Longstaff, Quarterstaff, Power Attack, and Flurry
Donald Tsang
a couple of people, but my examples were pretty poor.
The basic question: going only by the Rules As Written (RAW), can a
monk gain the doubled Power Attack bonus to damage when using Flurry
of Blows and only one end of his staff?
Now, slow down. Don't hit your follow-up button immediately. Please bear
with my argument:
(a) certainly, a monk using Power Attack and the Attack action can
gain the double bonus, since the quarterstaff is a two-handed
weapon when it isn't being used as a double-weapon.
(b) certainly, a ranger using a quarterstaff as a double weapon
won't gain the double bonus, and in fact will fail to gain *any*
Power Attack bonus with the "off-hand" attack(s), since that
counts as a light weapon.
(c) according to the FAQ, a monk can use the quarterstaff as a double-
weapon *in addition* to his using flurry of blows. in this case,
all of the flurry attacks will generally come from the "primary"
end or be unarmed strikes (and gain a single bonus), and the
"off-hand" attacks will come from the "secondary" end (and gain
no power attack bonus, as (b) above).
If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
If so, can he gain the double bonus using both ends? Neither end is
being treated as a "light" weapon, after all...
Remember, this is all using the RAW (including FAQs and errata).
(the last time I brought this up, the question used a Three-Section Staff
from OA, since it isn't a double-weapon at all; MSB and at least one other
person argued that the x1 STR bonus implied that the weapon wasn't being
used "two-handed", a conclusion I find absurd)
Same question for longstaff (from Complete Adventurer). Jet Li
using such a beast (in the Once Upon a Time in China series, and
Fong Sai Yuk) is *fairly* clearly doing a flurry with a two-handed
monk weapon...
Donald
Matt Frisch
(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:
>Okay, so I went over this many moons ago, and got shouted down by
>a couple of people, but my examples were pretty poor.
>
>The basic question: going only by the Rules As Written (RAW), can a
>monk gain the doubled Power Attack bonus to damage when using Flurry
>of Blows and only one end of his staff?
>
>Now, slow down. Don't hit your follow-up button immediately.
Too late, I already did.
Joseph
news:ddmgm8$141v$1...@agate.berkeley.edu:
> Okay, so I went over this many moons ago, and got shouted down by
> a couple of people, but my examples were pretty poor.
>
> The basic question: going only by the Rules As Written (RAW), can a
> monk gain the doubled Power Attack bonus to damage when using Flurry
> of Blows and only one end of his staff?
>
> Now, slow down. Don't hit your follow-up button immediately. Please
> bear with my argument:
>
> (a) certainly, a monk using Power Attack and the Attack action can
> gain the double bonus, since the quarterstaff is a two-handed
> weapon when it isn't being used as a double-weapon.
>
> (b) certainly, a ranger using a quarterstaff as a double weapon
> won't gain the double bonus, and in fact will fail to gain *any*
> Power Attack bonus with the "off-hand" attack(s), since that
> counts as a light weapon.
>
> (c) according to the FAQ, a monk can use the quarterstaff as a double-
> weapon *in addition* to his using flurry of blows. in this case,
> all of the flurry attacks will generally come from the "primary"
> end or be unarmed strikes (and gain a single bonus), and the
> "off-hand" attacks will come from the "secondary" end (and gain
> no power attack bonus, as (b) above).
>
> If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk
> flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double
> power attack bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of
> x1.5?
Yes, the rules are clear. Power Attack feat states: "If you choose to
use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one
end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon." The Furry of
Blows section states: "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
ability."
Think of the problem like this. The furry of blows gives up accuracy and
brute power with two-handed weapons from the Strength score by an
exclusive monk technique. Power Attack is not specific to monks; it is a
general technique that deals damage independent of how much strength
bonus one has. The more skilled in mêlée, by base attack bonus, the more
damage you can dish out by this feat.
> If so, can he gain the double bonus using both ends? Neither end is
> being treated as a "light" weapon, after all...
Yes as well, because each end is a separate weapon, so the monk uses the
quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon with both ends not a double weapon.
Only the monk is able to use any end of the quarterstaff as a two-handed
weapon with each iterative attack by the furry of blows ability.
Some Guy
> Okay, so I went over this many moons ago, and got shouted down by
> a couple of people, but my examples were pretty poor.
>
> The basic question: going only by the Rules As Written (RAW), can a
> monk gain the doubled Power Attack bonus to damage when using Flurry
> of Blows and only one end of his staff?
>
> Now, slow down. Don't hit your follow-up button immediately. Please bear
> with my argument:
>
> (a) certainly, a monk using Power Attack and the Attack action can
> gain the double bonus, since the quarterstaff is a two-handed
> weapon when it isn't being used as a double-weapon.
True.
> (b) certainly, a ranger using a quarterstaff as a double weapon
> won't gain the double bonus, and in fact will fail to gain *any*
> Power Attack bonus with the "off-hand" attack(s), since that
> counts as a light weapon.
True.
> (c) according to the FAQ, a monk can use the quarterstaff as a double-
> weapon *in addition* to his using flurry of blows. in this case,
> all of the flurry attacks will generally come from the "primary"
> end or be unarmed strikes (and gain a single bonus), and the
> "off-hand" attacks will come from the "secondary" end (and gain
> no power attack bonus, as (b) above).
True.
> If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
> with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
> bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage, and a monk attacking with a
quarterstaff
in a flurry does not get such a bonus.
> If so, can he gain the double bonus using both ends? Neither end is
> being treated as a "light" weapon, after all...
No. See above. You can still gain the normal 1:1 bonus from using
Power Attack
of course.
> Remember, this is all using the RAW (including FAQs and errata).
>
> (the last time I brought this up, the question used a Three-Section Staff
> from OA, since it isn't a double-weapon at all; MSB and at least one other
> person argued that the x1 STR bonus implied that the weapon wasn't being
> used "two-handed", a conclusion I find absurd)
The FAQ does have a few entries on what "two-handed" means for a weapon; see
pages 17, for example. Thus, even though a lance is listed as
"two-handed" you
are normally using it one-handed while mounted and you don't get the normal
bonuses that accrue to someone using it two-handed (the +4 opposed roll
to resist
being disarmed and similar things).
> Same question for longstaff (from Complete Adventurer). Jet Li
> using such a beast (in the Once Upon a Time in China series, and
> Fong Sai Yuk) is *fairly* clearly doing a flurry with a two-handed
> monk weapon...
You can certainly flurry with a quarterstaff, but since you never get
the normal x1.5 STR
mod bonus when you flurry, you never get the x2 bonus in its place.
Some Guy
Which is to say, a one-handed weapon.
> Think of the problem like this. The furry of blows gives up accuracy and
> brute power with two-handed weapons from the Strength score by an
> exclusive monk technique. Power Attack is not specific to monks; it is a
> general technique that deals damage independent of how much strength
> bonus one has. The more skilled in mêlée, by base attack bonus, the more
> damage you can dish out by this feat.
Except that the x2 bonus applies in cases where you can exert superior
leverage,
using both hands on a lever to increase force (that's represented by the
normal
x1.5 instead of x1 bonus). Since you're not actually using the
quarterstaff as a
two-handed weapon (each end being treated as separate) you don't get the
bonus
which accrues to such a character.
>>If so, can he gain the double bonus using both ends? Neither end is
>>being treated as a "light" weapon, after all...
>
>
> Yes as well, because each end is a separate weapon, so the monk uses the
> quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon with both ends not a double weapon.
> Only the monk is able to use any end of the quarterstaff as a two-handed
> weapon with each iterative attack by the furry of blows ability.
Being a "two-handed weapon" doesn't necessarily mean you're using it in
two hands--lances, bastard swords, and dwarven waraxes all demonstrate
this (among other things).
Donald Tsang
>> If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
>> with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
>> bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
>
>No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
>entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
(Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
Donald
Joseph
> Some Guy <som...@thedoor.gov> wrote:
>>> If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk
>>> flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the
>>> double power attack bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus
>>> instead of x1.5?
>>
>>No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are
>>already entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
>
> Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded
in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack
rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of needing a 1.5x
STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the monk is an exception
to the standard. Said monk must use the quarterstaff with both hands, of
course.
> It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
> you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
> a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
> (Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
Correct. The monk is also able to treat both ends of the quarterstaff,
while using two hands in furry of blows, as a two-handed weapon. Look at
the example of the 8th-level monk: PHB page forty-one. "The monk is able
to attack with both ends of the quarterstaff without treating it as a
double weapon." Notice that there are no two-weapon penalties in any of
the example monk's attacks; monks are truly masters of martial arts.
Some Guy
> Some Guy <som...@thedoor.gov> wrote:
>
>>>If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
>>>with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
>>>bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
>>
>>No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
>>entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
>
>
> Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
Here's what I used to come to my conclusion:
• PHB p. 41 ("When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk
applies her
Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her damage rolls for
all successful
attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands... In the
case of a quarterstaff,
each end counts as a separate weapon for the purposes of using the
flurry of blows ability.
Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still
intersperse
unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough
attacks in her
flurry of blows routine to do so.")
In other words, even though you're physically using the quarterstaff
with 2 hands, you're not
actually wielding it as a two-handed weapon--you're wielding it as if it
were two separate weapons,
just like a double weapon. You're attacking in a manner that allows you
to use both ends, even if
you don't actually choose to do so, e.g. a more widely-spaced grip
rather than a baseball-style grip.
This prevents you from gaining the leverage necessary to get more damage
out of your Strength
modifer.
• PHB p. 98 ("If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a
one-handed weapon wielded in both
hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls.
You can't add the bonus from
Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except for unarmed
strikes or natural weapon
attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies.
[Normally, you treat a double weapon
as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a
double weapon like a two-handed
weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a
two-handed weapon.]")
With the flurry of blows ability, as stated above, when you use a
quarterstaff you're treating as two separate
monk weapons instead of one two-handed weapon. This is exactly the same
as if you were using two sais
or a sai and an unarmed strike, etc. For purposes of the Power Attack
feat, this is *like* using it as two
one-handed weapons.
To put it another way, a monk's flurry of blows is effectively a variant
form of TWF that only works with
unarmed strikes and special monk weapons, and that can stack with normal
TWF. When you're flurrying,
you are really setting up to strike with multiple weapons, even if you
don't actually do so, just as you take
the normal TWF penalty to your attacks when fighting with 2 weapons even
if you never make the off-hand
attack you're entitled to.
• PHB p. 113 ("If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during
melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the
character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.")
• PHB p. 113 ("Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon
effectively, Apply 1-1/2 times the
character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a
weapon.")
A weapon being used with both hands (either by virtue of being a
one-handed weapon you're double-gripping or
by virtue of being a two-handed weapon) is treated as one weapon when
you're attacking, not as two separate
weapons. Since a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff is treating it as
two separate weapons, these paragraphs
don't apply.
• Main35FAQv07282005, p. 17 ("When the combat rules speak of 'two-handed
weapons,' they're referring to how the
weapon is *being used* <emphasis added>. A Medium character using a
Medium longsword in two hands is using
a 'two-handed' weapon. The same character using a Medium lance in one
hand while mounted is using a one-handed
weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light weapon in
two hands you get no advantage on damage
(see page 113 in the Player's Handbook). Likewise, you always take a -4
penalty on your opposed roll when you're
wielding a light weapon in a disarm attempt [when someone tries to
disarm you or you try to disarm someone]
regardless of whether you wield it one-handed or two-handed.")
Although the weapon is physically being wielded with two hands, it's not
being USED as a two-handed weapon. It's
being used as two separate weapons, as specified in the flurry of blows
ability.
• Main35FAQv07282005, p. 22 ("As noted in the previous question, you can
decide to wield a one-handed weapon
in two hands and get the benefits of a two-handed weapon in combat. To
do so, the weapon has to be designated a
one-handed weapon for you.")
Since a quarterstaff isn't actually a designated one-handed weapon, even
though it's being used as two one-handed
weapons, this prevents you from gaining the two-weapon benefit when
flurrying with it. This would be just as true
with a Large creature wielding a Medium quarterstaff, which is not a
two-handed weapon for it.
• Main35FAQv07282005, p. 29 ("When you make only a single attack with a
double weapon, the weapon is treated as
a two-handed weapon... It doesn't matter which end you swing with.")
Since a flurry is not a single attack, you're obviously not treating it
as a two-handed weapon, which is exactly the same
as would be the case if you were TWFing with it--it isn't treated as a
two-handed weapon then, either.
> It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
> you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
> a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
> (Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
That's silly.
Some Guy
> ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) wrote in
> news:ddoc6q$2gq5$1...@agate.berkeley.edu:
>
>
>>Some Guy <som...@thedoor.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>>If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk
>>>>flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the
>>>>double power attack bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus
>>>>instead of x1.5?
>>>
>>>No. The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are
>>>already entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
>>
>>Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
>
>
> The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
> you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded
> in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack
> rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of needing a 1.5x
> STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the monk is an exception
> to the standard. Said monk must use the quarterstaff with both hands, of
> course.
Except that a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff does not meet the
required standard
for using a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon in two hands. She
is treated
as if she is using two separate weapons (one-handed, essentially, from
the way the
Strength bonus is calculated). You youself even quoted part of the
relevant text:
"In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
ability."
In other words, the quarterstaff is NOT treated as a two-handed weapon,
or a
one-handed weapon in 2 hands, even though you're physically wielding it in
two hands. It's treated as two separate weapons, just as if it were a
pair of sai
instead of 2 ends of a quarterstaff.
>>It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
>>you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
>>a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
>>(Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
>
>
> Correct.
To say that specific states exceptions get overruled by general rules is
ridiculous.
Flame Blade is an energy beam, for EGG's sake!
>The monk is also able to treat both ends of the quarterstaff,
> while using two hands in furry of blows, as a two-handed weapon.
That's false. It doesn't say that at all--it says just the opposite.
Do you have trouble
remembering what you wrote earlier?
>Look at
> the example of the 8th-level monk: PHB page forty-one. "The monk is able
> to attack with both ends of the quarterstaff without treating it as a
> double weapon."
When you put text in quotes, you're claiming that's what the book says.
Page
41 of the PHB does not contain that text at all. Did you perhaps quote
some
other source by mistake or, as MSB would say, are you a lying whore?
>Notice that there are no two-weapon penalties in any of
> the example monk's attacks; monks are truly masters of martial arts.
You're an idiot. What do you think the flurry of blows abilty is
describing, there,
you moron? It's describing how a monk gets to make an exceptional form
of attack
with it similar to using unarmed strike flurries.
Joseph
news:w7QLe.684$uO2.44@fed1read07:
Yes, and the monk can *switch* between each end (separate weapons)
without penalty while using furry of blows. Just like the monk can use
an unarmed strike (using the rest of her body) mixed in with the
quarterstaff's attacks without penalty. All of these are treated as
interchangeably as desired. This is an exception to normal quarterstaff
rules which demand a double attack if one wants to use both ends. PHB
page 120 notes that the monk has special options when using a
quarterstaff.
>>>It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
>>>you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
>>>a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
>>>(Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>
> To say that specific states exceptions get overruled by general rules
> is ridiculous.
> Flame Blade is an energy beam, for EGG's sake!
Flame Blade is treated as a scimitar. Are you saying one can't use Power
Attack with it? The Power Attack Feat does not say anything about
requiring a 1.5x Stir bonus when using a weapon. Your implication that
it does is unproven.
>>The monk is also able to treat both ends of the quarterstaff,
>> while using two hands in furry of blows, as a two-handed weapon.
>
> That's false. It doesn't say that at all--it says just the opposite.
> Do you have trouble
> remembering what you wrote earlier
Well, the text doesn't state it explicitly, but that what the text and
example implies. If the monk has attacks available and uses two hands,
each end can be used as a separate two-handed weapon.
>>Look at
>> the example of the 8th-level monk: PHB page forty-one. "The monk is
>> able to attack with both ends of the quarterstaff without treating it
>> as a double weapon."
>
> When you put text in quotes, you're claiming that's what the book
> says.
> Page
> 41 of the PHB does not contain that text at all. Did you perhaps
> quote some
> other source by mistake or, as MSB would say, are you a lying whore?
It was an honest punctuation error; I meant to omit the quotation marks.
Obviously, no one would be fooled by that if they looked at the text. My
first paragraph had a quote, so I wanted a second one in the second
paragraph. I went another way, though, and forgot to delete the quote
marks. And an invocation of MSB's rhetoric does not impress me.
>>Notice that there are no two-weapon penalties in any of
>> the example monk's attacks; monks are truly masters of martial arts.
>
> You're an idiot. What do you think the flurry of blows abilty is
> describing, there,
> you moron? It's describing how a monk gets to make an exceptional
> form of attack
> with it similar to using unarmed strike flurries.
