Can Monks Full-Attack on a Pounce?

[ATHATH]

Flurry of Blows mentions a "full attack action", not a "full attack".

[Graysire]

I would assume that full attack action translates to full attack, as nothing else I can think of is referred to as a full attack action, full round action is the closest thing, but still seperate

[Venger]

they're the same thing. if you have pounce somehow, yes you can.

[Necroticplague]

No. Pounce let's you do one, very specific thing at the end of a charge: make a full-attack. A Flurry of Blows is not a full-attack, though it uses the same action type. A full-attack action is a type of full-round action. Normally, this is used to make a full-attack, but it's possible to expand the option. A similar example is Whirlwind Attack, another full-attack action that isn't a full-attack.

[Genth]

No. Pounce let's you do one, very specific thing at the end of a charge: make a full-attack. A Flurry of Blows is not a full-attack, though it uses the same action type. A full-attack action is a type of full-round action. Normally, this is used to make a full-attack, but it's possible to expand the option. A similar example is Whirlwind Attack, another full-attack action that isn't a full-attack.

From the (Pathfinder, at least) FAQ:

Any melee attack sequence you can perform as a full attack action is allowed as part of the charge-pounce-full attack. For example, a barbarian with the greater beast totem rage power gains the pounce universal monster ability and could make iterative attacks with manufactured melee weapons as part of her charge-pounce-full attack.

In addition, the entire concept of Full Attack is specifically about getting extra attacks:

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), 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.

Flurry of Blows gives you extra attacks. You have to use a full round action called a full attack in order to get those extra attacks. Pounce allows you to use the full round action called a full attack at the end of a charge.

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder, yes. In 3.5, also yes, but there's a 40-page debate before you just bribe the DM with pizza to get the ambiguous ruling in your favor.

[Pleh]

Aren't monks handicapped enough that they can barely function as intended without ruling their ambiguous rules against them?

If this is for a real game, let them use TWF with UAS, let them combine TWF and FoB in one full attack (adding the penalties for both), and for pity's sake, if they went out of their way to get pounce, let them do all these things at the end of a charge.

Forget the RAW for a moment and think of the RAI. No one wants to see their monk stuck making single punches every round.

unless they are ACTUALLY one punch man.

[gkathellar]

In Pathfinder, yes. In 3.5, also yes, but there's a 40-page debate before you just bribe the DM with pizza to get the ambiguous ruling in your favor.

This. You can have a long, highly technical argument about RAW, or even about RAI seeing as pounce did not exist at time of printing for flurry of blows, but the proper answer is, "seriously is this what we're spending our time on?"

The rules are ambiguous, and this combo is average at best. The correct answer in such cases is nearly always, "yes."

[Darrin]

This. You can have a long, highly technical argument about RAW, or even about RAI seeing as pounce did not exist at time of printing for flurry of blows, but the proper answer is, "seriously is this what we're spending our time on?"


Actually, Pounce was printed in the Monster Manual, and that did exist at the time when the PHB was printed. However, I think you mean, "At the time the PHB was printed, the designers never anticipated that an immense online community of rules-bending system optimizers would spend every waking hour trying to squeeze every last advantage out of obscure quirks in the rules."



The rules are ambiguous, and this combo is average at best. The correct answer in such cases is nearly always, "yes."

As far as the text goes... the Flurry of Blows text uses the term "full attack action" and then refers to page 143, where "Full Attack" is defined. In the MM, Pounce (Ex) says "it can follow with a full attack", but does not mention an action type. I don't see any reference to PHB p. 143, but there is a definition for "Full Attack" on page 6 of the MM. I must conclude that the Pounce text is referring to this entry. However, PCs do not have a "Full Attack" entry in their stat block. For a PC that acquires Pounce, Full Attack would be defined by the PHB... which does so on page 143. And in the grand scheme of things, I don't see anything fundamentally different in how the PHB or MM define Full Attack. I must conclude that they use the same mechanics and are more or less referring to the same type of action. From a RAW standpoint, I would rule that they are fundamentally the same, and combining Pounce with Flurry of Blows is entirely legal.


