Flurry of Claws?

[shadow_archmagi]

I'm sure this has been asked before. Is Monk/Druid a viable gestalt build? Wouldn't that make you a creature with natural armor, loads of powerful attacks (You thought two claw attacks per round was bad, add flurry.) and still a spellcaster? Plus it'd all be wisdom based, and your phsyical stats would be covered by wildshape, so no MAD.

[Epinephrine]

Our DM doesn't allow such things.

Yes, in theory, a kung-fu bear could hit with one paw as an unarmed attack, doing flurry of blows, and follow it up with secondary bite and claw. It's mentioned in the Druid Handbook, with the caution that most DMs don't allow kung-fu bears.

[dman11235]

Hey, it's a druid. How can you go wrong?

Besides, I prefer my Bear Warrior build for kung-fu bears. Less spell casting loss. Unless you're gestalt, in which case druid 20//monk 5/MoMF 10/Warshaper 5.

[Person_Man]

Only humanoids have unarmed attacks.

Also, natural weapons cannot be used with Flurry of Blows.

Check the FAQ.

[Epinephrine]

Person_Man - how do creatures deal damage in a grapple, which is the unarmed attack damage of a creature of that size?

The FAQ is ridiculous anyway, half the rulings are obtuse, like a rogue swallowed by some creature getting sneak attack damage automatically because the rogue is "invisible" to the creature that swallowed it. I fail to see how anyone could do "precision" damage when it's dark, you are being digested, you have no way of gauging what area of the enemy you are attacking even if you can see, etc.

Triangle_Man says not to use FAQ's blindly. I'd still not allow karate-bears and the like, but I also wouldn't allow wild-shape druids, using Aspect of the Wolf to self-enchant with animal spells, or other ways to get broken effects.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Of course, all this unarmed attack crap can be cut off by taking Dragon 'zine's Unorthodox Flurry. Done, Claw flurry.

[Chronos]

Druid//anything is a viable Gestalt build. Monk is one of the best things to combine it with, since it gives a lot of passive bonus (that don't take an action), and they're based on Wis. No matter how you rule on Flurry of Blows (and Person_Man, do you have any cites for those?), you still gain the AC bonus and the faster movement, both of which are sort of icing on the cake for a druid.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Regardless of who gets unarmed attacks, flurry of blows can't be used with natural attacks, only unarmed strikes. You don't need the FAQ for that, it's in the RAW. Quoth the SRD/PHB: "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons".

That said, I imagine most of the other monk abilities would help you when wild-shaped - increased speed, AC bonus, etc.

[Azerian Kelimon]

As mentioned above, Unorthodox Flurry.

Yeah, no matter what, that feat makes claw flurries viable.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Person_Man - how do creatures deal damage in a grapple, which is the unarmed attack damage of a creature of that size?

They are not using unarmed strikes, they just deal the damage equivalent.

Damage Your Opponent: While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike.

The FAQ is ridiculous anyway, half the rulings are obtuse, like a rogue swallowed by some creature getting sneak attack damage automatically because the rogue is "invisible" to the creature that swallowed it. I fail to see how anyone could do "precision" damage when it's dark, you are being digested, you have no way of gauging what area of the enemy you are attacking even if you can see, etc.

If the rogue cannot see the opponent sneak attack is not possible and that should have been mentioned in the FAQ entry you refer to, but that certainly does not invalidate the rest of the FAQ. (Not even if you would actually mention some of the more grievous rulings.)

The FAQ rulings that Person_Man refers to seems quite reasonable.

Can a monk who has natural weapon attacks ... attack unarmed and still use his natural
weapons?

If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon
attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full
attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed
strikes in place of weapon attacks).

If a creature with multiple natural attacks (such as the
standard two claws and a bite array) takes levels of monk,
how do flurry of blows and its natural attack progression
interact?

You can’t use a natural weapon (claw, bite, or whatever) as
part of a flurry of blows—only unarmed strikes and special
monk weapons may be used in a flurry of blows.
If a creature can use one of its natural weapons as a
secondary attack in conjunction with manufactured weapon
attacks, it may do the same with that natural weapon in
conjunction with a flurry of blows. Any penalty assessed on
attacks by the flurry of blows would also apply to the natural
weapon attack.

It does not directly forbid the use of unarmed strikes for such creatures, but it prevents the use in connection with natural weapon attacks.

[Chronos]

As mentioned above, Unorthodox Flurry.

Yeah, no matter what, that feat makes claw flurries viable.

Although it does suffer from the double whammy of being from Dragon magazine and being 3.0, which means that many DMs won't allow it.

It also only grants you one weapon as a monk special weapon, so if you choose bite, say, and then shift into a form that attacks with a headbutt instead, it won't help you.

[KillianHawkeye]

Only humanoids have unarmed attacks.

