PDA

View Full Version : Unarmed dmg + natural weapons?



RagnaroksChosen
2009-05-29, 04:41 PM
Ok Random thought here.

So lets say i play a monk or a monk/Swordsage/ or something with decent unarmed dmg that has improved unarmed and superior unarmed feat or is a monk. And i play a race with Natural weapons... the first one i can think of off the top of my head is a Kobold with the web enhancement.

Can i then make a full attack doing this rotation?
Unarmed -2
Bite -5
Claw x2 -5

Then i guess the next question is can you flurry and make all your natural weapons?

Glimbur
2009-05-29, 05:12 PM
If you're making just one unarmed attack as your "iteratives", you can use it at no penalty. In a full attack you can then also use your natural attacks as secondary attacks, at -5 each.

Flurry should only affect your unarmed attacks... in that it'll get you one more of them. The penalty to hit from flurrying will also apply to your natural secondary attacks.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-05-29, 05:20 PM
so in theory then a 1st level kobold monk would with two weapon fighitng

could do as a full attack:
-4/-4/-4 unarmed
-5 bite
-5/-5 claw?

I wonder then if a changling 1 monk/ 4 [full bab class]/1 warshaper
could do (with two weapon fighitng of course)
-4/-4/-4 unarmed
-5 bite
-5 tenticle
-5 claw
-5 gore
-5 slam
-5 sting
as a full attack(of course after a bunch of move actions to grow those)
lol lion totem is all i can think of

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-29, 05:24 PM
so in theory then a 1st level kobold monk would with two weapon fighitng

could do:
-4/-4/-4 unarmed
-5 bite
-5/-5 claw?First, YOU CANNOT TWF WITH UNARMED STRIKES!

Also, the bite and claws would be at -9, not -5. Penalties from FOB and TWF apply to all attacks, including natural weapons and AoOs, made for the next round.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-29, 05:26 PM
Where does it say that? Your unarmed counts as a light weapon, it would make -no sense- to not let you attack with both hands if you have the feat.

Chronos
2009-05-29, 05:40 PM
Yes, but you only have one body. Unarmed strike is treated as a single weapon, therefore you can't two-weapon fight with it. You could two-weapon fight with an unarmed strike and a nunchuck, or with two nunchucks, but the drawback to that is that a hand holding a weapon can't be used for claw attacks.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-29, 05:46 PM
Where does it say that? Your unarmed counts as a light weapon, it would make -no sense- to not let you attack with both hands if you have the feat.
There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a Monk fighting unarmedIf you're fighting Unarmed without Monk levels, your Unarmed Attack is done with a fist, meaning it is no longer usable for claw attacks(and you lose FoB).

Glimbur
2009-05-29, 05:49 PM
so in theory then a 1st level kobold monk would with two weapon fighitng

could do as a full attack:
-4/-4/-4 unarmed
-5 bite
-5/-5 claw?

I wonder then if a changling 1 monk/ 4 [full bab class]/1 warshaper
could do (with two weapon fighitng of course)
-4/-4/-4 unarmed
-5 bite
-5 tenticle
-5 claw
-5 gore
-5 slam
-5 sting
as a full attack(of course after a bunch of move actions to grow those)
lol lion totem is all i can think of

If we're being mean with Warshaper class features, why stop at one tentacle?

ZeroNumerous
2009-05-29, 06:14 PM
Multiattack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#multiattack) and Improved Multiattack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#improvedMultiattack). This is relevant to your interests.

woodenbandman
2009-05-29, 11:40 PM
God I love warshapers. That "may grow natural weapons" line is cheese gold.

Keld Denar
2009-05-30, 12:17 AM
Gah, this again. Why you guys always gotta be hatin on monks TWFing? I still don't buy your arguements. Sure, a monk doesn't normally have an offhand...until you actually GIVE them one, and you do that by TWFing.

Power-wise, it breaks nothing. It adds even more MAD to a monk, raising minimum dex requirements. It also lowers to hit chances even more than Flurry already does. Plus, the monk COULD indisputably TWF as long as he had a special monk weapon offhand, so why not make those offhand attacks possible with an UAS? Monks can strike fast with flurry, no doubt, but if they try to attack faster, then their strikes get less accurate (hit penality), and some of their blows don't hit as hard (.5 str bonus for offhand weapon).

Don't get so hung up on that one phrase. It only describes the normal monk attack style.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-30, 12:26 AM
Gah, this again. Why you guys always gotta be hatin on monks TWFing? I still don't buy your arguements. Sure, a monk doesn't normally have an offhand...until you actually GIVE them one, and you do that by TWFing.

