PDA

View Full Version : Flurry plus TWF?



gallagher
2010-06-18, 02:03 PM
Hey all
assuming you are playing a T.Monk/Psywarrior, basing your attacks on a flurry of blows mixed with twf, what is the number of attacks that I would have with a monk2/pw6? My BAB is 5, and with my stength, weapon focus, and racial strength bonus, my regular to-hit is 11.

Is my math correct that I have three attacks at +7 each?

Keld Denar
2010-06-18, 02:06 PM
You don't have the 2nd penalty reduction (which comes at 9th level), so you'll get 3 attacks that all take a -3 off of whatever your highest calculated attack bonus is.

Do keep in mind that most Tash builds use Expansion to increase the damage of their UAS, and Expansion comes with a built in Dex penalty. If your Dex drops below whatever the minimum Dex is for TWF (15, IIRC), then TWF and any feats attached to it "turn off".

You are better off trying to pick up some natural attacks. Claws of the Beast works, or Aberrant Blood > Inhuman Reach > Deepspawn for 2 tenticles. Everything is better with tenticles.

EDIT: Yea, 3 attacks at +8, not +7.

gallagher
2010-06-18, 02:11 PM
You don't have the 2nd penalty reduction (which comes at 9th level), so you'll get 3 attacks that all take a -3 off of whatever your highest calculated attack bonus is.

Do keep in mind that most Tash builds use Expansion to increase the damage of their UAS, and Expansion comes with a built in Dex penalty. If your Dex drops below whatever the minimum Dex is for TWF (15, IIRC), then TWF and any feats attached to it "turn off".

You are better off trying to pick up some natural attacks. Claws of the Beast works, or Aberrant Blood > Inhuman Reach > Deepspawn for 2 tenticles. Everything is better with tenticles.

EDIT: Yea, 3 attacks at +8, not +7.
Thanks! And is it legal to full attack after I maintain a grapple? I have a pretty high grapple modifier and love the idea of holding them down with my knees and bashing skulls

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 02:13 PM
Take a look to fractional BAB rules. Could help you.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 02:14 PM
Hey all
assuming you are playing a T.Monk/Psywarrior, basing your attacks on a flurry of blows mixed with twf, what is the number of attacks that I would have with a monk2/pw6? My BAB is 5, and with my stength, weapon focus, and racial strength bonus, my regular to-hit is 11.

Is my math correct that I have three attacks at +7 each?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a
Flurry is a distinct full attack action that doesn't allow TWF.
Or flurry absorbs twf, name it what you want.

Frosty
2010-06-18, 02:18 PM
You can full-attack in a grapple, yes. However, it is debatable whether Flurry allows you extra Grapple Attempts if you are just trying to deal Unarmed Strike damage that way instead of attack rolls. I lean towards "no" since you can't use other abilites that grant extra attacks to do more Grapple Attempts.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 02:20 PM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a
Flurry is a distinct full attack action that doesn't allow TWF.
Or flurry absorbs twf, name it what you want.

Relevant FAQs. Beware of the WALL


The description of the flurry of blows ability says there’s no such thing as a monk attacking with an off-hand weapon during a flurry of blows. What does that mean, exactly? Can the monk make off-hand attacks in addition to flurry attacks?

Actually, the text to which you refer appears in the entry for unarmed strikes. When a monk uses her unarmed strike ability, she does not suffer any penalty for an off-hand attack, even when she has her hands full and attacks with her knees and elbows, using the flurry of blows ability to make extra attacks, or both. The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists. When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits.

To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains only half Strength bonus to damage. If the off-hand attack is a weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry (if it can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). For example, a 4th-level monk with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a Strength score of 14 decides to use a flurry of blows and decides to throw in an off-hand attack as well. The monk has a base attack bonus of +3 and a +2 Strength bonus. With a flurry, the character can make two attacks, each at +3 (base +3, –2
lurry, +2 Strength).