No. Pounce let's you do one, very specific thing at the end of a charge: make a full-attack. A Flurry of Blows is not a full-attack, though it uses the same action type. A full-attack action is a type of full-round action. Normally, this is used to make a full-attack, but it's possible to expand the option. A similar example is Whirlwind Attack, another full-attack action that isn't a full-attack.

I disagree. Since the Flurry of Blows text refers to the Full Attack on page 143, I don't see any text supporting the idea that Flurry of Blows is a different type of full-round action that is separate and distinct from a Full Attack. Flurry of Blows is a full attack with special restrictions. None of those restrictions conflict with using Pounce.

[Professor Chimp]

To echo some comments above, just let the Monks have their Flurry of Blows Pounce, RAW be damned.

It's not like the Monk isn't already the punching bag of the Core classes.

[Karl Aegis]

Flurry of Blows can be used as a full-attack action.

Rapid Shot can be used with the full-attack action.

This leads me to believe that a full-attack action such as a flurry of blows is a separate and distinct entity from the full-attack action.

Nothing prevents a Monk from making a full-attack on a pounce. Nothing allows a Monk to take a full-attack action on a pounce.

[Pleh]

This leads me to believe that a full-attack action such as a flurry of blows is a separate and distinct entity from the full-attack action.

I'm hearing, "a full attack action" is different from "the full attack action".

This is a bad distinction since Darrin showed that the book doesn't define that distinction (unless you have another source that somehow does?)

Is it silly to pounce with a rapid shot? Sure, but you still provoke AoO and Crossbows still have to handle reloading.

And if that kind of silly is the cost we pay to not squish the poor monk again, I'm glad to pay it.

[Karl Aegis]

Isn't the point of the pounce-monk the ability to full-attack while moving in the same round?

Turn 1: Move Action then Standard Action: Start Full-Round Action
Turn 2: Finish Full-Round Action: Rapid Shot then Move Action
Turn 3: Repeat Turn 1 then Turn 2

I feel like that's a better use of your class features than running into melee and eating a full attack from a melee monster because, you know, most monsters don't have ranged actions as good as their melee actions that the monk doesn't have defenses for.

[KillianHawkeye]

Is it silly to pounce with a rapid shot? Sure, but you still provoke AoO and Crossbows still have to handle reloading.

You can't do that. Pounce let's you make a full-attack at the end of a charge, but it doesn't remove the restriction that the attack at the end of a charge is with a melee weapon.

As for the other debate, Flurry of Blows, Two-Weapon Fighting, even Rapid Shot all modify the full-attack action. They are not in any way a completely separate kind of action.

[Darrin]

You can't do that. Pounce let's you make a full-attack at the end of a charge, but it doesn't remove the restriction that the attack at the end of a charge is with a melee weapon.

Eh... that may be somewhat fungible. If we go strictly by the RAW from the MM, you can "follow" the charge with a full attack, so by the text the full attack actually happens after the charge is done. There's an argument that the charge happens, you make a single melee attack at the end of the charge, and THEN you get a full attack, at which point you could do whatever you could in a full attack: Rapid Shot, TWF, Flurry, whatever. It's also not clear from the text if the same restrictions from the charge still apply to the full attack. Since D&D is an exception-based rules system, you could say that Pounce is an exception to the Charge rules, so the full attack doesn't have to be melee. (If you want to be *really* literal about the RAW, you can also get a free Bull Rush after the Charge in addition to the single melee attack.)

However, nobody I know actually plays Pounce that way, as most people assume that what the designers meant was the full attack "replaces" the single melee attack after the movement portion of the charge is done. Essentially, the designers used sloppy wording, and to a certain extent expect the players to use common sense to hammer out the details.

It's probably not worth arguing about.