# Flurry of Blows + Two Weapon Fighting?



## Errant (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm sure this question has probably been raised before but I can't find the thread myself so apologies if I'm flogging a dead horse.

Anyway, can a Monk gain extra attacks by using a Flurry of Blurrys in combination with the Two Weapon Fighting feat(s)?

I understand that "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)", a/p Flurry of Blows, 3.5E SRD. Plus the Two Weapon Fighting feat says "You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon."

So does this mean if I use a 'special monk weapon' in each hand & can get bonus attacks from a Flurry of Blows PLUS another bonus attack with the 'second weapon' from the Two Weapon Fighting Feat? PLUS another bonus attack with the 'second weapon' from Improved Two Weapon Fighting? 


If so, at L10 with Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved TWF, & a pair of siangham (for instance) a monk would get 5 attacks at +2/+2/+2/+2/-3. 

Add another 10 levels & Greater TWF & the same monk would get 8 attacks at +5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+0/-5.

That doesn't seem too overpowered to me due to the attack penalties involved in TWF, but it sure seams like a lot of attacks a round.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jan 20, 2004)

I'd say no. It's stretching the rules. Ask yourself: Is it the designers intention that monks with two sianghams should be able to attack more often than anyone else?


----------



## rtricher (Jan 20, 2004)

I'd say sure why not.. if that's what you want to do with your monk and feat selections go for it a +2 to hit at level 10 most likely won't hit all that often so the way I see it he's not overpowered at all.  Oh and at level 20 a +5 to hit good luck hitting that 20lvl figther with AC 32..


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 20, 2004)

No, because Flurry of Blows IS a monks version of Two Weapon Fighting.  The only use he'd get from TWF is if he was using non-monk weapons, then in which case he'd use his non-unarmed BAB and the normal rules for using two weapons.

A monk does not have an off hand attack using unarmed strikes or monk weapons, so he gains no benifit from the TWF feats.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 20, 2004)

In 3.5 it works. You can use Flurry of Blows with ONE weapon after all.


----------



## brendan candries (Jan 20, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> In 3.5 it works. You can use Flurry of Blows with ONE weapon after all.




nice contradiction.

how do you think TWO-weapon fighting would apply?

spare me dubious rule quotes and please don't mention the TWO in TWO-weapon fighting is just flavor text.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 20, 2004)

brendan candries said:
			
		

> nice contradiction.
> 
> how do you think TWO-weapon fighting would apply?
> 
> spare me dubious rule quotes and please don't mention the TWO in TWO-weapon fighting is just flavor text.



Excuse me, I am not sure what you mean. 

And please excuse dubious rules quotes, we are in the Rules forum.


----------



## Camarath (Jan 20, 2004)

brendan candries said:
			
		

> nice contradiction.
> 
> how do you think TWO-weapon fighting would apply?
> 
> spare me dubious rule quotes and please don't mention the TWO in TWO-weapon fighting is just flavor text.



 Flurry of blows allows for additional attacks at a level dependant penalty when making a  Full Attack action. Two Weapon fighting allows additional attacks at a penalty when making a Full Attack action. Things which grant additional attacks when making a Full Attack action stack with each other unless stated other wise. For example Haste stacks with TWF but does not stack Speed with because it is stated not to. As far as I can see no rule states that Flurry of Blows and Two Weapon Fighting do not stack.

Also here are some old threads on this issue.
Flurry of Blows 
Flurry of Blows and Two Weapon Fighting 
[3.5] Monks and two weapons


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 20, 2004)

Camarath said:
			
		

> Flurry of blows allows for additional attacks at a level dependant penalty when making a  Full Attack action. Two Weapon fighting allows additional attacks at a penalty when making a Full Attack action. Things which grant additional attacks when making a Full Attack action stack with each other unless stated other wise. For example Haste stacks with TWF but does not stack Speed with because it is stated not to. As far as I can see no rule states that Flurry of Blows and Two Weapon Fighting do not stack.
> 
> Also here are some old threads on this issue.
> Flurry of Blows
> ...