Power-wise, it breaks nothing. It adds even more MAD to a monk, raising minimum dex requirements. It also lowers to hit chances even more than Flurry already does. Plus, the monk COULD indisputably TWF as long as he had a special monk weapon offhand, so why not make those offhand attacks possible with an UAS? Monks can strike fast with flurry, no doubt, but if they try to attack faster, then their strikes get less accurate (hit penality), and some of their blows don't hit as hard (.5 str bonus for offhand weapon).

Don't get so hung up on that one phrase. It only describes the normal monk attack style.First off, everyone with 2 weapons can have an off-hand attack, the penalties are just such that people treat it like Monkey Grip. The feat just reduces those penalties.

Also, I perfer RAW arguments to the flavor arguments that actually inform my decision, since the RAW is more universal. I also don't usually pull out the argument that Flurry is most likely meant to replace TWF, and slowly reduce the penalties for it, and so shouldn't stack.

However, a Monk attacking with Unarmed Strike is hitting an enemy with all of their body. Flurry of Blows is essentially the Monk smacking you with elbows, knees, fists, feet, and occasionally headbutting. It's already attacking with the whole body, that's why it gets the damage boost. What is left for the off-hand to wield?

Keld Denar
2009-05-30, 12:46 AM
More blows with that body?

So, lets make up a monk, call him 1st level for ease, and lets put a Kama in one hand. It doesn't really matter which.

Now, that monk initiates a flurry of blows. He can attack twice as a full attack action. These attacks can be made with his UAS, or his special monk weapons, which a Kama clearly is, or any combination of them.

So far, so good, right?

Now, we give that monk the TWF feat (and I know, he wouldn't actually need it, but bear with me).

So, now he wants to flurry again. He can still flurry with his UAS or his special monk weapons or any combination of them. In addition, he wants to make an offhand attack. He chooses to do so with his Kama. This is allowed, right?

So...whats the difference between making additional attacks with a Kama held in the "offhand", as opposed to making additional attacks with an UAS?

Offhand here is kinda undefined, since a monk using a Kama as part of a flurry doesn't care which hand he's holding the Kama in. Its not until you factor in the TWFing that "offhand" is even relavant. So, if the Kama is suddenly offhand because he's TWFing with it, does that mean that Kama attacks as part of the flurry are also offhand? That violates the fact that a monk making flurry attacks never has an offhand. Some Kama attacks are "mainhand" and some are "offhand". Why?

So, offhand is not a quality tied to the actual hand, but rather to the mechanical drawbacks you take on when you make additional attacks in a round using the TWF combat action. So, if its only tied to the increased number of attacks, then why can't you make all those attacks with your UAS, with your flurry attacks gaining 1x str and your TWFing attacks gaining .5x str?

RagnaroksChosen
2009-05-30, 12:58 AM
More blows with that body?

So, lets make up a monk, call him 1st level for ease, and lets put a Kama in one hand. It doesn't really matter which.

Now, that monk initiates a flurry of blows. He can attack twice as a full attack action. These attacks can be made with his UAS, or his special monk weapons, which a Kama clearly is, or any combination of them.

So far, so good, right?

Now, we give that monk the TWF feat (and I know, he wouldn't actually need it, but bear with me).

So, now he wants to flurry again. He can still flurry with his UAS or his special monk weapons or any combination of them. In addition, he wants to make an offhand attack. He chooses to do so with his Kama. This is allowed, right?

So...whats the difference between making additional attacks with a Kama held in the "offhand", as opposed to making additional attacks with an UAS?

Offhand here is kinda undefined, since a monk using a Kama as part of a flurry doesn't care which hand he's holding the Kama in. Its not until you factor in the TWFing that "offhand" is even relavant. So, if the Kama is suddenly offhand because he's TWFing with it, does that mean that Kama attacks as part of the flurry are also offhand? That violates the fact that a monk making flurry attacks never has an offhand. Some Kama attacks are "mainhand" and some are "offhand". Why?

So, offhand is not a quality tied to the actual hand, but rather to the mechanical drawbacks you take on when you make additional attacks in a round using the TWF combat action. So, if its only tied to the increased number of attacks, then why can't you make all those attacks with your UAS, with your flurry attacks gaining 1x str and your TWFing attacks gaining .5x str?

Thank you...


Sstoopidtallkid:

Opps forgot to factor in the extra -2 ... my bad.

I'm interested to see your response to Keld Denar...

