Unarmed Damage

[Eloel]

I got bored, and created an unarmed gestalt build (WITHOUT SWORDSAGE, don't talk about swordsage in here). After the discussion about FoF, I didn't use it, yet I have quite a few classes in there.
Monk 11
Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries 9
//
Goliath LA 1
Ranger 6
Reaping Mauler 5
Fighter 8

Note that I didn't use Reaping Mauler as we know it, but used the one in the link below.
http://wakinglands.com/htm_files/the_prestige_classes_page.htm

Before anyone complains, the following are accepted;
Reaping Mauler from that link
Enlarge Person on Goliath
Powerful Build giving +1 size to UA
SuS and Monk's Belt stacking

http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=95704
There the sheet is. Would anyone mind criticizing?

[woodenbandman]

For starters you cannot TWF with unarmed strikes. Before you say that you can use both your hands to punch, I will go ahead and say it for you. You can use both your hands to punch. You can use your feet, too. You can headbutt, and chest bump. You can shake that ass. Each one of these is technically an unarmed strike, as per the definition of a monk's unarmed strike. Yet a monk absolutely does not qualify for multiweapon fighting, even though every plane on his body is a viable striking surface for unarmed strike damage to work off of. Check, if you want. The rules clearly support this fact.

So right there you just lost, I believe, 4 attacks.

For another, gloves of dexterity + 8 are an epic item costing 640,000, not 64,000. Similarly, your shirt of giant strength +8 costs 960,000. Your cloak of resistance + 10 costs 1 million. Even if it didn't, though, is the +2 strength really worth the extra 50k you could spend elsewhere, like, say, getting your monk belt upgraded to a monk belt of giant strength + 6? Hey, it's unlikely you'll get this build allowed in a game that doesn't use the MIC.

Also, why did you take 11 monk levels when you could have done something like a psychic warrior tashalatora? That would net you extra bonus feats and powers as well, which would be totally sick.

Why is your CON 10? You can't even survive a single freaking disintegrate, much less something like a few hits from a dragon (likely you'll fight one, and they can cast celerity). Your build doesn't even have pounce, which means you rely on you remaining in melee for one full round with more than one enemy. With your AC 16, 5 6th level fighters can power attack you down in a single round.

Finally, get a greater mighty wallop CL 20 permanencied on you somehow. UMD until you succeed on casting it from a scroll if you have to. That will raise your effective size category by 5.

[Keld Denar]

For starters you cannot TWF with unarmed strikes. Before you say that you can use both your hands to punch, I will go ahead and say it for you. You can use both your hands to punch. You can use your feet, too. You can headbutt, and chest bump. You can shake that ass. Each one of these is technically an unarmed strike, as per the definition of a monk's unarmed strike. Yet a monk absolutely does not qualify for multiweapon fighting, even though every plane on his body is a viable striking surface for unarmed strike damage to work off of. Check, if you want. The rules clearly support this fact.


Wrong. He's TWFing, not Multiweapon Fighting. A monk does not qualify for MWF because he doesn't have 3 or more arms. He does qualify for TWF, and can "duel wield" unarmed strikes. The clause about monks having no "offhand" attacks only applies to UASs made with their body or monk weapons while only claiming a number of attacks normal according to their normal full attack, or flurry of blows full attack progression. They can claim extra attacks above and beyond that, which would be considered "offhand" attacks by the definition of TWF.

I gave a really good arguement concerning Bob the Fighter and Mark the Monk, I'll link it when I find it in a second.

"Offhand" is a bad term for it, since nobody is "X-handed" in D&D. I can't think of a more appropriate term than that, but I guess neither could WotC R&D when they named it.

Found it! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5390745&postcount=10)



In our group(s), that has always been treated as impossible. Mainly because the description of the monk says that 'there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk'.

This is kind of a misconception, IMO. When they say that a monk "doesn't have an offhand", its in the same light as a fighter who carries 2 swords, one in each hand, but doesn't claim any extra attacks with them doesn't have an offhand. For example...

Bob the fighter is 6th level and has Two Weapon Fighting. That means Bob has a BAB of +6, allowing him to make 2 attacks, one at +6, one at +1. Bob is holding a long sword in his main hand, and a light flail in his offhand. On Bob's turn, he attacks with his long sword first, with an attack bonus of +6 doing 1x str bonus damage on top of weapon damage. Then Bob attacks with his flail with an attack bonus of +1, and uses this attack to make a trip attempt. His attempt succeeds and his Improved Trip feat triggers, granting him a followup attack. This followup attack hits, and Bob does damage with his flail, adding in 1x str bonus to damage. At no point during this combat round did Bob use his Two Weapon Fighting feat, and none of his attacks were considered "offhand" even though he used both hands to make attacks with two different weapons. If both weapons hit, they would both deal 1x str bonus damage to the target.

Now, in the next round of combat, since Bob's opponent is already tripped from the flail attack, Bob wants to attack more times. This time, Bob declares he's going to Two Weapon Fight, takes his penalties, and starts attacking. His first attack with his long sword attacks at +4 (which includes the -2 for TWF) hits, still doing 1x str bonus damage. He attacks again with his long sword, this time at a bonus of -1 (again due to TWF penalties) and hits, rolling damage with 1x str bonus. Then, Bob attacks a 3rd time, this time with his flail. His AB is +4, same as his first attack with his long sword, but when he hits, he only adds half of his str bonus to weapon damage. This is because the flail attack is now considered an "offhand" attack.

Now, Bob's friend Mark the Monk ALSO has Two Weapon Fighting, and has a BAB of +6. Mark starts a flurry and declares he will use TWF. Mark takes a total penalty of -4 (2 for TWF, 2 for flurry) and his attack routine looks like this: +2/+2/-3/+2, with the final attack at +2 being considered "offhand" thanks to the TWF feat. Mark's first 3 attacks hit, and all deal normal 1x str bonus damage. Mark's 4th attack also hits, but only deals .5x str bonus damage, because its an offhand attack. It doesn't actually matter which of Mark's hands he hits with, or if he uses his feet or head or elbows, or even if he hip checks them. The only differentiator is how much str value the attack gets.