I agree, there are some old sage advice and other things that said you couldn't... but that's before 3.5, and flurry has changed since then.


----------



## MichaelH (Jan 20, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> The only use he'd get from TWF is if he was using non-monk weapons, then in which case he'd use his non-unarmed BAB and the normal rules for using two weapons.



In 3.5, there is no more BAB and unarmed BAB for monks.  Monks simply use their BAB like every other class.  Monk weapons can be used in a flurry of blows.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 20, 2004)

MichaelH said:
			
		

> In 3.5, there is no more BAB and unarmed BAB for monks.  Monks simply use their BAB like every other class.  Monk weapons can be used in a flurry of blows.




Blah, I must still be in 3.0 mode.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 20, 2004)

Note that since "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed", a monk _can't_ use TWF for extra attacks _unless_ he's wielding weapons.  And he can only Flurry unarmed or with special monk weapons.

Therefore you can only combine extra attacks from TWF with extra attacks from Flurry of Blows while wielding special monk weapons.

Add Rapid Shot, Haste, and multiclass into a full BAB class for a few levels, and you can throw 11 shuriken a round as (say) a Monk12/Ftr8.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 21, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Note that since "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed", a monk _can't_ use TWF for extra attacks _unless_ he's wielding weapons.  And he can only Flurry unarmed or with special monk weapons.
> 
> Therefore you can only combine extra attacks from TWF with extra attacks from Flurry of Blows while wielding special monk weapons.
> 
> ...




You don't get an extra attack from the TWF feat though.  All it does is reduce the penatlies for using two weapons, a penalty that a monk doesn't have to begin with.  They have a -2 penalty on each attack when using Flurry, but that penalty comes from the Flurry ability itself, not from using two monk weapons.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> You don't get an extra attack from the TWF feat though.  All it does is reduce the penatlies for using two weapons, a penalty that a monk doesn't have to begin with.  They have a -2 penalty on each attack when using Flurry, but that penalty comes from the Flurry ability itself, not from using two monk weapons.




That's right.

But according to the general combat rules, if you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can make an extra attack.  The Improved TWF and Greater TWF feats provide for another two off-hand attacks.

But a monk striking unarmed cannot make any of these extra attacks, because for him, _there is no such thing as an off-hand attack_.  

If he is not striking unarmed - for instance, if he's wielding a pair of kama, or throwing shuriken with both hands - then he can use the general rule to make an off-hand attack (or more than one, with the right feats)... and since they're special monk weapons, he can _also_ flurry, since nothing in the rules prohibits him doing both.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 21, 2004)

I'm still waiting for the Sage's answer.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 21, 2004)

I don't see that as being in the spirit of the rules though.  I feel it's supposed to be either two weapon fighting OR Flurry, not both at the same time.

Can you tell me on what page it says additional attacks from different sources stack?  As far as I can see, Flurry of Blows is it's own Full Attack action, and doesn't get more attacks from using two weapons.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for the Sage's answer.






There are two possible outcomes.

Either he'll agree with the rules as written, in which case his endorsement is nice, but nothing actually changes...

... or he'll disagree with the rules as written, in which case people will point out that he hasn't read the rules in question, ignore his answer... and nothing actually changes 

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> As far as I can see, Flurry of Blows is it's own Full Attack action, and doesn't get more attacks from using two weapons.




No, Flurry of Blows is a class feature that allows a monk to make extra attacks when he makes a Full Attack action.

Like Rapid Shot, or Haste, or attacking with two weapons, or extra attacks from a high BAB.

Haste: When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. 

Rapid Shot: You can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon. You must use the full attack action to use this feat.

Flurry of Blows: When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

High BAB or TWF: If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. 

None of these are separate actions; they are all things that can be done if you are making a full attack action.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 21, 2004)

If I understand you right, you would let a monk, at first level, have 3 attacks per round, at a -4, -4, -4?  And that a level 20 monk with all the right PHB feats would have a +13, +13, +13, +8, +3, +13, +8, +3?