An unarmed strike is a light weapon, so the monk suffers an additional –2 penalty for both the flurry and the off-hand attack, and the monk makes three attacks, each at an attack bonus of +1. The two attacks from the flurry are primary attacks and add the monk’s full Strength bonus to damage of +2. The single off-hand attack adds half the monk’s Strength bonus to damage (+1). If the monk in our example has two sais to use with the flurry, plus the off-hand attack, she can use both in the flurry (in which case she must make the off-hand attack with an unarmed strike) or one sai for the off-hand attack and one with the flurry. The sai used in the off-hand attack is not available for the flurry and vice versa.



Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her penalties on attack rolls?


A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for twoweapon fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows. For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember can normally make one attack per round at a +4 bonus. When using flurry of blows, she can make two attacks (using unarmed strikes or any special monk weapons she holds), each at a +3 bonus. If she wants to make an extra attack with her off hand, she has to accept a –4 penalty on her primary hand attacks and a –8 penalty on her off-hand attacks (assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand).

If Ember has Two-Weapon Fighting, she has to accept only a –2 penalty on all attacks to make an extra attack with her off hand. Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks, each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to be with her off-hand weapon.

A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows. Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this: +11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand.

Beelzebub1111
2010-06-18, 02:24 PM
They do stack, but The only reason I can think to do this is to throw shiruken with ranged touch attack from Master Thrower. Otherwise you wouldn't hit for crap.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 02:25 PM
You can full-attack in a grapple, yes. However, it is debatable whether Flurry allows you extra Grapple Attempts if you are just trying to deal Unarmed Strike damage that way instead of attack rolls. I lean towards "no" since you can't use other abilites that grant extra attacks to do more Grapple Attempts.
Err... why not? They're attack actions, why could you do them on any sorts of extra attacks you might have?

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 02:26 PM
Relevant FAQs. Beware of the WALL


The description of the flurry of blows ability says there’s no such thing as a monk attacking with an off-hand weapon during a flurry of blows. What does that mean, exactly? Can the monk make off-hand attacks in addition to flurry attacks?

Actually, the text to which you refer appears in the entry for unarmed strikes. When a monk uses her unarmed strike ability, she does not suffer any penalty for an off-hand attack, even when she has her hands full and attacks with her knees and elbows, using the flurry of blows ability to make extra attacks, or both. The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists. When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits.

To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains only half Strength bonus to damage. If the off-hand attack is a weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry (if it can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). For example, a 4th-level monk with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a Strength score of 14 decides to use a flurry of blows and decides to throw in an off-hand attack as well. The monk has a base attack bonus of +3 and a +2 Strength bonus. With a flurry, the character can make two attacks, each at +3 (base +3, –2
lurry, +2 Strength).

An unarmed strike is a light weapon, so the monk suffers an additional –2 penalty for both the flurry and the off-hand attack, and the monk makes three attacks, each at an attack bonus of +1. The two attacks from the flurry are primary attacks and add the monk’s full Strength bonus to damage of +2. The single off-hand attack adds half the monk’s Strength bonus to damage (+1). If the monk in our example has two sais to use with the flurry, plus the off-hand attack, she can use both in the flurry (in which case she must make the off-hand attack with an unarmed strike) or one sai for the off-hand attack and one with the flurry. The sai used in the off-hand attack is not available for the flurry and vice versa.



Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her penalties on attack rolls?


A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for twoweapon fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows. For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember can normally make one attack per round at a +4 bonus. When using flurry of blows, she can make two attacks (using unarmed strikes or any special monk weapons she holds), each at a +3 bonus. If she wants to make an extra attack with her off hand, she has to accept a –4 penalty on her primary hand attacks and a –8 penalty on her off-hand attacks (assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand).

If Ember has Two-Weapon Fighting, she has to accept only a –2 penalty on all attacks to make an extra attack with her off hand. Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks, each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to be with her off-hand weapon.