See how this works? No character is considered to have an "offhand" attack unless they claim extra attacks in a round for using one. Even a character without the TWF feat can make an offhand attack, although the penalties are pretty strong for it without the feat, and the character is limited to making one single offhand attack unless he has GTWF or ITWF. You also can't make an offhand attack with the same weapon as your primary attack, thats spelled out in the rules, but nowhere does it say you can't "equip" multiple Unarmed Strikes, since its with any part of your body.

Hope this clears things up.

[woodenbandman]

Yes, he can dual wield, unarmed strikes, but he doesn't technically own more than one unarmed strike. Each character starts out with the ability to make unarmed strikes. He can use unarmed strikes as the primary or secondary method of attack, but not both. He could wield a greatsword and kick, he could wield a sword and punch, but two punches count as just that: two punches using the same weapon (your body). If you allow each fist to count as a separate unarmed strike, but not for each elbow, knee, foot, etc, you've not only completely contradicted what was explicitly written, but you've also completely upset the balance of the monk class, because then that would allow a character with 3 or more hands to have an unlimited number of attacks (because a monk's unarmed strike need not come from hands, remember?). They can use any part of their body that they choose, call it an unarmed strike, and be done with it. There you go. I've got inifinite attacks, woo! Multiweapon fighting.

EDIT: They just said I can equip as many unarmed strikes as I want. I now have 400 unarmed strikes: Fists, foot, knees, elbows, shoulders, ass, eyebrow hairs (1 attack each), eye lashes, tongue, teeth (1 attack each)... And I just got a draconic graft, so I have a 3rd arm now. I'm going to multiweapon fight with all of these. Or just take multiattack. I'll just go ahead and take the average damage of 1 critical hit and 19 unconfirmed criticals, assuming I only hit on a 20. You just took 21 * 32d8 + 11 x str mod damage.

Of course, the simple solution is getting a scorpion kama, which does damage equal to your unarmed strike. All monk weapons should do that, but they don't for some foolish reason.

[jcsw]

You could technically grab two kamas to allow TWF to work with flurry. (Not sure on this)

Also: Try this PrC (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20030224a)

[AmberVael]

WAIT!
Before this thread gets further, I must state the following things:

-Lol, monks are bad.
-Use Unarmed SwordSage.
-Wizards will beat you up after school and in gym.
-You are going to use UMD and partially charged wands.
-Rofl, eversmoking bottle.

Okay, you can continue. You have now been christened by the cliches of the playground. :smalltongue:

-

More on topic:
While Woodenbandman may be a little harsh, there are some valid points being brought up. The low HP and AC are kinda scary, though I do see you went with some other defenses in lieu of AC (cloak of displacement, ring of invisibility, ring of blinking...)
I would recommend trying to find some way to replace the Ring of Blinking with an effect of Greater Blinking, so as to avoid that nasty chance that applies against you as well. A way to get Entropic Shield could be useful, and likely cheap, and it wouldn't be too hard to stack a couple more miss chances on there somewhere as well. Idk, maybe you could even go Incorporeal with some effect if you needed to.
A lot of your items do fall under the category of epic items, which have an additional x 10 modifier (ugh), so you'll want to be wary of those.
Something to give you protection from Ability Damage/Drain would also be highly worth the investment.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Yes, he can dual wield, unarmed strikes, but he doesn't technically own more than one unarmed strike. Each character starts out with the ability to make unarmed strikes. He can use unarmed strikes as the primary or secondary method of attack, but not both.

This is both explicitly wrong (the FAQ explains that yes, you can TWF with unarmed strikes), and nonsensical.

[Keld Denar]

MULTIWEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by 2 with the primary hand and reduced by 6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.


Offhand attacks are only attacks you gained through the virtue of having 3 or more hands, the prereq for this feat. This references back to Two Weapon Fighting, which has this limitation. You can not gain more attacks than you have hands, even if you aren't striking with those hands.

And did you even read my post (in the spoiler) about the difference between primary hand and "offhand"?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

This is both explicitly wrong (the FAQ explains that yes, you can TWF with unarmed strikes), and nonsensical.Read my sig, then read:
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. The Monk needs at least one weapon besides "
Unarmed Strike" to strike with 2 weapons. It's a bit nonsensical, but it is the RAW.

[Keld Denar]

Read my sig.

And you read my post. Offhand has nothing to do with which appendige you strike with, it is only determined by claiming additional attacks per round, and how much str bonus you apply to those attacks. Its right there in this very thread, spoilered at the bottom of my first post. Read it, and see if it makes sense, and then tell me that you can't claim "offhand" attacks with unarmed strikes even if your primary attack is also an unarmed strike.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

And you read my post. Offhand has nothing to do with which appendige you strike with, it is only determined by claiming additional attacks per round, and how much str bonus you apply to those attacks. Its right there in this very thread, spoilered at the bottom of my first post. Read it, and see if it makes sense, and then tell me that you can't claim "offhand" attacks with unarmed strikes even if your primary attack is also an unarmed strike.Precisely. Also, I often don't notice edits. I'd recommend not posting unless your thoughts are complete.

[Keld Denar]

Precisely.
Wait, so you are agreeing with me?

Also, I often don't notice edits. I'd recommend not posting unless your thoughts are complete.

The edit was there before you posted. Also, I'm at work, and they are still using IE from 2003, which doesn't have tabbed brousing.:smallfrown: Makes it much harder to compile multiple thoughts into a single post at once time. Forgive my technological limitations.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Wait, so you are agreeing with me?No, I'm asking how you can reconcile "Offhand has nothing to do with which appendige you strike with, it is only determined by claiming additional attacks per round" with "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" and come to the conclusion that a Monk can TWF unarmed, which requires an off-hand weapon.
The edit was there before you posted. Also, I'm at work, and they are still using IE from 2003, which doesn't have tabbed brousing.:smallfrown: Makes it much harder to compile multiple thoughts into a single post at once time. Forgive my technological limitations.but not before I read the post. May I recommend either Word or a cigar drive with FF?