Thanks for tossing the insults first, clown. Look at the example: the
8th level monk has a base bonus of +6/+1, a Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus
of +5/+5/+0. Two attacks with the quarterstaff (one with each end) at +5
and +0 with an unarmed strike. There is no fourth attack mentioned here
as in double weapon fighting, and even clearer there are no negative
penalties listed as there should be for two-weapon fighting.
Donald Tsang
>>>The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
>>>entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
>>
>> Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
>
>Here's what I used to come to my conclusion:
>
> PHB p. 41 ("When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk
>applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her
>damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a
>weapon in one or both hands... In the case of a quarterstaff,
>each end counts as a separate weapon for the purposes of using the
>flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires
>two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with
>quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her
>flurry of blows routine to do so.")
See, this is probably the main bone of contention:
I see the "two separate weapons" as *both* being wielded two-handed,
albeit with only x1 STR bonus. And if you only attack with one
end, you shouldn't need to treat the quarterstaff as two weapons.
>In other words, even though you're physically using the quarterstaff
>with 2 hands, you're not actually wielding it as a two-handed
>weapon--you're wielding it as if it were two separate weapons, just
>like a double weapon. You're attacking in a manner that allows you
>to use both ends, even if you don't actually choose to do so, e.g.
>a more widely-spaced grip rather than a baseball-style grip. This
>prevents you from gaining the leverage necessary to get more damage
>out of your Strength modifer.
Have you seen a staff being wielded by a Kung Fu expert? It's held at
one end... in fact, that the longstaff isn't treated as a reach weapon
is sorta short-sighted.
> PHB p. 98 ("If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a
>one-handed weapon wielded in both hands, instead add twice the
>number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can't add the bonus
>from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except
>for unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the
>penalty on attack rolls still applies. [Normally, you treat a
>double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you
>choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking
>with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed
>weapon.]")
>
>With the flurry of blows ability, as stated above, when you use a
>quarterstaff you're treating as two separate monk weapons instead
>of one two-handed weapon. This is exactly the same as if you were
>using two sais or a sai and an unarmed strike, etc. For purposes
>of the Power Attack feat, this is *like* using it as two one-handed
>weapons.
No, I think it should be treated like using it as two two-handed
weapons, except that you only get x1 STR bonus. By the RAW, that
means you still get double Power Attack bonus.
>To put it another way, a monk's flurry of blows is effectively a
>variant form of TWF that only works with unarmed strikes and special
>monk weapons, and that can stack with normal TWF. When you're
>flurrying, you are really setting up to strike with multiple weapons,
>even if you don't actually do so, just as you take the normal TWF
>penalty to your attacks when fighting with 2 weapons even if you
>never make the off-hand attack you're entitled to.
You're striking one extra time with your primary weapon, though
(twice at 11th level and above).
>PHB p. 113 ("If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands
>during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength
>bonus to damage rolls.")
>
>PHB p. 113 ("Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon
>effectively, Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to
>damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.")
>A weapon being used with both hands (either by virtue of being a
>one-handed weapon you're double-gripping or by virtue of being a
>two-handed weapon) is treated as one weapon when you're attacking,
>not as two separate weapons. Since a monk flurrying with a
>quarterstaff is treating it as two separate weapons, these paragraphs
>don't apply.
If you only use one end, you're certainly using one two-handed weapon.
>Main35FAQv07282005, p. 17 ("When the combat rules speak of 'two-handed
>weapons,' they're referring to how the weapon is *being used*
><emphasis added>. A Medium character using a Medium longsword in
>two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon. The same character using
>a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
>weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light
>weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see page 113
>in the Player's Handbook). Likewise, you always take a -4 penalty
>on your opposed roll when you're wielding a light weapon in a disarm
>attempt [when someone tries to disarm you or you try to disarm
>someone] regardless of whether you wield it one-handed or two-handed.")
>
>Although the weapon is physically being wielded with two hands, it's not
>being USED as a two-handed weapon. It's being used as two separate weapons,
>as specified in the flurry of blows ability.
If you only use one end, a la Jet Li (and not Errol Flynn), you're
certainly wielding it as a two-handed weapon.
>Main35FAQv07282005, p. 22 ("As noted in the previous question, you
>can decide to wield a one-handed weapon in two hands and get the
>benefits of a two-handed weapon in combat. To do so, the weapon
>has to be designated a one-handed weapon for you.")
>
>Since a quarterstaff isn't actually a designated one-handed weapon,
>even though it's being used as two one-handed weapons, this prevents
>you from gaining the two-weapon benefit when flurrying with it.
>This would be just as true with a Large creature wielding a Medium
>quarterstaff, which is not a two-handed weapon for it.
Now wait a minute. A medium quarterstaff is a double or two-handed
weapon for a medium creature, and a one-handed weapon for a large
creature.
Your own arguments tend to lead one to believe that a quarterstaff
being flurried counts as two one-handed weapons, as well...
>Main35FAQv07282005, p. 29 ("When you make only a single attack
>with a double weapon, the weapon is treated as a two-handed weapon...
>It doesn't matter which end you swing with.")
>
>Since a flurry is not a single attack, you're obviously not treating it
>as a two-handed weapon, which is exactly the same as would be the
>case if you were TWFing with it--it isn't treated as a two-handed
>weapon then, either.
This is misleading, at best. If you make a full attack with one
end of a double weapon, it's treated as a two-handed weapon then, too.
>> It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
>> you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
>> a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
>> (Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
>
>That's silly.
There's nothing in the RAW that directly contradicts this.
Donald
Some Guy
Thanks for pointing out what I've already said.
>This is an exception to normal quarterstaff
> rules which demand a double attack if one wants to use both ends. PHB
> page 120 notes that the monk has special options when using a
> quarterstaff.
By "double attack" I presume you mean "TWF." And thanks again for agreeing
with me. Since your initial post said you disagreed with me, I find
this puzzling
but OK.
>>>>It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
>>>>you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
>>>>a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
>>>>(Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
>>>
>>>
>>>Correct.
>>
>>To say that specific states exceptions get overruled by general rules
>>is ridiculous.
>>Flame Blade is an energy beam, for EGG's sake!
>
>
> Flame Blade is treated as a scimitar. Are you saying one can't use Power
> Attack with it?
Have you actually read the spell in question? It says you wield it like
a scimitar,
i.e. in your hands. It does fire damage to which Strength does not
apply. Why
WOULD you use Power Attack with it, even if you could?
>The Power Attack Feat does not say anything about
> requiring a 1.5x Stir bonus when using a weapon. Your implication that
> it does is unproven.
Flame Blade isn't a weapon. It's a weaponlike spell, just as Shocking
Grasp,
Scorching Ray, et fricking cetera. Power Attack does not let you apply its
effects to spells.
>>>The monk is also able to treat both ends of the quarterstaff,
>>>while using two hands in furry of blows, as a two-handed weapon.
>>
>>That's false. It doesn't say that at all--it says just the opposite.
>>Do you have trouble
>>remembering what you wrote earlier
>
>
> Well, the text doesn't state it explicitly, but that what the text and
> example implies.
It does no such thing. It explicitly says you get 1x STR damage and that
it is treated as 2 separate weapons.
>If the monk has attacks available and uses two hands,
> each end can be used as a separate two-handed weapon.
It does NOT say separate two-handed weapons, nor does it ever imply
that. It's saying that you use the flurry rules instead of the TWF rules
when you're a monk armed with a staff. The FAQ reinforces that and
shows how such attacks are resolved when you're mixing TWF and flurry.
>>>Look at
>>>the example of the 8th-level monk: PHB page forty-one. "The monk is
>>>able to attack with both ends of the quarterstaff without treating it
>>>as a double weapon."
>>
>>When you put text in quotes, you're claiming that's what the book
>>says.
>> Page
>>41 of the PHB does not contain that text at all. Did you perhaps
>>quote some
>>other source by mistake or, as MSB would say, are you a lying whore?
>
>
> It was an honest punctuation error; I meant to omit the quotation marks.
Fair enough. We all make typos.
> Obviously, no one would be fooled by that if they looked at the text.
You'd be surprised what some people have attempted, and yea, in this very
newsgroup! I'm glad you're not one of those.
>My
> first paragraph had a quote, so I wanted a second one in the second
> paragraph. I went another way, though, and forgot to delete the quote
> marks. And an invocation of MSB's rhetoric does not impress me.
You don't know him very well if you think that was anywhere close to what
he would have done. I was being kind, KIND, mind you.
>>>Notice that there are no two-weapon penalties in any of
>>>the example monk's attacks; monks are truly masters of martial arts.
>>
>>You're an idiot. What do you think the flurry of blows abilty is
>>describing, there,
>>you moron? It's describing how a monk gets to make an exceptional
>>form of attack
>>with it similar to using unarmed strike flurries.
>
>
> Thanks for tossing the insults first, clown.
It's not like I don't have examples of your bizarre postings in other
threads to
use as a base.
>Look at the example: the
> 8th level monk has a base bonus of +6/+1, a Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus
> of +5/+5/+0. Two attacks with the quarterstaff (one with each end) at +5
> and +0 with an unarmed strike.
Yes, because he's flurrying. That example points out how it works. You
act
surprised by that somehow.
>There is no fourth attack mentioned here
> as in double weapon fighting,
I assume you mean TWF.
>and even clearer there are no negative
> penalties listed as there should be for two-weapon fighting.
That's because flurry of blows replaces TWF for a monk. As was spelled
out in
excruciating detail in the FAQ, a monk can make TWF attacks in addition
to a
flurry by taking the normal TWF modifiers on top of the flurry. So why
in hell
would you think that an ability which replaces TWF for the average monk
would
include TWF penalties?
The fact remains that a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff is NOT using
it as a two-handed
weapon for purposes of the Power Attack feat or for calculating the
damage modifier.
Some Guy
> Some Guy <som...@thedoor.gov> wrote:
>
>>>>The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
>>>>entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
>>>
>>>Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
>>
>>Here's what I used to come to my conclusion:
>>
>>PHB p. 41 ("When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk
>>applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her
>>damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a
>>weapon in one or both hands... In the case of a quarterstaff,
>>each end counts as a separate weapon for the purposes of using the
>>flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires
>>two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with
>>quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her
>>flurry of blows routine to do so.")
>
>
> See, this is probably the main bone of contention:
>
> I see the "two separate weapons" as *both* being wielded two-handed,
> albeit with only x1 STR bonus. And if you only attack with one
> end, you shouldn't need to treat the quarterstaff as two weapons.
I don't see how you see that. It's contradictory to both the letter and
the spirit
of the rules for a (normal) humanoid to wield 2 two-handed weapons
simultaneously.
The rules specify that a quarterstaff in a flurry IS treated as two
separate weapons,
each with only 1x STR mod, regardless of how you attack with them. The
FAQ also
makes this clear (more clear than the PHB, actually). It doesn't matter
if you
don't actually use both ends in your flurry routine; the specific flurry
rules say you
treat each end as a separate weapon if it gets used at all in the flurry.
>>In other words, even though you're physically using the quarterstaff
>>with 2 hands, you're not actually wielding it as a two-handed
>>weapon--you're wielding it as if it were two separate weapons, just
>>like a double weapon. You're attacking in a manner that allows you
>>to use both ends, even if you don't actually choose to do so, e.g.
>>a more widely-spaced grip rather than a baseball-style grip. This
>>prevents you from gaining the leverage necessary to get more damage
>>out of your Strength modifer.
>
>
> Have you seen a staff being wielded by a Kung Fu expert? It's held at
> one end... in fact, that the longstaff isn't treated as a reach weapon
> is sorta short-sighted.
There are many different staff fighting styles, not all of which use the
same
techniques. [Insert long boring flame war here about which martial art is
"better." Pick up when the trolls finally wander away from the thread to go
flame each other in some other NG.] Some have also said that quarterstaves
should be able to make trip attacks, but they don't in D&D and the FAQ
explains
why. The abstracted combat system assumes many things, one of which is
that
trip attacks involves grabbing your opponent and yanking them off
balance, so
only weapons with hooks, curves, or flexible sections can make trip attacks.
You and I know in RL that a staff can trip someone, but not in D&D.
Likewise,
only weapons used two-handed (not as separate weapons, such as is the case
with a double weapon used TWF-style) get the special Power Attack bonus, and
monks flurrying with a quarterstaff in D&D aren't fighting with the
quarterstaff
as if it were a two-handed weapon--they're fighting as if it were two
separate
weapons, as specified in they flurry ability.
>>PHB p. 98 ("If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a
>>one-handed weapon wielded in both hands, instead add twice the
>>number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can't add the bonus
>
>>from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except
>
>>for unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the
>>penalty on attack rolls still applies. [Normally, you treat a
>>double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you
>>choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking
>>with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed
>>weapon.]")
>>
>>With the flurry of blows ability, as stated above, when you use a
>>quarterstaff you're treating as two separate monk weapons instead
>>of one two-handed weapon. This is exactly the same as if you were
>>using two sais or a sai and an unarmed strike, etc. For purposes
>>of the Power Attack feat, this is *like* using it as two one-handed
>>weapons.
>
>
> No, I think it should be treated like using it as two two-handed
> weapons, except that you only get x1 STR bonus.
You may think that, but it violates both the letter and spirit of the rules.
>By the RAW, that
> means you still get double Power Attack bonus.
No, since the FAQ points out that "two-handed" is a relative term based
on how
the weapon is used, and a monk flurrying is NOT using it as a two-handed
weapon--she's using it as two separate weapons.
>>To put it another way, a monk's flurry of blows is effectively a
>>variant form of TWF that only works with unarmed strikes and special
>>monk weapons, and that can stack with normal TWF. When you're
>>flurrying, you are really setting up to strike with multiple weapons,
>>even if you don't actually do so, just as you take the normal TWF
>>penalty to your attacks when fighting with 2 weapons even if you
>>never make the off-hand attack you're entitled to.
>
>
> You're striking one extra time with your primary weapon, though
> (twice at 11th level and above).
That's irrelevant. At issue is whether a monk striking with a quarterstaff
in a flurry meets either the requirement of "a two-handed weapon" or "a
one-handed weapon used in two hands" which are necessary to get the
doubled damage bonus from Power Attack. Since a monk is using it as
two separate weapons in a flurry, it's not treated as one weapon, and since
it's not a one-handed weapon at all, it can't belong to the second
category.
Since it doesn't fit either category, it fails to qualify. Instead,
it's like any
other pair of weapons used in a full-attack action, which is 1:1.
>>PHB p. 113 ("If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands
>>during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength
>>bonus to damage rolls.")
>>
>>PHB p. 113 ("Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon
>>effectively, Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to
>>damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.")
>
>
>>A weapon being used with both hands (either by virtue of being a
>>one-handed weapon you're double-gripping or by virtue of being a
>>two-handed weapon) is treated as one weapon when you're attacking,
>>not as two separate weapons. Since a monk flurrying with a
>>quarterstaff is treating it as two separate weapons, these paragraphs
>>don't apply.
>
>
> If you only use one end, you're certainly using one two-handed weapon.
Not in a flurry. The flurry rules specify that a quarterstaff used in a
flurry is treated
as separate weapons, regardless of whether you actually attack with both
ends or
not.
If you use both hands on a longsword, are you using one two-handed
weapon? After all,
you've got both hands on it. The answer of course is "No," and the same
is true for a monk
using a quarterstaff as part of a flurry.
>>Main35FAQv07282005, p. 17 ("When the combat rules speak of 'two-handed
>>weapons,' they're referring to how the weapon is *being used*
>><emphasis added>. A Medium character using a Medium longsword in
>>two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon. The same character using
>>a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
>>weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light
>>weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see page 113
>>in the Player's Handbook). Likewise, you always take a -4 penalty
>>on your opposed roll when you're wielding a light weapon in a disarm
>>attempt [when someone tries to disarm you or you try to disarm
>>someone] regardless of whether you wield it one-handed or two-handed.")
>>
>>Although the weapon is physically being wielded with two hands, it's not
>>being USED as a two-handed weapon. It's being used as two separate weapons,
>>as specified in the flurry of blows ability.
>
>
> If you only use one end, a la Jet Li (and not Errol Flynn), you're
> certainly wielding it as a two-handed weapon.
But again, NOT in a flurry. Someone fighting with only one end of a
quarterstaff is
not using it as a double weapon, and the flurry rules state that you
must treat
each end as a separate weapon in a flurry. The quarterstaff is not
treated as a two-handed
weapon there.
>>Main35FAQv07282005, p. 22 ("As noted in the previous question, you
>>can decide to wield a one-handed weapon in two hands and get the
>>benefits of a two-handed weapon in combat. To do so, the weapon
>>has to be designated a one-handed weapon for you.")
>>
>>Since a quarterstaff isn't actually a designated one-handed weapon,
>>even though it's being used as two one-handed weapons, this prevents
>>you from gaining the two-weapon benefit when flurrying with it.
>>This would be just as true with a Large creature wielding a Medium
>>quarterstaff, which is not a two-handed weapon for it.