I have a question about this:

Let's say you have an awakened bear Fighter (just for example). By RAW, if the bear takes the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does it now gain unarmed strike attacks? If so, then a Druid//Monk who wildshapes into a bear should still be able to use their Monk unarmed strike.

Personally, I'd allow any creature that has above animal intelligence to make an unarmed strike even if they normally have natural weapons.

[Darrin]

Only humanoids have unarmed attacks.

Wildshape doesn't change your type, you'd still be considered humanoid.

Also, even if the creature's type were changed to animal, an animal with levels of monk would still have the monk's Improved Unarmed Strike ability, which would give them unarmed attacks.

Also, natural weapons cannot be used with Flurry of Blows.

No, but they can be added to the full attack progression as secondary attacks with a -5 penalty.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Also, even if the creature's type were changed to animal, an animal with levels of monk would still have the monk's Improved Unarmed Strike ability, which would give them unarmed attacks.

...That they could not use in connection with natural weapon attacks during a full attack if you go by the FAQ.

[Darrin]

...That they could not use in connection with natural weapon attacks during a full attack if you go by the FAQ.

As secondary attacks, the natural attacks aren't part of the flurry. The FAQ does in fact say natural weapons can be used as a secondary attack after a flurry, so long as that natural weapon is not doing something else (such as holding a manufactured weapon):

If a creature can use one of its natural weapons as a
secondary attack in conjunction with manufactured weapon
attacks, it may do the same with that natural weapon in
conjunction with a flurry of blows. Any penalty assessed on
attacks by the flurry of blows would also apply to the natural
weapon attack.

(emphasis added)

At least, I think that's what it says. The FAQ doesn't appear to be going out of it's way to actually answer the question in a way any rational human being might understand.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

As secondary attacks, the natural attacks aren't part of the flurry. The FAQ does in fact say natural weapons can be used as a secondary attack after a flurry, so long as that natural weapon is not doing something else (such as holding a manufactured weapon):

(emphasis added)

At least, I think that's what it says. The FAQ doesn't appear to be going out of it's way to actually answer the question in a way any rational human being might understand.

Luckily I am not a rational human being.

Your emphasis is on the wrong part of the quote.

Notice the qualifier in the beginning of both answers.

If a creature can use one of its natural weapons as a
secondary attack in conjunction with manufactured weapon
attacks

If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon
attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full
attack routine

It is not about holding manufactured weapons, it is about being a creature type that normally can combine manufactured weapon attacks with natural weapon attacks.
Most (might be an understatement) animals do not belong in this group, unlike monstrous humanoids for instance.

[Fostire]

From SRD
Natural Weapons

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Enphasis mine.
From this i'd say you cant make a "flurry of claws"

[Darrin]

It is not about holding manufactured weapons, it is about being a creature type that normally can combine manufactured weapon attacks with natural weapon attacks.

A monk with natural attacks counts as just such a creature (and there's an argument he doesn't even need to wildshape, since his unarmed strikes count as both manufactured and natural weapons, and he can exchange unarmed strikes with manufactured monk weapons in a flurry). A monk wildshaped into an animal loses the ability to hold manufactured weapons, but still retains his unarmed strike class ability, which allows him to treat his unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons.

If the monk gains any natural attacks via racial abilities/feats/wildshape, then he can designate them as secondary attacks and add them to his full attack with a -5 penalty (in addition to any flurry penalty).

The FAQ explicitly says that you can combine flurry with secondary attacks. Any creature with natural attacks can designate them as a secondary attack with a -5 penalty. Ergo, a monk/druid can wildshape into an animal, flurry with unarmed strikes, and add his natural attacks after the flurry with a -5 penalty. Clear as mud, yes?

(Skip Williams disagrees, but that probably has more to do with the description of the flurry ability than the muddled FAQ. Flurry says a monk can only attack with unarmed strikes or monk weapons, which might be interepreted as disallowing secondary attacks on any turn when the monk flurries, but the FAQ explicitly allows secondary attacks to be combined with flurry. The most likely case is the FAQ, and thus my argument, is *wrong* in addition to being hopelessly confusing.)

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

There is absolutely no problem combining natural weapon attacks with a FoB as long as the creature normally can use natural weapons along with manufactured weapons and the natural weapons are used as secondary attacks. (The FAQ agrees.)

The point here is not about the manufactured weapons even though the FAQ answers might mislead you to think that.
No the question is whether iterative attacks can be combined with natural weapon attacks.

What the FAQ is saying is that shapes/types that can do this normally (typically because their MM description includes a full attack routine that offers some combination of manufactured weapons and natural weapons) are allowed to include natural weapon attacks in their full attack (as secondary attacks) when also using FoB or just iterative Unarmed Strikes.