[Tsotha-lanti]

The intention of the text is pretty clear. When you flurry, none of your attacks are at +½ Str bonus. It's not related to TWF - TWF attacks are added on top in perfectly normal fashion, following the usual rules. There's no kind of conflict that even needs to be specifically addressed - the FAQ is making no kind of ruling, just clarifying the already obvious results of reading the rules.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The intention of the text is pretty clear. When you flurry, none of your attacks are at +½ Str bonus. It's not related to TWF - TWF attacks are added on top in perfectly normal fashion, following the usual rules. There's no kind of conflict that even needs to be specifically addressed - the FAQ is making no kind of ruling, just clarifying the already obvious results of reading the rules.I'm not arguing RAI. I'm saying that when the rules read "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a Monk striking Unarmed", A MONK DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING THAT NEEDS OFFHAND ATTACKS UNARMED! Yes, RAI this is probably wrong, but RAW is RAW.

[Eloel]

All magic items I had was done by d20srd magic item creation rules.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm

For Shirt of Strength
Bonus Squared (8^2) x 1000 x 1.5 (for uncostumary space) = 96k gp
For Gloves of Dex
With same formula except uncostumary space, 64k gp
Resistance Save bonus is;
Bonus Squared (10^2) x 1000 = 100k gp
Boots of Move Silently; (a buffed version of Elvenkind one, so right space)
40^2 x 1000 = 160k gp

I don't see what's wrong here.
Also, FAQ states I can TWF with unarmed strikes, so your arguement is not applicable.

[AmberVael]

All magic items I had was done by d20srd magic item creation rules.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm

Epic rules are here: Linky. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/basics.htm)
The most relevant section is here:

Use the guidelines for nonepic magic items to determine the market price of an epic magic item, with one addition: If the item gives a bonus beyond the limit allowed in for normal, nonepic magic items, multiply the portion of the market price derived from that characteristic by 10. Some epic characteristics, such as caster level, don’t trigger this multiplier.

[Keld Denar]

No, I'm asking how you can reconcile "Offhand has nothing to do with which appendige you strike with, it is only determined by claiming additional attacks per round" with "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" and come to the conclusion that a Monk can TWF unarmed, which requires an off-hand weapon
Reread the spoiler again. The first example of Bob attacking with his longsword and flail at the same time, yet neither of them being "offhand" is the same as a monk attacking with any part of his body, and not being considered "offhand". Since neither of them claims any extra attacks because of their offhand, all of their attacks are treated as "primary" and deal 1x str bonus as additional damage. When the fighter and monk each gain additional attacks due to TWF, these extra attacks are considered offhand. That is what "offhand" and "primary" hand means. A monk NORMALLY doesn't have an offhand, but can gain an offhand by taking TWF. Does this make sense?


but not before I read the post.
There were 20 minutes between my final edit and your post.

EDIT:
Its a case of specific trumps general. Generally, a monk does not have an offhand. Neither does a fighter, or a wizard. They just go and explicitly state it in monk. Specifically, any character who takes TWF gains an offhand. Anyone able to cite me the specific trumps general passage somewhere? I can't find it atm.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

All magic items I had was done by d20srd magic item creation rules.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm

For Shirt of Strength
Bonus Squared (8^2) x 1000 x 1.5 (for uncostumary space) = 96k gp
For Gloves of Dex
With same formula except uncostumary space, 64k gp
Resistance Save bonus is;
Bonus Squared (10^2) x 1000 = 100k gp
Boots of Move Silently; (a buffed version of Elvenkind one, so right space)
40^2 x 1000 = 160k gp

I don't see what's wrong here.
Also, FAQ states I can TWF with unarmed strikes, so your arguement is not applicable.Bonuses above a certain point are considered Epic, and have a x10 modifier.

And the FAQ, along with CustServ and Sage advice, has been known to answer so far from the rules it's not even funny.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I'm not arguing RAI. I'm saying that when the rules read "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a Monk striking Unarmed", A MONK DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING THAT NEEDS OFFHAND ATTACKS UNARMED! Yes, RAI this is probably wrong, but RAW is RAW.

But that's not what the rules say. Those words mean what I said - none of the attacks suffer the off-hand penalty of ½ Str bonus to damage.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

But that's not what the rules say. Those words mean what I said - none of the attacks suffer the off-hand penalty of ½ Str bonus to damage.The rules say the Monk has no offhand attacks. They meant what you say, probably, but they didn't say that.

Also, Keld, I read your post when you made it. I don't go back and check for edits later. I think the Monk's specific rule of "no offhand attacks unarmed" counters the general rule of "a character with 2 weapons may use one of them offhand with the following penalties".

[Tsotha-lanti]

So what you're saying is that I am correct, and the FAQ is correct, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut...?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

So what you're saying is that I am correct, and the FAQ is correct, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut...?What I'm saying is that the rule was probably only intended to make sure the monk didn't have to deal half strength with all his attacks, but the way they wrote it he has no ability to dual-wield Unarmed Strikes. RAI v. RAW.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Reread the spoiler again. The first example of Bob attacking with his longsword and flail at the same time, yet neither of them being "offhand" is the same as a monk attacking with any part of his body, and not being considered "offhand". Since neither of them claims any extra attacks because of their offhand, all of their attacks are treated as "primary" and deal 1x str bonus as additional damage. When the fighter and monk each gain additional attacks due to TWF, these extra attacks are considered offhand. That is what "offhand" and "primary" hand means. A monk NORMALLY doesn't have an offhand, but can gain an offhand by taking TWF. Does this make sense?

There were 20 minutes between my final edit and your post.

EDIT:
Its a case of specific trumps general. Generally, a monk does not have an offhand. Neither does a fighter, or a wizard. They just go and explicitly state it in monk. Specifically, any character who takes TWF gains an offhand. Anyone able to cite me the specific trumps general passage somewhere? I can't find it atm.

