Help to explain Monk + TWF

[Cyussu]

Thread in this is VERY helpful, but can someone post srd-content explaining? My DM is saying in ANY FORM, this CANNOT work and is, and I quote, "merely people trying to min/max"

EDIT: The first portion points to the closed forum thread of someone asking explicitly if Monks could stack TWF + Flurry of Blows. DM and his 2 rl friends say "No" and tried to explain how, but nothing in Raw says they /can't/ stack. Mind you all, I'm not even running a Monk, but it irks me nonetheless that the 'weakest' combat class gets shafted in that regard.

[MisterKaws]

New here. Nothing states it can't apply, though the penalties will also be applied, even though Monk's unarmed strike doesn't normally take penalties for being used as an off-hand.

[Troacctid]

Try pointing to the FAQ.


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 two-weapon fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows.

[Rubik]

The penalties aren't worth it unless you have large amounts of bonus damage and potential status effects which apply to unarmed strikes.

In other words, without some real work, monks are NOT good at TWFing.

[Cyussu]

I am fully aware of the negatives and such. It's more so as the DM and his rl friends just saying outright "Nope, it doesn't work, at all." sort of such, and I have done my own personal extensive research on this because I like the IDEA, but the actual practice is super weak. Thank you all c:

[Cyussu]

Try pointing to the FAQ.

Can you be kind enough to link the FAQ where this is stated? :c

[Florian]

I am fully aware of the negatives and such. It's more so as the DM and his rl friends just saying outright "Nope, it doesn't work, at all." sort of such, and I have done my own personal extensive research on this because I like the IDEA, but the actual practice is super weak. Thank you all c:

Most people that cling to this missconception get hung up on the different wordings. Flurry more or less states that the Monk uses his whole body and nothing counting as off-hand, TWF states using an off-hand. Now that can be seen as being mutually exclusive, but that is wrong, as TWF somply adds and off-hand attack to the whole.
(Sorry, won't link the FAQ entry as I'm not into 3,5 anymore)

[Troacctid]

Can you be kind enough to link the FAQ where this is stated? :c

In the official v3.5 FAQ here (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a).

[Curmudgeon]

The confusion almost always stems from the highlighted line:
Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes. This looks like a conflict with the FAQ statement:
She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand weapon.

The FAQ answers include a lot of stuff that's not consistent with the actual rules, so relying on the FAQ to make your case is not particularly helpful. Luckily, that's not required here.

If you take the restriction as stated (a Monk can't use an unarmed strike as their off-hand attack) rather than arguing about it, what can they use?
When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus × 1½ or ×½) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.
So there's no problem combining unarmed strike as the primary attack, and a special Monk weapon in their off hand. It's all consistent with the RAW. (Maybe not advisable due to the stacking FoB & TWF penalties, but certainly legal.)

[Falxu]

I was under the impression that Flurry of Blows was a full-attack action, thus cannot be combined with another full-attack action (such as Two-Weapon Fighting).

[Florian]

I was under the impression that Flurry of Blows was a full-attack action, thus cannot be combined with another full-attack action (such as Two-Weapon Fighting).

TWF in itself is not a Full Attack Action but can only be activated when you use one.

[Cyussu]

TWF in itself is not a Full Attack Action but can only be activated when you use one.

That's actually how I had always interpreted it myself to be perfectly honest.

[ericgrau]

Try pointing to the FAQ.

This. TWF gives an extra attack with an offhand weapon. So you must have an offhand weapon. Flurry of blows requires that you only use unarmed strikes or monk weapons. So to combine you must use an offhand monk weapon. Simple, and backed up by the game developers.

To use it effectively you want to perform dual kama tripping. The touch attacks overcome the penalties to hit and medium BAB. Kamas are trip weapons so you can freely replace attacks with trip attempts. Potions of enlarge person or etc. help too. At higher levels you might want a spell storing kama and a ki strike spell storing kama, to channel stunning fist. The double spell storing takes advantage of TWF. So now you discharge a stun, many many trips, damage, and two spells in a full attack.

[Cyussu]

This. TWF gives an extra attack with an offhand weapon. So you must have an offhand weapon. Flurry of blows requires that you only use unarmed strikes or monk weapons. So to combine you must use an offhand monk weapon. Simple, and backed up by the game developers.