A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows. Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this: +11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand.

I'd rather see the originals, sir, because there's nothing like this that I can recollect from official material. I can't posit non-core ideas.

Greenish
2010-06-18, 02:28 PM
I lean towards "no" since you can't use other abilites that grant extra attacks to do more Grapple Attempts.What, you can't use haste or whirling frenzy attacks for grapple? :smallconfused:

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 02:30 PM
I'd rather see the originals, sir, because there's nothing like this that I can recollect from official material. I can't posit non-core ideas.

Let's put it in this way: gallagher's DM already accepts this interpretation. He didn't asked us if the thing was viable, but how works numerically and how improve it.

As a side note: you mean that I wrote all of this just to lie:smalleek:?

Pag 19 main FAQs anyway.

Keld Denar
2010-06-18, 02:34 PM
Why can't you combine multiple attack modes that grant extra attacks? You CAN most definitely combine Rapid Shot with TWFing to throw multiple weapons per round, or even interchange stabs and throws. You can tack on Whirling Frenzy, or Flurry of Strikes, or any other attack modes that grant extra attacks when you full attack as long as you stack the penalities.

As far as grappling goes, first ask your DM. By ultra-strict wording, the only extra chances you get to make grapple attacks are the extra attacks you get from high BAB, and it IS explicit that you can't use TWFing in a grapple. Its not unreasonable to just say that "grapple actions" = "attack actions", and call it a day. Take your penalities and get on with your life.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 02:36 PM
Let's put it in this way: gallagher's DM already accepts this interpretation. He didn't asked us if the thing was viable, but how works numerically and how improve it.

As a side note: you mean that I wrote all of this just to lie:smalleek:?

Pag 19 main FAQs anyway.

I didn't say you lied, I just said I can't really use a reference that isn't the core. Mostly because the core is the only thing that is made-up b the people who first made the rules, being the common reference.
If it is the gitp rpg faq...well that already breaks it. The fact his dm accepted it slipped my grasp, since no one mentioned it at all. Regardless, since everyone else assumes otherwise i'll just leave the discussion.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 02:38 PM
I didn't say you lied, I just said I can't really use a reference that isn't the core. Mostly because the core is the only thing that is made-up b the people who first made the rules, being the common reference.
If it is the gitp rpg faq...well that already breaks it. The fact his dm accepted it slipped my grasp, since no one mentioned it at all. Regardless, since everyone else assumes otherwise i'll just leave the discussion.

I quoted the WOTC save advice. That, yeah, is not perfect and sometimes is really misleading*, but saved me most times... like for the tower shield rules.


*IHS AMF as an example.

Frosty
2010-06-18, 02:45 PM
Err... why not? They're attack actions, why could you do them on any sorts of extra attacks you might have?
When you are in a grapple, you only have certain options, and if your BAB allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower battack bonuses.

What I'm saying is, unless you want the Marilith to be able to make TEN grapple checks (with Constrict damage added on) against you in one round (it has enough BAB for 4 primary attacks. Has 5 extra arms for 5 more attack. Also has a Tail attack), you really don't want to go down that route.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 02:48 PM
When you are in a grapple, you only have certain options, and if your BAB allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower battack bonuses.

What I'm saying is, unless you want the Marilith to be able to make TEN grapple checks (with Constrict damage added on) against you in one round (it has enough BAB for 4 primary attacks. Has 5 extra arms for 5 more attack. Also has a Tail attack), you really don't want to go down that route.
Gaaah, the Grapple rules are so stupid!

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 02:52 PM
Yes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrapplingWithGrapplingRules). When a SINGLE maneuver is complicated across enough systems to be worth a trope on its own...you know it is bad.