The problem is that TWF does say you GAIN an offhand attack, it reduces the PENALTIES for an off-hand attack.


Two-Weapon Fighting [General]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.

Prerequisite
Dex 15.

Benefit
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.

Normal
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

Special
A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.

A fighter may select Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Therefore, to be able to apply TWF, you need to already HAVE an off-hand attack which TWF would then reduce penalties on attacking with. Monks are specifically defined as NOT having an off-hand attack, thus you cannot reduce penalties on something which does not exist, thus you cannot have TWF as a monk using unarmed attacks (although you could with paired monk weapons).

Stupid? Yes. RAI? Almost certainly not. RAW? Yes.

[Keld Denar]

I think the Monk's specific rule of "no offhand attacks unarmed" counters the general rule of "a character with 2 weapons may use one of them offhand with the following penalties".

So, you think RAW states that the specific entry in Monk overrides the general entry in TWF, and I think RAW states that the specific entry in TWF overrides the general statement in Monk. By RAW, we are both right. Since both are acceptable readings by RAW, we turn to the FAQ for clarification. FAQ says a Monk can TWF. There, settled?

[Ascension]

Note that Goliaths are Monstrous Humanoids, and thus not a valid target for Enlarge Person. I learned this the hard way myself.

[Keld Denar]

The problem is that TWF does say you GAIN an offhand attack, it reduces the PENALTIES for an off-hand attack.

You are reading the wrong TWF. You are reading the feat. Check out combat chapter, under special attack actions. The last entry is:


TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
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. [snip]

Since you can "wield" a 2nd unarmed strike in your other hand, you do in fact gain an extra attack per round with that weapon, which is considered your offhand and deals only 1/2x str bonus.

EDIT:
Above poster, the player already got it houseruled from the DM that Enlarge Person can affect a Goliath character, so your point is noted yet moot.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Since you can "wield" a 2nd unarmed strike in your other hand, you do in fact gain an extra attack per round with that weapon, which is considered your offhand and deals only 1/2x str bonus.No, you can't. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." Why is that hard?

[Eloel]

Note that Goliaths are Monstrous Humanoids, and thus not a valid target for Enlarge Person. I learned this the hard way myself.

I house-ruled it in :P stated so at 1st post.

[Keld Denar]

No, you can't. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." Why is that hard?

Because Unarmed Strike has its own entry in the weapons table, so you can treat it as an equipped item, if you will. You can equip one in each hand. If you don't claim any bonus attacks from the 2nd one, then you are right, neither of them are considered offhand, regardless of flurry status. Same as my first Bob the fighter example who is wielding a long sword in his one hand, and a flail in his other hand. None of his attacks are considered offhand either, because he isn't claiming extra attacks. Since Bob gets 2 attacks per round, he can hit with his long sword twice, his flail twice, or his long sword once and flail once. None of these attacks are considered offhand because he doesn't claim any extra attacks. If a monk with 3 attacks (because of flurry) attacks 3 times with his right hand, 3 times with his left hand, or once with his right, once with his left, and once with a head butt, none of these attacks are considered offhands either. Thats what the general passage under a monk's unarmed strike is clarifying. BUT, if that monk chooses to take a TWF action and attacks 4 times, again, it doesn't matter what combination of punches, kicks, headbutts, or rump shakes he makes, that last attack is going to be "offhand" and only going to gain +1.5x str damage. This is what the specific combat action is clarifying.

So I counter with "Why is this hard?"

[Tsotha-lanti]

No, you can't. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." Why is that hard?

Because there are at least two interpretations. (Never mind that that's not a rule, but an explanation/clarification of how rules work in this specific case.)

1. This means that a monk's flurry attacks don't suffer the penalty of ½ Str bonus to damage. This is the intended meaning.
2. This means monks don't get to make extra unarmed attacks with TWF. This is the one that makes no sense when considered against all the other rules.

Why is that hard, indeed?

[Roderick_BR]

For starters you cannot TWF with unarmed strikes. Before you say that you can use both your hands to punch, I will go ahead and say it for you. You can use both your hands to punch. You can use your feet, too. You can headbutt, and chest bump. You can shake that ass. Each one of these is technically an unarmed strike, as per the definition of a monk's unarmed strike.
Yes, you can use each part of your body to attack, but to effectively gain one more attack than the standard by your BAB, you may use TWF.
Snap Kick from TOB is effective for that as well, as it grants yet another unnarmed strike, with a little different ruling.

[hamishspence]

a dragon with monk levels is type specimen of this- it has lots of natural attacks, and unarmed strikes. Gets to the point where you wonder what its using, if wings, claws, bite, and tail are being used for something else.

Could be very rapid head-butting :smallbiggrin:

[Tsotha-lanti]

a dragon with monk levels is type specimen of this- it has lots of natural attacks, and unarmed strikes. Gets to the point where you wonder what its using, if wings, claws, bite, and tail are being used for something else.

Could be very rapid head-butting :smallbiggrin:

That's a bit of a funny special case, yeah. It's using the same limbs, probably, sort of, technically, but with the unarmed strike stats.

[hamishspence]

or feet- karate dragon. Given that more recent models tend to depict them as bipeds as often as not.

[metagaia]

RAW is an exercise in pure pedantry, so try this.


There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed

Ok, but nowhere does it state that monks do not have an off-hand, merely no off-hand attack. In fact a 'wielder' is considered to have an off-hand and a primary hand.

A light weapon is used in one hand.
A monk has two hands, therefore 2 light weapons.


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
That does not say that attack is an off-hand attack, clearly it is as RAI, but that does not count as the mighty RAW. :smallwink:

[Curmudgeon]

With all the other exceptions to the rules, you'll still have to add another one: goliaths are medium size creatures, and so are their body parts. Powerful Build does not make these body parts bigger. Goliath Monks do the same base unarmed damage as other medium size Monks.