>
>
> Now wait a minute. A medium quarterstaff is a double or two-handed
> weapon for a medium creature, and a one-handed weapon for a large
> creature.
But they cannot use it as a double weapon, and they certainly can't gain the
normal flurry benefits with it, as it doesn't have "two ends" for them
because
of their size difference.
> Your own arguments tend to lead one to believe that a quarterstaff
> being flurried counts as two one-handed weapons, as well...
Not exactly, but essentially, and only within the limited sphere of the
flurry
ability, yes. That's what the rules indicate. The two ends of a
quarterstaff are
functionally exactly the same as if they were two individual one-handed
weapons
in that case.
>>Main35FAQv07282005, p. 29 ("When you make only a single attack
>>with a double weapon, the weapon is treated as a two-handed weapon...
>>It doesn't matter which end you swing with.")
>>
>>Since a flurry is not a single attack, you're obviously not treating it
>>as a two-handed weapon, which is exactly the same as would be the
>>case if you were TWFing with it--it isn't treated as a two-handed
>>weapon then, either.
>
>
> This is misleading, at best. If you make a full attack with one
> end of a double weapon, it's treated as a two-handed weapon then, too.
No, no, you're missing the point. The point is that, in a flurry, the
quarterstaff is
no longer treated as a double weapon. It's treated as two separate
weapons for
purposes of the flurry and the resultant effect on attack roll
modifiers, Strength
damage bonus calculation, etc.
Essentially, the reason you'd use a quarterstaff in a flurry is to get
the Strength
damage bonus with the other end that you'd lose if you were TWF-ing with
it.
That, and any cool powers the different ends of the quarterstaff might
have at
higher levels.
>>>It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage when
>>>you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even when
>>>a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to damage
>>>(Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
>>
>>That's silly.
>
>
> There's nothing in the RAW that directly contradicts this.
Sure there is. Flame Blade is a spell, not a weapon. Would you allow
Power Attack to
increase the damage from Shocking Grasp?
Joseph
We just disagree about how each end of the quarterstaff is used. I think
that it is extremely counterintuitive to deny a Power Attack two-handed
bonus in a flurry if the monk only uses one end in his attacks, for
example. A wizard with Power Attack can gain that bonus. Why does a
flurry change that for a monk? I think we should lean to the side of
assuming monks know how to use their quarterstaffs to maximum use when
using Power Attack.
>>This is an exception to normal quarterstaff
>> rules which demand a double attack if one wants to use both ends. PHB
>> page 120 notes that the monk has special options when using a
>> quarterstaff.
>
> By "double attack" I presume you mean "TWF." And thanks again for
> agreeing with me. Since your initial post said you disagreed with me,
> I find this puzzling
> but OK.
Yes, TWF by a double weapon.
>>>>>It's my contention that you can get doubled Power Attack damage
>>>>>when you wield a one-handed or two-handed weapon in two hands, even
>>>>>when a weapon specifically says you can't gain a STR bonus to
>>>>>damage (Flame Blade, Moonblade, etc)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Correct.
>>>
>>>To say that specific states exceptions get overruled by general rules
>>>is ridiculous.
>>>Flame Blade is an energy beam, for EGG's sake!
>>
>>
>> Flame Blade is treated as a scimitar. Are you saying one can't use
>> Power Attack with it?
>
> Have you actually read the spell in question? It says you wield it
> like a scimitar,
> i.e. in your hands. It does fire damage to which Strength does not
> apply. Why
> WOULD you use Power Attack with it, even if you could?
I believe a Swordlike beam can be used for Power Attack. The fire damage
does come from a melee touch attack damage roll. By the RAW, I see
nothing in the Power Attack feat that requires a weapon that deals
Strength bonus damage. The feat is based on attack talent; the higher
the base attack bonus the more damage you can deal.
>>The Power Attack Feat does not say anything about
>> requiring a 1.5x Stir bonus when using a weapon. Your implication
>> that it does is unproven.
>
> Flame Blade isn't a weapon. It's a weaponlike spell, just as Shocking
> Grasp,
> Scorching Ray, et fricking cetera. Power Attack does not let you
> apply its effects to spells.
Those spells don't create an effect that the rules say to wield like a
scimitar. Flame Blade creates a beam that is treated like a separate
melee damaging weapon.
>>>>The monk is also able to treat both ends of the quarterstaff,
>>>>while using two hands in furry of blows, as a two-handed weapon.
>>>
>>>That's false. It doesn't say that at all--it says just the opposite.
>>>Do you have trouble
>>>remembering what you wrote earlier
>>
>>
>> Well, the text doesn't state it explicitly, but that what the text
>> and example implies.
>
> It does no such thing. It explicitly says you get 1x STR damage and
> that it is treated as 2 separate weapons.
Yes, that is what the text states. But I'm extrapolating an implication
from the text that since the quarterstaff is treated as two separate
weapons that should be good enough for doubled Power Attack bonus. The
monk is that good in my view.
>>If the monk has attacks available and uses two hands,
>> each end can be used as a separate two-handed weapon.
>
> It does NOT say separate two-handed weapons, nor does it ever imply
> that. It's saying that you use the flurry rules instead of the TWF
> rules when you're a monk armed with a staff. The FAQ reinforces that
> and shows how such attacks are resolved when you're mixing TWF and
> flurry.
I simply think that the flurry rules allow the monk to treat each
quarterstaff end as a separate two-handed weapon for each iterative
attack.
>>>>Look at
>>>>the example of the 8th-level monk: PHB page forty-one. "The monk is
>>>>able to attack with both ends of the quarterstaff without treating
>>>>it as a double weapon."
>>>
>>>When you put text in quotes, you're claiming that's what the book
>>>says.
>>> Page
>>>41 of the PHB does not contain that text at all. Did you perhaps
>>>quote some
>>>other source by mistake or, as MSB would say, are you a lying whore?
>>
>>
>> It was an honest punctuation error; I meant to omit the quotation
>> marks.
>
> Fair enough. We all make typos.
>
>> Obviously, no one would be fooled by that if they looked at the text.
>
> You'd be surprised what some people have attempted, and yea, in this
> very newsgroup! I'm glad you're not one of those.
>
>>My
>> first paragraph had a quote, so I wanted a second one in the second
>> paragraph. I went another way, though, and forgot to delete the quote
>> marks. And an invocation of MSB's rhetoric does not impress me.
>
> You don't know him very well if you think that was anywhere close to
> what he would have done. I was being kind, KIND, mind you.
Oh, I have been on the end of more cutting MSB remarks than that. Truth
be told, his insults have lost their intended result of emotional pain
to me. And, quite frankly, I do not want to know him well.
>>>>Notice that there are no two-weapon penalties in any of
>>>>the example monk's attacks; monks are truly masters of martial arts.
>>>
>>>You're an idiot. What do you think the flurry of blows abilty is
>>>describing, there,
>>>you moron? It's describing how a monk gets to make an exceptional
>>>form of attack
>>>with it similar to using unarmed strike flurries.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for tossing the insults first, clown.
>
> It's not like I don't have examples of your bizarre postings in other
> threads to
> use as a base.
No doubt, but I have been trying to moderate some of those disorganized,
wildly, intuitive posting tendencies. Of course, I was under perceived
pressure from a pretty bizarre poster as well in some of those cases. I
did tell MSB that his "shame" attack methods lose their potency, quite
quickly, in those who are self-aware enough to deal with his
psychological attacks.
>>Look at the example: the
>> 8th level monk has a base bonus of +6/+1, a Flurry of Blows Attack
>> Bonus of +5/+5/+0. Two attacks with the quarterstaff (one with each
>> end) at +5 and +0 with an unarmed strike.
>
> Yes, because he's flurrying. That example points out how it works.
> You act
> surprised by that somehow.
No, I know it is not proof, but I think it gives a little hint the way
some of the text (in the entire Flurry of Blows section) is worded that
doubled Power Attack bonus should be allowed with the quarterstaff.
>>There is no fourth attack mentioned here
>> as in double weapon fighting,
>
> I assume you mean TWF.
Yes, I mean with a double weapon.
>>and even clearer there are no negative
>> penalties listed as there should be for two-weapon fighting.
>
> That's because flurry of blows replaces TWF for a monk. As was
> spelled out in
> excruciating detail in the FAQ, a monk can make TWF attacks in
> addition to a
> flurry by taking the normal TWF modifiers on top of the flurry. So
> why in hell
> would you think that an ability which replaces TWF for the average
> monk would
> include TWF penalties?
I see your point after reading the FAQ, but that wasn't my point. I was
just cutting away possibilities, like possible use of TWF, that were
hostile to my position. I don't have proof, yet I like my side's, ah,
verisimilitude better.
> The fact remains that a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff is NOT
> using it as a two-handed
> weapon for purposes of the Power Attack feat or for calculating the
> damage modifier.
If the monk can treat end as a separate weapon, the monk should be able
to treat it as a two-handed weapon for purposes of the Power Attack
feat. But neither of our positions are facts; I believe.
Kaos
dared speak in front of ME:
>Donald Tsang wrote:
>> I see the "two separate weapons" as *both* being wielded two-handed,
>> albeit with only x1 STR bonus. And if you only attack with one
>> end, you shouldn't need to treat the quarterstaff as two weapons.
>
>I don't see how you see that. It's contradictory to both the letter and
>the spirit
>of the rules for a (normal) humanoid to wield 2 two-handed weapons
>simultaneously.
AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are exceptions
to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is. Which means
simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.
However...
>> Have you seen a staff being wielded by a Kung Fu expert? It's held at
>> one end... in fact, that the longstaff isn't treated as a reach weapon
>> is sorta short-sighted.
I have seen a staff being wielded by quite a few Kung Fu experts. And
here I'd have to agree with Some Guy; the staff *isn't* exclusively
held at one end. In fact, my sifu went so far as to say that he
teaches the staff first because it is versatile and the techniques for
using the staff mimic all weapons. He then demonstrated sword, spear,
and chain using his staff.
I have no real problems with simply assuming that a Flurry with a
staff doesn't permit the use of two-handed techniques.
> Some have also said that quarterstaves
>should be able to make trip attacks, but they don't in D&D and the FAQ
>explains
>why.
Bow down and worship the Holy Faq even when it's completely stupid.
(Although, in point of fact I've been perusing the faq and can't find
this particular issue in there so I can't really say if it's
explanation is any good, or just whoever answered that question being
a retard with Official status.)
>If you use both hands on a longsword, are you using one two-handed
>weapon? After all,
>you've got both hands on it. The answer of course is "No,"
And yet, according to the Holy FAQ, you do treat it as though you are
using it as a two-handed weapon.
>Sure there is. Flame Blade is a spell, not a weapon. Would you allow
>Power Attack to
>increase the damage from Shocking Grasp?
Minor Creation is a spell as well, and yet it's affect would let you
create (at the very least) a club. Would you allow Power Attack to be
used with that?
Not that I necessarily disagree with barring Power Attack from being
used with Flame Blade; I just think that the argument you're using to
justify it is misguided.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafg...@2allstream3.net
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Joseph
news:id40g1lrlts329f7i...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:14:57 -0700, Some Guy <som...@thedoor.gov>
> dared speak in front of ME:
>
>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>> I see the "two separate weapons" as *both* being wielded two-handed,
>>> albeit with only x1 STR bonus. And if you only attack with one
>>> end, you shouldn't need to treat the quarterstaff as two weapons.
>>
>>I don't see how you see that. It's contradictory to both the letter and
>>the spirit
>>of the rules for a (normal) humanoid to wield 2 two-handed weapons
>>simultaneously.
>
> AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are exceptions
> to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is. Which means
> simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.
I see no contradiction in that the quarterstaff is really just one weapon.
It is a game rule conceit that defines it as two separate two-handed
weapons. Common sense, to me, says that monks should have the control
needed to handle one end of the quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon with
each flurry of blows attack. Accuracy may be lost as well as some Strength
bonus, but the monk should be able to take advantage of an opponent's
openings with a two-handed use of each end of the quarterstaff in a flurry.
> However...
>>> Have you seen a staff being wielded by a Kung Fu expert? It's held at
>>> one end... in fact, that the longstaff isn't treated as a reach weapon
>>> is sorta short-sighted.
>
> I have seen a staff being wielded by quite a few Kung Fu experts. And
> here I'd have to agree with Some Guy; the staff *isn't* exclusively
> held at one end. In fact, my sifu went so far as to say that he
> teaches the staff first because it is versatile and the techniques for
> using the staff mimic all weapons. He then demonstrated sword, spear,
> and chain using his staff.
Bojutsu: The Staff and Stick Arts of Hontai Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu
http://www.furyu.com/archives/issue2/hontai.html
What is impressive in East Asian martial arts is the variety of styles that
have developed for the effective use of the simple six foot staff. Although
similarities certainly exist, specific stylistic differences in traditional
schools are quite diagnostic. This point was emphasized to me on several
occasions by sensei of Hontai Yoshin Ryu-Kukishin Ryu bojutsu, especially
in comparison with their perception of Okinawan cho bo style. The latter,
they claimed, tends to emphasize a hands positioning near the center of the
staff, whereas Kukishin Ryu cho bo emphasizes a more ample te sabaki, or
active handwork along the entire length of the staff. These differences
were even demonstrated to me by using hashi ("chopsticks") at the dinner
table, where a sensei's scissors fingers (the index and middle finger
holding the wood between them) of both hands would manipulate the
chopsticks from their middle for their rendition of the Okinawan style,
which created a sort of fluttering of the ends of the hashi. In contrast,
they would slide their fingers up and down the length of the hashi for the
Kukishin bo, creating more of an end-over-end action, that also varied much
more dramatically the effective length of the staff.
This sliding of the hands along the entire length of the cho bo is
characteristic of the Kukishin Ryu, and is emphasized in the style's kihon
or basics. The first three formal basics, uchi komi, harai, and tsukue, all
emphasize this action in movements that are respectively strikes directed
from up-down, side-to-side, and from down-up. In addition, a straight-
forward thrust (tsuki), and movements that show influences of the halberd-
like naginata also tend to emphasize the entire length of the cho bo, and
alternate its ends-with the hands located nearer the opposite or "back"
end-for striking.
This shows a tradition where one can quickly change hand positions on the
staff from middle to end... which is similar to a monk's quarterstaff
flurry in my view. Would you deny the masters of Bojutsu Hontai Yoshin Ryu
jujutsu style full use of Power Attack? ;-)
> I have no real problems with simply assuming that a Flurry with a
> staff doesn't permit the use of two-handed techniques.
>> Some have also said that quarterstaves
>>should be able to make trip attacks, but they don't in D&D and the FAQ
>>explains
>>why.
>
> Bow down and worship the Holy Faq even when it's completely stupid.
> (Although, in point of fact I've been perusing the faq and can't find
> this particular issue in there so I can't really say if it's
> explanation is any good, or just whoever answered that question being
> a retard with Official status.)
current 3.5 FAQ page 17
You cannot use a quarterstaff to make a trip attack, because
tripping isn’t one of a quarterstaff’s properties.
In the D&D game, a trip attack involves grabbing a foe and
somehow yanking him off balance. All the Player’s Handbook
weapons that allow trip attacks have some kind of hook that
can snag a foe or some flexible portion that you can wrap
around an opponent’s limb or body.
Well, that's their standard at least.
Michael Scott Brown
news:Xns96B2CE77...@199.45.49.11...
> Yes, and the monk can *switch* between each end (separate weapons)
> without penalty while using furry of blows.
So can any person performing a full attack with a staff.
> Just like the monk can use
> an unarmed strike (using the rest of her body) mixed in with the
> quarterstaff's attacks without penalty. All of these are treated as
> interchangeably as desired. This is an exception to normal quarterstaff
> rules which demand a double attack if one wants to use both ends.
No. It demands the use of two weapons fighting if you want to get
*additional attacks*.
A man holding two weapons can fight with them interchangeably when he
full attacks.
It only becomes TWF when the attack rate is accelerated.
-Michael
Donald Tsang
>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>>>The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
>>>>>entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
>>>>
>>>>Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
>>>
>>>Here's what I used to come to my conclusion:
>>>
>>>PHB p. 41 ("When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk
>>>applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her
>>>damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a
>>>weapon in one or both hands... In the case of a quarterstaff,
>>>each end counts as a separate weapon for the purposes of using the
>>>flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires
>>>two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with
>>>quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her
>>>flurry of blows routine to do so.")
[...]
Okay, let's take a different tack here; you seem to be fixated on
this phrasing (which I believe wasn't meant to cover the case I
postulated).
There are at least two other weapons that are:
(a) monk weapons
(b) non-light weapons
(c) not quarterstaves, and therefore not covered by the special rules
about quarterstaves.
One is the three-section staff (from OA), and the other is the longstaff
(from Complete Adventurer).
Now. Nowhere in the rules (I believe; I haven't checked OA in awhile,
but the 3SS is specifically not a double-weapon, and can only have one
set of magical enhancements placed on it) does it say that these
two weapons are treated as "two separate weapons" when used in a Flurry
of Blows. I can grant that the longstaff should probably be treated
like a quarterstaff, since it's also a double weapon.