Frosty
2010-06-18, 03:03 PM
Gaaah, the Grapple rules are so stupid!
You think DnD rules are bad? Try this on for size...
http://www.darthsanddroids.net/comics/darths0344_bonus.jpg

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 03:08 PM
You think DnD rules are bad? Try this on for size...
Hahaha, awesome.

gallagher
2010-06-18, 03:10 PM
When you are in a grapple, you only have certain options, and if your BAB allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower battack bonuses.

What I'm saying is, unless you want the Marilith to be able to make TEN grapple checks (with Constrict damage added on) against you in one round (it has enough BAB for 4 primary attacks. Has 5 extra arms for 5 more attack. Also has a Tail attack), you really don't want to go down that route.I wasn't asking I I can twf for more grapple attempts, I was asking if I have someone pinned, and I had a pair of sais or kukris or something, could I maintain the pin at the start of the round with my lower body and full attack with my flurry+twf? Think of it like a tiger. They get on top of you and slash away

Frosty
2010-06-18, 03:13 PM
I wasn't asking I I can twf for more grapple attempts, I was asking if I have someone pinned, and I had a pair of sais or kukris or something, could I maintain the pin at the start of the round with my lower body and full attack with my flurry+twf? Think of it like a tiger. They get on top of you and slash away
The best as I can tell, you can maintain a grapple but be treated as if you weren't in a grapple if take a -20 to your Grapple check. So yeah...good luck on that.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 03:15 PM
Just an objection Frosty: wouldn't the marilith constrict with the tail only?

Frosty
2010-06-18, 03:18 PM
Just an obection Frosty: wouldn't the marilith constrict with the tail only?

By RAW, a marilith deals contriction damage with a successful grapple check (and fort save or go unconscious for 2d4 rounds after it drops you). There is no distinction on making grapple checks with different body parts. You kind of do it with your whole body involved. With the marilith, her whole body just happens to involve a tail.

Just be glad that it only gets FOUR grapple checks going by the default rules, so you only have to make that DC 27 Fort check four times per round, on top of the 4d6+13 damage.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 03:23 PM
By RAW, a marilith deals contriction damage with a successful grapple check (and fort save or go unconscious for 2d4 rounds after it drops you). There is no distinction on making grapple checks with different body parts. You kind of do it with your whole body involved. With the marilith, her whole body just happens to involve a tail.

Just be glad that it only gets FOUR grapple checks going by the default rules, so you only have to make that DC 27 Fort check four times per round, on top of the 4d6+13 damage.

I was thinking to this


Originally posted by SRD

Constrict (Ex): A marilith deals 4d6+13 points of damage with a successful grapple check. The constricted creature must succeed on a DC 27 Fortitude save or lose consciousness for as long as it remains in the coils and for 2d4 rounds thereafter. The save DC is Strength-based.


But I see your point.

Susano-wo
2010-06-18, 03:25 PM
You think DnD rules are bad? Try this on for size...
http://www.darthsanddroids.net/comics/darths0344_bonus.jpg

Thing is? I'd *love* to play out duels (though simpler mass combat rules would be a *must*) with that level of complexity. The frustrating thing about grapple, is that its not exciting, just painful....maybe it was in immersion experiment?

Frosty
2010-06-18, 03:29 PM
Thing is? I'd *love* to play out duels (though simpler mass combat rules would be a *must*) with that level of complexity. The frustrating thing about grapple, is that its not exciting, just painful....maybe it was in immersion experiment?
You've hit it right on the nails in terms of it not being particularly exciting and being painful. Often even the results aren't that exciting! Like thus:
http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr122a.jpg
http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr122b.jpg
http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr122c.jpg
In the end, he'd still only deal normal damage of an arrow shot!

Btw, is your name a reference to BlazBlue?

Keld Denar
2010-06-18, 03:45 PM
The part of a marilith's constrict entry that is troubling isn't the part you bolded, but rather this:



Constrict (Ex): A marilith deals 4d6+13 points of damage with a successful grapple check. The constricted creature must succeed on a DC 27 Fortitude save or lose consciousness for as long as it remains in the coils and for 2d4 rounds thereafter. The save DC is Strength-based.