[Keld Denar]

The dragon would get its full monkly compliment of itterative UASs, doing UAS damage for a monk of its size and level, and then could make all of its natural attacks all at -5 penalty (-2 with Multiattack, -0 with Improved Multiattack). What exactly the dragon monk attacks with for its UAS is unimportant. They would do the same damage, and the same damage type, as a non-dragon monk of its size and level. Whether or not the UASs are made with claws, bites, buffets, or headbutts, they would all do bludgeoning damage (unless the dragon took Versitile Strike).

Same as a lizard man with Multiattack could make full iteratives with something like Boot Knives (CScoundrel) and then make its full Claw/Claw/Bite routine at -2 from its full iterative bonus.

[jcsw]

With all the other exceptions to the rules, you'll still have to add another one: goliaths are medium size creatures, and so are their body parts. Powerful Build does not make these body parts bigger. Goliath Monks do the same base unarmed damage as other medium size Monks.


Powerful Build giving +1 size to UA

.

In any case, making up houserules for your own theoratical optimization builds is just silly.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

RAW is an exercise in pure pedantry, so try this.



Ok, but nowhere does it state that monks do not have an off-hand, merely no off-hand attack. In fact a 'wielder' is considered to have an off-hand and a primary hand.
[B]
A monk has two hands, therefore 2 light weapons.

[B]
That does not say that attack is an off-hand attack, clearly it is as RAI, but that does not count as the mighty RAW. :smallwink:

Incorrect, if we read the Monk 'unarmed strike'


At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. [B]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.
Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

Therefore, you cannot wield 'Unarmed Strike' in 'both hands', because the specific rules governing Monk Unarmed Attack obviate this. For the same reason that you cannot take Multiattack and attack with every theoretical body part for extra attacks with elbows, feet, and hands that were specifically mentioned as valid monk 'unarmed attacks' (which would give a monk at least 6 attacks at 1st level just from those specificed unarmed strike 'weapons' specifically mentioned in the description), you cannot TWF with them either, because you loose your off-hand attack.

In effect, monks get Flurry instead of TWF, which is superior to TWF in that it eventually negates TWF penalties. You loose the ability to TWF, but you get something better in exchange.

The only way you can TWF with a monk is to equip two weapons, and have your 'off hand' weapon be used in all TWF iterations.

In effect, it creates a distinction between attacking unarmed, and making an attack with an Unarmed Strike. If you haven't equipped any weapons, as a monk,you may attack unarmed, and cannot duo-wield. I suppose you could 'equip' an Unarmed Strike, but then your weapon damage would be d4 subdual, as listed, rather than the monk unarmed damage, and you loose flurry, because it is not a monk weapon.

[Rei_Jin]

If you really want to live and die by the RAW, as some people in this thread seem determined to do, a Monk is not proficient in his unarmed strikes.

Unarmed Strike is listed as a Simple Weapon Proficiency. Monks do not get Simple Weapon Proficiency, nor does Improved Unarmed Strike make them proficient in using their fists. It allows them to do more damage, and to strike for lethal damage without taking a -4 penalty on attacks, and to also not provoke an attack of opportunity on their attacks, but they will take a -4 penalty on all attacks made with their unarmed strike as they are not proficient in it.

It may be dumb, but by RAW it is correct.

So, perhaps screaming arguments about RAW should go jump eh?

[Muad'dib]

If you really want to live and die by the RAW, as some people in this thread seem determined to do, a Monk is not proficient in his unarmed strikes.

Unarmed Strike is listed as a Simple Weapon Proficiency. Monks do not get Simple Weapon Proficiency, nor does Improved Unarmed Strike make them proficient in using their fists. It allows them to do more damage, and to strike for lethal damage without taking a -4 penalty on attacks, and to also not provoke an attack of opportunity on their attacks, but they will take a -4 penalty on all attacks made with their unarmed strike as they are not proficient in it.

It may be dumb, but by RAW it is correct.

So, perhaps screaming arguments about RAW should go jump eh?

I think you're grossly misinterpreting their intentions. Saying something is RAW and saying it should be the end all be all, are two very separate things. It seems very clear to me that shneeky and stoopid just want the actual rule to be read as it's written when telling people how these systems work. Both have said that it's probably not rules as intended and it's probably better to house rule it so that monks can dual wield their unarmed strikes, but that's still not the point. The point is that monks by RAW cannot dual wield their unarmed strikes and RAW is the only actual middle ground that everyone has here.

And yes it is dumb even though by RAW it is correct, I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise, but it's still RAW and the point of RAW is being able to talk to anyone about what the rules are because house rules are everywhere, and they change with every group and that means that by default I should assume that Monks can't dual wield their unarmed strikes because I might have a DM that plays strictly by RAW (they do exist).

[Keld Denar]

The point is that monks by RAW cannot dual wield their unarmed strikes and RAW is the only actual middle ground that everyone has here.

My interpretation of RAW says they can. Go back and read my posts, especially the spoiler in the first one. I believe that TWF is the specific rule that trumps the general rule that monks have no offhand. I guess the question becomes, which section of the PHB holds more clout? The section that describes the class feature, or the section that describes a potential combat action? I think that the combat chapter holds more weight, since its the chapter devoted to how things are arbitrated in combat, which taking extra attacks as a full round action by utilizing your offhand is, rather than the classes section which makes a broad statement which technically applies to all classes, not just monks. See my spoilered example(the one about Bob the fighter and Mark the monk) for proof.

[Optimystik]

It may be dumb, but by RAW it is correct.

So, perhaps screaming arguments about RAW should go jump eh?

No, U.

In my view, Shneekey has it right; flurry is the monk's replacement for TWF and has always been intended thus.

[Muad'dib]

My interpretation of RAW says they can. Go back and read my posts, especially the spoiler in the first one. I believe that TWF is the specific rule that trumps the general rule that monks have no offhand. I guess the question becomes, which section of the PHB holds more clout? The section that describes the class feature, or the section that describes a potential combat action? I think that the combat chapter holds more weight, since its the chapter devoted to how things are arbitrated in combat, which taking extra attacks as a full round action by utilizing your offhand is, rather than the classes section which makes a broad statement which technically applies to all classes, not just monks. See my spoilered example(the one about Bob the fighter and Mark the monk) for proof.