To use it effectively you want to perform dual kama tripping. The touch attacks overcome the penalties to hit and medium BAB. Kamas are trip weapons so you can freely replace attacks with trip attempts. Potions of enlarge person or etc. help too. At higher levels you might want a spell storing kama and a ki strike spell storing kama, to channel stunning fist. The double spell storing takes advantage of TWF. So now you discharge a stun, many many trips, damage, and two spells in a full attack.

Even better: Try to get Scorpion Kama(s). Which can be further enchanted for spell storing. Get that FULL Monk Unarmed Damage! c:

[StreamOfTheSky]

IMO, you don't want it to be something you can TWF with, that leads to the giant mess that is the PF monk. They turned his flurry *into* TWF, and then every time someone sought to improve it, they faced a wall of opposition shouting, "why should their TWF be better than it is for others with the feats?!" (it's actually much worse than normal TWF, but that's another story altogether) It also means the whole "unarmed strike is one 'weapon', whether you punch kick, etc..." argument gets nulled, and then instead of a simple option to just enhance your "unarmed strike" as a magical weapon, you have to enhance each fist, foot, and so forth individually.

At least for me... DO. NOT. WANT.

I've always preferred the interpretation that unarmed strike is a single weapon and how you choose to attack with it is mostly just fluff. I do support being able to TWF with a greatsword and off-hand kicks, and combining flurry of blows with claws and bites and such, of course. Unarmed strike isn't "occupying" any particular part of the body and can be made with your hands full, after all.

The few explicit exceptions to this (City Brawler Barbarian giving you TWF *only* with unarmed, Wolf Fang Strike saying you can use unarmed for both attacks, and...I think that's about it), I treat just as that. Rare exceptions to how it normally works.

[ShurikVch]

Is Dragon stuff allowed?
#349 have City Brawler ACF: "You gain Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat, as well as the effects of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when fighting unarmed."
So, take at 1st level Lion Totem City Brawler Barbarian, then go into Chaos Monk (Dragon #335)

[Necroticplague]

This does work. A flurry of blows is just a full-attack with extra attacks and weapon restrictions. TWF is just something that augments a full attack. However, the attack penalties stack, so actually doing so is a somewhat questionable decision (personal experience, seen a monk who went a good chunk of the campaign without hitting anything. Her role in combat could have been performed by a 5x5x5 section of stone.)

[Cyussu]

Regarding this whole mess, I ended up leaving the campaign because they felt like being super ignorant and ignoring any true facts about it. I do appreciate all of this everybody, I truly do. c:

EDIT: Is ignorance truly bliss? Is it?

[Curmudgeon]

Is Dragon stuff allowed?
#349 have City Brawler ACF: "You gain Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat, as well as the effects of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when fighting unarmed."
So, take at 1st level Lion Totem City Brawler Barbarian, then go into Chaos Monk (Dragon #335)
Those feats are granted as Barbarian class features, so you need 11 Barbarian levels to get the last one (Greater Two-Weapon Fighting when fighting unarmed). So you'll have a decent unarmed combatant at about level 22 (Barbarian 11/Chaos Monk 11).

[GreyBlack]

Regarding this whole mess, I ended up leaving the campaign because they felt like being super ignorant and ignoring any true facts about it. I do appreciate all of this everybody, I truly do. c:

EDIT: Is ignorance truly bliss? Is it?

Absolutely. It lets you ignore pesky things, like "rules," and just focus on the fun.

[Cyussu]

Those feats are granted as Barbarian class features, so you need 11 Barbarian levels to get the last one (Greater Two-Weapon Fighting when fighting unarmed). So you'll have a decent unarmed combatant at about level 22 (Barbarian 11/Chaos Monk 11).

Going purely off wording. Monk6/Cleric7. Using ACF for Cleric to change Turn Undead to Smite Evil, taking Ascetic Knight, and using whatever remaining 7 levels you have to progress Divine Casting, OR taking Sorc3 and Cleric5 instead and burning the last 6 levels as Mystic Theurge. Yes you'll be squishy, but you'll have Divine Might for +20BAB. Just a build I thought sounded fun, doesn't seem strong, but sounds fun!