That means ANY grapple check. Grapple to deal damage, grapple to pin, grapple to move grapple, grapple to escape grapple (including defeating trapped foes attempts to escape), and so on. 4d6+13 isn't a huge amount of damage, but when you tack it on to the 10 or so grapple checks a marilith could make with a VERY liberal reading of the rules, its deadly for just about any character...and thats JUST the constrict damage, not including the "grapple to inflict damage" rules.

Susano-wo
2010-06-18, 03:53 PM
not sure what BlazBlue is, but Susano-wo is the Japanese storm god. The full name is Susano-wo-no-mikoto, "The Valiant Divine Male that strides forth impetuously." (though the word order is a lot different in Japanese ^ ^)

Though I first learned the name from the Masamune Shirow miniseries "Orion," where Susano, a god of destruction, is more or less the protagonist. I always likes his style. http://94.100.19.194/3263%2F4_KSLBW%2F%2Forion-v01-c01-06-mangaproject-orion-v01-c04-14-jpg.jpg

I only learned later about Susano-wo, so I started Romanizing it that way.

The only thing I will say about the Legolas elephant idea is that, though improbable, and impossible in one round, the effect would be actually effective, since it would remove the riders through cutting the carriage off, making the Mumak uncontrolled. ANd a good DM would reward such daring with at least a crit to the damned Elephant, but yeah....A lot of feats of Daring Do are rather punishing to perform....though in my current group we had our Swashbuckler jump off his horse (with no ride ranks)at a flying wyvern (ended movement just out of reach), crit with a rapier, and tumble safely to the ground.

He needed to make an untrained ride check, jump, then tumble, and he made them all. So when you *do* succeed, the cool factor can make it worth the risk :D

Greenish
2010-06-18, 03:55 PM
The best as I can tell, you can maintain a grapple but be treated as if you weren't in a grapple if take a -20 to your Grapple check. So yeah...good luck on that.Isn't that just if you have Scorpion's Grasp?

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 04:00 PM
Isn't that just if you have Scorpion's Grasp?

Well, a -20 to a skill check on its own is pretty much something you can only hope to reasonably succeed in if you are epic or your enemy is a vegetable. If a character can pull off grappling a similar-leveled enemy at a -20 penalty, I'm fairly sure I'd let him act freely except for walking around.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-18, 04:03 PM
That means ANY grapple check. Grapple to deal damage, grapple to pin, grapple to move grapple, grapple to escape grapple (including defeating trapped foes attempts to escape), and so on. 4d6+13 isn't a huge amount of damage, but when you tack it on to the 10 or so grapple checks a marilith could make with a VERY liberal reading of the rules, its deadly for just about any character...and thats JUST the constrict damage, not including the "grapple to inflict damage" rules.

I said I see the point. I was explaining because I was thinking that was intended to work with the tail only. The Grapple thing says coil. Marilith has not improved grapple, baring his tail that has improved grab.

Your interpretation (and Frosty one, the same), anyway, makes it more deadly with class levels. So, since I'm the DM, guess wich one I will use.. :smallcool:

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 04:04 PM
Actually, on Grapple, I could see it. If you're a Grappler, you're going to get Huge size, at least, you'll have Improved Grapple, and you'll have a lot of Str. That's a Grapple check of +22-ish, easily, quite possibly more. A Wizard has a pretty good chance of having a -1. Even a Rogue probably isn't going to have more than +1. A Halfling Rogue would have likely have a -3 or worse, and that's even at level 20.

Keld Denar
2010-06-18, 04:06 PM
Scorpion's Grasp is basically a feat that gives the monster ability "Improved Grab".