How does a rule get more specific than the text describing the monks unarmed strike? I have read all your examples and I still disagree with your interpretation here. It doesn't get clearer than "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." It doesn't get more specific than that. And let me make this clear, I don't think monks not being able to dual wield their unarmed strikes was intended, but as an unfortunate side effect of the very specific rule for the monk's unarmed strike, they cannot as per RAW. Let me let you in on a little secret, I don't play by RAW, but that doesn't change what is RAW and what isn't.

[Keld Denar]

The entry in a monk's unarmed strike feature only refers to monks who make standard progression full attacks. When a monk doesn't claim any extra attacks due to two weapon fighting, this rule applies. That is why I feel that the TWF section is the more specific part. It doesn't say in a monk's unarmed strike discription that he can make trip attempts with his unarmed strike, yet the combat chapter says "you can make trip attempts with unarmed attacks". Similarly, the discription in monk doesn't say you can TWF with unarmed strikes, yet right there on the next page, in the same subset of specific combat actions, is two weapon fighting. Does that make sense? Combat is the more specific chapter, because it goes into detail the actions you can take, rather htan making general statements.

And like Bob the fighter found out, he doesn't have offhand attacks either, so long as he doesn't exceed the normal number of attacks he is allowed per round, per his BAB. He can attack with his long sword in one hand, or his flail in the other hand, or kick with boot knives, or attack with a weighted cloak, or attack with his mouthpick, or even punch/kick/headbutt just like a monk, and as long as he doesn't exceed the normal number of attacks he is granted in a round, he doesn't have an "offhand" either. That is what the passage in monk is clarifying. That a monk who attacks with any part of his body doesn't treat the attack as an offhand, as long as he doesn't use any additional rules that modify his attack routine, like with TWF.

Is any of this making sense? Or should I just give up on it? Since you won't accept a Sage ruling (I know half the stuff he says is bogus), and keep regurgitating the same sentance, I have no more arguements. I hope I have presented my arguement clearly.

[Muad'dib]

The entry in a monk's unarmed strike feature only refers to monks who make standard progression full attacks. When a monk doesn't claim any extra attacks due to two weapon fighting, this rule applies. That is why I feel that the TWF section is the more specific part. It doesn't say in a monk's unarmed strike discription that he can make trip attempts with his unarmed strike, yet the combat chapter says "you can make trip attempts with unarmed attacks". Similarly, the discription in monk doesn't say you can TWF with unarmed strikes, yet right there on the next page, in the same subset of specific combat actions, is two weapon fighting. Does that make sense? Combat is the more specific chapter, because it goes into detail the actions you can take, rather htan making general statements.

And like Bob the fighter found out, he doesn't have offhand attacks either, so long as he doesn't exceed the normal number of attacks he is allowed per round, per his BAB. He can attack with his long sword in one hand, or his flail in the other hand, or kick with boot knives, or attack with a weighted cloak, or attack with his mouthpick, or even punch/kick/headbutt just like a monk, and as long as he doesn't exceed the normal number of attacks he is granted in a round, he doesn't have an "offhand" either. That is what the passage in monk is clarifying. That a monk who attacks with any part of his body doesn't treat the attack as an offhand, as long as he doesn't use any additional rules that modify his attack routine, like with TWF.

Is any of this making sense? Or should I just give up on it? Since you won't accept a Sage ruling (I know half the stuff he says is bogus), and keep regurgitating the same sentance, I have no more arguements. I hope I have presented my arguement clearly.

The Monk's text, the text that states how a monk uses his unarmed strike, the unarmed strike that is in fact very different from the unarmed strike every other character can get, states that a monk's unarmed strike can never be an off-hand weapon. Yes in the context of where it was we can see what they may have been trying to say, but it is not what they said. Furthermore, the description in the monk's unarmed strike doesn't say you can dual wield unarmed strikes either. So there's not really anything backing them in the ability to dual wield their unarmed strikes. And as monks can use weapons, it does make sense that they mention dual wield as a monk would be able to dual wield monk weapons.

Bob the Fighter isn't a Monk. Bob the Fighter is a Fighter. Bob the Fighter doesn't have a specific description for his weapon attacks, there's already one for him in the combat section. Monks get a whole description devoted to their unarmed attack, because monks are special. If they have a whole section devoted to their unarmed attack, then that must be the most specific ruling on that attack. That entry states that a monk's unarmed attack can never be considered off-handed. That means within the parameters of our English language, he could never use it off-handed because it can never be considered off-handed. If that was not their intent then that's their mistake but it's what they wrote. The context of the paragraph it was said in doesn't matter, because if a monk's not dual wielding then there's no point to saying his attacks can't be considered off-handed. The point is though that they said it and there's nothing in two weapon fighting that actually contradicts it.

You have presented you're argument clearly, I just don't agree with your premise. I believe I've stated mine pretty clearly as well. And no I won't accept the Sage's ruling, because if anything the Sage says were to be taken as official, then they would put it in the errata. And don't claim I've been regurgitating the same sentence over and over when all you've been using to back yourself up is the text in Two-Weapon Fighting.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, there is nothing in the Equipment section discription of UAS that indicates that you can or can not duel wield it. There is also nothing in the Dagger entry that says you can duel wield it, yet you can. Why? Because its a 1handed or light weapon. So is UAS. Thats a moot point.

As far as whether or not a monk can wield their UAS twice?



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.


The part bolded (since italics don't work in quotes...) is a further clarification of the fact that a monk attacking with a normal routine (not TWF) can use any hand, or other body part, and it doesn't affect the +str bonus of the attacks. It applies ONLY to the monks normal attack routine, given on the monk table in the monk section. This attack routine can be modified with the special attack actions detailed in the Combat chapter. Similarly, the table in the Ranger entry doesn't give modified attack routines for his TWF combat style or Rapid Shot combat style, which are excplicitely spelled out in the Ranger description similar to the way monks UAS is detailed in the Monk description. That is because these are general combat routines, which can be modified by special attack actions in the combat chapter. Thats what makes it the general vs specific arguement in my opinion.