So, let's take the 3SS specifically (yes, it isn't Core, and it's 3.0E;
I read the Dragon articles that converted OA to 3.5E, and nowhere did
it amend the 3SS in any way):
So let's say a monk flurries with a 3SS, which only has one "end"
(yes, yes, I know, it sorta has like four ends. Ignore that. It
can only have one set of enhancements on it). Obviously, it's used
as a two-handed weapon, because there *is* no "other end".
Would you grant a power attacking monk flurrying with a three-section
staff the double bonus for Power Attack?
Donald
PS I've seen at least cinematic use of the longstaff, and if
they're anything to go by, it shouldn't be considered a
double-weapon; it should probably be considered a "reachable"
weapon (like the longaxe) instead.
Michael Scott Brown
> The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
> you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded
> in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack
> rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of needing a 1.5x
> STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the monk is an exception
> to the standard. Said monk must use the quarterstaff with both hands, of
> course.
A person using a double weapon is also using it in both hands. Yet he
does not get 1.5x strength bonuses and the weapon is TREATED AS IF he were
using two individual weapons, one in each hand. Further, when power
attacking, despite being used in two hands, the damage bonus is as for a
one-handed weapon, and can only possibly apply to the 'primary' end of the
weapon at that (as the off is light and cannot benefit).
There is a difference between being "in game reality" two handed, and
being "in game *mechanics*" two handed. Game mechanical two-handedness is a
very specific concept that does not extend to all cases of weapons used in
two hands. It applies to weapons used and held in such a way that strong
characters can exert greater leverage, such as one-handed weapons taken up
in two hands and two-handed weapons *used in such a way* that they strike
powerfully - rather than "quickly". When two handed weapons are used in
that fashion, they exert 1.5x strength and power attacks have double
benefit. When they are used as double weapons, this is not the case. When
normally two-handed weapons are monkey gripped into one-handed use, this is
not the case.
There is a very simple question you have to ask yourself: is a monk
flurrying with his two handed staff fighting with it AS IF it were a "two
handed weapon" being used powerfully, or as two individual weapons (or as a
two-handed weapon being used 'quickly')? Does he get the 1.5x strength
bonus? *NO*. Therefore, the *flurrying* monk is not using his staff in the
game-mechanical "two handed fashion", and all arguments about doubled power
attack benefits are *over*.
-MIchael
Michael Scott Brown
news:ddmgm8$141v$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> If all of the statements above are clearly correct, does a monk flurrying
> with a quarterstaff *and only using one end* gain the double power attack
> bonus, even though he only gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using it like
a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he can
attack normally, and hit harder per blow.
It's just that easy.
Get over yourself, hump.
-Michael
Donald Tsang
>> does a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one
>> end* gain the double power attack bonus, even though he only
>>gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
>
> What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using it like
>a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably because
THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT. All they say is that the flurrying character
only gets x1 STR bonus. No explanation of why. No "this means he's
treated as wielding the weapon one-handed" anywhere. Try to stick to
what's actually written in the rulebooks, not to your own hyperbolistic
interpretations.
Now, can you answer the same question for a Three-Section Staff
(OA, two-handed non-double weapon), or for a Greatsword (positing
the existence of the "Unusual Flurry" feat from an early 3E Dragon)?
> The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he can
>attack normally, and hit harder per blow.
(A monk with a 13 STR will do exactly the same amount of STR damage whether
he gets x1 or x1.5...)
Donald
Michael Scott Brown
> I see the "two separate weapons" as *both* being wielded two-handed,
> albeit with only x1 STR bonus.
So is a double weapon, and you can't get big power attacks with those,
either, Donald.
Quit being a damnned moron! Flurrying contradicts whopper power
attacks. It's just that easy.
> And if you only attack with one end, you shouldn't need to treat the
quarterstaff as two weapons.
The issue is not treating it as two. The issue is that you're not using
it as powerfully as you ordinarily would.
You're flurrying. No super hard blows for you!
> Have you seen a staff being wielded by a Kung Fu expert? It's held at
> one end... in fact, that the longstaff isn't treated as a reach weapon
> is sorta short-sighted.
Actually, having *performed* such combat maneuvers, sir, I can assure
you that the Chinese staff is not held at *only* one end. It is a living
thing and it flows through the hands as the intention demands. Many strikes
and extensions finish with the fighter holding only one end, but *which* end
of the staff that happens to be at any given moment changes constantly.
Further, if the staff "should" be a reach weapon then so should a basic
spear.
> No, I think it should be treated like using it as two two-handed
> weapons, except that you only get x1 STR bonus.
OXYMORON.
-Michael
Joseph
news:58WLe.6390$WD....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> "Joseph" <vo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B2CE77...@199.45.49.11...
>> Yes, and the monk can *switch* between each end (separate weapons)
>> without penalty while using furry of blows.
>
> So can any person performing a full attack with a staff.
Yes, but said person using full attack treats the staff as one weapon
overall, not as two separate weapons while he is making an attack in the
full attack action. Perhaps it is a weak comparison, but the whole monk
two weapons in one staff while using an iterative attack in a flurry
leads to odd considerations for the use of Power Attack that the
non-monk doesn't have to deal with. This issue seems to lead to an
epistemological question of what does two-handed quarterstaff fighting
and the question of two-handed grips mean in a flurry of blows.
>> Just like the monk can use
>> an unarmed strike (using the rest of her body) mixed in with the
>> quarterstaff's attacks without penalty. All of these are treated as
>> interchangeably as desired. This is an exception to normal
>> quarterstaff rules which demand a double attack if one wants to use
>> both ends.
>
> No. It demands the use of two weapons fighting if you want to get
> *additional attacks*.
True. Of course generally without some other factor, if one only has one
base attack and wants to use both ends of a quarterstaff in a round
without TWF; you need to be a monk to do that.
>A man holding two weapons can fight with them interchangeably when
>he full attacks. It only becomes TWF when the attack rate is
>accelerated.
Yes, quite right.
Joseph
> "Joseph" <vo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B2B46C...@199.45.49.11...
>> The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
>> you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon
>> wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from
>> your attack rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of
>> needing a 1.5x STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the
>> monk is an exception to the standard. Said monk must use the
>> quarterstaff with both hands, of course.
>
> A person using a double weapon is also using it in both hands. Yet
> he
> does not get 1.5x strength bonuses and the weapon is TREATED AS IF he
> were using two individual weapons, one in each hand. Further, when
I would add that this applies only when TWF a double weapon. Surely you
can attack normally without TWF with one end of a double weapon in a
two-handed grip, and gain a 1.5x Str bonus. See Page 113 PHB wizard
quarterstaff example.
> power attacking, despite being used in two hands, the damage bonus is
> as for a one-handed weapon, and can only possibly apply to the
> 'primary' end of the weapon at that (as the off is light and cannot
> benefit).
Yes, when using TWF. But that doesn't solve the monk furry of blows with
a quarterstaff when the monk does not TWF. The text states that, "In the
case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the
purpose of using the flurry of blows ability." I interpret that purpose
as meaning the monk can use any end as one separate weapon (which I
think he can use two-handed) in each non-TWF iterative attack.
> There is a difference between being "in game reality" two handed,
> and
> being "in game *mechanics*" two handed. Game mechanical
> two-handedness is a very specific concept that does not extend to all
> cases of weapons used in two hands. It applies to weapons used and
> held in such a way that strong characters can exert greater leverage,
> such as one-handed weapons taken up in two hands and two-handed
> weapons *used in such a way* that they strike powerfully - rather than
> "quickly". When two handed weapons are used in that fashion, they
> exert 1.5x strength and power attacks have double benefit. When they
> are used as double weapons, this is not the case. When normally
> two-handed weapons are monkey gripped into one-handed use, this is not
> the case.
Quite true, I just have a question of how the monk actually grips the
quarterstaff in a non-TWF flurry of blows. The text says the monk loses
accuracy when using flurry of blows. Perhaps that is one rationalization
for why the 1.5x damage bonus is lost instead of the grip issue. Also,
his attacks may not bludgeon with the time needed to really connect. He
is using lighter thumps to have more time to make all his attacks in six
seconds, not because he is gripping the staff wrong.
> There is a very simple question you have to ask yourself: is a
> monk
> flurrying with his two handed staff fighting with it AS IF it were a
> "two handed weapon" being used powerfully, or as two individual
> weapons (or as a two-handed weapon being used 'quickly')? Does he get
> the 1.5x strength bonus? *NO*. Therefore, the *flurrying* monk is not
> using his staff in the game-mechanical "two handed fashion", and all
> arguments about doubled power attack benefits are *over*.
>
> -MIchael
That's my core issue. I think the monk can use an end of the
quarterstaff, as a two-handed weapon being used quickly, in a non-TWF
flurry of blows. He loses the 1.5x Str bonus. But I believe that Power
Attack does not have any Str bonus on a weapon (as long as you have Str
13) requirement to double its damage bonus. I view it as an attack bonus
flavor feat not a muscle "power" feat; the more base attack bonus you
have the more powerful damage you can produce. The feat does say you can
treat a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one
end of it in a round (non-TWF), you treat it as a two-handed weapon. I
can understand why DM's may not want to allow this, but I would rather
err on the side of the monk since he is a master of monkish weapons like
the quarterstaff.
Matt Frisch
<mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>"Joseph" <vo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns96B2B46C...@199.45.49.11...
>> The RAW contradicts Some Guy's assertion here. Power Attack Feat: "If
>> you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded
>> in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack
>> rolls." Nowhere does the feat mention the requirement of needing a 1.5x
>> STR bonus. That is just what normally happens; the monk is an exception
>> to the standard. Said monk must use the quarterstaff with both hands, of
>> course.
>
> A person using a double weapon is also using it in both hands. Yet he
>does not get 1.5x strength bonuses and the weapon is TREATED AS IF he were
>using two individual weapons, one in each hand. Further, when power
>attacking, despite being used in two hands, the damage bonus is as for a
>one-handed weapon, and can only possibly apply to the 'primary' end of the
>weapon at that (as the off is light and cannot benefit).
Which is a designation consideration, and not the actuality, since hardly
any double weapons have ends that actually vary. Side A of a quarterstaff
is just as heavy as Side B, the are only *considered* light, they are not
actually light.
Not disagreeing, just picking a nit.
Matt Frisch
(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:
>Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> does a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one
>>> end* gain the double power attack bonus, even though he only
>>>gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
>>
>> What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using it like
>>a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>
>The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
>isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably because
>THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT. All they say is that the flurrying character
>only gets x1 STR bonus. No explanation of why. No "this means he's
>treated as wielding the weapon one-handed" anywhere. Try to stick to
>what's actually written in the rulebooks, not to your own hyperbolistic
>interpretations.
Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just like
if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats. You don't
get 1.5 damage as a TWFighter using a double-bladed sword, monks don't get
it when flurrying a quarterstaff. However, monks are actually, better than
TWF, since they get full strength bonus for the extra attack, where a TWF
gets half.
>> The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he can
>>attack normally, and hit harder per blow.
>
>(A monk with a 13 STR will do exactly the same amount of STR damage whether
>he gets x1 or x1.5...)
Not if he is power attacking. Can make quite a bit of difference.
Flurry + Power Attack = Normal boost.
Non Flurry + Power Attack (and apparently swinging the staff around akin to
a really long baseball bat) = 2x damage.
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> There is a difference between being "in game reality" two handed, and
> being "in game *mechanics*" two handed. Game mechanical two-handedness is a
> very specific concept that does not extend to all cases of weapons used in
> two hands. It applies to weapons used and held in such a way that strong
> characters can exert greater leverage, such as one-handed weapons taken up
> in two hands and two-handed weapons *used in such a way* that they strike
> powerfully - rather than "quickly". When two handed weapons are used in
> that fashion, they exert 1.5x strength and power attacks have double
> benefit. When they are used as double weapons, this is not the case. When
> normally two-handed weapons are monkey gripped into one-handed use, this is
> not the case.
>
> There is a very simple question you have to ask yourself: is a monk
> flurrying with his two handed staff fighting with it AS IF it were a "two
> handed weapon" being used powerfully, or as two individual weapons (or as a
> two-handed weapon being used 'quickly')? Does he get the 1.5x strength
> bonus? *NO*. Therefore, the *flurrying* monk is not using his staff in the
> game-mechanical "two handed fashion", and all arguments about doubled power
> attack benefits are *over*.
Quoted for truthery and clarity. Very well put.
Laszlo
Kaos
speak in front of ME:
>Kaos <ka...@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
>news:id40g1lrlts329f7i...@4ax.com:
>> AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are exceptions
>> to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is. Which means
>> simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.
>
>I see no contradiction in that the quarterstaff is really just one weapon.
>It is a game rule conceit that defines it as two separate two-handed
>weapons. Common sense, to me, says that monks should have the control
>needed to handle one end of the quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon with
>each flurry of blows attack. Accuracy may be lost as well as some Strength
>bonus, but the monk should be able to take advantage of an opponent's
>openings with a two-handed use of each end of the quarterstaff in a flurry.
Treating it mechanically as two seperate one-handed weapons fits what
you just described. Flurry already drops a bit of accuracy, and the
loss of some strength bonus coincides neatly with barring the
two-handed advantages.
>This sliding of the hands along the entire length of the cho bo is
>characteristic of the Kukishin Ryu, and is emphasized in the style's kihon
>or basics. The first three formal basics, uchi komi, harai, and tsukue, all
>emphasize this action in movements that are respectively strikes directed
>from up-down, side-to-side, and from down-up. In addition, a straight-
>forward thrust (tsuki), and movements that show influences of the halberd-
>like naginata also tend to emphasize the entire length of the cho bo, and
>alternate its ends-with the hands located nearer the opposite or "back"
>end-for striking.
>
>This shows a tradition where one can quickly change hand positions on the
>staff from middle to end... which is similar to a monk's quarterstaff
>flurry in my view.
Or simply a high-level monk making use of his iterative attack
sequence. There's more than sufficient room for debate to just let
the question slide in favour of mechanical balance; they're already
getting a break being allowed to use str + str rather than str + 1/2
str.
At most I could see an argument allowing a monk to bypass the "one end
is considered a light weapon" restriction that would bar him from
using power-attack at all.
>> Bow down and worship the Holy Faq even when it's completely stupid.
>> (Although, in point of fact I've been perusing the faq and can't find
>> this particular issue in there so I can't really say if it's
>> explanation is any good, or just whoever answered that question being
>> a retard with Official status.)
>
>current 3.5 FAQ page 17
>You cannot use a quarterstaff to make a trip attack, because
>tripping isn’t one of a quarterstaff’s properties.
>In the D&D game, a trip attack involves grabbing a foe and
>somehow yanking him off balance. All the Player’s Handbook
>weapons that allow trip attacks have some kind of hook that
>can snag a foe or some flexible portion that you can wrap
>around an opponent’s limb or body.
>
>Well, that's their standard at least.
Reads like "retard with Official Status" to me.
Kaos
(Donald Tsang) dared speak in front of ME:
>Some Guy <som...@thedoor.gov> wrote:
>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>>>>The doubled bonus from power attack only applies when you are already
>>>>>>entitled to a 1.5x STR bonus to damage
>>>>>
>>>>>Where, exactly, in the RAW (plus errata plus FAQ) does it say that?
>>>>
>>>>Here's what I used to come to my conclusion:
>>>>
>>>>PHB p. 41 ("When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk
>>>>applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her
>>>>damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a
>>>>weapon in one or both hands... In the case of a quarterstaff,
>>>>each end counts as a separate weapon for the purposes of using the
>>>>flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires
>>>>two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with
>>>>quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her
>>>>flurry of blows routine to do so.")
>
>[...]
>
>Okay, let's take a different tack here; you seem to be fixated on
>this phrasing (which I believe wasn't meant to cover the case I
>postulated).
>
>There are at least two other weapons that are:
>(a) monk weapons
>(b) non-light weapons
>(c) not quarterstaves, and therefore not covered by the special rules
> about quarterstaves.
You forgot d: not core, and therefore obviously not going to be
mentioned in the core book or SRD.
But you probably did that on purpose.
>Now. Nowhere in the rules (I believe; I haven't checked OA in awhile,
>but the 3SS is specifically not a double-weapon, and can only have one
>set of magical enhancements placed on it) does it say that these
>two weapons are treated as "two separate weapons" when used in a Flurry
>of Blows. I can grant that the longstaff should probably be treated
>like a quarterstaff, since it's also a double weapon.
If you can do so, then it's only a small and equally sensible step to
do so for the 3SS. The monk does not gain two-handed strength bonuses
when using a weapon two-handed for flurries; why would it get
two-handed powerattack bonuses?
(And give me something better than "because the rules don't explicitly
say it doesn't," or don't bother at all.)