Logicaly TWF makes sense. as per Keld Denar responce. as well as raw. wasn't there an FAQ about it.?

olentu
2009-05-30, 01:10 AM
Well aside from the FAQ not being part of the rules I do not remember anything in the flurry entry talking about an offhand. I believe that the offhand thing is in the unarmed strike entry.

Keld Denar
2009-05-30, 01:15 AM
Yea, but Sstoopidtallkid's opinion of the Sage is...well...less than upstanding.

Back on topic. You have a Kobald Monk1. He has a claw/claw/bite routine. He's also a monk, and can make UASs with his whole body.

His attack progression would look thusly:

Unarmed Strikes: -2/-2
Claw Claw Bite: -7/-7/-7

This is because his manufactured weapon (which monks count as) gets his full iteratives. He then makes his full compliment of natural attacks, all at -5 since they are secondary and making monk attacks does not interfere with his free use of claws since UASs can be kicks, headbutts, etc. Multiattack would reduce the secondary weapon penalties to -4, and Improved Multiattack would reduce the secondary weapon penalties to -2, to bring them in line with the monk's primary attacks.

If he were to TWF with his UASs, assuming its RAW legal (which I think it is), then his attacks would look like this:

Unarmed Strikes: -4/-4/-4
Claw Claw Bite: -9/-9/-9

Now we are stacking the -2 for flurry and the -2 for TWF on the main hand, and the -5 on top of those for the natural attacks since they are secondary.

So, see how natural attacks are tacked onto a standard full attack? Now, if the kobald was NOT a monk, and was wielding a glaive, he would only be able to make his bite attack as a secondary natural weapon, since his hands would be too full of glaive to make claw attacks.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-05-30, 01:54 AM
Yea, but Sstoopidtallkid's opinion of the Sage is...well...less than upstanding.

Back on topic. You have a Kobald Monk1. He has a claw/claw/bite routine. He's also a monk, and can make UASs with his whole body.

His attack progression would look thusly:

Unarmed Strikes: -2/-2
Claw Claw Bite: -7/-7/-7

This is because his manufactured weapon (which monks count as) gets his full iteratives. He then makes his full compliment of natural attacks, all at -5 since they are secondary and making monk attacks does not interfere with his free use of claws since UASs can be kicks, headbutts, etc. Multiattack would reduce the secondary weapon penalties to -4, and Improved Multiattack would reduce the secondary weapon penalties to -2, to bring them in line with the monk's primary attacks.

If he were to TWF with his UASs, assuming its RAW legal (which I think it is), then his attacks would look like this:

Unarmed Strikes: -4/-4/-4
Claw Claw Bite: -9/-9/-9

Now we are stacking the -2 for flurry and the -2 for TWF on the main hand, and the -5 on top of those for the natural attacks since they are secondary.

So, see how natural attacks are tacked onto a standard full attack? Now, if the kobald was NOT a monk, and was wielding a glaive, he would only be able to make his bite attack as a secondary natural weapon, since his hands would be too full of glaive to make claw attacks.
ic what your getting at. thats seems pritty nice. now if i could find some thing with obsene amounts of natural attacks....

Could a level 1 monk/wizard x that can cast alter self and being an abberation could get 10 tenticle attacks via grell. that would be amusing.

Kyouhen
2009-05-30, 02:10 AM
There was one prestige class I can't remember the name of that let you polymorph into creatures of your own design by taking a feature from one (let's say a kraken's tentacle attacks) and slapping them onto a normal polymorph (let's say a 12-headed hydra). Now of course you'd have to be pretty high level to pull that combo off, but that would be something like 20 attack plus your flurry of blows at the time. :smalltongue:

Demons_eye
2009-05-30, 10:18 AM
The city bralwer variant for the Barbarian gets TWF Unarmed strike for free at level one. You might have to get you DM to let you take ITWF tho.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-05-30, 02:22 PM
Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (part one) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a)
Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (part two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a)
Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (part three) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a)

According to that, a Monk can't use Flurry with TWF, and can't use Flurry with any nonmonk weapons including natural weapons:

"A monk cannot use a flurry when using anything other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon. A nonmonk weapon or a natural weapon can't be combined with a flurry in any way." part two

"If a monk is not using her flurry of blows ability, she can claim an extra attack from a second weapon. If she does, she takes all the penalties for attacking with two weapons and for attacking with off-hand weapons. A monk using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack does not suffer any off-hand penalties; however, under the regular rules for two-weapon fighting you get only one extra attack for an off-hand weapon." part three

Note that a Monk using TWF doesn't take any penalties to his offhand attacks, he even gets his full Strength bonus to offhand unarmed strike damage. If a Monk has the feat Two-Weapon Fighting, his attacks would look like this:
Primary unarmed strike: -2 (can't flurry)
Offhand unarmed strike: +0 (no penalty)
2 Claws secondary: -7 (TWF penalties apply)
Bite secondary: -7 (TWF penalties apply)
Note that the Claw and Bite penalties could be lessened with the feats Multiattack and Improved Multiattack. Also note that your Unarmed Strikes can be made with kicks, knees, elbows, etc. leaving your hands free to deliver claw attacks.