Yes, the section of monk describes how a monks Improved Unarmed Strike is different from anyone else taking Improved Unarmed Strike. It is funny that monks need that clarification, though, since the description of Unarmed Strike in the Equipment section makes no notation that its a punch, or even that open hands are even needed to attack with it. Thus, a character who isn't a monk can attack with kicks, elbows, headbutts, or any other part of their body while their hands are full, the same as a monk, and their attacks are never considered offhand either, unless they take extra attacks beyond their normal routine due to special attack actions like TWF, as dictated in the Combat chapter. Why would a monk need redundant rules text? Because it fulfils the monk flavor and clarifies it.


Unarmed Strike
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
[snip]

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Yea, there is nothing in the Equipment section discription of UAS that indicates that you can or can not duel wield it. There is also nothing in the Dagger entry that says you can duel wield it, yet you can. Yes there is. A dagger can be an off-hand weapon. An Unarmed Strike cannot.

[Keld Denar]

Yes there is. A dagger can be an off-hand weapon. An Unarmed Strike cannot.

Prove it?



Dagger
You get a +2 bonus on Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal a dagger on your body (see the Sleight of Hand skill).


I don't see anything that says you can or can not use a dagger as an offhand weapon. The only reason you can is because its on the weapon table as a light weapon, same as UAS.

Plus, are you saying that a non-monk can't use an Unarmed Strike to make extra attacks during a full attack using the TWF special combat action? Because thats also explicitely allowed. Nothing in the description of UAS says you can't use it as an "offhand" attack.

The only place where it says that an UAS is never an "offhand" is in the description of monk, and that is a redundant description given that for ANY character making a normal attack routine, their UASs are never considered offhand either.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I don't see anything that says you can or can not use a dagger as an offhand weapon.AThere is a rule specifically stating Unarmed Strikes cannot be used offhand. There is no such rule for daggers, or for any other weapon for that matter. What is the implication?

Right now I'm trying to understand why you say a rule stated clearly does not apply in the one situation that it matters. Seriously, what time, other than TWF, does off-hand come up? Can you think of any? Then why would you say it doesn't apply the one time it could?

[Muad'dib]

The part bolded (since italics don't work in quotes...) is a further clarification of the fact that a monk attacking with a normal routine (not TWF) can use any hand, or other body part, and it doesn't affect the +str bonus of the attacks. It applies ONLY to the monks normal attack routine, given on the monk table in the monk section. This attack routine can be modified with the special attack actions detailed in the Combat chapter. Similarly, the table in the Ranger entry doesn't give modified attack routines for his TWF combat style or Rapid Shot combat style, which are excplicitely spelled out in the Ranger description similar to the way monks UAS is detailed in the Monk description. That is because these are general combat routines, which can be modified by special attack actions in the combat chapter. Thats what makes it the general vs specific arguement in my opinion.

Except there is absolutely no reason to mention the str bonus to damage for off-hand attacks if someone isn't using a two-weapon fighting routine. None whatsoever. If you aren't two weapon fighting then there is no off-hand. They muddied up the meaning of what they were trying to say by adding a line that they didn't need to. That line was worded in too absolute a manner and thus screws things up for the monk.

[Muad'dib]

AThere is a rule specifically stating Unarmed Strikes cannot be used offhand. There is no such rule for daggers, or for any other weapon for that matter. What is the implication?

Right now I'm trying to understand why you say a rule stated clearly does not apply in the one situation that it matters. Seriously, what time, other than TWF, does off-hand come up? Can you think of any? Then why would you say it doesn't apply the one time it could?

Both normal unarmed strikes (not monk's) and daggers are classified as light weapons (unarmed strike in the descriptive text under the weapons table), which allows them to be wielded in the offhand by the two-weapon fighting rules. Only the monk's unarmed strike has the modifier and for Keld: It's not describing any particular attack routine in the entry, not full, not flurry, not twf.

[Keld Denar]

Except there is absolutely no reason to mention the str bonus to damage for off-hand attacks if someone isn't using a two-weapon fighting routine. None whatsoever. If you aren't two weapon fighting then there is no off-hand. They muddied up the meaning of what they were trying to say by adding a line that they didn't need to. That line was worded in too absolute a manner and thus screws things up for the monk.

What about a character wielding a double weapon?


You can use either head as the primary weapon. The other is the off-hand weapon. [/B]A creature wielding a dwarven urgrosh in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

But what if you don't opt to use the TWF special attack action listed in the Combat section of the PHB. The Urgrosh still has an offhand side, and a primary side, but all attacks made with either side are still made with +1x str to damage.

From my Bob the Fighter example, lets replace Bob's long sword and flail with a single urgrosh. Bob still has a +6 BAB, and still can make 2 attacks in a normal routine. Bob can attack with axe/axe, axe/spear, spear/axe, or spear/spear, alternating between primary and offhand at will just as he could with a long sword and a flail. Offhand here is used descriptively, without any mechanical implications. There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk. Same lack of mechanical meaning as the Urgrosh, with respect to the TWF special attack action in the Combat chapter of the PHB.

EDIT:

4and for Keld: It's not describing any particular attack routine in the entry, not full, not flurry, not twf.

Ah, but Flurry, the next entry in Monk after USA is detailed out in the table, while TWF is not. Why? Because Flurry is a specific monk rule, and TWF is not. The specific rules for TWF are in Combat, and apply to every class, not just every class but monks. TWF is the specific rule that is trumped by the general rule in the monk entry.

[Talic]

I'm not sure if you can qualify for Reaping mauler by ECL 6, with that build. At ECL 7, you need to take the class (7-11) so that you can take reaping mauler 9.

My personal opinion?

Monk 1-10/Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries 10
Warblade 5/Reaping Mauler 5/Monk 11/Warblade 6-14

This makes you a level 11 monk (in case you needed it for something)...