>So, let's take the 3SS specifically (yes, it isn't Core, and it's 3.0E;
>I read the Dragon articles that converted OA to 3.5E, and nowhere did
>it amend the 3SS in any way):
>
>So let's say a monk flurries with a 3SS, which only has one "end"
>(yes, yes, I know, it sorta has like four ends. Ignore that. It
>can only have one set of enhancements on it). Obviously, it's used
>as a two-handed weapon, because there *is* no "other end".
Question: does using it in a flurry allow you to intersperse unarmed
strikes with your attack as well?
>Would you grant a power attacking monk flurrying with a three-section
>staff the double bonus for Power Attack?
Not without an argument that's more convincing than "the rules don't
say you can't" backing it up. IFF it specifically says you can, or it
gives specific exceptions to either the "use strength bonus, not bonus
* 1.5" or the "you can intersperse unarmed strikes into your flurry
routine while using this weapon," I'd consider it.
Joseph
news:kip0g1dl7lqc67a45...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:19:18 +0000 (UTC), ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
> (Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:
>
>>Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> does a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one
>>>> end* gain the double power attack bonus, even though he only
>>>>gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
>>>
>>> What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using
>>> it like
>>>a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>>The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
>>isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably
>>because THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT. All they say is that the flurrying
>>character only gets x1 STR bonus. No explanation of why. No "this
>>means he's treated as wielding the weapon one-handed" anywhere. Try
>>to stick to what's actually written in the rulebooks, not to your own
>>hyperbolistic interpretations.
>
> Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just
> like if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. You don't have to attack with both ends of
a staff when flurrying. Flurrying also has somewhat different level-based
penalty mechanics than TWF use.
> You don't get 1.5 damage as a TWFighter using a double-bladed sword,
> monks don't get it when flurrying a quarterstaff. However, monks are
> actually, better than TWF, since they get full strength bonus for the
> extra attack, where a TWF gets half.
>
>>> The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he
>>> can
>>>attack normally, and hit harder per blow.
>>
>>(A monk with a 13 STR will do exactly the same amount of STR damage
>>whether he gets x1 or x1.5...)
>
> Not if he is power attacking. Can make quite a bit of difference.
>
> Flurry + Power Attack = Normal boost.
> Non Flurry + Power Attack (and apparently swinging the staff around
> akin to a really long baseball bat) = 2x damage.
That is only if you come to the conclusion that you can't double your Power
Attack bonus when using a non-TWF Flurry of Blows. So, it really can't be
used to justify the position in an ongoing debate that monks can not double
their Power Attack bonuses when using Flurry of Blows.
Joseph
news:vtm0g15t0i1a86ko0...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:52:16 GMT, Joseph <vo...@verizon.net> dared
> speak in front of ME:
>
>>Kaos <ka...@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
>>news:id40g1lrlts329f7i...@4ax.com:
>>> AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are
>>> exceptions to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is.
>>> Which means simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.
>>
>>I see no contradiction in that the quarterstaff is really just one
>>weapon. It is a game rule conceit that defines it as two separate
>>two-handed weapons. Common sense, to me, says that monks should have
>>the control needed to handle one end of the quarterstaff as a
>>two-handed weapon with each flurry of blows attack. Accuracy may be
>>lost as well as some Strength bonus, but the monk should be able to
>>take advantage of an opponent's openings with a two-handed use of each
>>end of the quarterstaff in a flurry.
>
> Treating it mechanically as two seperate one-handed weapons fits what
> you just described. Flurry already drops a bit of accuracy, and the
> loss of some strength bonus coincides neatly with barring the
> two-handed advantages.
Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.
My real target is that Power Attack Feat. I believe it functions on combat
skill not raw power, hence the use of base attack bonus instead of Strength
bonus to determine damage limits. I am determined to oppose the idea that a
weapon needs a 1.5x Str bonus capability to double the Power Attack feat
bonus.
>>This sliding of the hands along the entire length of the cho bo is
>>characteristic of the Kukishin Ryu, and is emphasized in the style's
>>kihon or basics. The first three formal basics, uchi komi, harai, and
>>tsukue, all emphasize this action in movements that are respectively
>>strikes directed from up-down, side-to-side, and from down-up. In
>>addition, a straight- forward thrust (tsuki), and movements that show
>>influences of the halberd- like naginata also tend to emphasize the
>>entire length of the cho bo, and alternate its ends-with the hands
>>located nearer the opposite or "back" end-for striking.
>>
>>This shows a tradition where one can quickly change hand positions on
>>the staff from middle to end... which is similar to a monk's
>>quarterstaff flurry in my view.
>
> Or simply a high-level monk making use of his iterative attack
> sequence. There's more than sufficient room for debate to just let
> the question slide in favour of mechanical balance; they're already
> getting a break being allowed to use str + str rather than str + 1/2
> str.
Possibly, but I hate to deny it to all those low-level characters. It does
state that "This sliding of the hands along the entire length of the cho bo
is characteristic of the Kukishin Ryu, and is emphasized in the style's
kihon or basics. The first three formal basics, uchi komi, harai, and
tsukue, all emphasize this action in movements that are respectively
strikes directed from up-down, side-to-side, and from down-up."
That is getting far from the Core, though. Unfortunately, my sense of
verisimilitude trumps balance factors to me; the monk is the master of the
quarterstaff after all. Plus, my real issue is with interpreting Power
Attack correctly.
> At most I could see an argument allowing a monk to bypass the "one end
> is considered a light weapon" restriction that would bar him from
> using power-attack at all.
>
>>> Bow down and worship the Holy Faq even when it's completely stupid.
>>> (Although, in point of fact I've been perusing the faq and can't
>>> find this particular issue in there so I can't really say if it's
>>> explanation is any good, or just whoever answered that question
>>> being a retard with Official status.)
>>
>>current 3.5 FAQ page 17
>>You cannot use a quarterstaff to make a trip attack, because
>>tripping isn't one of a quarterstaff's properties.
>>In the D&D game, a trip attack involves grabbing a foe and
>>somehow yanking him off balance. All the Player's Handbook
>>weapons that allow trip attacks have some kind of hook that
>>can snag a foe or some flexible portion that you can wrap
>>around an opponent's limb or body.
>>
>>Well, that's their standard at least.
>
> Reads like "retard with Official Status" to me.
D&D writers do tend to be stubborn about following the official blueprint.
Gary Gygax was infamous for that in First Edition AD&D.
Michael Scott Brown
> I am determined to oppose the idea that a weapon needs a 1.5x Str bonus
> capability to double the Power Attack feat bonus.
Then you are determined to be an idiot. Doubled power attack bonuses
are, for some reason, keyed not to combat skill, but to the availability of
great leverage. Yet you seem to want to hand them out like candy to people
who are not fighting under those conditions. Tell us, little halfwit - how
are you able to reconcile double weapons not receiving 2x power attacks with
your "determination"?
-Michael
Donald Tsang
>ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) dared speak in front of ME:
>>this phrasing (which I believe wasn't meant to cover the case I
>>postulated).
>>
>>There are at least two other weapons that are:
>>(a) monk weapons
>>(b) non-light weapons
>>(c) not quarterstaves, and therefore not covered by the special rules
>> about quarterstaves.
>
>You forgot d: not core, and therefore obviously not going to be
>mentioned in the core book or SRD.
>
>But you probably did that on purpose.
But since the "quarterstaff is a special case" was written into both
the 3.0 and 3.5 PH, there isn't any reason they wouldn't copy it
into OA / CA if they meant it that way.
>>Now. Nowhere in the rules (I believe; I haven't checked OA in awhile,
>>but the 3SS is specifically not a double-weapon, and can only have one
>>set of magical enhancements placed on it) does it say that these
>>two weapons are treated as "two separate weapons" when used in a Flurry
>>of Blows. I can grant that the longstaff should probably be treated
>>like a quarterstaff, since it's also a double weapon.
>
>If you can do so, then it's only a small and equally sensible step to
>do so for the 3SS.
No, it isn't. The longstaff is a double weapon. The 3SS is not. There
is no "second" weapon to wield. Double Weapons are weird: you have to
enhance each end separately, etc. The 3SS gets enhance "in toto".
>The monk does not gain two-handed strength bonuses when using a
>weapon two-handed for flurries; why would it get two-handed
>powerattack bonuses?
>
>(And give me something better than "because the rules don't explicitly
>say it doesn't," or don't bother at all.)
What else is there? There are no rules linking the ability to exert
1.5x STR bonus and the ability to gain x2 Power Attack bonuses. In fact,
there isn't even a hard link between the ability to gain *any* STR
bonus and Power Attack (thus my separate rant on Flame Blade / Power
Attack).
Why do people insist on inserting rules where they don't exist, and then
insisting that it's "core" (or "the ONLY way to be consistent with core")?
>>So, let's take the 3SS specifically (yes, it isn't Core, and it's 3.0E;
>>I read the Dragon articles that converted OA to 3.5E, and nowhere did
>>it amend the 3SS in any way):
>>
>>So let's say a monk flurries with a 3SS, which only has one "end"
>>(yes, yes, I know, it sorta has like four ends. Ignore that. It
>>can only have one set of enhancements on it). Obviously, it's used
>>as a two-handed weapon, because there *is* no "other end".
>
>Question: does using it in a flurry allow you to intersperse unarmed
>strikes with your attack as well?
Yes. That's what "monk weapon" means. In general, I interpret that
as "using your feet". Or elbows. Or open hand when the 3SS is on
its way back.
>>Would you grant a power attacking monk flurrying with a three-section
>>staff the double bonus for Power Attack?
>
>Not without an argument that's more convincing than "the rules don't
>say you can't" backing it up. IFF it specifically says you can, or it
>gives specific exceptions to either the "use strength bonus, not bonus
>* 1.5" or the "you can intersperse unarmed strikes into your flurry
>routine while using this weapon," I'd consider it.
The last one is there, as the 3SS is designated as a monk weapon.
Donald
Michael Scott Brown
news:kip0g1dl7lqc67a45...@4ax.com...
> Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just like
> if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats.
No. The meme you are using here is fundamentally wrong and you need to
take it out back and stake it through its heart.
Or I will do it for you.
And I won't be half so nice about it.
Flurrying can be combined with TWF, therefore it is not TWF. It is
something altogether different. A flurrying monk holding a pair of kama can
choose to make all of his attacks with but one of them (as might be the case
were one of the two, for instance, magical), and he can also choose to do so
with only the enchanted end of his magical staff. This instantaneously
invalidates any claim that the flurry "means attacking with both ends".
Notice the name. FLURRY. Notice the game mechanical result - additional
attacks, with a limitation on potential strength bonuses.
The fighting technique is about *speed*. The monk, of course, _can_
attack with both ends of his staff while flurrying, just as he can when full
attacking, just as he can when using TWF and full attacking, but in each
case there is a different result.
-Michael
Donald Tsang
>> capability to double the Power Attack feat bonus.
>
> Then you are determined to be an idiot. Doubled power attack bonuses
>are, for some reason, keyed not to combat skill, but to the availability of
>great leverage. Yet you seem to want to hand them out like candy to people
>who are not fighting under those conditions. Tell us, little halfwit - how
>are you able to reconcile double weapons not receiving 2x power attacks with
>your "determination"?
I believe he's going to answer "skill".
I'm not entirely sure why only a kook is supporting my side of the
argument; I'd much rather go it alone.
On the other hand, Michael, you see "weapon wielded two-handed" and
read "leverage". Why can't it just be a game balance issue
("two-handed fighters are screwed out of shields, and only get a
half STR bonus to damage... nobody's playing them. Let's give them
something else to even the odds in 3.5E") and ignore the physics?
You do that pretty well with the abstract damage system...
Monks are pretty lame fighters, due to their middling BAB and
inability to bolster it. It won't break anything to give them a
slight bennie in terms of damage. Since wearing armor or using a
shield prevents Flurry of Blows, it's not a big deal, even for
multiclass builds.
Donald
Michael Scott Brown
> > A person using a double weapon is also using it in both hands. Yet
he
> > does not get 1.5x strength bonuses and the weapon is TREATED AS IF he
> > were using two individual weapons, one in each hand. Further, when
>
> I would add that this applies only when TWF a double weapon.
Imagine that! Why, it's almost as if my comments referred to using a
double weapon as a double weapon, and not a two-handed weapon!
> > cases of weapons used in two hands. It applies to weapons used and
> > held in such a way that strong characters can exert greater leverage,
> > such as one-handed weapons taken up in two hands and two-handed
> > weapons *used in such a way* that they strike powerfully - rather than
> > "quickly".....
> Quite true, I just have a question of how the monk actually grips the
> quarterstaff in a non-TWF flurry of blows. The text says the monk loses
> accuracy when using flurry of blows. Perhaps that is one rationalization
> for why the 1.5x damage bonus is lost instead of the grip issue. Also,
> his attacks may not bludgeon with the time needed to really connect. He
> is using lighter thumps to have more time to make all his attacks in six
> seconds, not because he is gripping the staff wrong.
Joseph, again I see that you have failed the basic skills required to
participate here in a positive fashion.
Do you see the words up there that are (and were) IN ASTERISKS?
Do something about your impotent reading comprehension.
*Now*.
> flurry of blows. He loses the 1.5x Str bonus. But I believe that Power
> Attack does not have any Str bonus on a weapon (as long as you have Str
> 13) requirement to double its damage bonus. I view it as an attack bonus
> flavor feat not a muscle "power" feat; the more base attack bonus you
> have the more powerful damage you can produce.
Please explain for us, *fuckwit*, why your view is worth two monkey
turds. Power attack is *named* POWER attack, it has a minimum STRENGTH
requirement, and it has *no effect* with light weapons and *MAGNIFIED*
effect with weapons that also magnify STRENGTH bonuses. But of *course*, it
is just a "attack bonus flavor" feat.
Moron.
Power attack provides *less* benefit to a double weapon
(used-in-two-hands) that is used in TWF style than to one used in two-handed
weapon style. You have *direct evidence* that the fighting style selection
has a profound effect on power attack's effectiveness, and that in the
explicit rules on the matter the *only* evidence you have is that when the
weapon is not used-in-two-hands so that it produces 1.5xSTR, you _also_ DO
NOT GET DOUBLED POWER ATTACK.
Yet you think *monks* should get this benefit, despite their use of a
speed and agility based fighting style that explicitly limits their strength
bonuses?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> does a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one
> >> end* gain the double power attack bonus, even though he only
> >>gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
> >
> > What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using it
like
> >a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>
> The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
> isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably because
> THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT.
Double weapon. You lose.
> Now, can you answer the same question for a Three-Section Staff
> (OA, two-handed non-double weapon), or for a Greatsword (positing
> the existence of the "Unusual Flurry" feat from an early 3E Dragon)?
*When the monk flurries*, he is no longer using it in a fashion that
magnifies his strength (& PA) bonuses.
It's just that easy.
> > The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he can
> >attack normally, and hit harder per blow.
>
> (A monk with a 13 STR will do exactly the same amount of STR damage
whether
> he gets x1 or x1.5...)
Wrong. A monk with 13 str who POWER ATTACKS will get a different result.
Are you beginning to grasp what a fucking idiot you're being?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On the other hand, Michael, you see "weapon wielded two-handed" and
> read "leverage". Why can't it just be a game balance issue
> ("two-handed fighters are screwed out of shields, and only get a
> half STR bonus to damage... nobody's playing them. Let's give them
> something else to even the odds in 3.5E") and ignore the physics?
Your game balance argument falls flat on its face for the *FLURRYING*
monk, sir.
It falls apart again on the basis of the "would everyone take this"
test - not a monk in the game would be caught dead without power attack and
a staff in short order.
Further, this new-age hippy namby-pamby bullshit belief that your
argument is how the game *is intended to work* because *YOU* believe monks
deserve a perk ... is the most ridiculous of positions from which to have
built a castle.
If you think monks are underpowered
(a) prove it
(b) and then CHANGE THEM
Do not insist that an obviously contradictory interpretation of the
rules (which cookie cutter implications) is "right" because of it.
<shakes head sadly>
-Michael
Donald Tsang
>"Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>> >> end* gain the double power attack bonus, even though he only
>> >>gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
>> >
>> >What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using it
>> >like a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>> The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
>> isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably because
>> THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT.
>
> Double weapon. You lose.
It doesn't specifically say in the rules that the double weapon is treated
as two one-handed weapons wielded one-handed. ALL it says in the RULES
is that the monk gains 1x STR damage. It's *your* interpretataion that
says that this means the monk isn't wielding the weapon in a "two-handed"
manner (that, and the awkward wording in the PH). -1 for reading
comprehension, and another -2 for failing to separate rules from
opinions.
>> Now, can you answer the same question for a Three-Section Staff
>> (OA, two-handed non-double weapon), or for a Greatsword (positing
>> the existence of the "Unusual Flurry" feat from an early 3E Dragon)?
>
> *When the monk flurries*, he is no longer using it in a fashion that
>magnifies his strength (& PA) bonuses.
