Monk that cant use unarmed atks, can it still grapple?

[Deca4531]

So i had something interesting happen in my game last week. Our monk was fighting something and rolled a 1. We have been using the crit fumble deck and the fumble he drew was something like "you cannot make any unarmed/natural attacks for 1d4 rounds" since he had no back up weapons this pretty much took him out of combat until it wore off. I told him he probably jarred his nervous system, and so any intense pressure would be incredibly painful (best i could come up with on the spot since the card didn't explain why he couldn't use nat atks) Then he said "well if i cant attack it, ill grapple it instead" I told him that he needed to make an attack roll in order in initiate the grapple, and since he couldn't use his body and he had no weapon, that he couldn't do that.

well a discussion ensued, concerning what kind of attack a grapple was and if it applies to what the fumble card did. I reasoned that if you couldn't use your body to strike then how could you use it to wrestle someone. He didn't make a fuss about it and they won a few rounds latter, but we still found it an interesting topic of debate. Do you guys think i should have let him grapple it? Im willing to bet that by RAW he could have, then again i can't think of any mechanic in PF or 3.5 that would prevent a monk from using his unarmed attacks in the first place.

[bahamut920]

First of all, I should probably state right off the bat that I'm not a big fan of fumble rules. For a recent RL campaign I'm currently in, I was going to play a magus. Then the DM imposed a fumble table on us, and I flat-out told him that my character would not be making any attack rolls, period. I made an enchanter witch, instead. So now I Slumber Hex, command, suggest, and charm my way through battles. Fumble tables punish classes that don't need punishing, and incentivize playing the guys who were already super-powerful.

However, I agree with your ruling here, at least on a verisimilitude level. It makes no sense that a monk (or anyone, really) denied the ability to make unarmed attacks or attack with natural weapons should be able to grapple, barring special cases like using a whip or man-catcher. I do understand the player's frustration here, that a single bad die roll had essentially put his/her character on the sidelines for the rest of the battle. It's never fun to have to sit out because suddenly you're useless at the one thing you actually do in combat. I would probably have allowed the player to grapple, verisimilitude be damned (how many things actually make sense in D&D?).

[Deca4531]

First of all, I should probably state right off the bat that I'm not a big fan of fumble rules..

honestly neither am i, but i let the group decide and they went with it. i do try to balance it out though, for my spell casters if the spell allows for a save and the target rolls a 20 i tend to give them similar ill effects, like the spell bouncing back at them, or at another party member. Same this with rolling against SR. really more for comical purposes than anything.

[Psyren]

As written, you don't use your unarmed strike to grapple unless you're doing so via the Grab special ability. This is why, for instance, an enhancement bonus to your unarmed strike doesn't apply to your grapple attempts normally (but does when Grabbing.)

Your question here is a bit more ambiguous though - not "do you use your unarmed strike to grapple" (you don't), but instead "is grapple itself considered an unarmed attack?" For that one, I don't think there's a clear answer.

[Necroticplague]

Yep, can still grapple. Contrast grapple to trip (which specifies an unarmed touch attack). The fact they don't state the grapple attack roll is unarmed means that it isn't.

[Gallowglass]

regardless of whatever you decide the RAW/RAI rule is here, I believe you absolutely should have allowed him to grapple.

Why? Because the player thought about the problem and came up with an interesting solution to it that would allow him to suffer through the fumble effect but still be useful.

Imagine if he said "okay, well I'm going to move in to flank and use aid other checks to help the other players get bonuses to their attack rolls." RAW you could reply with "you can't help because you don't count as armed anymore so you are not providing a flank bonus", but that would AGAIN double the punishment for the player playing a weak class who thought of a way to contribute.

Tangent: get rid of fumbling. It punishes melee classes, destroys entire concepts (optimize on multiple attacks), and slogs down progress. Plus you get worse at fighting as you get higher level. (more 5% opportunities to fumble per round)

[Red Fel]

Yeah, I think the biggest problem here is one of options. Any other class, if it couldn't make attacks with one weapon, could still do other things. A Fighter whose fumble caused him to drop his sword can still shield bash or punch; a Barbarian could still be intimidating (as in, demoralize) even without a weapon; and spellcasters are spellcasters.