Gives you a total initiator level of: 17. That means 9th level maneuvers. Stone Dragon gives you excellent "brick breaking, freezing the lifeblood" feel (ignoring hardness for 1, mountain tombstone for the other). Diamond Mind is very good for Focus, and the moves have a monk feel.

Yes, it's a bit TOB, but it's used to let the monk have his day, and synergize with warblade, rather than the traditional "use unarmed swordsage".

EDIT: IMO, a better build would be:

Monk 1-10/Initiate of the Draconic Mysteries 10
Goliath LA 1/Warblade 1-9/Monk 11/Warblade 10-18.

Total initiator level = 19, still gets monk feel, the draconic class capstone, and is just plain strong.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Ah, but Flurry, the next entry in Monk after USA is detailed out in the table, while TWF is not. Why? Because Flurry is a specific monk rule, and TWF is not. The specific rules for TWF are in Combat, and apply to every class, not just every class but monks. TWF is the specific rule that is trumped by the general rule in the monk entry.

You got that backwards.

The combat rules for TWF are in Combat, and are the general case, unless exceptions apply.

Monk's Unarmed attacks are an exception to that rule.

If the combat rules for TWF that are in the Combat section are specific, they would have specifically mentioned monks. Since they did not, it is a general rule. Since the rule concerning monks specifically referred to off-hand attacks, it is a specific rule that trumps the general way off-hand fighting normally works.

[Keld Denar]

Since the rule concerning monks specifically referred to off-hand attacks, it is a specific rule that trumps the general way off-hand fighting normally works.
Thats just it, the rules for monks are specific to off hand attacks, for a normal attack routine. When a monk makes a normal amount of attacks, just like when a fighter makes a normal amount of attacks, just like when a ranger makes a normal amount of attacks, they don't have offhands either. Thats the point I've been trying to make, but no one seems to understand. Maybe the rules for TWF don't mention monk, because monk is NOT an exception? Because a monk can TWF with UASs? There wouldn't need to be an exception, and as I've pointed out, both are acceptable readings of RAW. The problem is, people focus in too narrow on that one sentence, and won't see the bigger picture, that the 3 sentences at the end of that ability description are superfluous and redundant, and that they only apply when a monk is making a basic sequence of attacks, unmodified by specific combat maneuvers. Heck, the last 4 sentences are redunant, because nothing in the description of UAS mentions that you can't attack with any part of your body as well. Look beyond "does no work" and see "does not work for x situation, but can be modified by other rules".

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Thats just it, the rules for monks are specific to off hand attacks, for a normal attack routine. When a monk makes a normal amount of attacks, just like when a fighter makes a normal amount of attacks, just like when a ranger makes a normal amount of attacks, they don't have offhands either. The problem is that, by the wording, they are denied any off-hand attacks, UNLIKE a Fighter or a Ranger. Nothing in either Fighter or Ranger class descriptions state that they don't have any off-hand attacks, thus they do. Monks DON'T. Thus they cannot benefit from TWF because they have no off-hand penalties to apply the feat to.


Thats the point I've been trying to make, but no one seems to understand. Maybe the rules for TWF don't mention monk, because monk is NOT an exception? Because a monk can TWF with UASs? There wouldn't need to be an exception, and as I've pointed out, both are acceptable readings of RAW. So you admit they're specific rules concerning monks and off hand attacks for unarmed attacks, and then say that they aren't an exception to the normal rules concerning two weapon fighting, even though you just said they were?

It seems painfully obvious to me. Monks do not have an off-hand to attack with, thus cannot TWF. Instead, they get Flurry, which is better than TWF. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.


The problem is, people focus in too narrow on that one sentence, and won't see the bigger picture, that the 3 sentences at the end of that ability description are superfluous and redundant, and that they only apply when a monk is making a basic sequence of attacks, unmodified by specific combat maneuvers. Heck, the last 4 sentences are redunant, because nothing in the description of UAS mentions that you can't attack with any part of your body as well. Look beyond "does no work" and see "does not work for x situation, but can be modified by other rules".

Then perhaps the sentences aren't superfluous and redundant, because they are defining the differences between monk unarmed attack and normal unarmed attack?

The problem is that you're going at this backwards. You're seeing the monk unarmed rules as general, and the rules in the Combat section for two weapon fighting as specific.

The rules in the Combat section are for everything in the whole game, every base class, every monster, unless otherwise contradicted. You can't get any more general than that.

The rules in the Monk Unarmed Attack section are specific exceptions to that rule. It mentions the general rules about off-hand, and specifically states that these are altered in this way for this class while attacking unarmed.

The monk rule isn't the rule that is modified, it is the exception to the rule that is doing the modifying.

[Keld Denar]

I'm not admitting that my arguement is wrong, I'm admitting that there seem to be multiple interpretations of RAW, which is perfectly valid. There are often multiple interpretations of laws and the way they interact with other laws. That is why we have judges and lawyers. I've given my proof why I believe my interpretation is correct, but I also admit that your arguement is also a legal interpretation of RAW. It all hinges on which passage is the specific rule, and which is the general rule. Since we don't have a judge to tell us which one of us has the correct reading because the Sage's opinion is barely worth the paper its printed on, and we probably won't ever get an "official" reply from WotC due to the fact that they aren't supporting 3.5 anymore, that leaves this unresolved as one of those grey areas that the rules don't clearly support.

Thus, I'd perfer if you all stop saying that your interpretation of RAW is the only valid interpretation and telling people that it absolutely beyond doubt doesn't work. You are not a WotC representative fulfilling the role of judge to determine which interpretation is correct. Nor am I.

It falls into the category of "ask your DM", similar to what counts as the "wizards" spell list as referenced by several abilities. Is it all of the spells printed in the books with the [WizX] tag, or is it any spell that an individual wizard may have aquired through methods other than normal spell research/scribing(such as Arcane Disciple, or some form of augmented learning such as that of a Wyrm Wizard). Its unclear, poorly defined, and open to individual DM interpretation, since by RAW, you could read it either way.