It follows then that if the shape/type does not have this ability naturally, such as animals, the creature cannot combine the two, but would have to choose between either using your unarmed strikes routine or your natural weapons when full attacking.

I hope that makes the argument reasonably clear.

[BadJuJu]

Person_Man - how do creatures deal damage in a grapple, which is the unarmed attack damage of a creature of that size?

The FAQ is ridiculous anyway, half the rulings are obtuse, like a rogue swallowed by some creature getting sneak attack damage automatically because the rogue is "invisible" to the creature that swallowed it. I fail to see how anyone could do "precision" damage when it's dark, you are being digested, you have no way of gauging what area of the enemy you are attacking even if you can see, etc.

Triangle_Man says not to use FAQ's blindly. I'd still not allow karate-bears and the like, but I also wouldn't allow wild-shape druids, using Aspect of the Wolf to self-enchant with animal spells, or other ways to get broken effects.

Well, it would be hard to see, but how could you miss a vital organ? Youre freakin in one, so sneak atack makes perfect sense if you can see at all, like darkvision or a flaming weapon.

[Darrin]

No the question is whether iterative attacks can be combined with natural weapon attacks.

It was my understanding that they can. Any creature with a natural attack via racial ability/feats/class feature can designate it as a secondary attack with a -5 penalty and add it on to a full attack progression.

It follows then that if the shape/type does not have this ability naturally, such as animals, the creature cannot combine the two, but would have to choose between either using your unarmed strikes routine or your natural weapons when full attacking.

A wildshaped monk does not change his type to animal. Even if it did, his unarmed strike feature allows him to attack with an unarmed strike while in animal form and treat it as a manufactured weapon. The FAQ explicitly says he can then combine his flurry with a secondary natural attack. So yes, I am completely and utterly failing to see how the FAQ says this can't be done, when it does in fact say it can.

Even if the animal did not have monk levels/abilities, his ability to attack with a manufactured weapon is not explicitly prevented via his animal type. Animals could be outfitted with metal weapons, such as an Eagle's Claw type thing or barding + armor spikes. Feats, templates, or class features could also give an animal the ability to attack with a melee weapon, and assuming that weapon did not occupy an appendage associated with a natural attack, the animal could add all his remaining natural attacks after his iterative attacks with a -5 penalty.

I hope that makes the argument reasonably clear.

I do apologize. I can be *exceedingly* dense. But I still don't see anything that says a monk that wildshapes into an animal loses the ability to attack with a manufactured weapon, particularly when he has a class ability that gives him an unarmed strike that does not require any particular physiological appendage and allows him to treat it as a manufactured weapon.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, ok, as you state:

There is absolutely no problem combining natural weapon attacks with a FoB as long as the creature normally can use natural weapons along with manufactured weapons and the natural weapons are used as secondary attacks. (The FAQ agrees.)

How does this NOT apply to a wildshaped monk?

As far as many DMs not allowing kung-fu bears... allowing a monk to flurry and then add his natural attacks at a -5 penalty isn't game-breaking. The warning about DMs not allowing kung fu bears has more to do with wildshape being broken than the kung-fu being broken.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

It was my understanding that they can. Any creature with a natural attack via racial ability/feats/class feature can designate it as a secondary attack with a -5 penalty and add it on to a full attack progression.

I believe that this is the very assumption that causes the disagreement between you and the FAQ.

The basis for the FAQ ruling is that there are (roughly) two different kinds of creatures with regard to this question.
Whether these creatures are monks, mooks or Gonks is completely irrelevant.

The first kind is the one that can do it all. This kind is typical humanoid-like (I use the term very loosely) and they typically have some appendage that can be used to wield a manufactured weapon much like humanoids have.
They also typically have a full attack entry that combines natural weapon attacks with manufactured weapons.

The second kind has to choose between one or the other. Either it uses natural attacks or, if it happens to be a monk or perhaps just a very clever bear (read: druid), it attacks with its unarmed strikes, but not both at the same time.

The FAQ uses the qualifier, I quoted earlier, to say that, yes you may normally attack with everything you got, but not if you happen to fall into this second category where combining these two different types of weapons are not "natural".

The actual type of the creature is not important as this is not restricted to animals what is important is the shape used. This is also why I said that it does not matter if we are talking about a monk bear, a druid bear or a standard bear. All of them are in a form that does not allow iterative attacks to be combined with natural weapon attacks during full attacks.

[Jasdoif]

The second kind has to choose between one or the other. Either it uses natural attacks or, if it happens to be a monk or perhaps just a very clever bear (read: druid), it attacks with its unarmed strikes, but not both at the same time.

There's a related FAQ entry for this. It talks about manufactured weapons and not unarmed strikes, but I believe the principle is the same: Making an unarmed strike, making a manufactured weapon attack, and making a natural weapon attack all require the dedicated use of the limb(s) involved. If you're doing one, it isn't available for the others.