The rules about grappling while not being considered to be grappled are somewhere in the grappling section. Its normally a -20, but I think there are feats Multigrab and Improved Multigrab that reduce that penality substantially. I'll have to check when I get home.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-18, 04:13 PM
I'd rather see the originals, sir, because there's nothing like this that I can recollect from official material. I can't posit non-core ideas.

Snake-Aes, no where in the rules does it state a monk can't TWF unarmed, all it technically says is there is no off-hand for a monk which means one of two things.

It refers only to an unarmed strike being made with any part of the body, and it doesn't suffer the penalty for attacking with your off-hand. If you wield a wepaon in your off-hand you add only ˝ your Strength bonus on damage. It doesn't matter if your main-hand is empty. The off-hand penalty is independent of TWF

The second possibility is An unarmed strike never takes the off-hand penalty. This would mean a monk TWF using only unarmed strikes would add his full strength bonus on all his attacks.

But you want to see the originals?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

Download the FAQ and read yourself.

gallagher
2010-06-18, 04:16 PM
Scorpion's Grasp is basically a feat that gives the monster ability "Improved Grab".

The rules about grappling while not being considered to be grappled are somewhere in the grappling section. Its normally a -20, but I think there are feats Multigrab and Improved Multigrab that reduce that penality substantially. I'll have to check when I get home.
if you find those feats, that will be incredibly helpful! thank you muchly!

and since i am part psywarrior, that gives me access to expand, which will take me from Medium with Powerful Build (Goliath) to Huge being counted as Gargantuan. that is a +12 to grapple, with my large strength which will be around a +7-8, and with improved grapple, that goes to +24.

then there is a set of weapons that i homebrewed that are similar to sandstorms Scorpion Claws, but reflavored into tigerclaws. with an invested feat, they now count as special monk weapons so i can flurry with them. the claws give a +4 bonus to grapple and a +4 to avoid being disarmed. so with that i will have around a 28 grapple easily.

lsfreak
2010-06-18, 04:22 PM
Snatch (SRD) + Multisnatch (Draconomicon) lessens the penalty for grappling-without-grappling to -10.

olentu
2010-06-18, 04:32 PM
if you find those feats, that will be incredibly helpful! thank you muchly!

and since i am part psywarrior, that gives me access to expand, which will take me from Medium with Powerful Build (Goliath) to Huge being counted as Gargantuan. that is a +12 to grapple, with my large strength which will be around a +7-8, and with improved grapple, that goes to +24.

then there is a set of weapons that i homebrewed that are similar to sandstorms Scorpion Claws, but reflavored into tigerclaws. with an invested feat, they now count as special monk weapons so i can flurry with them. the claws give a +4 bonus to grapple and a +4 to avoid being disarmed. so with that i will have around a 28 grapple easily.

Hmm I am rather sure that multigrab and greater multigrab are at least in savage species but if they exist any where else I can not recall seeing them. I believe they reduce the penalties to -10 and 0 respectively.

lsfreak
2010-06-18, 04:37 PM
Hmm I am rather sure that multigrab and greater multigrab are at least in savage species but if they exist any where else I can not recall seeing them. I believe they reduce the penalties to -10 and 0 respectively.

So they do, I forgot to check there on my search. They both require improved grab, however, which isn't easy to get unless your DM counts Scorpion Grasp as close enough.

Keld Denar
2010-06-18, 04:42 PM
If you wield a wepaon in your off-hand you add only ˝ your Strength bonus on damage. It doesn't matter if your main-hand is empty. The off-hand penalty is independent of TWF


Not quite. It is dependany on TWF. 3.5 got rid of 3.0's bulky Ambidextarity feat tax, meaning that ALL characters are considered ambidextarous by nature. It doesn't matter if you attack with your right hand, left hand, knee-blade, mouthpick, armor spikes, boot-blade, or any combination of the above. All hands are considered primary UNLESS you invoke TWF. Then, and only then, do you gain an offhand attack, which is as it is defined in the rules.