As another example, take a Monk build that gets a +16 BAB, with the feats TWF, ITWF, GTWF, Multiattack, Improved Multiattack, Rapidstrike (Claw), and Improved Rapidstrike (Claw) from the Draconomicon. His attacks would look as follows, not counting any bonuses for Strength or magic items, just +16 BAB and penalties:
Primary unarmed strike: +14/+9/+4/-1
Offhand unarmed strike: +16/+11/+6
2 Claws secondary: +14/+9/+4/-1 (each)
Bite secondary: +14
Get a Necklace of Natural Weapons from Savage Species, enchanted to give all of your natural weapons +1 Wounding, and find a way to get the spell Wraithstrike, and this may actually be a viable character in the higher levels.

olentu
2009-05-30, 03:23 PM
Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (part one) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a)
Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (part two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a)
Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (part three) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a)

According to that, a Monk can't use Flurry with TWF, and can't use Flurry with any nonmonk weapons including natural weapons:

"A monk cannot use a flurry when using anything other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon. A nonmonk weapon or a natural weapon can't be combined with a flurry in any way." part two

"If a monk is not using her flurry of blows ability, she can claim an extra attack from a second weapon. If she does, she takes all the penalties for attacking with two weapons and for attacking with off-hand weapons. A monk using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack does not suffer any off-hand penalties; however, under the regular rules for two-weapon fighting you get only one extra attack for an off-hand weapon." part three

Note that a Monk using TWF doesn't take any penalties to his offhand attacks, he even gets his full Strength bonus to offhand unarmed strike damage. If a Monk has the feat Two-Weapon Fighting, his attacks would look like this:
Primary unarmed strike: -2 (can't flurry)
Offhand unarmed strike: +0 (no penalty)
2 Claws secondary: -7 (TWF penalties apply)
Bite secondary: -7 (TWF penalties apply)
Note that the Claw and Bite penalties could be lessened with the feats Multiattack and Improved Multiattack. Also note that your Unarmed Strikes can be made with kicks, knees, elbows, etc. leaving your hands free to deliver claw attacks.

As another example, take a Monk build that gets a +16 BAB, with the feats TWF, ITWF, GTWF, Multiattack, Improved Multiattack, Rapidstrike (Claw), and Improved Rapidstrike (Claw) from the Draconomicon. His attacks would look as follows, not counting any bonuses for Strength or magic items, just +16 BAB and penalties:
Primary unarmed strike: +14/+9/+4/-1
Offhand unarmed strike: +16/+11/+6
2 Claws secondary: +14/+9/+4/-1 (each)
Bite secondary: +14
Get a Necklace of Natural Weapons from Savage Species, enchanted to give all of your natural weapons +1 Wounding, and find a way to get the spell Wraithstrike, and this may actually be a viable character in the higher levels.

Those rules of the game articles are also not really part of the rules. In fact there is at least one part that I noticed in a quick run over that does not match the rules.

The rules of the game article says

"Unarmed Attacks and Touch Spells

As Rules of the Game has noted before, you can use an unarmed attack to deliver a spell with touch range. You make the unarmed attack as you would normally. Your unarmed attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity because you're delivering a touch spell. If your attack roll is high enough to hit your target's regular Armor Class (not just its touch Armor Class), you deal unarmed strike damage and you also deliver the spell. If your attack roll fails to hit your target's regular Armor Class, the attack fails. It deals no damage and you don't deliver the spell either. You are, however, still holding the spell, just as if you failed with a touch attack."

While the SRD says

"Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you arenít considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesnít provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge."

So since that is a bit of text the difference is that the article says that "Your unarmed attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity because you're delivering a touch spell" while the SRD says "In this case, you arenít considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack."

The SRD version also appears to be in agreement with the Rules Compendium about delivering touch spells through an unarmed strike or natural weapon.

And so while this argument "a Monk can't use Flurry with TWF, and can't use Flurry with any nonmonk weapons including natural weapons:" may or may not be correct some actual rules will probably be needed to back it up.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-05-30, 03:51 PM
Those rules of the game articles are also not really part of the rules. In fact there is at least one part that I noticed in a quick run over that does not match the rules.