What happens when creatures use their natural weapons as secondary attacks along with a manufactured weapon? For example, lizardfolk have two claws that also serve as hands. What happens when they wield a onehanded weapon in one hand and nothing in the other? Do they lose both claw attacks in exchange for their attacks with the weapon?

Wielding a manufactured weapon doesn’t prevent a creature from using all its natural weaponry, provided that the creature is using the full attack action and the additional natural weapons are free.

The example lizardfolk can’t make a claw attack with the “hand” that holds its weapon, although it does get to attack with the weapon itself. But, if it’s using the full attack action, it can use its other claw as a natural secondary attack (–5 to attack rolls, half Strength bonus), and can also bite as a natural secondary attack. In effect, the lizardfolk is using its normal full attack routine with the manufactured weapon attack substituted for one claw attack.

[shadow_archmagi]

So, if my understanding is correct, the battle log wold look something like this.

Monk uses Flurry!
Monk attacks with Punch!
Monk attacks with Punch!
Monk attacks with Punch!
Monk attacks with Punch!
Monk's flurry has ended.
Monk attacks with Claw!
Monk attacks with Claw!
Monk attacks with Bite!

[Bauglir]

Just to chime in, Unorthodox Flurry got put in the Dragon Compendium, which I believe is 3.5, so it's only got the trouble of being Dragon material.

[Darrin]

Monk attacks with Punch!
Monk attacks with Punch!

If a monk wanted to attack with a claw, then he should probably avoid using that hand for an unarmed strike (such as a Punch). However he could Kick, Elbow, Knee, Headbutt, etc., and keep his claws free for natural attacks.

A monk using a "Punch" might count as using his fist as a manufactured weapon (a monk's strikes count as both a manufactured and natural weapon), and thus might not be considered "free" to make a claw attack. Even if you don't consider it a manufactured weapon in that instance, some DMs may object to making a claw attack with a hand that was busy doing something else earlier in the round, such as punching, on basic common sense grounds.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

So, if my understanding is correct, the battle log wold look something like this.

Monk uses Flurry!
Monk attacks with Punch!
...
Monk's flurry has ended.
Monk attacks with Claw!
Monk attacks with Claw!
Monk attacks with Bite!

If you are in bear shape or similar and choose not to ignore the FAQ then NO.

If you are a Lizardfolk Monk//Druid and by "Punch" you mean "Kick" then YES.

[Chronos]

So, if my understanding is correct, the battle log wold look something like this.

Yes, provided that the monk is in a form which allows for combining iterative and natural weapons. For instance, a Lizardfolk's full attack entry includes "or club +2 melee (1d6+1) and bite +0 melee (1d4)", so Lizardfolk are allowed to combine manufactured and natural weapons. A high-level Lizardfolk monk (a monitor lizard?) could attack with Unarmed, Unarmed, Unarmed, Unarmed, Claw, Claw, Bite (but as Darrin said, the unarmed strikes would be more likely to be kicks than punches, so as to leave the forelimbs free for claw attacks).

A Blink Dog, by contrast, does not have a Full Attack entry in its stat block for combining manufactured and natural weapons. So while a Blink Dog monk could make unarmed strikes, and could even make iterative attacks and Flurry with unarmed strikes, it would have to do so instead of its normal bite attack, not in addition.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

There's a related FAQ entry for this. It talks about manufactured weapons and not unarmed strikes, but I believe the principle is the same: Making an unarmed strike, making a manufactured weapon attack, and making a natural weapon attack all require the dedicated use of the limb(s) involved. If you're doing one, it isn't available for the others.

Certainly, but my point was (just to be absolutely clear, since I seem not to be making much sense at all) that the FAQ goes even further and says that you cannot attack with your natural weapons if you have used unarmed strikes or other iterative attacks (or vice versa) AND are in a form that does not normally mix the two types.

[Darrin]

Just to chime in, Unorthodox Flurry got put in the Dragon Compendium, which I believe is 3.5, so it's only got the trouble of being Dragon material.

It's not clear how much of the Dragon Compendium material was actually updated to 3.5. Large chunks of it are identical to what was printed in Dragon during the 3.0 era. For example, the "Pebble Underfoot" feat is identical to what appeared in Dragon, but is illegal in 3.5: you cannot trip a foe that is two size categories or larger.

Unorthodox Flurry appears to have the same text as the 3.0 version. In fact, it only mentions three "monk" weapons, so it wasn't updated to include all of the 3.5 monk weapons such as the sai, shuriken, or staff. However, the prerequisite of "Monk level 6th+" printed in the magazine appears to have been removed, so that could either mean it was updated or the prerequisite was accidentally left out by mistake.