[Lhurgyof]

The penalties aren't worth it unless you have large amounts of bonus damage and potential status effects which apply to unarmed strikes.

In other words, without some real work, monks are NOT good at TWFing.

What about the acf where you hit things one for double damage? Might be useful for cross class monks with touch attacks too.

[Rubik]

What about the acf where you hit things one for double damage?You mean the one where it takes a full round action to make one attack? That would be a no. Snap Kick and Combat Reflexes would be the combo you'd want, there.


Might be useful for cross class monks with touch attacks too.Well, that'd be better, if you can manage to get full attacks every round. Monk + warblade + pyrokineticist + rogue with Craven would work nicely enough for that.

[ericgrau]

Absolutely. It lets you ignore pesky things, like "rules," and just focus on the fun.
Agreed, except that rules can both interfere with fun and help with it. It's important to remember that fun is first and to worry about bad DM rulings only when they interfere with your fun. Even then leaving a group is a bit extreme unless so many bad rulings make it unfun to play at all, or if you know you can do better elsewhere. It's better to talk to your DM/group when possible rather than ditching them or brooding. But don't even go that far if the argument disrupts the game more than the bad ruling will. Don't sweat the small stuff; work around it when you can. Do you really need to be a TWF monk?

At the same time following the same rules keeps everybody on the same page and avoids confusion, which helps with fun. The book rules provide a good baseline and avoids extreme rules made up out of thin air which may be horrible. But the DM may also override these or use his own interpretation and that's usually great as long as long as his rulings aren't too extreme. That way you have one voice for all the rules instead of a big argument, and it keeps things moving.

[Cyussu]

Agreed, except that rules can both interfere with fun and help with it. It's important to remember that fun is first and to worry about bad DM rulings only when they interfere with your fun. Even then leaving a group is a bit extreme unless so many bad rulings make it unfun to play at all, or if you know you can do better elsewhere. It's better to talk to your DM/group when possible rather than ditching them or brooding. But don't even go that far if the argument disrupts the game more than the bad ruling will. Don't sweat the small stuff; work around it when you can. Do you really need to be a TWF monk?

At the same time following the same rules keeps everybody on the same page and avoids confusion, which helps with fun. The book rules provide a good baseline and avoids extreme rules made up out of thin air which may be horrible. But the DM may also override these or use his own interpretation and that's usually great as long as long as his rulings aren't too extreme. That way you have one voice for all the rules instead of a big argument, and it keeps things moving.


"Bad Rulings" as the DM brought in, mind you prior to this it was a PURELY D&D 3.5e, a JEDI into the game. Force powers, Touch AC Blasters that do 3d8, a 2d8 1handed weapon with same Touch AC to hit, etc etc. What ended up completely pushing me over the edge was this whole argument and with the fact that he outright ignored anything and says "Forums are for Powergaming Min/Max'ers" and the like. Then has a player, making the character FOR them instead, come in as a JEDI from a completely different game module.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

"Bad Rulings" as the DM brought in, mind you prior to this it was a PURELY D&D 3.5e, a JEDI into the game. Force powers, Touch AC Blasters that do 3d8, a 2d8 1handed weapon with same Touch AC to hit, etc etc. What ended up completely pushing me over the edge was this whole argument and with the fact that he outright ignored anything and says "Forums are for Powergaming Min/Max'ers" and the like. Then has a player, making the character FOR them instead, come in as a JEDI from a completely different game module.

So, let's see. That's a No True Scottsman fallacy, a Stormwind fallacy, blatant favoritism...

Yea, it sounds like that simply wasn't a group with good chemistry for you. Best to find a different group to play with, since it was clear that you weren't willing to work within the GM's limitations he set forth.

Often times, you'll find a GM is very against an idea, not because of the idea itself but because the GM doesn't like it. A first level character with three attacks a turn sounds very IMBA. It isn't, because he's never going to land a blow save by the luck of Flarnagan, but that's not as readily apparent. It's actually one of the pitfalls that new powergamers fall into when trying to come up with the 'next best badarse' and falling flat because of design flaws not readily apparent. I'm not going to bring up past drama, so it is difficult to give examples here, because some things just need to be left in the past. Suffice to say, there was at one point a theory that UMD and partially charged wands were a way to make monks completely broken.