----------



## Scion (Jan 21, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> If I understand you right, you would let a monk, at first level, have 3 attacks per round, at a -4, -4, -4?  And that a level 20 monk with all the right PHB feats would have a +13, +13, +13, +8, +3, +13, +8, +3?




Huge feat investment (min 3), penalties all over (extra negatives), useing weapons that probably do less damage than he would without useing them (assuming a standard way to let monks enhance their unnarmed strikes, 2d10 is better than most weapons)... all in all doesnt sound too bad for a character concept. Make sure at least one is a weapon of speed or get someone to cast haste on you


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> If I understand you right, you would let a monk, at first level, have 3 attacks per round, at a -4, -4, -4?




If he's wielding a staff or two monk weapons (with the off-hand weapon light), and has the Two Weapon Fighting feat, yes.

I'll trust your maths on the 20th level question and just say that yes, with the three TWF feats, I'd let him add three off-hand attacks to his normal Flurry total.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 21, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Huge feat investment (min 3), penalties all over (extra negatives), useing weapons that probably do less damage than he would without useing them (assuming a standard way to let monks enhance their unnarmed strikes, 2d10 is better than most weapons)... all in all doesnt sound too bad for a character concept. Make sure at least one is a weapon of speed or get someone to cast haste on you




High level magic monk weapons do impressive damage, and those penalities for attacks are negligable at that point.  And the feat investiment is no different than any other class except for ranger.

I'm sticking by my guns and would not allow off hand attacks with flurry.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> High level magic monk weapons do impressive damage, and those penalities for attacks are negligable at that point.




Except that Two-Weapon Fighting - especially in 3.5 - tends to be lower damage output that using a big weapon anyway.  The major factor in making two-weapon combat deadly is Sneak Attack damage... which monks don't get.

Give him two Vorpal kama, and the volume of attacks means something.  Otherwise he's still not going to be outdamaging the barbarian.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 21, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> There are two possible outcomes.
> 
> Either he'll agree with the rules as written, in which case his endorsement is nice, but nothing actually changes...
> 
> ... or he'll disagree with the rules as written, in which case people will point out that he hasn't read the rules in question, ignore his answer... and nothing actually changes



From your perspective...  

My perspective?

He'll agree with the rules as written, which is cool to me but not to you.

He'll disagree with the rules as written, which is not cool to me (since I'm conservative and I would never allow stacking TWF with FoB due to the lack of off hand) but cool to you.


----------



## Scion (Jan 21, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> High level magic monk weapons do impressive damage, and those penalities for attacks are negligable at that point.  And the feat investiment is no different than any other class except for ranger.




High level monk weapons? d6 vs 2d10 isnt really a comparison. Monks unnarmed attacks do way more damage. -2 to all attacks isnt incredibly negligable, it does add up, plus it hinders the use of power attack or expertise (in that with less attack bonus giving up some is a bigger hit). The feat investment is still incredibly high, doesnt matter if anyone else has to pay the same. 3 feats out of 7 (or 8), as in almost half, is still a huge investment.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> He'll agree with the rules as written, which is cool to me but not to you.
> 
> He'll disagree with the rules as written, which is not cool to me (since I'm conservative and I would never allow stacking TWF with FoB due to the lack of off hand) but cool to you.




Now I'm confused.

We're talking 3.5 rules-as-written, right?  The ones that don't disallow stacking TWF and FoB as long as you're not striking unarmed?

-Hyp.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 21, 2004)

A level 20 monk with the TWF line would have a +13 +13 +13 +8 +3 +13 +8 +3 to attack with a flurry.

A level 20 fighter with the TWF line would have a +18 +13 +8 +3 +18 +13 +8 to attack.

A level 1 monk, level 19 fighter would have +17 +17 +12 +7 +2 +17 +12 +7 to attack with a flurry.