The rules of the game article says

"Unarmed Attacks and Touch Spells

As Rules of the Game has noted before, you can use an unarmed attack to deliver a spell with touch range. You make the unarmed attack as you would normally. Your unarmed attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity because you're delivering a touch spell. If your attack roll is high enough to hit your target's regular Armor Class (not just its touch Armor Class), you deal unarmed strike damage and you also deliver the spell. If your attack roll fails to hit your target's regular Armor Class, the attack fails. It deals no damage and you don't deliver the spell either. You are, however, still holding the spell, just as if you failed with a touch attack."

While the SRD says

"Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you arenít considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesnít provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge."

So since that is a bit of text the difference is that the article says that "Your unarmed attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity because you're delivering a touch spell" while the SRD says "In this case, you arenít considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack."

The SRD version also appears to be in agreement with the Rules Compendium about delivering touch spells through an unarmed strike or natural weapon.

And so while this argument "a Monk can't use Flurry with TWF, and can't use Flurry with any nonmonk weapons including natural weapons:" may or may not be correct some actual rules will probably be needed to back it up.

Combing the entire article series for a single sentence, especially one completely unrelated to the current discussion, that conflicts with the rules does not invalidate the entire article series.

This was also addressed in an issue of Dragon magazine from early 2004, iirc it was the anniversary issue with a silver dragon on the cover. According to that, a monk can indeed use TWF with unarmed strikes, and can even use TWF with flurry of blows. Furthermore, it clarified that the limitation of unarmed strikes and special monk weapons for flurry of blows applied only to the character's primary attacks, and that a Monk could combine offhand attacks with non-monk weapons and secondary natural weapon attacks with a flurry of blows as long as his primary attacks were all made with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. It also clarified that the part about there not being an offhand for a monk striking unarmed applied only to his primary attacks, and that a monk could benefit from the two weapon fighting rules as normal, taking all the normal penalties to his offhand attacks which in this case would indeed be considered offhand attacks even if made with unarmed strikes. I believe that this is the most accurate interpretation of the intent of the rules, though I don't have an exact quote on the source.

olentu
2009-05-30, 04:27 PM
Combing the entire article series for a single sentence, especially one completely unrelated to the current discussion, that conflicts with the rules does not invalidate the entire article series.

This was also addressed in an issue of Dragon magazine from early 2004, iirc it was the anniversary issue with a silver dragon on the cover. According to that, a monk can indeed use TWF with unarmed strikes, and can even use TWF with flurry of blows. Furthermore, it clarified that the limitation of unarmed strikes and special monk weapons for flurry of blows applied only to the character's primary attacks, and that a Monk could combine offhand attacks with non-monk weapons and secondary natural weapon attacks with a flurry of blows as long as his primary attacks were all made with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. It also clarified that the part about there not being an offhand for a monk striking unarmed applied only to his primary attacks, and that a monk could benefit from the two weapon fighting rules as normal, taking all the normal penalties to his offhand attacks which in this case would indeed be considered offhand attacks even if made with unarmed strikes. I believe that this is the most accurate interpretation of the intent of the rules, though I don't have an exact quote on the source.


I am not saying that the article is always wrong or that my example was the only thing that is wrong. What I am saying is that the articles are not actually rules. So if one wishes to make an argument that I would consider legitimate then any claims must be backed up by the rules. In any case there is no reason to reference the articles unless one is trying to use them to support something that does not follow the rules since if the articles follow the rules then any claims made in them can be drawn directly from the rules. My example was merely to illustrate the point that one can not blindly take the claims of the articles to be true. So any section of the articles is either superfluous (for the parts where they can be shown to follow the rules) or without basis in the rules and thus not pertinent to an argument about what the rules say.

In fact assuming that the second part of your post is correct it is possible that the articles are wrong in even more places then the one that I had noticed. Of course without the text from the issue of dragon magazine I can not say if it is correct or if it wrong but my position is still that arguments should be based in and supported by the actual rules.

ericgrau
2009-05-30, 05:58 PM
Per the FAQ and other sources I'm sure, unarmed strikes and natural attacks are two different things. No, you cannot include the natural attacks in a flurry. I'm a bit fuzzy on mixing natural attacks and regular attacks (including unarmed strikes), but I believe you give up something if you do. Finally, TWFing must include an off-hand light weapon; unarmed strikes and natural attacks don't count. There is the multi-attack feat for natural attacks, however.