Then there's the knee-jerk reflex that has nothing to do with mechanics, although it may be argued in terms of mechanics. Best shown with Tome of Battle. There's a large percentage out there that identifies it with anime, and doesn't want anime in their games. So they will cite, as a reason for rejection, that it is way too powerful and not permitted in the game, when the actual reason they are banning it is the mutable flavor. Completely irrational, yes, but it doesn't matter if it is rational or not, because what the GM says, goes.

tl;dr version: if you can't agree with the GM, you need to find a new group.

[Cyussu]

So, let's see. That's a No True Scottsman fallacy, a Stormwind fallacy, blatant favoritism...

Yea, it sounds like that simply wasn't a group with good chemistry for you. Best to find a different group to play with, since it was clear that you weren't willing to work within the GM's limitations he set forth.

Often times, you'll find a GM is very against an idea, not because of the idea itself but because the GM doesn't like it. A first level character with three attacks a turn sounds very IMBA. It isn't, because he's never going to land a blow save by the luck of Flarnagan, but that's not as readily apparent. It's actually one of the pitfalls that new powergamers fall into when trying to come up with the 'next best badarse' and falling flat because of design flaws not readily apparent. I'm not going to bring up past drama, so it is difficult to give examples here, because some things just need to be left in the past. Suffice to say, there was at one point a theory that UMD and partially charged wands were a way to make monks completely broken.

Then there's the knee-jerk reflex that has nothing to do with mechanics, although it may be argued in terms of mechanics. Best shown with Tome of Battle. There's a large percentage out there that identifies it with anime, and doesn't want anime in their games. So they will cite, as a reason for rejection, that it is way too powerful and not permitted in the game, when the actual reason they are banning it is the mutable flavor. Completely irrational, yes, but it doesn't matter if it is rational or not, because what the GM says, goes.

tl;dr version: if you can't agree with the GM, you need to find a new group.

But that isn't the problem that was the original note. The DM said, through RULINGS, that FoB+TWF Can NOT stack through RAW itself. Which was the whole problem.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But that isn't the problem that was the original note. The DM said, through RULINGS, that FoB+TWF Can NOT stack through RAW itself. Which was the whole problem.

Actually, no. That's not the problem, that's just the cause. The problem is that you are not willing to work with the GM, and the GM wasn't willing to work with you. The topic of communications-breakdown is nearly irrelevant.

Bluntly, it doesn't matter if the GM was 100% wrong. What matters is that was his houserule at his table. If you don't like it, don't play with that group. It's that simple.

[Cyussu]

Actually, no. That's not the problem, that's just the cause. The problem is that you are not willing to work with the GM, and the GM wasn't willing to work with you. The topic of communications-breakdown is nearly irrelevant.

Bluntly, it doesn't matter if the GM was 100% wrong. What matters is that was his houserule at his table. If you don't like it, don't play with that group. It's that simple.

Hm.. Touche on that, yes. And if you read, I wasn't even the Monk, I do primarily PLAY Monks, but I was afraid and assumed I wouldn't be able to anyway.

[ShurikVch]

But that isn't the problem that was the original note. The DM said, through RULINGS, that FoB+TWF Can NOT stack through RAW itself. Which was the whole problem.Ah, so DM ruled they are don't stack!
It's a completely different matter. Was it explained?
Common argument against stacking is:
You can't TWF with your Unarmed Strike, because you have one and only one US, and never will get a second one.
Your fists, your feet, knees, elbows, head-butt, whatever - it's all the same US
So, unless you use some other weapon along with your US, you wouldn't be able to TWF it

[Cyussu]

Not per say, he stated through RAW they didn't stack, because "It's a Full Round Action" not because of "They have only one Unarmed Strike".

[Rubik]

Not per say, he stated through RAW they didn't stack, because "It's a Full Round Action" not because of "They have only one Unarmed Strike".As previously noted, TWF is a modification to the full attack action, as is flurry. They can both modify the full attack action simultaneously, like many other effects, such as Snap Kick and Knock Back.