A level 1/19 monk/fighter using 1d6 damage monk weapons is not going to do much less damage than a fighter using 2 shortswords or 2 handaxes, yet will have an additional attack.  It's a pretty valuable trade off for losing a +1 tp BAB and trading a fighter's feat for a stunning fist or improved grapple and gaining a +1 +2 +2 to saves.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> -2 to all attacks isnt incredibly negligable, it does add up, plus it hinders the use of power attack or expertise (in that with less attack bonus giving up some is a bigger hit).




And given that monk weapons - with the exception of the primary head of a quarterstaff - are light, you're mostly out of luck for Power Attacking unless you're unarmed anyway.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 21, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> High level monk weapons? d6 vs 2d10 isnt really a comparison. Monks unnarmed attacks do way more damage. -2 to all attacks isnt incredibly negligable, it does add up, plus it hinders the use of power attack or expertise (in that with less attack bonus giving up some is a bigger hit). The feat investment is still incredibly high, doesnt matter if anyone else has to pay the same. 3 feats out of 7 (or 8), as in almost half, is still a huge investment.




Except unless I am failing to recall something, a monk's fists cannot be made into Flaming Icy Shock Vorpral Weapons.  A fighters crappy d8 damage from a longsword is nothing, it's all the magical bonuses and magic damage that's important.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> Except unless I am failing to recall something...




Bracers of Striking, _Magic of Faerun_.

Well, all except the Vorpal bit.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 21, 2004)

Ah, a book I do not have.  And I thought we were keeping this conversation to core rules.


----------



## Unseelie (Jan 21, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Huge feat investment (min 3), penalties all over (extra negatives), useing weapons that probably do less damage than he would without useing them (assuming a standard way to let monks enhance their unnarmed strikes, 2d10 is better than most weapons)... all in all doesnt sound too bad for a character concept. Make sure at least one is a weapon of speed or get someone to cast haste on you




I'm playing a character like this in a game right now, and you're very right about both the penalties and the lower damage. What I found was that it was only beneficial for me to both flurry and use TWF when I was fighting low AC mooks. You can mow through mooks like mad, but the moment someone with AC shows up, it's not worth it... all of those extra attacks do you no good if you can't hit.

It might have potential for a TWF Monk Trip-Monkey, but that's already pretty cheesy.


----------



## Scion (Jan 21, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> Except unless I am failing to recall something, a monk's fists cannot be made into Flaming Icy Shock Vorpral Weapons.  A fighters crappy d8 damage from a longsword is nothing, it's all the magical bonuses and magic damage that's important.




Amulet of mighty fists is core, a bit overpriced in my opinion, but still core. Having a +5 enhancement to all of your strikes is pretty cool  I've always had bracers in my games which could be enchanted to give the monk special abilities like flaming and such.. really cool visual to see the monks whole body ablaze in a wash of fire and ice..lol.. Still though, just straight pluses are roughly the equivalent in damage as the energy enhancements, sometimes more, sometimes less. So having just a flat +5 is impressive.


----------



## Unseelie (Jan 21, 2004)

Also, in 3.5, remember that your hands are either melee and natural weapons. You can magic fang them, but you can also GMW them or even apply potions of alchemical silver... kind of neat actually.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 21, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> We're talking 3.5 rules-as-written, right?  The ones that don't disallow stacking TWF and FoB as long as you're not striking unarmed?



Yeah, the same ruleset that also allows multiclassing experience penalty when taking a level in prestige class.

I don't think the game designer intend for the monk to be that powerful offensively.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Yeah, the same ruleset that also allows multiclassing experience penalty when taking a level in prestige class.




Didn't they address that in the Complete Warrior?



> I don't think the game designer intend for the monk to be that powerful offensively.




It's not that powerful...

-Hyp.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 21, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Yeah, the same ruleset that also allows multiclassing experience penalty when taking a level in prestige class.
> 
> I don't think the game designer intend for the monk to be that powerful offensively.



Agreed with Hyp on both. I still didn't meet the monk who outdamaged a power attacking barbarian. 

And that multiclass experience penalty... is another topic 
A long one.


----------



## Unseelie (Jan 21, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Yeah, the same ruleset that also allows multiclassing experience penalty when taking a level in prestige class.
> 
> I don't think the game designer intend for the monk to be that powerful offensively.