> It's just that easy.
It's just not written anywhere. You (as DM) are free to make that
interpretation in your games, of course.
>> > The monk can flurry, sacrificing power for a bonus attack, or he can
>> >attack normally, and hit harder per blow.
>>
>> (A monk with a 13 STR will do exactly the same amount of STR damage
> >whether he gets x1 or x1.5...)
>
> Wrong. A monk with 13 str who POWER ATTACKS will get a different result.
Another point off for failing to read what the other person wrote.
What part of "same amount of STR damage" did you miss, in your fervor
to flame?
> Are you beginning to grasp what a fucking idiot you're being?
Is MSB? I know Michael can get it; I'm not sure MSB is wired that way.
Donald
Donald Tsang
>> On the other hand, Michael, you see "weapon wielded two-handed" and
>> read "leverage". Why can't it just be a game balance issue
>> ("two-handed fighters are screwed out of shields, and only get a
>> half STR bonus to damage... nobody's playing them. Let's give them
>> something else to even the odds in 3.5E") and ignore the physics?
>
> Your game balance argument falls flat on its face for the *FLURRYING*
>monk, sir.
I don't think it does.
> It falls apart again on the basis of the "would everyone take this"
>test - not a monk in the game would be caught dead without power attack and
>a staff in short order.
Again, I doubt that. It feels more like a munchkin trap to me.
> Further, this new-age hippy namby-pamby bullshit belief that your
>argument is how the game *is intended to work* because *YOU* believe monks
>deserve a perk ... is the most ridiculous of positions from which to have
>built a castle.
You have your causality screwed up a little. The rules as written, if
followed (rather than interpreted) would lead one to the conclusion that
flurrying, power-attacking monks get double power attack damage
from any flurryable one- or two-handed weapon wielded in two hands.
I merely appealed to reason from MSB (which, I admit, is a bit of a reach)
because he's too thick and set in his opinions to see the cold facts for
what they are.
Donald
Joseph
news:Fx2Me.6850$RS....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Oh, I believe that leverage is very important to Power Attack. That is
why doubled weapons used TWF can not gain 2x power attacks. So, the
Power Attack feat is not only base attack bonus flavor. I was only
trying to analyze part of the feat. I also happen to believe that monks
can grip their quarterstaff end to qualify for a double bonus Power
Attack. And I don't want to hand out exceptions often to people using
Power Attack. I just believe that a few weapons can have very odd
properties that do not have a normal Strength bonus, but should be able
to double the Power Attack bonus.
Such as Flame Blades, no Strength bonus to damage, but a bonus to
attack, the RAW doesn't forbid it after all. What if I wanted to create
a nonstandard magic weapon with say an ability that magically forces
every attack to a 1x Str bonus, a 2x Str bonus (a very powerful weapon
here), or even eliminates all Str bonus on every attack (the weapon must
have some powerful other abilities to make its use worthwhile.)
So, I would rather take a liberal view of Power Attack, and let players
with the feat use it to double bonus effect with odd weapons like these.
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
> >> isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably
because
> >> THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT.
> >
> > Double weapon. You lose.
>
> It doesn't specifically say in the rules that the double weapon is treated
> as two one-handed weapons wielded one-handed.
You seriously need to reread the rules for double weapons, buckwheat.
> > *When the monk flurries*, he is no longer using it in a fashion that
> >magnifies his strength (& PA) bonuses.
> > It's just that easy.
>
> It's just not written anywhere.
Except, of course, for the part where the monk isn't getting the
strength bonus that he would IF HE WERE USING THE WEAPON IN "TWO-HANDED
WEAPON" MODE.
> You (as DM) are free to make that interpretation in your games, of course.
Please explain why double weapons shouldn't get the 2x power attack
bonus when used in TWF, too, by your logic.
You have a little consistency problem there, buckwheat.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Your game balance argument falls flat on its face for the *FLURRYING*
> >monk, sir.
>
> I don't think it does.
This is not a matter of opinion, Donald. You're trying to claim that
monks need a mechanism to do more damage in the context OF A MECHANISM THAT
GIVES THEM MORE DAMAGE. Or do you wish to contend that up to 2 additional
"free" attacks does *not* somehow constitute a boost in damage potential?
> > It falls apart again on the basis of the "would everyone take this"
> >test - not a monk in the game would be caught dead without power attack
and
> >a staff in short order.
>
> Again, I doubt that. It feels more like a munchkin trap to me.
Ahem. "Munchkin trap" and "would everyone take this" are interchangeable
concepts. Quit being such a weaseling pussy.
> > Further, this new-age hippy namby-pamby bullshit belief that your
> >argument is how the game *is intended to work* because *YOU* believe
monks
> >deserve a perk ... is the most ridiculous of positions from which to have
> >built a castle.
>
> You have your causality screwed up a little. The rules as written, if
> followed (rather than interpreted) would lead one to the conclusion that
> flurrying, power-attacking monks get double power attack damage
> from any flurryable one- or two-handed weapon wielded in two hands.
No they *don't*. The rules as written describe a situation where power
attack's bonuses are magnified when weapons are used in a way that magnifies
strength bonuses. They very clearly limit potential power attack benefits
for one-handed weapons, for light weapons, and for TWO HANDED WEAPONS used
in other fighting styles.
Does a monk's use of a weapon held-in-both hands *while flurrying*
conform to the paradigm of two-handed weapon use that gets power attack
bonuses, or to the paradim of two-handed weapon use that does not? The
limited strength bonus makes the answer clear as day, Donald. There is
*no* entity in the rules that associates a 1xSTR bonus with a 2x power
attack.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > weapons not receiving 2x power attacks with your "determination"?
>
> Oh, I believe that leverage is very important to Power Attack. That is
> why doubled weapons used TWF can not gain 2x power attacks. So, the
> Power Attack feat is not only base attack bonus flavor. I was only
> trying to analyze part of the feat.
Translation:"I was being an idiot".
>I also happen to believe that monks
> can grip their quarterstaff end to qualify for a double bonus Power
> Attack.
They can. They just can't FLURRY while gaining that benefit. The same
way someone with a double weapon *can* double their PA bonus, but NOT WHILE
GETTING BONUS ATTACKS.
Jesus christ on his stick, begging for mercy!
> I just believe that a few weapons can have very odd
> properties that do not have a normal Strength bonus, but should be able
> to double the Power Attack bonus.
Why do you believe this? Please show us a SINGLE EXAMPLE IN THE RULES of
such a weapon. I believe a few wapons can have x5 critical multipliers,
even though it doesn't say it in the rules, either! Yes! ALL OUR FANTASIES
ARE ACTUALLY REALIZED IN THE CORE RULES!
Idiot.
> Such as Flame Blades, no Strength bonus to damage, but a bonus to
> attack, the RAW doesn't forbid it after all.
You might want to check the legalise there, a wee bit, buckwheat.
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
>Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
>allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.
Read that out loud to yourself a couple times, and try to imagine how
it makes any sense. Keep in mind that you've only got two hands, and
using a weapon in each hand precludes using either weapon with both
hands.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Michael Scott Brown
> Mere moments before death, Joseph hastily scrawled:
> >Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
> >allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.
>
> Read that out loud to yourself a couple times, and try to imagine how
> it makes any sense. Keep in mind that you've only got two hands, and
> using a weapon in each hand precludes using either weapon with both
> hands.
I feel terrible about having failed mock that first. :(
-Michael
Joseph
> "Joseph" <vo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B32E9A...@199.45.49.11...
>> > A person using a double weapon is also using it in both hands.
>> > Yet
> he
>> > does not get 1.5x strength bonuses and the weapon is TREATED AS IF
>> > he were using two individual weapons, one in each hand. Further,
>> > when
>>
>> I would add that this applies only when TWF a double weapon.
>
> Imagine that! Why, it's almost as if my comments referred to
> using a
> double weapon as a double weapon, and not a two-handed weapon!
I was just trying to reason out my position in full, not attack your
point.
>> > cases of weapons used in two hands. It applies to weapons used and
>> > held in such a way that strong characters can exert greater
>> > leverage, such as one-handed weapons taken up in two hands and
>> > two-handed weapons *used in such a way* that they strike powerfully
>> > - rather than "quickly".....
>
>> Quite true, I just have a question of how the monk actually grips the
>> quarterstaff in a non-TWF flurry of blows. The text says the monk
>> loses accuracy when using flurry of blows. Perhaps that is one
>> rationalization for why the 1.5x damage bonus is lost instead of the
>> grip issue. Also, his attacks may not bludgeon with the time needed
>> to really connect. He is using lighter thumps to have more time to
>> make all his attacks in six seconds, not because he is gripping the
>> staff wrong.
>
> Joseph, again I see that you have failed the basic skills required
> to
> participate here in a positive fashion.
> Do you see the words up there that are (and were) IN ASTERISKS?
>
> Do something about your impotent reading comprehension.
> *Now*.
Eh. I was agreeing with only part of your reasoning. I simply think it
also can apply to striking quickly instead of powerfully. So bad terms
on my part, I suppose.
>> flurry of blows. He loses the 1.5x Str bonus. But I believe that
>> Power Attack does not have any Str bonus on a weapon (as long as you
>> have Str 13) requirement to double its damage bonus. I view it as an
>> attack bonus flavor feat not a muscle "power" feat; the more base
>> attack bonus you have the more powerful damage you can produce.
>
> Please explain for us, *fuckwit*, why your view is worth two
> monkey
> turds. Power attack is *named* POWER attack, it has a minimum
> STRENGTH requirement, and it has *no effect* with light weapons and
> *MAGNIFIED* effect with weapons that also magnify STRENGTH bonuses.
> But of *course*, it is just a "attack bonus flavor" feat.
> Moron.
> Power attack provides *less* benefit to a double weapon
> (used-in-two-hands) that is used in TWF style than to one used in
> two-handed weapon style. You have *direct evidence* that the fighting
> style selection has a profound effect on power attack's effectiveness,
> and that in the explicit rules on the matter the *only* evidence you
> have is that when the weapon is not used-in-two-hands so that it
> produces 1.5xSTR, you _also_ DO NOT GET DOUBLED POWER ATTACK.
> Yet you think *monks* should get this benefit, despite their use
> of a
> speed and agility based fighting style that explicitly limits their
> strength bonuses?
I think the Power Attack feat blends many factors in using it.
1. Leverage: This is why you need those two-handed grips, and can't use
items like light weapons. I happen to think a non-TWF can grip his end
of the staff two-handed to qualify for the double bonus.
2. Base Strength requirement: This is why one needs Str 13, so power is
a factor in the flavor of the feat.
3. Combat skill: This is one of the main factors that determines how
"powerful" one's power attacks can be. So I think the greater the combat
skill the more one's natural strength is amplified using the feat all
other factors being equal.
Therefore, I view Power Attack as a feat that has many flavor factors
implied in its use. I also believe monks should get double bonus Power
benefit when non-TWF an end of a staff in a flurry. With a lack of
explicit game text either way, I like to give these rationalizations, so
DM's (if they determine it does not harm game balance) can justify monks
getting 2x Power Attack bonus.
Joseph
> "Joseph" <vo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B3816E...@199.45.49.11...
>> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> > Tell us, little halfwit - how are you able to reconcile double
>> > weapons not receiving 2x power attacks with your "determination"?
>>
>> Oh, I believe that leverage is very important to Power Attack. That
>> is why doubled weapons used TWF can not gain 2x power attacks. So,
>> the Power Attack feat is not only base attack bonus flavor. I was
>> only trying to analyze part of the feat.
>
> Translation:"I was being an idiot".
<Chuckle> You know I usually don't give my full position in only one of
my posts. I tend to work it out in posting steps. I try to modify my
positions as well when posters react to them, which is one of my
motivations of posting on game rules arcana.
> >I also happen to believe that monks
>> can grip their quarterstaff end to qualify for a double bonus Power
>> Attack.
>
> They can. They just can't FLURRY while gaining that benefit. The
> same
> way someone with a double weapon *can* double their PA bonus, but NOT
> WHILE GETTING BONUS ATTACKS.
> Jesus christ on his stick, begging for mercy!
The Flurry part is what disrupts my sense of what should be believable.
The default game text may lean to your position, but I believe monks
should be able to use double Power Attack anyway. Why nerf the monk?
Give him the benefit since he is extremely skilled with monkish weapons.
The flurry is such an odd mechanic, anyway, and fighting with hand-held
weapons is part of the monk's core archetype.
>> I just believe that a few weapons can have very odd
>> properties that do not have a normal Strength bonus, but should be
>> able to double the Power Attack bonus.
>
> Why do you believe this? Please show us a SINGLE EXAMPLE IN THE
> RULES of
> such a weapon. I believe a few wapons can have x5 critical
> multipliers, even though it doesn't say it in the rules, either! Yes!
> ALL OUR FANTASIES ARE ACTUALLY REALIZED IN THE CORE RULES!
> Idiot.
I know it is not in the Core, but I see no reason why can't unique magic
weapons be constructed like this. It is magic, and this is a game of
imagination.
>> Such as Flame Blades, no Strength bonus to damage, but a bonus to
>> attack, the RAW doesn't forbid it after all.
>
> You might want to check the legalise there, a wee bit, buckwheat.
Feh. D&D is not a game of legalese. DM's have plenty of leeway to rule
either way with a Flame Blade.
Joseph
> Mere moments before death, Joseph hastily scrawled:
>>
>>Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
>>allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.
>
> Read that out loud to yourself a couple times, and try to imagine how
> it makes any sense. Keep in mind that you've only got two hands, and
> using a weapon in each hand precludes using either weapon with both
> hands.
>
>
>
> Ed Chauvin IV
>
It doesn't make any sense. This is why I like to think of the quarterstaff
as one weapon in each iterative flurry attack. Yes, I know that is a
violation of the strict letter of the rules, but the whole double-weapon
and flurry text leads to some odd situations, anyways. DM's are going to
have to *alter* the letter of the rules to allow my position. Since I
believe my position gives monks the benefit of the doubt, and is consistent
with the spirit of the fantasy (martial arts) genre; I don't have a problem
with bending the rules here.
Donald Tsang
>> Again, I doubt that. It feels more like a munchkin trap to me.
>
> Ahem. "Munchkin trap" and "would everyone take this" are interchangeable
>concepts. Quit being such a weaseling pussy.
Nono. You misunderstand. "Munchkin trap" means "thing that looks powerful,
that munchkins are tempted into taking, that turns out to be not worth
taking."
>> The rules as written, if
>> followed (rather than interpreted) would lead one to the conclusion that
>> flurrying, power-attacking monks get double power attack damage
>> from any flurryable one- or two-handed weapon wielded in two hands.
>
> No they *don't*. The rules as written describe a situation where power
>attack's bonuses are magnified when weapons are used in a way that magnifies
>strength bonuses. They very clearly limit potential power attack benefits
>for one-handed weapons, for light weapons, and for TWO HANDED WEAPONS used
>in other fighting styles.
>
> Does a monk's use of a weapon held-in-both hands *while flurrying*
>conform to the paradigm of two-handed weapon use that gets power attack
>bonuses, or to the paradim of two-handed weapon use that does not? The
>limited strength bonus makes the answer clear as day, Donald. There is
>*no* entity in the rules that associates a 1xSTR bonus with a 2x power
>attack.
The rules are quite silent about whether a monk's flurrying of a two-handed
(non-double) weapon "gets power attack bonuses". You keep saying that
the x1 STR bonus makes it "clear" that he does not, but I don't see
that as being the case.
Donald
Matt Frisch
<mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>"Matt Frisch" <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:kip0g1dl7lqc67a45...@4ax.com...
>> Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just like
>> if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats.
>
> Flurrying can be combined with TWF, therefore it is not TWF. It is
>something altogether different.
A 3.5 change? I don't recall this ability in 3.0, just some rather large
abuses in NWN which allowed monks with ranger levels to flurry with
longswords, but NWN broke the rules in all kinds of fundamental ways, so I
never counted it.
>. This instantaneously
>invalidates any claim that the flurry "means attacking with both ends".
>Notice the name. FLURRY. Notice the game mechanical result - additional
>attacks, with a limitation on potential strength bonuses.
The confusion rests in part to how similar FoB is to TWF, mechanically.
Kaos
(Donald Tsang) dared speak in front of ME:
>Kaos <ka...@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
>>ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) dared speak in front of ME:
>>>Okay, let's take a different tack here; you seem to be fixated on
>>>this phrasing (which I believe wasn't meant to cover the case I
>>>postulated).
>>>
>>>There are at least two other weapons that are:
>>>(a) monk weapons
>>>(b) non-light weapons
>>>(c) not quarterstaves, and therefore not covered by the special rules
>>> about quarterstaves.
>>
>>You forgot d: not core, and therefore obviously not going to be
>>mentioned in the core book or SRD.
>>
>>But you probably did that on purpose.
>
>But since the "quarterstaff is a special case" was written into both
>the 3.0 and 3.5 PH, there isn't any reason they wouldn't copy it
>into OA / CA if they meant it that way.