But a Monk, without his unarmed strikes, has basically nothing. Saying that he can't make an unarmed strike is one thing; saying that he can't make combat maneuvers - even those that don't explicitly require a strike - is even more punitive. It basically becomes a case of "Just stand there and be an obstacle."

In theory, you could "grapple" someone simply by getting up in their space, weaving around them and limiting their movement. It's not grappling in the traditional sense, but it accomplishes the goal. And the muscles you use to grip aren't necessarily the same that you use to strike, after all.

The point is, even setting aside the dislike for fumble rules - and like others who have said as much, I strongly dislike them - what you've done isn't just penalize a character; you've removed him from gameplay. If he can't use unarmed strikes, and he can't use combat maneuvers, then he basically has nothing until he recovers, as opposed to another class that might have other options. And by making it 1d4 rounds instead of the usual "drop your weapon, waste an action picking it up" speedy recovery, you've ensured that he's out for an extended period, instead of just one turn.

The traditional fumble mechanic is the opposite of a crit. A crit multiplies your damage; a fumble reduces your damage, generally by negating one attack, or preventing you from making one. If that's how it works, fine. But stopping a character from taking any actions for multiple rounds is unduly punitive, even by fumble standards. It's not "you decapitate your character and the nearest other character, no save," but it's not "drop your weapon, waste one action picking it up," either.

[Gallowglass]

In theory, you could "grapple" someone simply by getting up in their space, weaving around them and limiting their movement. It's not grappling in the traditional sense, but it accomplishes the goal. And the muscles you use to grip aren't necessarily the same that you use to strike, after all.

this.

Its important to remember that the rules for ANY action you take is highly generalized.

For example "I attack with my sword and hit for 15 damage" could be a slashing hit to the ribs, its could be a glancing blow to the shoulder, it could be a complex back and forth parry causing your enemy to grow weaker by bits.

Grapple, likewise, could be a wrestling hold, or it could be other things like what Red Fel is describing.

Some actions are less generalized, but most combat actions have a wildly divergent span of what could be happening that is simplified in description.

The important bit is this: Your fumble rules are meant to represent another challenge, or rather a complication to the existing challenge, for the PC to react to and deal with or overcome. Your PC came up with a novel way to overcome that complication. It wasn't outright against the rules and it hardly came close to breaking the game or being unfair, so why -not- allow it.

[Deca4531]

I hear and agree with a lot of what everyone is saying, and yes trying to grapple would normally be a very inventive way around his problem. However he built his character almost souly around grappling, honestly the fact that he punched it instead of trying to grapple it was surprising. Its really not much different from a trip fighter ending up in battle with an ooz or snake. such things shut down one note builds like that and he had chose int to be a dump stat so he had almost no skills. While i agree that fumble rules are a pain (again, they wanted them, not me) things like this do happen. your weapon can get sundered and you have no back up, a sleep spell can take you out for several rounds, you get taken out in the ambush round and no one can heal you until combat is over.


In theory, you could "grapple" someone simply by getting up in their space, weaving around them and limiting their movement. It's not grappling in the traditional sense, but it accomplishes the goal. And the muscles you use to grip aren't necessarily the same that you use to strike, after all.

had he told me something like this i totally would have aloud it. had he even gone to help flank, even though he didn't have a weapon, the bad guys wouldn't know that, and i would have aloud it.

[Psyren]

But a Monk, without his unarmed strikes, has basically nothing. Saying that he can't make an unarmed strike is one thing; saying that he can't make combat maneuvers - even those that don't explicitly require a strike - is even more punitive. It basically becomes a case of "Just stand there and be an obstacle."

To be fair though, every character should really have a backup weapon, up to and including monks. Even if it's just a stack of shuriken or a rope dart, there are always going to be situations where unarmed melee is not the best approach, even if that's your specialty. Without even advocating for fumble rules, no martial class should be caught with their pants around their ankles like that.