As someone who plays one, I can assure you I'm not that powerful offensively. In fact, in hindsight, I would not have gone the TWF/Flurry route at all had I realized that the only time it would ever be useful is against large groups of low AC mooks. Considering that my DM almost never throws low AC mooks at us, instead preferring one large big bad, I almost never TWF. Instead, I just flurry with my fists, which do greater damage... which I need because of 3.5 Damage Reduction.

I'd still go Ranger/Monk (FR: Order of the Yellow Rose), but I'd have gone down the Archery path instead.


----------



## Ottergame (Jan 22, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Agreed with Hyp on both. I still didn't meet the monk who outdamaged a power attacking barbarian.
> 
> And that multiclass experience penalty... is another topic
> A long one.




Since monks (usually) Have a better AC, saves, and options compared to a barbarian, I think it's excuseable that they do less damage.


----------



## Errant (Jan 25, 2004)

Thanks everyone for the responses, I would have replied sooner but I've been away a few days.



			
				Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Ask yourself: Is it the designers’ intention that monks with two sianghams should be able to attack more often than anyone else?




Actually I get the distinct impression that it is the designers intention that players be offered as many choices as possible in customizing their characters without (ideally) allowing them to be overpowered/unbalanced, but I was looking for what's allowed by the rules. Not whether Rule-0 is justified (a question for the House Rules forum I think) so I'd prefer to stick to the 3.5E rules here.



			
				Ottergame said:
			
		

> If I understand you right, you would let a monk, at first level, have 3 attacks per round, at a -4, -4, -4?  And that a level 20 monk with all the right PHB feats would have a +13, +13, +13, +8, +3, +13, +8, +3?




Hmmm. Assuming light 2nd weapon...
L20 Monk FoB = +15/+15/+15/+10/+5
FoB, +TWF = +13/+13/+13/+8/+3, +13
FoB, +TWF +ITWF = +13/+13/+13/+8/+3, +13/+8
FoB, +TWF +ITWF +GTWF = +13/+13/+13/+8/+3, +13/+8/+3
That’s better than I thought but I think you're right.

In comparison a L20 Fighter would receive...
BAB = +20/+15/+10/+5
BAB, +TWF = +18/+13/+8/+3, +18
BAB, +TWF +ITWF = +18/+13/+8/+3, +18/+13
BAB, +TWF +ITWF +GTWF = +18/+13/+8/+3, +18/+13/+8

So the (pure) Monk gets one extra attack at +5 behind the Fighter. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me, so yes I'd allow it - if I can't find a definite rule disallowing it.



			
				brendan candries said:
			
		

> how do you think TWO-weapon fighting would apply?
> 
> spare me dubious rule quotes and please don't mention the TWO in TWO-weapon fighting is just flavor text.




I think TWF applies for the same reason Camarath seems to. FoB & TWF (feats) all allow bonus attacks when using Full Attack Actions, & I've yet to find/see a rules reference that says they don't stack. 

Having read the responses & done some more reading I noticed, that while the description of Monk's Unarmed Attacks says:

_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 Combat II section of the SRD says:

_TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. ...
•If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (* An unarmed strike is always considered light *.)_

It seems to me the Combat section is clearly indicating that unarmed attacks should be treated as attacks with light weapons & either that contradicts the Unarmed Attacks description OR the later is merely an clarifies how the Monk's strength bonus applies to unarmed attacks. 

Obviously FoB + the TWF chain can add a definite edge to his combat ability, but I'd think that would be expected from a 3-feat chain requiring a Dex of 19.

So far I don't see any rule that would prevent it.


----------



## borc killer (Jan 25, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Note that since "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed", a monk _can't_ use TWF for extra attacks _unless_ he's wielding weapons.  And he can only Flurry unarmed or with special monk weapons.
> 
> Therefore you can only combine extra attacks from TWF with extra attacks from Flurry of Blows while wielding special monk weapons.
> -Hyp.