Sure there is: Lack of attention.
You noted yourself that the longstaff should have been treated like a
quarterstaff.
>>The monk does not gain two-handed strength bonuses when using a
>>weapon two-handed for flurries; why would it get two-handed
>>powerattack bonuses?
>>
>>(And give me something better than "because the rules don't explicitly
>>say it doesn't," or don't bother at all.)
>
>What else is there?
That's for you to come up with.
>Why do people insist on inserting rules where they don't exist, and then
>insisting that it's "core" (or "the ONLY way to be consistent with core")?
Why do people insist that the rules explicitly spell out everything
for them?
>>>Would you grant a power attacking monk flurrying with a three-section
>>>staff the double bonus for Power Attack?
>>
>>Not without an argument that's more convincing than "the rules don't
>>say you can't" backing it up. IFF it specifically says you can, or it
>>gives specific exceptions to either the "use strength bonus, not bonus
>>* 1.5" or the "you can intersperse unarmed strikes into your flurry
>>routine while using this weapon," I'd consider it.
>
>The last one is there, as the 3SS is designated as a monk weapon.
When I say "exception to either..." I'm implying that I'm looking for
the *lack* of that quality.
As it stands, the 3SS just looks like it was thrown in as a monk
weapon without proper consideration for the fact that it's a
two-handed single weapon. The tendency for things like that to happen
is one of the reasons I don't like going out of core when looking for
precedents.
Kaos
speak in front of ME:
>Kaos <ka...@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
>news:vtm0g15t0i1a86ko0...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:52:16 GMT, Joseph <vo...@verizon.net> dared
>> speak in front of ME:
>>
>>>Kaos <ka...@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
>>>news:id40g1lrlts329f7i...@4ax.com:
>>>> AFAIC, most of the double-weapon rules tend to say 'we are
>>>> exceptions to the general letter and spirt of the rules' as it is.
>>>> Which means simply citing them isn't good enough for our purposes.
>>>
>>>I see no contradiction in that the quarterstaff is really just one
>>>weapon. It is a game rule conceit that defines it as two separate
>>>two-handed weapons. Common sense, to me, says that monks should have
>>>the control needed to handle one end of the quarterstaff as a
>>>two-handed weapon with each flurry of blows attack. Accuracy may be
>>>lost as well as some Strength bonus, but the monk should be able to
>>>take advantage of an opponent's openings with a two-handed use of each
>>>end of the quarterstaff in a flurry.
>>
>> Treating it mechanically as two seperate one-handed weapons fits what
>> you just described. Flurry already drops a bit of accuracy, and the
>> loss of some strength bonus coincides neatly with barring the
>> two-handed advantages.
>
>Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
>allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.
Mechanically speaking, you are not using a one-handed weapon with two
hands; nor are you (mechanically speaking) using a two-handed weapon.
You are effectively (though not literally) using two one-handed
weapons, each in one hand.
>> Or simply a high-level monk making use of his iterative attack
>> sequence. There's more than sufficient room for debate to just let
>> the question slide in favour of mechanical balance; they're already
>> getting a break being allowed to use str + str rather than str + 1/2
>> str.
>
>Possibly, but I hate to deny it to all those low-level characters.
They're not going to want to be using power attack anyway, unless
they're silly. They have enough trouble hitting as it is, stacking
the -2 for flurry with power-attack penalties is just not worth it
yet.
>That is getting far from the Core, though. Unfortunately, my sense of
>verisimilitude trumps balance factors to me;
IMO, the verisimilitude is not even close to being at sufficient risk
in this situation to allow it to trump balance.
Kaos
(Donald Tsang) dared speak in front of ME:
They got one already: they don't suffer the reduced str bonus for the
extra attacks.
Michael Scott Brown
> > Flurrying can be combined with TWF, therefore it is not TWF. It is
> >something altogether different.
>
> A 3.5 change? I don't recall this ability in 3.0,
It's discussed in the FAQ or Sage advice for one edition or the other.
Which isn't the most useful reference, but the moral of my point is that I
am Not Making This Up (tm). It probably came up in the context of MSB
arguing the opposite was the case, in fact.
> >This instantaneously
> >invalidates any claim that the flurry "means attacking with both ends".
> >Notice the name. FLURRY. Notice the game mechanical result - additional
> >attacks, with a limitation on potential strength bonuses.
>
> The confusion rests in part to how similar FoB is to TWF, mechanically.
How similar is that? Flurries take a -2, -1, or 0 penalty and add 1 or 2
bonus attacks as a result, with STR bonuses limited to 1x even when 2-handed
weapons are used. A flurry takes the same penalties whether light, medium
or large weapons are used.
With a feat, TWF takes a -2 or -4 penalty (depending on the weapon size
in the off-hand), adding 1 bonus attack with 1/2 STR bonus. More
*iterative* bonus attacks can be added with additional feats.
These aren't remotely the same, mechanically once you get past the wonky
"penalty to all attacks for bonus attacks" description.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Again, I doubt that. It feels more like a munchkin trap to me.
> >
> > Ahem. "Munchkin trap" and "would everyone take this" are
interchangeable
> >concepts. Quit being such a weaseling pussy.
>
> Nono. You misunderstand. "Munchkin trap" means "thing that looks
powerful,
> that munchkins are tempted into taking, that turns out to be not worth
> taking."
Prove that it isn't worth taking. You babble a lot about "beliefs" but
have very little knowledge.
Here's a hint for you, Donnie boy. At *2x*, power attack is actually
worth taking on many occasions.
> The rules are quite silent about whether a monk's flurrying of a
two-handed
> (non-double) weapon "gets power attack bonuses". You keep saying that
> the x1 STR bonus makes it "clear" that he does not, but I don't see
> that as being the case.
Ahem. Of course he gets power attack bonuses. He simply doesn't get the
*doubled* ones that apply to using a weapon as a two handed weapon; NO MORE
THAN HE WOULD FOR USING A DOUBLE WEAPON.
You sod, THERE IS *PRECEDENT* here. Double weapon used in TWF style - a
weapon, used in two hands, getting 1x STR bonus and 1x Power attack. It's
just that easy. It should be AS OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE (you have
a nose, yes?) that the language in power attack about "two handed" is not
particularly strong language.
-Michael
-Michael
Joseph
news:7rc2g19do1eq9ama1...@4ax.com:
Yes, the mechanical explanation just bothers me from an inside gameworld
viewpoint, and a sense that the monk's core role of master of martial
combat is being treaded upon by a wonky game mechanic.
>>> Or simply a high-level monk making use of his iterative attack
>>> sequence. There's more than sufficient room for debate to just let
>>> the question slide in favour of mechanical balance; they're already
>>> getting a break being allowed to use str + str rather than str + 1/2
>>> str.
>>
>>Possibly, but I hate to deny it to all those low-level characters.
>
> They're not going to want to be using power attack anyway, unless
> they're silly. They have enough trouble hitting as it is, stacking
> the -2 for flurry with power-attack penalties is just not worth it
> yet.
The majority of the time, but I'd rather keep the option open. Some
opponents are easy to hit, but one needs the damage sometimes. It is nice
to have the ability to remove a few points of attack bonus to get a double
power attack bonus, if allowed. And different character builds can mitigate
some of these penalties.
>>That is getting far from the Core, though. Unfortunately, my sense of
>>verisimilitude trumps balance factors to me;
>
> IMO, the verisimilitude is not even close to being at sufficient risk
> in this situation to allow it to trump balance.
I will present my position and a hostile one to my position.
Hostile position: PHB page 41 "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end
counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
ability."
1. Interprets key sentence conventionally. The quarterstaff is treated as
two separate one-handed weapons each wielded in one hand. Hence the Power
Attack double bonus can not be gained by definition.
2. The fairness of game balance warrants that the monk not be allowed to
have a double Power Attack bonus in a flurry of blows.
3. The fact that the monk gains only a 1x Strength bonus strongly implies
that the monk is unable to leverage the quarterstaff to qualify for a
double Power Attack bonus in a flurry.
My position: PHB page 41 "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
ability."
1. Interprets key sentence unconventionally. Each end is treated as a
separate weapon by the game text only for the purpose of pointing out that
the monk can use any end of the quarterstaff as one of the monk's iterative
attacks in a flurry without penalty. Therefore clarification of that and
not implication that the staff is actually treated as two weapons in a
flurry is the intent of the Players Handbook.
2. Reasonable verisimilitude warrants that the quarterstaff is really only
one weapon so the monk should be able to use it in a two-handed grip even
in a flurry.
3. Concern that the core monk archetype is violated; the quarterstaff is
the monk's bailiwick. Therefore, allow the monk the benefit of the doubt
concerning the use of the staff in the specific monk ability Flurry of
Blows.
On the related matter of Power Attack feat requirements, the challenge is
to demonstrate the relationship between weapons and double Power Attack
bonuses. The vast majority of weapons listed in the Core have a Strength
bonus 1.5x capability. But are there exceptions? The game text doesn't
explicitly give a requirement of Strength bonus on a weapon, only a two-
handed grip requirement to gain double Power Attack.
Is there a semantic implication? A|= B Where A is the set of sentences that
names all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core that
gains a double Power Attack bonus. And B is the set of sentences that
demands all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core
that gains a double Power Attack bonus have a 1.5x Str bonus capability.
Variant: Change Core in above to all official D&D product. Every model of A
must be a model of B.
Is there a logical implication? A|- B Where A is the set of sentences that
names all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core that
gains a double Power Attack bonus. And B is the set of sentences that
demands all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core
that gains a double Power Attack bonus have a 1.5x Str bonus capability.
Variant: Change Core in above to all official D&D product. B can be proven
from A.
Matt Frisch
<mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>"Matt Frisch" <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:mv62g151g6ov3j34n...@4ax.com...
>> >This instantaneously
>> >invalidates any claim that the flurry "means attacking with both ends".
>> >Notice the name. FLURRY. Notice the game mechanical result - additional
>> >attacks, with a limitation on potential strength bonuses.
>>
>> The confusion rests in part to how similar FoB is to TWF, mechanically.
>
> How similar is that? Flurries take a -2, -1, or 0 penalty and add 1 or 2
>bonus attacks as a result, with STR bonuses limited to 1x even when 2-handed
>weapons are used. A flurry takes the same penalties whether light, medium
>or large weapons are used.
Well, that's definately a 3.5 bit. I know that monks had their attacks
changed around a bit, I skimmed the PHB enough to see that, but never
bothered to record it in detail.
> These aren't remotely the same, mechanically once you get past the wonky
>"penalty to all attacks for bonus attacks" description.
They are similar from the perspective of:
Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
round.
Matt Frisch
<mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
> It should be AS OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE (you have
>a nose, yes?)
http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=215 tho
Kaos
<matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> dared speak in front of ME:
>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:44:45 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
><mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>
>>"Matt Frisch" <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>>news:kip0g1dl7lqc67a45...@4ax.com...
>>> Because flurrying with the staff means attacking with both ends, just like
>>> if he were TWF the staff, only without the need for extra feats.
>>
>
>> Flurrying can be combined with TWF, therefore it is not TWF. It is
>>something altogether different.
>
>A 3.5 change?
Not sure whether it's a change, or something that wasn't clarified
before the 3.5 faq.
Michael Scott Brown
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>
> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
> round.
<cough> Rapid Shot <cough>
-Michael
Kaos
speak in front of ME:
>Kaos <ka...@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
>news:7rc2g19do1eq9ama1...@4ax.com:
>> You are effectively (though not literally) using two one-handed
>> weapons, each in one hand.
>
>Yes, the mechanical explanation just bothers me from an inside gameworld
>viewpoint, and a sense that the monk's core role of master of martial
>combat is being treaded upon by a wonky game mechanic.
First off, the mechanics are clearly of the 'treat as if' variety -
meaning they don't make attempts to dictate the in-game nature of the
thing (such as the 'no tripping with a staff' does.)
Second... he can do things with a staff that no one else can, so his
role isn't really being treaded on.
Third, the 'master of martial combat' thing is actually the fighter's
schtick. The monk is a mix of unarmed combat and spiritual
enlightenment, not a general martial combatant.
>> They're not going to want to be using power attack anyway, unless
>> they're silly. They have enough trouble hitting as it is, stacking
>> the -2 for flurry with power-attack penalties is just not worth it
>> yet.
>
>The majority of the time, but I'd rather keep the option open. Some
>opponents are easy to hit, but one needs the damage sometimes. It is nice
>to have the ability to remove a few points of attack bonus to get a double
>power attack bonus, if allowed.
Sure, it would be nice.
It would also be nice if my Sorceror could learn every spell in the
book at some point, but that doesn't happen.
>> IMO, the verisimilitude is not even close to being at sufficient risk
>> in this situation to allow it to trump balance.
>
>I will present my position and a hostile one to my position.
>
>Hostile position: PHB page 41 "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end
>counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
>ability."
>1. Interprets key sentence conventionally. The quarterstaff is treated as
>two separate one-handed weapons each wielded in one hand. Hence the Power
>Attack double bonus can not be gained by definition.
>
>2. The fairness of game balance warrants that the monk not be allowed to
>have a double Power Attack bonus in a flurry of blows.
>
>3. The fact that the monk gains only a 1x Strength bonus strongly implies
>that the monk is unable to leverage the quarterstaff to qualify for a
>double Power Attack bonus in a flurry.
More to the point: it's what makes the strong implication that it's
being treated as two one-handed weapons (being wielded one handed.)
>My position: PHB page 41 "In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts
>as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows
>ability."
>1. Interprets key sentence unconventionally. Each end is treated as a
>separate weapon by the game text only for the purpose of pointing out that
>the monk can use any end of the quarterstaff as one of the monk's iterative
>attacks in a flurry without penalty.
An unecessary clarification IMO. One could use either end just as
well in an iterative attack sequence.
>3. Concern that the core monk archetype is violated; the quarterstaff is
>the monk's bailiwick.
Er... I don't see this. I see kicking, elbow-strikes, grappling and
other feats of unarmed combat as the monk's bailiwick. While the
staff certainly has much history in the eastern martial arts, I still
tend to associate it more to Little John of Robin Hood fame.
>On the related matter of Power Attack feat requirements, the challenge is
>to demonstrate the relationship between weapons and double Power Attack
>bonuses. The vast majority of weapons listed in the Core have a Strength
>bonus 1.5x capability. But are there exceptions?
None so far. If we allowed staff (longstaff/3ss) to benefit during a
flurry, it would be the exception.
>The game text doesn't
>explicitly give a requirement of Strength bonus on a weapon, only a two-
>handed grip requirement to gain double Power Attack.
Actually, it does give a requirement of a strength bonus, though not
the one we're talking about. 13 or higher Str to take Power Attack.
>Is there a semantic implication? A|= B Where A is the set of sentences that
>names all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core that
>gains a double Power Attack bonus. And B is the set of sentences that
>demands all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core
>that gains a double Power Attack bonus have a 1.5x Str bonus capability.
>Variant: Change Core in above to all official D&D product. Every model of A
>must be a model of B.
>Is there a logical implication? A|- B Where A is the set of sentences that
>names all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core that
>gains a double Power Attack bonus. And B is the set of sentences that
>demands all the weapons listed (or heavily implied possible) in the Core
>that gains a double Power Attack bonus have a 1.5x Str bonus capability.
>Variant: Change Core in above to all official D&D product. B can be proven
>from A.
The specific set of implications are as follows:
1) Using a weapon in two hands gives 1.5* strength bonus.
2) Using a weapon in two hands gives 2x Power Attack bonus.
3) Using a weapon in two hands during a flurry gives only the
one-handed strength bonus.
3 implies that, regardless of weapon or use, you treat a weapon as
one-handed during a flurry. It does not explicitly say this, but it
shouldn't have to.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in
>news:1ud1g1p2o8mpl0c9t...@news.supernews.com:
>> Mere moments before death, Joseph hastily scrawled:
>>>
>>>Even treated as two separate one-handed weapons the Power Attack feat
>>>allows for double bonuses when using a one-handed weapon with two hands.
>>
>> Read that out loud to yourself a couple times, and try to imagine how
>> it makes any sense. Keep in mind that you've only got two hands, and
>> using a weapon in each hand precludes using either weapon with both
>> hands.
>>
>
>as one weapon in each iterative flurry attack. Yes, I know that is a
>violation of the strict letter of the rules, but the whole double-weapon
>and flurry text leads to some odd situations, anyways.
No, it doesn't, and here's the relevant text just to prove it:
"In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon
for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability."
>DM's are going to have to *alter* the letter of the rules to allow my position.
Why didn't you state sooner that you were promoting a house rule?
Folks wouldn't have jumped on you for screwing up the RAW. They
would, however, have torn you to pieces for offering up such a stupid
house rule.
Ed Chauvin IV
>>"Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>>> >> does a monk flurrying with a quarterstaff *and only using one
>>> >> end* gain the double power attack bonus, even though he only
>>> >>gains x1 STR bonus instead of x1.5?