[Gallowglass]

I hear and agree with a lot of what everyone is saying, and yes trying to grapple would normally be a very inventive way around his problem. However he built his character almost souly around grappling, honestly the fact that he punched it instead of trying to grapple it was surprising. Its really not much different from a trip fighter ending up in battle with an ooz or snake. such things shut down one note builds like that and he had chose int to be a dump stat so he had almost no skills. While i agree that fumble rules are a pain (again, they wanted them, not me) things like this do happen. your weapon can get sundered and you have no back up, a sleep spell can take you out for several rounds, you get taken out in the ambush round and no one can heal you until combat is over...had he told me something like this i totally would have aloud it. had he even gone to help flank, even though he didn't have a weapon, the bad guys wouldn't know that, and i would have aloud it.

*shrug* You came in and started a thread asking for opinions about if what you did was the right call. By your own language you seemed to be leaning toward the "probably not the right call" edge of the argument. One person has agreed with your call by the rules, but said that he would have ruled it differently regardless, and Five of us have now given our opinion that it wasn't, with our reasons why. Now you seem to be trying to justify the decision you made and shift the blame to the player.

No one is saying you were a bad DM or anything. We all have had similar issues crop up where a decision we made during the flow of combat we later wished we made differently. **it happens. Take our opinions and use them if you want, or ignore them if you want.

got a curiosity about your fumble deck. Lets say your monk had drawn a card that said "you drop your weapon" when he doesn't have one... or the fighter had drawn the "can't use unarmed attacks for the next 1d4 rounds" when he has never used an unarmed attack in his life. Do they have to redraw? Or do they just luck out and get to ignore the crit result? Assuming they get to "luck out", how many cards are in the deck and how many could actually affect the monk? I'm guessing a very small % of them would affect him if drawn?

[Deca4531]

got a curiosity about your fumble deck. Lets say your monk had drawn a card that said "you drop your weapon" when he doesn't have one... or the fighter had drawn the "can't use unarmed attacks for the next 1d4 rounds" when he has never used an unarmed attack in his life. Do they have to redraw? Or do they just luck out and get to ignore the crit result? Assuming they get to "luck out", how many cards are in the deck and how many could actually affect the monk? I'm guessing a very small % of them would affect him if drawn?

each card has an option for melee, range, natural and spell, so that scenario cant happen. and yes, i admit im kinda defending my choice, i dont like to think i hobbled my player, even if it was only 1 round, for no reason.

[Psyren]

each card has an option for melee, range, natural and spell, so that scenario cant happen. and yes, i admit im kinda defending my choice, i dont like to think i hobbled my player, even if it was only 1 round, for no reason.

You actually didn't; again, backup weapons are the player's responsibility. Hell, he could have grabbed an improvised weapon like a broken stick on the ground and laid into something.

If a monster is designed to disarm or sunder the fighter's sword, he'd clearly be at a disadvantage if that happens, but that's still a risk he has to prepare for. Losing your unarmed strike is admittedly much harder, but an adventurer's job is to be prepared.

[Gallowglass]

You actually didn't; again, backup weapons are the player's responsibility. Hell, he could have grabbed an improvised weapon like a broken stick on the ground and laid into something.If a monster is designed to disarm or sunder the fighter's sword, he'd clearly be at a disadvantage if that happens, but that's still a risk he has to prepare for. Losing your unarmed strike is admittedly much harder, but an adventurer's job is to be prepared.

I usually agree with everything Psyren says. But in this case, I don't. Your players failure wasn't not having or coming up with a backup plan, his only failure was in not coming up with a creative or verbose enough solution that you would allow.

Although, I will say that (with the caveat that I was not there to witness the interaction) it is a very un-creative player that can't think of a solution around this particular scenario. Seriously. You are monk. All your unarmed strike powers work just as well through a monk weapon as they do through your fists and feet. And a broken stick on the group qualifies as a monk weapon!

I bet someone buys a tonfu at the next port of call.