Maybe I am missing something but... doesn't Improved Unarmed Strike cause your whole body to be a weapon?  And therefore you would not need any kind of weapon in your ‘off” hand to use TWF?  "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed" (PHB pg 96).

Main reason I ask is I was going to take TWF as my next feat for my *cough*flying*cough* Rogue/Fighter/Shuo Disciple and wanted to make sure it worked the way I think I does.

Borc Killer


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 25, 2004)

FWIW, here's the answer I got from the Sage when I asked this question six months ago.  

Edit: I thought it had been published in "Sage Advice", but I can't find it in the FAQ, and I'm 600 miles from my Dragon Mags right now.  Anyway, here's the email:



> << Can a monk use Two-Weapon Fighting (or Improved Two Weapon Fighting) in conjunction with Flurry of Blows to gain an extra attack, >>
> 
> 
> No.
> ...


----------



## Scion (Jan 25, 2004)

Not terribly relevant, but over the course of 3.5 coming out I am getting sick of viable, but not overpowered, options being nerfed or killed.

stacking of improved crit and keen, numerically inferior over most ranges, but nerfed because someone said, 'I think that this shouldnt be done, it looks too powerful'.

and this, with an option that takes a lot of feats and work to get right, and still is only interesting as an option for some characters.. definately not overpowered..

changing something that is overpowered is ok the vast majority of the time, killing something that is interesting and not overpowered just seems.. bad..

minor rant I know.. sorry all..


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 25, 2004)

borc killer said:
			
		

> Maybe I am missing something but... doesn't Improved Unarmed Strike cause your whole body to be a weapon?  And therefore you would not need any kind of weapon in your ‘off” hand to use TWF?  "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed" (PHB pg 96).




Except the TWF feats allow you to make extra attacks _with an off-hand weapon_.  If there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, he is _incapable_ of taking advantage of those feats, since he doesn't _have_ an off-hand weapon.

If he's not striking unarmed, that no longer applies.



			
				Olgar's Email from the Sage said:
			
		

> When you use a flurry, you can use a specil monk weapon once as part the flurry. If you use two weapons with a flurry, you use each weapon once as part of the flurry (a quaterstaff is a double weapon and counts as two weapons).




When you use a flurry, you can use a special monk weapon as many times as you bloody like as part of the flurry!  It's not limited to once.

What _is_ he on about?

-Hyp.


----------



## Errant (Jan 26, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Except the TWF feats allow you to make extra attacks _with an off-hand weapon_.  If there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, he is _incapable_ of taking advantage of those feats, since he doesn't _have_ an off-hand weapon.




Thats why I quoted the Two Weapon Fighting section above. If *An unarmed strike is always considered light*, it seems arguable that an unarmed attack should be considered a viable "off-hand weapon".

[Edit - Tidied formatting]


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 26, 2004)

Errant said:
			
		

> Thats why I quoted the Two Weapon Fighting section above. If *An unarmed strike is always considered light*, it seems arguable that an unarmed attack should be considered a viable "off-hand weapon".




Oh, it is, absolutely.

... unless you're a monk, since there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

-Hyp.


----------



## Errant (Jan 26, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... unless you're a monk, since there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.




Ah, now I get your point.

But I still think the context of the section you're quoting is better interpreted as exempting their attacks from the Strength bonus description that states "Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the character’s Strength bonus".

IMHO it logically makes sense that since a monk can strike equally well with fists, elbows, knees & feet (etc) they should get the same Strength bonus to all their unarmed attacks.

Likewise, since "a monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon ..." & they're described as light weapons etc, it seems illogical to eliminate regarding two weapon fighting. 

I guess I'm happy enough that the TWF isn't overpowered (thanks partly to your other comments) not to be picky about whether or not they can include unarmed attacks.


----------



## borc killer (Jan 26, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Except the TWF feats allow you to make extra attacks _with an off-hand weapon_.  If there's no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed, he is _incapable_ of taking advantage of those feats, since he doesn't _have_ an off-hand weapon.
> -Hyp.




K i see your point now.  Thanks!

Borc Killer


----------

