, and trips. But as much fun as it is to discuss rules and as helpful it is to see other perspectives of interpretations, without direct confirmation to state one way or the other, in my eyes RAW works as I have shown.
Right, sorry about missing where the range increments came from, but that doesn't change the fact that you still need to be able to do a subordinate action to be able to, well, do that subordinate action. If that wasn't the case every action that says that you make a strike and doesn't explicitly give you a range for it would have infinite range, since it doesn't say that it requires me to be next to the opponent, after all (just like how flurry of maneuvers doesn't say you need a free hand).
I'm not exaggerating here. A Strike is a subordinate action that uses your weapon's range or reach. If nothing about the subordinate action's requirements or limits transfer over and you can automatically perform it just because a feat says that you "can use" something for it, then any feat that allows you to strike in a way you normally wouldn't be able to grants infinite range unless specifically giving you a range for the strike.
Also, lets not forget here that the action "grapple" is not a "monk feat or monk ability that normally requires unarmed attacks". It's a basic action, and it has requirements. In fact, flurry of maneuvers doesn't even require you to make unarmed attacks. It allows you to make certain actions when using flurry of blows. You can have flurry of maneuvers and not replace any of your standard actions if you want, and you can also have flurry of maneuvers and use it with a monastic weapon... as long as you have a hand free.
Again, I don't care what you do in your game, and maybe that'd be a cool homebrew; idk, and idc. But when people are discussing interpretations for a rule it would be a disservice to not point out the massive flaws in an argument like this so others aren't swayed and think it actually makes sense and isn't just homebrew or an interesting idea. Which is all I was doing at first, btw. I just said "Here's the rules. People can decide", but then the insistence that it made sense when it so obviously doesn't, the twisting of rules, and even pointing to completely irrelevant rules that break physics as if that's somehow relevant to your point, obviously just trying to throw doubt into the mix...
I just... "sigh"
Why do I post here again? It's only been what, 2 months? Maybe the habit hasn't kicked in too hard yet and I can just stop checking the forums. There's no way this is not only healthy, but also a good use of my time
Anyway, I'll shut up now... On this thread ;) (I have no self control, lol)
But when people are discussing interpretations for a rule it would be a disservice to not point out the massive flaws in an argument like this so others aren't swayed and think it actually makes sense and isn't just homebrew or an interesting idea.
I’m so sorry to offend so deeply. I shall definitely keep my comments to myself as the utter destruction that would befall us all if others shared my interpretation of the rules is something that just cannot be risked. Thank all the gods you were here to stop me and shut this down before another may agree. You are a true hero and provide a great service to us all.