If you had a +1 Flaming Longsword in your right hand and a +1 Frost Longsword in your left, and a +6 BAB, you could attack with your right hand twice, your left hand twice, or your left hand once and your right hand once. If you attacked with your right hand twice, and wanted to attack with your left hand as well, you'd have to draw on the TWFing rules, meaning that your left hand would become your offhand, and attacks made with the +1 Frost Longsword would only gain 1/2 Str bonus. If you made 2 attacks with your left hand and then wanted to make an additional strike with your right hand, your right hand would become the offhand, and attacks made with the +1 Flaming Longsword would only gain 1/2 Str bonus.

Make sense? You don't have an offhand until you give yourself one. The only stipulation about what attacks you can make where is that you can never make an offhand attack with any weapon you used in your primary attacks. Nothing stops you from equipping 2 "unarmed strikes" though, or even equipping 50 "unarmed strikes", given that you can only make a number of primary attacks dependant on your BAB, and a number of offhand attacks dependant on the TWF chain, no matter how many weapons you have equipped.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-18, 04:55 PM
Not quite. It is dependany on TWF. 3.5 got rid of 3.0's bulky Ambidextarity feat tax, meaning that ALL characters are considered ambidextarous by nature. It doesn't matter if you attack with your right hand, left hand, knee-blade, mouthpick, armor spikes, boot-blade, or any combination of the above. All hands are considered primary UNLESS you invoke TWF. Then, and only then, do you gain an offhand attack, which is as it is defined in the rules.

Sorry but your wrong, completely and totally wrong
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm



Off-Hand Weapon
When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ˝ our Strength bonus.

This is written completely independently of the TWF rules, in fact the TWF rules are not even on this page.
If you also check the rules for shield bash its an off-hand attack, but not necessarily TWF.

If you want the PHB check page 133.

For further reinforcement under basics in both the SRD and the PHB under strength they make mention of off-hand attacks receieve only one-half the bonus on damage rolls.

Ambidexterity is gone however that changes nothing beyond removing a single feat from the tree. You still have an off-hand.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 04:58 PM
And your "offhand" weapon is defined by using TWF. If you don't use TWF, you don't have an "offhand" to begin with.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-18, 05:05 PM
And your "offhand" weapon is defined by using TWF. If you don't use TWF, you don't have an "offhand" to begin with.

Quote me the rules that off-hand only exists in TWF. Off-hand is mentioned several times in the PHB where TWF rules are not present. A shield bash is considered an off-hand attack even if your not attacking with your weapon. The rules for it don't assume your TWF but they do assume your at least holding a weapon in your main hand.

You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash.


Usually it will never come up as you can easily switch a weapon to the other hand but it could happen that your main hand is otherwise disabled and your forced to fight with your off-hand.

Frosty
2010-06-18, 05:21 PM
Shouldn't this part of the discussion be part of my thread where I specifically asked about this question? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156213

And no, you don't need a feat to try to maintain a grapple at -20. It's just that most medium sized characters just isn't gonna do it.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 05:24 PM
Quote me the rules that off-hand only exists in TWF. Off-hand is mentioned several times in the PHB where TWF rules are not present. A shield bash is considered an off-hand attack even if your not attacking with your weapon. The rules for it don't assume your TWF but they do assume your at least holding a weapon in your main hand.

Usually it will never come up as you can easily switch a weapon to the other hand but it could happen that your main hand is otherwise disabled and your forced to fight with your off-hand.

The game doesn't specify WHAT the main hand is. A player can switch offhand and mainhand any time. Sword arm eaten? No worries, pull dagger and attack with the other arm, it's the new main hand.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-18, 05:25 PM
Shouldn't this part of the discussion be part of my thread where I specifically asked about this question? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156213

And no, you don't need a feat to try to maintain a grapple at -20. It's just that most medium sized characters just isn't gonna do it.

You ask if you can TWF with unarmed strikes only.
This asks if you can flurry with TWF which is a different question. A monk could wield two monk weapons after all. But naturally the TWF unarmed leaked in.