[Cyussu]

As previously noted, TWF is a modification to the full attack action, as is flurry. They can both modify the full attack action simultaneously, like many other effects, such as Snap Kick and Knock Back.

^ This, THIS was the problem my DM had though. As he consistently said that they don't. This was the last straw as for why I left, not because he houseruled it, but because he refused to look up the actual rulings. Rubik, ilu. <3 :3

[ShurikVch]

As previously noted, TWF is a modification to the full attack action, as is flurry.Since when? :smallconfused:
Special Attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting):

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:

If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.

Thrown Weapons
The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.

Shield Bash Attacks
You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon and a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

Shield Spikes
When added to your shield, these spikes turn it into a martial piercing weapon that increases the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you. You can’t put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.I can't see any mentions of Full Attack or Full-Round Action
For comparison, Flurry of Blows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#flurryofBlows):
A monk must use a full attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack) action to strike with a flurry of blows.

[Andezzar]

It's explicit in the Rules Compendium:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack with that weapon when you make a full attack.
and not quite explicit in the SRD
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
Not associating TWF with the Full Attack is a whole other can of worms.

[ShurikVch]

It's explicit in the Rules Compendium:Rules Compendium! Meh!!! :smallyuk:

and not quite explicit in the SRDDoes it include multiple shots of Scorching Ray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scorchingRay.htm)?
Bites of Hydra (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm)?
If not, then I don't see why stabbing with two daggers at once required to stand still for 6 seconds

[Andezzar]

Does it include multiple shots of Scorching Ray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scorchingRay.htm)?
Bites of Hydra (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm)?No. Both are specific exceptions.

Casting Time: 1 standard action
[...]
Duration: Instantaneous
[...]

You blast your enemies with fiery rays. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage.

The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all bolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

Hydras can attack with all their heads at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round.



If not, then I don't see why stabbing with two daggers at once required to stand still for 6 secondsI agree it makes little sense, but so do a lot of rules. Feel free to houserule them however you like

[ShurikVch]

No. Both are specific exceptions.
SRD on HydraActually, this line don't invalidate need to take Full Attack for multiple attacks
It's just allow to avoid -5 penalty for secondary attacks
And "if they move during the round", they have "no penalty" on attacks, because they don't attack at all :smallbiggrin:

[Andezzar]

You missed the part that they get to attack "with all their heads". No heads or one head is not all heads.

[stanprollyright]

No heads or one head is not all heads.

Hopefully no heads is all the heads.

[ShurikVch]

You missed the part that they get to attack "with all their heads".No, I'm not.
Nothing in that text cancel need in Full Attack in order to make multiple attacks

No heads or one head is not all heads.So it mean Hydra is exclusively able only to Full Attacks, and unable to do "regular" Attacks

[Andezzar]

No, I'm not.
Nothing in that text cancel need in Full Attack in order to make multiple attacksIt does not, but it tells us that you can make an attack with all heads in situations, when you normally would only be allowed to make one. The rule does not tell us how that is achieved, but that does not matter because it is functionally identical whether the hydra can make additional attacks with a standard action or if the hydra is getting a Full Attack it would normally not be entitled to.

The charge part is interesting though. It does not tell us, whether this is de facto pounce or if you just get additional attacks (without the usual charge modifications and benefits).

If the rule meant you cannot make more attacks than you would normally be allowed, the rule does nothing, except telling us that the hydra has more than one primary natural weapon.

The "removal" of the penalty for secondary natural attacks is already covered by the normal rules for natural weapons, so it would not need that additional rule:

When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.

The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry.
Attack: 5 bites +6 melee (1d10+3)Hydras with more heads of course follow the same pattern.


So it mean Hydra is exclusively able only to Full Attacks, and unable to do "regular" AttacksNot quite. The Hydra is not required to actually attack with all heads.