[Psyren]

I usually agree with everything Psyren says. But in this case, I don't. Your players failure wasn't not having or coming up with a backup plan, his only failure was in not coming up with a creative or verbose enough solution that you would allow.

Although, I will say that (with the caveat that I was not there to witness the interaction) it is a very un-creative player that can't think of a solution around this particular scenario. Seriously. You are monk. All your unarmed strike powers work just as well through a monk weapon as they do through your fists and feet. And a broken stick on the group qualifies as a monk weapon!

I bet someone buys a tonfu at the next port of call.

I'm confused - you said you don't agree with me, but then you're suggesting the player do exact same thing I was (have a backup weapon.) :smallconfused:

[Gallowglass]

I'm confused - you said you don't agree with me, but then you're suggesting the player do exact same thing I was (have a backup weapon.) :smallconfused:

I disagreed with you, because I believe that the DM -did- unnecessarily hobble the player. I think the players solution of grappling was adequate, and that it should have been allowed to function.

I agree with you about being prepared. This was a case of both the DM and the player could have made the interaction more palatable. The DM through being more permissive and the player through being more creative and better prepared.

whynotboth.gif

[Psyren]

I disagreed with you, because I believe that the DM -did- unnecessarily hobble the player. I think the players solution of grappling was adequate, and that it should have been allowed to function.

I agree with you about being prepared. This was a case of both the DM and the player could have made the interaction more palatable. The DM through being more permissive and the player through being more creative and better prepared.

whynotboth.gif

Ah, I follow you. Yes, I'd have allowed grappling to function too (but not the "damage" ability of the grapple, since that could only be an unarmed attack.) And then admonished the player about packing a cestus or something.

[bahamut920]

each card has an option for melee, range, natural and spell, so that scenario cant happen. and yes, i admit im kinda defending my choice, i dont like to think i hobbled my player, even if it was only 1 round, for no reason.
To be honest, if it was the players who asked for this, then they're getting exactly what they asked for. If a DM enforces critical fumbles, I usually go looking for another game, but if I was DM and the players actually wanted them, I'd probably do exactly the same as you did.

I'd suggest implementing a "confirmation roll" on your fumbles, if you want to keep using the fumble deck, personally. Like how you have to roll a second time to actually get additional damage or special effects off a critical hit, you roll a second time if you roll a natural 1, and if your attack roll meets or exceeds the enemy's AC, it's simply a normal miss. Only if they "miss" on the confirmation roll do they actually pick from the fumble deck. I think your monk's player, at least, would support this addendum... :P


You actually didn't; again, backup weapons are the player's responsibility. Hell, he could have grabbed an improvised weapon like a broken stick on the ground and laid into something.

If a monster is designed to disarm or sunder the fighter's sword, he'd clearly be at a disadvantage if that happens, but that's still a risk he has to prepare for. Losing your unarmed strike is admittedly much harder, but an adventurer's job is to be prepared.
This is also partially true. Even a Vow of Poverty monk can carry around a 0 GP quarterstaff or club, both of which are monk weapons and can be used with flurry of blows, IIRC.

[Deca4531]

I'd suggest implementing a "confirmation roll" on your fumbles, if you want to keep using the fumble deck, personally. Like how you have to roll a second time to actually get additional damage or special effects off a critical hit, you roll a second time if you roll a natural 1, and if your attack roll meets or exceeds the enemy's AC, it's simply a normal miss. Only if they "miss" on the confirmation roll do they actually pick from the fumble deck. I think your monk's player, at least, would support this addendum... :P

Thats a pretty cool idea, i pose it to them and see what they think.

[Psyren]

Assuming you're using the Paizo fumble deck, it actually tells you to confirm fumbles as the default (first two options.) Only the third option is "Nat 1 = Draw."

[bahamut920]

It's, IMO, the best way to run fumbles, and the only tolerable way. Otherwise, fumbles punish higher-level fighters more than lower-level ones, statistically. If every natural 1 fumbles all the time, a higher-level character actually has a much higher chance of a fumble occurring than a lower-level one, due to having more attacks per round and more chances to roll 1s. At least this way, a higher-level character has a better chance to not fumble on their first few attacks.