Frosty
2010-06-18, 05:28 PM
You ask if you can TWF with unarmed strikes only.
This asks if you can flurry with TWF which is a different question. A monk could wield two monk weapons after all. But naturally the TWF unarmed leaked in.
True. It's just that I've never been in a game where a monk actually used nunchuks or Siangham, etc. I've only seen unarmed. Monk weapons generally suck, except for the Longspear with that one feat.

Keld Denar
2010-06-18, 05:56 PM
Sorry but your wrong, completely and totally wrong
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm

Which "hand" is your offhand if you are using a 2handed sword in both hands and attacking with your armor spikes using TWF?

Which "hand" is your offhand if you are holding a bow in both hands, but in this round, you are attacking with your right and left boot blades (CScound)?

Which "hand" is your offhand if you have a mouthpick weapon (LoM)?

You don't normally have an offhand. The only time you do is when you use TWF rules to gain an offhand weapon attack. When you do so, you reference the above rule you cited, and find out that "hey, look, my offhand weapon only deals half +Str damage". You can't take things in a vacuum, rules reference other rules.

You are inventing rules to justify a concept you believe should exist. In reality, no such rule exists.

EDIT: Also, from the TWF unarmed thread

The problem with D&D is that they use offhand and "offhand" arbitrarily. One is a defined term with game mechanics tied to it (1/2 +str bonus, can only be used in a full attack, and use of it imposes TWF penalities shown on the TWF table), and one of which is purely descriptive...your other hand.

Your "offhand" can be used to make attacks that don't qualify mechanically as offhand attacks, and offhand attacks aren't always made with your off "hand", in the case of armor spikes or boot blades.

The problem is telling the 2 apart. I'm not a mind reader (yet!), and neither is anyone I know, which leaves us all grasping at intent with room to squabble either way.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-18, 11:19 PM
Which "hand" is your offhand if you are using a 2handed sword in both hands and attacking with your armor spikes using TWF?

Which "hand" is your offhand if you are holding a bow in both hands, but in this round, you are attacking with your right and left boot blades (CScound)?

Which "hand" is your offhand if you have a mouthpick weapon (LoM)?

You don't normally have an offhand. The only time you do is when you use TWF rules to gain an offhand weapon attack. When you do so, you reference the above rule you cited, and find out that "hey, look, my offhand weapon only deals half +Str damage". You can't take things in a vacuum, rules reference other rules.

You are inventing rules to justify a concept you believe should exist. In reality, no such rule exists.

EDIT: Also, from the TWF unarmed thread

You assume that an off-hand only exists when your TWF, I've already proven this is not so by quoting the shield bash rules. They assume its an off-hand attack but not that your TWF.

In TWF anything that isn't your main-hand is an off hand attack but that in no way means that an off-hand only exists in that situation. And obviously two-handed weapons already has its own rules about how it works.

You say rules reference other rules but "off-hand" exists in numerous places completely independent of TWF.

gallagher
2010-06-18, 11:25 PM
Your off hand is any attack that is not your mainhand. And a two-handed weapon already has its own rules about how it works obviously.

what if i am two-handing a quarterstaff? since i have improved unarmed strike, and therefor my body parts qualify as weapons, i could flurry with the quarterstaff and kick for my off-hand attacks, couldnt i?

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-18, 11:28 PM
what if i am two-handing a quarterstaff? since i have improved unarmed strike, and therefor my body parts qualify as weapons, i could flurry with the quarterstaff and kick for my off-hand attacks, couldnt i?

A quarterstaff is a monk weapon, it can be used interchangeably with a flurry, and as already established in the rules of the game article at the very least a monk can TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes but it suffers all the normal penalties.

Just because TWF always includes an "off-hand" does not mean that "off-hand" always includes TWF.

All sneakers are shoes but not all shoes are sneakers