[ShurikVch]

It does not, but it tells us that you can make an attack with all heads in situations, when you normally would only be allowed to make one.In which words? :smallconfused:
The charge part is interesting though. It does not tell us, whether this is de facto pounce or if you just get additional attacks (without the usual charge modifications and benefits).Nothing of aforementioned - Hydra get no additional attacks (unless it get Pounce somehow)
If the rule meant you cannot make more attacks than you would normally be allowed, the rule does nothing, except telling us that the hydra has more than one primary natural weapon.Hardly unexpected - just check the Dysfunctional Rules threads... :smallwink:
The "removal" of the penalty for secondary natural attacks is already covered by the normal rules for natural weapons, so it would not need that additional rule:Yes, all heads are primary natural weapons; but it doesn't mean WotC couldn't repeat the rule one more time
Not quite. The Hydra is not required to actually attack with all heads.I presumed, since stat-block don't give us examples of a singular attacks, then all attacks are full attacks
But you are correct - just because Hydra may attack with all heads, it doesn't mean "should attack with all heads"

[Necroticplague]

It's explicit in the Rules Compendium:
and not quite explicit in the SRD
Not associating TWF with the Full Attack is a whole other can of worms.

However, a Flurry of Blows is a type of full attack (specifically, one with an extra attack and -2 to hit on everything). Still works with TWF.

[Andezzar]

In which words? :smallconfused:It's been quoted before:
Hydras can attack with all their heads at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round. It does not say it can attack only with all heads it is normally allowed to attack with (which would be one after moving or during a charge), but with all heads, period. A hydra has 5+ heads, so it can attack with 5+ heads even if it moves.


Nothing of aforementioned - Hydra get no additional attacks (unless it get Pounce somehow)See the quote above. It gets attacks with all heads if it charges during the round.


Hardly unexpected - just check the Dysfunctional Rules threads... :smallwink: Yes, all heads are primary natural weapons; but it doesn't mean WotC couldn't repeat the rule one more time I presumed, since stat-block don't give us examples of a singular attacks, then all attacks are full attacksYou keep ignoring that the rule actually says more than making all attacks primary attack. It tells us that the hydra can make more than one attack when other creatures would not be permitted to.

But you are correct - just because Hydra may attack with all heads, it doesn't mean "should attack with all heads"I really don't know what you are trying to say here.

As to whether the Hydra always makes a full attack, I have to revise my answer to no, it just gets more attacks than other creatures. There is a difference. If hasted for example, the hydra does not get the extra attack if it moves or charges.

[ShurikVch]

It tells us that the hydra can make more than one attack when other creatures would not be permitted to.No, it don't tell so, you see things
Rules system is permission-based; you can't do anything until rules says you can; since text doesn't say Hydra can attack with multiple heads without using Full Attack, Hydra can't do it

[Rubik]

No, it don't tell so, you see things
Rules system is permission-based; you can't do anything until rules says you can; since text doesn't say Hydra can attack with multiple heads without using Full Attack, Hydra can't do itUh... The hydra explicitly can. He even quoted the appropriate rules text. It says so right there.

Also:

Attack: 8 bites +11 melee (1d10+4)
Full Attack: 8 bites +11 melee (1d10+4)

[Andezzar]

No, it don't tell so, you see things
Rules system is permission-based; you can't do anything until rules says you can; since text doesn't say Hydra can attack with multiple heads without using Full Attack, Hydra can't do itThen there can be no aquatic creatures either. They have all drowned already. There also can be no special abilities, as most if not all break the basic rules. D&D is an exception based ruleset. The hydra is one of the exceptions.

[ShurikVch]

Also:"All statblocks are incorrect" (Dysfunctional Handbook)
D&D is an exception based ruleset. The hydra is one of the exceptions.Except it isn't.
Text don't says something like "without using Full-Round Action" or "without using Full Attack", thus Hydra should do it as per general rule

[ericgrau]

It's right on top...


Hydras can attack with all their heads at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round.

[Rubik]

It's right on top...Which is backed up via the statblock, which I pointed out.

[ericgrau]

So what he's saying is that they must move and then use a full round action in the same round to do this and therefore they can't do this? Aha, what a trick to put that sentence there when it serves no purpose. Truly the writers wish to make even reading the rules a trap to deceive us.

Btw the TWF rules are explicit that TWF must be done as part of a full attack.

[Andezzar]

The general rule is
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
The specific rule is:
Hydras can attack with all their heads at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round.
The exception is that the hydra gets additional attacks without having to use a Full Attack action.

If the hydra would have to abide by the general rule, it could never attack with all heads if it moves or charges during the round. This would be in direct contradiction to what the rule says.