[Deca4531]

Assuming you're using the Paizo fumble deck, it actually tells you to confirm fumbles as the default (first two options.) Only the third option is "Nat 1 = Draw."

I didnt know that, lol. One of the players has an app for it on his phone, i never mess with it directly.

[Deca4531]

Assuming you're using the Paizo fumble deck, it actually tells you to confirm fumbles as the default (first two options.) Only the third option is "Nat 1 = Draw."

I didnt know that, lol. One of the players has an app for it on his phone, i never mess with it directly.

[RolkFlameraven]

There is one other 'optional rule' you might want to think about. You can 'bank' a confirmed crit off the that deck and use it to null a fumble. The one time my group used the deck after we saw just how nasty some of those fumbles could be they all had a banked crit ready to go.

But yes, if you are going to use fumbles please make sure you are doing a confirmation roll for them just like a crit, after all why should they get punished for a 1 but have to roll twice on a 20?

As for what happened here, I don't have my deck near by as, well it didn't get much use and we reverted to our much less harsh fumbles rules, but I think it says 'that' natural attack, meaning a claw/bite/slam. I'm not so sure if a Monk would be as effected, after all he could just use a different part of his body then the part that was 'injured' by the fumble right?

[Psyren]

There is one other 'optional rule' you might want to think about. You can 'bank' a confirmed crit off the that deck and use it to null a fumble. The one time my group used the deck after we saw just how nasty some of those fumbles could be they all had a banked crit ready to go.

I particularly like this use of the deck because it allows you to counter fumbles - thus allowing a build that gets lots of attacks (e.g. a monk or mounted archer) to normalize their output and avoid having their bowstring randomly snap or be broken/bleeding on the floor just from attacking.


As for what happened here, I don't have my deck near by as, well it didn't get much use and we reverted to our much less harsh fumbles rules, but I think it says 'that' natural attack, meaning a claw/bite/slam. I'm not so sure if a Monk would be as effected, after all he could just use a different part of his body then the part that was 'injured' by the fumble right?

The Paizo deck specifically says that unarmed strikes are considered "natural" for the purposes of fumbling:


USING THE DECK

Whenever an attacker (be it a PC, NPC or Monster) confirms a critical fumble, draw one card from the deck and apply the result appropriate to the attack type (melee, ranged, natural or magic.) Natural attacks refer to any attack made with a body part, such as a claw, bite, slam, unarmed strike, tail, or wing. Unless otherwise stated, all these effects are in addition to the attack failing.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't feel about ranting about fumbles yet again, and this case sounds particularly horrible.

But I'll just answer your question with a question: In your game, does Weapon Focus (unarmed) add a +1 to grapple checks? (Don't cop out on me; in PF grapple and other maneuvers are attacks, not checks like in 3E, it's a totally valid question). Answer that, and I think you have your answer.

[Deca4531]

I don't feel about ranting about fumbles yet again, and this case sounds particularly horrible.

But I'll just answer your question with a question: In your game, does Weapon Focus (unarmed) add a +1 to grapple checks? (Don't cop out on me; in PF grapple and other maneuvers are attacks, not checks like in 3E, it's a totally valid question). Answer that, and I think you have your answer.

Hmm, since no one has ever taken that I've never been posed that question before. I would say no, it wouldn't, since grabbing a person and being able to strike a vital point arent the same thing. However it also says you need 2 free hands to grapple someone, and since he was temporary denied the use of those hands for combat purposes for that round, you can see my reasoning.

I might ask my monk friend his thoughts on that feat, since he is my resident grapple expert.

[SethoMarkus]

Hmm, since no one has ever taken that I've never been posed that question before. I would say no, it wouldn't, since grabbing a person and being able to strike a vital point arent the same thing. However it also says you need 2 free hands to grapple someone, and since he was temporary denied the use of those hands for combat purposes for that round, you can see my reasoning.

I might ask my monk friend his thoughts on that feat, since he is my resident grapple expert.

IMO your reasoning was sound. That isn't saying that I agree with nullifying the monk completely in this case, but I don't think your reasoning was that far off. Also, from what I'm gathering, you'd probably resolve this issue differently in the future.

If this were my game, I'd talk to the monk's player, saying "I'm changing my mind on that call I made, my bad. In the future you'll be able to grapple like normal", and move on. It makes sense from a fluff perspective that the same "nerve damage" that caused a loss of unarmed attackes would also cause a loss of grappling, but mechanically it just breaks down and doesn't hold up, in addition to crippling a character concept.

At least that's how I see it...

[Deca4531]

IMO your reasoning was sound. That isn't saying that I agree with nullifying the monk completely in this case, but I don't think your reasoning was that far off. Also, from what I'm gathering, you'd probably resolve this issue differently in the future.

If this were my game, I'd talk to the monk's player, saying "I'm changing my mind on that call I made, my bad. In the future you'll be able to grapple like normal", and move on. It makes sense from a fluff perspective that the same "nerve damage" that caused a loss of unarmed attackes would also cause a loss of grappling, but mechanically it just breaks down and doesn't hold up, in addition to crippling a character concept.

At least that's how I see it...



I actually already did that, lol. He doesn't really care much, i posed this question more to get people's opinion on what a monk who cant use his body as a weapon could do.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hmm, since no one has ever taken that I've never been posed that question before. I would say no, it wouldn't, since grabbing a person and being able to strike a vital point arent the same thing. However it also says you need 2 free hands to grapple someone, and since he was temporary denied the use of those hands for combat purposes for that round, you can see my reasoning.

I might ask my monk friend his thoughts on that feat, since he is my resident grapple expert.

You only need one free hand to grapple, actually. You just take a penalty if not using both hands (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Grapple):

Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.

In any case, based on the bolded text, grapple is NOT the same as unarmed strike in your opinion, so it would be hypocritical to say that being denied unarmed strikes means you can't grapple, either.

[Deca4531]

Oh i dont deny that by RAW he would still be able to grapple, that was never in question. I was looking at this more from an RP perspective. What could you do to yourself during an attack with a fist that would provent you from using your body as a weapon, but wouldn't stop you from wrestling someone.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Oh i dont deny that by RAW he would still be able to grapple, that was never in question. I was looking at this more from an RP perspective. What could you do to yourself during an attack with a fist that would provent you from using your body as a weapon, but wouldn't stop you from wrestling someone.

I don't know, critical fumbles are stupid and unfair and stupid. And that particular "cute" fumble is really nonsensical. Not my job to try and explain how some fumble happens nor is it the rest of the rules' obligation to bend over backwards to make that fumble card look less ridiculous. If a guy is unable to punch but can still grab someone because some fumble card said he can't punch temporarily, not my problem to get it to make sense. It doesn't make sense from the start.

[Coidzor]

each card has an option for melee, range, natural and spell, so that scenario cant happen. and yes, i admit im kinda defending my choice, i dont like to think i hobbled my player, even if it was only 1 round, for no reason.

Unfortunately, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

To be fair, though, at least it is partially his fault that you're using such horrible rules in the first place, rather than it just being an autocratic bad decision on your part.

[Anlashok]

I was looking at this more from an RP perspective. What could you do to yourself during an attack with a fist that would provent you from using your body as a weapon, but wouldn't stop you from wrestling someone.

What could you do to yourself during an attack with a fist that would prevent you from using any part of your body as a weapon but somehow does not hinder your movement or cause any actual physical harm to you or provide any other detrimental effect?

Or prevent you from using a weapon? Why would it be impossible for him to punch or kick someone but not impossible for him to pick up a stick and swing it at the same enemy? Or hell, a gauntlet. He can't headbutt or punch anyone for 1d4 rounds, but if someone slapped a boulder helmet on his head or a gauntlet on his arm he could go to town?

The problem with judging it from an RP perspective is that nothing about it makes any sense from the get go. Fumbles only work as gamist constructs because that's what they are in the first place.