>>> >
>>> >What about the part where the x1 STR bonus means he isn't using it
>>> >like a two handed weapon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>
>>> The part where "getting a x1 STR bonus" supposedly means a character
>>> isn't using a weapon "as a two handed weapon", I guess. Probably because
>>> THE RULES DON'T SAY THAT.
>>
>> Double weapon. You lose.
>
>It doesn't specifically say in the rules that the double weapon is treated
>as two one-handed weapons wielded one-handed.
"In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon
for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability."
How would you propose wielding two separate weapons, if not one in
each hand?
Donald Tsang
>Mere moments before death, Donald Tsang hastily scrawled:
>>as two one-handed weapons wielded one-handed.
>
>"In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon
>for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability."
>
>How would you propose wielding two separate weapons, if not one in
>each hand?
I suspect people are taking that sentence to literally, *and* to
liberally. Each end counting as a separate weapon doesn't *necessarily*
mean that:
(a) if you only use one end in a round, it can't be treated as being
wielded two-handed
(b) each "separate weapon" is treated as a one-handed weapon
(c) the "separate weapons" are treated as being wielded one-handed
The rules are simply silent on these points. Until the Sage (or some
other "canonical" entity) rules on this point, DMs should feel free
to interpret it however they feel is most reasonable and consistent.
Donald
Joseph
Well, I was trying to work out an argument in multiple posts using
abductive reasoning over multiple posts. I get the impression that
irritates some people here as that is quite a different method from the
standard in RGFD. Also, I do not actually play the game, Ed. I just read
these books for pleasure. And the PHB is one of the driest to read, so
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in Core rule discussions. Mainly, I was
just presenting an alternative rationalization if DM's wanted to use it.
But by the rules, my argument is much weaker, so I am ceding my
argument.
Matt Frisch
<mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>"Matt Frisch" <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot. Most
of my games, ranged weapons tend to not be overly useful. Typical encounter
distances result in having to shoot into melee and risk hitting friendlies
more often than not, which leads to not many people climbing the bow
specialization (no, not term of art) feat tree.
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:58:18 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> <mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>
> >"Matt Frisch" <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> >news:ivq2g1591korelhhq...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >> They are similar from the perspective of:
> >>
> >> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
> >> round.
> >
> > <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>
>
> Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot. Most
> of my games, ranged weapons tend to not be overly useful. Typical encounter
> distances result in having to shoot into melee and risk hitting friendlies
> more often than not,
There is no such risk. You gain a -4 to hit when firing into melee, but
there is no risk of hitting a friendly (unless he's in a grapple). And
even the -4 only applies if you don't have Precise Shot.
> which leads to not many people climbing the bow
> specialization (no, not term of art) feat tree.
I'm not surprised, since apparently, you have house rules crippling
archers.
Laszlo
Kaos
(Donald Tsang) dared speak in front of ME:
>The rules are simply silent on these points. Until the Sage (or some
>other "canonical" entity)
Why do fuckwits always *need* some 'canonical entity' to tell them
what should be fucking obvious?
No 33 Secretary
news:elo4g11k9a7c0nbip...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:01:30 +0000 (UTC), ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
> (Donald Tsang) dared speak in front of ME:
>
>>The rules are simply silent on these points. Until the Sage (or some
>>other "canonical" entity)
>
> Why do fuckwits always *need* some 'canonical entity' to tell them
> what should be fucking obvious?
>
Because they're too much a bunch of fuckwits to agree to house rules that
work, without some outside authority to tell them how the world works.
I suspect they can't manage to order dinner during a game without turning
on the TV to see what advertisers think they should buy.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Matt Frisch
ether:
>
>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:58:18 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> <mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>>
>> >"Matt Frisch" <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ivq2g1591korelhhq...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:53:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >> They are similar from the perspective of:
>> >>
>> >> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
>> >> round.
>> >
>> > <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>
>>
>> Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot. Most
>> of my games, ranged weapons tend to not be overly useful. Typical encounter
>> distances result in having to shoot into melee and risk hitting friendlies
>> more often than not,
>
>There is no such risk.
There is when your party members are being used as cover by back row
combatants. Poor word choice on my part. Shoot THROUGH melee, rather than
into it.
>> which leads to not many people climbing the bow
>> specialization (no, not term of art) feat tree.
>
>I'm not surprised, since apparently, you have house rules crippling
>archers.
I just use the rules as they are written. 3.0 PHB, page 133, "Strike the
Cover Instead of a Missed Target".
Chipacabra
> On 16 Aug 2005 11:18:12 -0700, laszlo_...@freemail.hu scribed
> into the ether:
>
>>
>>Matt Frisch wrote:
>>> Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid
>>> shot. Most of my games, ranged weapons tend to not be overly useful.
>>> Typical encounter distances result in having to shoot into melee and
>>> risk hitting friendlies more often than not,
>>
>>There is no such risk.
>
> There is when your party members are being used as cover by back row
> combatants. Poor word choice on my part. Shoot THROUGH melee, rather
> than into it.
There is no such risk in 3.5. You can only hit the wrong target with a
splash weapon, or if shooting into a grapple.
Michael Scott Brown
> >"In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon
> >for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability."
> >How would you propose wielding two separate weapons, if not one in
> >each hand?
>
> I suspect people are taking that sentence to literally, *and* to
> liberally.
I suspect that you are a fucking moron. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE MASSIVE
SIMILARITTIES TO THE LANGUAGE DESCRIBING HOW DOUBLE WEAPONS ARE USED IN TWF?
A quarterstaff COUNTS AS TWO WEAPONS for TWF. A quarterstaff COUNTS AS TWO
WEAPONS for Flurry.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:Xns96B48958...@199.45.49.11...
> Well, I was trying to work out an argument in multiple posts using
> abductive reasoning over multiple posts.
No you weren't, you miserable fuckwit, and stop using cut-and-pasted
wannabe terms from wiki in a desperate attempt to justify your aberrant
thought processes.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> >> They are similar from the perspective of:
> >> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
> >> round.
> >
> > <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>
>
> Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot.
*IRRELEVANT*. Rapid shot's mechanics ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF THE
(basic) FLURRY. Take -2 to all attacks, get one more attack. JUST LIKE
FLURRY. *NOT* like TWF - there is no funny business with strength bonuses,
no funny business with the penalty depending on the size of weapon. It's
stupid to assume flurry is mechanically similar to TWF when a comparison of
the available mechanics shows that the true spiritual partner is RapidShot.
-Michael
Joseph
news:h4BMe.7564$WD....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
You are one to talk about aberrant, fanboy. Continue to waste your energy
being a tool, yapping poodle.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>>Mere moments before death, Donald Tsang hastily scrawled:
>>>It doesn't specifically say in the rules that the double weapon is treated
>>>as two one-handed weapons wielded one-handed.
>>
>>"In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon
>>for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability."
>
>liberally. Each end counting as a separate weapon doesn't *necessarily*
>mean that:
>(a) if you only use one end in a round, it can't be treated as being
> wielded two-handed
>(b) each "separate weapon" is treated as a one-handed weapon
>(c) the "separate weapons" are treated as being wielded one-handed
>
>The rules are simply silent on these points. Until the Sage (or some
>other "canonical" entity) rules on this point, DMs should feel free
>to interpret it however they feel is most reasonable and consistent.
Wow. I'm stunned by your incredible desire to brand yourself such a
colossal idiot.
>>How would you propose wielding two separate weapons, if not one in
>>each hand?
I moved this question down, since you apparently decided you couldn't
address it, and I'm wondering why. Well, not really. It's quite
obvious from your above weaseling attempt that you were hoping it
would get forgotten.
Donald Tsang
>>>How would you propose wielding two separate weapons, if not one in
>>>each hand?
>
>I moved this question down, since you apparently decided you couldn't
>address it, and I'm wondering why. Well, not really. It's quite
>obvious from your above weaseling attempt that you were hoping it
>would get forgotten.
I tried to explain it before. Apparently, my explanation wasn't clear
enough.
By "separate weapons", you're making the assumption that they mean
"one in each hand". I read it as "each end is treated as a weapon
when choosing between weapons and unarmed strikes".
They don't say anything about "both weapons are considered one-handed",
"both weapons are considered light", or "both weapons are considered
two-handed" at all. Unlike in TWF, where "primary is considered
one-handed, and off-hand is considered light". Of course you're
wielding the quarterstaff in both hands; it's just not clear what
"mode" you're wielding the "weapons" in. I happen to be arguing for
"as a two-handed weapon if you don't use both ends in a round" right now,
but I'm flexible on the "if you use both ends in a round" point.
MSB argues that, since you get 1x STR bonus on all flurry attacks, the
"weapons" must be considered one-handed. I find that argument ludicrous.
The "1x STR bonus" is inherent to flurry, and doesn't modify the "class"
of the weapon; light monk-weapons don't all-of-a-sudden become one-handed,
and two-handed monk weapons shouldn't all-of-a-sudden become one-handed
either.
The rules are simply silent about the "class" of a "monkish double weapon"
being used in a flurry (but not a TWF). At least one poster that isn't
MSB derided my attitude that I would reserve final judgement until an
"official voice" spoke; I think there was a misunderstanding: I know
how I'd rule as a DM, but I'm not prepared to declare victory or defeat
on the newsgroup until someone with more authority (and less attitude)
speaks up.
Donald
Donald Tsang
>"Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> >"In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon
>> >for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability."
>> >How would you propose wielding two separate weapons, if not one in
>> >each hand?
>>
>> I suspect people are taking that sentence to literally, *and* to
>> liberally.
>
> I suspect that you are a fucking moron. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE MASSIVE
>SIMILARITTIES TO THE LANGUAGE DESCRIBING HOW DOUBLE WEAPONS ARE USED IN TWF?
>A quarterstaff COUNTS AS TWO WEAPONS for TWF. A quarterstaff COUNTS AS TWO
>WEAPONS for Flurry.
Have you noticed that TWF specifically states that the primary
weapon counts as "one-handed" and the secondary as "light"? And
that the flurry rules don't say anything? "1x STR bonus" is
insufficient evidence in my mind, as it doesn't distinguish between
wield-classes (and, I would argue, would override wield-class's STR
modifier in the first place, but not the wield-class itself).
Donald
Matt Frisch
the ether:
>Matt Frisch <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
>news:vch5g15qju1m197gm...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 16 Aug 2005 11:18:12 -0700, laszlo_...@freemail.hu scribed
>> into the ether:
>>
>>>
>>>Matt Frisch wrote:
>
>>>> Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid
>>>> shot. Most of my games, ranged weapons tend to not be overly useful.
>>>> Typical encounter distances result in having to shoot into melee and
>>>> risk hitting friendlies more often than not,
>>>
>>>There is no such risk.
>>
>> There is when your party members are being used as cover by back row
>> combatants. Poor word choice on my part. Shoot THROUGH melee, rather
>> than into it.
>
>There is no such risk in 3.5. You can only hit the wrong target with a
>splash weapon, or if shooting into a grapple.
3.5 removes the rules that give cover, and allow for the possibility that
the cover is hit instead of your intended target?
Matt Frisch
<mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>"Matt Frisch" <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:kea4g194f6ur9lv9f...@4ax.com...
>> >> They are similar from the perspective of:
>> >> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
>> >> round.
>> >
>> > <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>
>>
>> Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot.
>
> *IRRELEVANT*. Rapid shot's mechanics ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF THE
>(basic) FLURRY. Take -2 to all attacks, get one more attack. JUST LIKE
>FLURRY. *NOT* like TWF - there is no funny business with strength bonuses,
>no funny business with the penalty depending on the size of weapon.
Please stop confusing the words "similar" and "identical".
Chipacabra
Creatures between you and your target still provide cover, but there is
no chance to hit them instead. You hit your target, someone your target
is grappling with, or nothing.
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
> Cover Instead of a Missed Target".
Ah, interesting. Didn't know this was a 3.0 -> 3.5 change.
Laszlo
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I suspect that you are a fucking moron. HAVE YOU NOTICED THE MASSIVE
> >SIMILARITTIES TO THE LANGUAGE DESCRIBING HOW DOUBLE WEAPONS ARE USED IN
TWF?
> >A quarterstaff COUNTS AS TWO WEAPONS for TWF. A quarterstaff COUNTS AS
TWO
> >WEAPONS for Flurry.
>
> Have you noticed that TWF specifically states that the primary
> weapon counts as "one-handed" and the secondary as "light"? And
> that the flurry rules don't say anything?
*IRRELEVANT*. The *point* is that when a double weapon counts as two
weapons IT *DOESN'T* COUNT AS A TWO-HANDED WEAPON ANYMORE. Can't you get
this through your fucking head? There is ABSOLUTE PRECEDENT for fighting
style trumping literal handedness. For a double weapon used with TWF, this
breakdown is specified to be a 1-H and a light weapon. For a monk who is
flurrying with a staff, it doesn't say to do that. Gee, perhaps that means
they implement two-weapons-ness DIFFERENTLY?
*THINK*, you fucking idiot! Two SEPARATE WEAPONS with 1x STR bonuses
ARE NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, RIGHTLY DESCRIBED AS TWO *TWO HANDED*
WEAPONS.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> They don't say anything about "both weapons are considered one-handed",
> "both weapons are considered light", or "both weapons are considered
> two-handed" at all.
Except for the strength bonus, of course.
*Moron*.
-Michael
Donald Tsang
>> They don't say anything about "both weapons are considered one-handed",
>> "both weapons are considered light", or "both weapons are considered
>> two-handed" at all.
>
> Except for the strength bonus, of course.
> *Moron*.
With all of your other techinical correctness, I don't see how you can
make the leap from "1x STR bonus" to "wielded as one-handed weapon"
(or to "wielded as light weapon", which also normally gains a x1
STR bonus in the primary hand).
It's somewhat like saying someone wearing chainmail (max DEX bonus
to AC of +2) MUST have an effective DEX of 15 or less while wearing
it, because otherwise he'd have a DEX bonus of +3 or better. [okay,
this is, at best, an awkward example]
It just doesn't make sense to me. Flurry of Blows sets your STR
bonus at x1, regardless of your weapon. That doesn't mean that you
*must* be wielding it "as a one-handed weapon" or "as a light
weapon"; it just sets the STR bonus multiplier to x1.
A three-sectioned staff, according to the rules, cannot be used as
a double weapon, nor can it be used in one hand. Unless Wizards
pulls a "wielded as a Flurrying Weapon, which always gains a x1 STR
bonus multiplier and a x1 Power Attack bonus" rule out of their
collective butts, I don't see how you can possibly argue that the
Rules As Written don't grant you x2 Power Attack Bonus when flurrying
with it.
Donald
Ed Chauvin IV
Identify the mechanical difference between RS and Flurry.
Ed Chauvin IV
Granted, that's not definitive, since all the light monk weapons get
1x Str bonus when flurried with. But, that's not an indicator that
the mode of use changes for flurry, rather that the normal mode rules
do not apply. Which just means that there's no two-handed weapon
action going on, because all monk weapons are used in Flurried Monk
Weapon mode and you get 1x Str bonus. Period.
Ed Chauvin IV
>>>>How would you propose wielding two separate weapons, if not one in
>>>>each hand?
>>
>>I moved this question down, since you apparently decided you couldn't
>>address it, and I'm wondering why. Well, not really. It's quite
>>obvious from your above weaseling attempt that you were hoping it
>>would get forgotten.
>
>I tried to explain it before.
You most certainly did not.
>Apparently, my explanation wasn't clear
>enough.
*What* explanation? You did not, and still have not approached an
explanation for the question.
>By "separate weapons", you're making the assumption that they mean
>"one in each hand". I read it as "each end is treated as a weapon
>when choosing between weapons and unarmed strikes".
>
>They don't say anything about "both weapons are considered one-handed",
>"both weapons are considered light", or "both weapons are considered
>two-handed" at all. Unlike in TWF, where "primary is considered
>one-handed, and off-hand is considered light". Of course you're
>wielding the quarterstaff in both hands; it's just not clear what
>"mode" you're wielding the "weapons" in. I happen to be arguing for
>"as a two-handed weapon if you don't use both ends in a round" right now,
>but I'm flexible on the "if you use both ends in a round" point.
HOW DO YOU WIELD TWO TWO-HANDED WEAPONS WITH FEWER THAN FOUR HANDS?
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
>MSB argues that, since you get 1x STR bonus on all flurry attacks, the
>"weapons" must be considered one-handed. I find that argument ludicrous.
>The "1x STR bonus" is inherent to flurry, and doesn't modify the "class"
>of the weapon; light monk-weapons don't all-of-a-sudden become one-handed,
>and two-handed monk weapons shouldn't all-of-a-sudden become one-handed
>either.
You are starting to set off my Lying Weaselfuck Alarm.
Donald Tsang
>HOW DO YOU WIELD TWO TWO-HANDED WEAPONS WITH FEWER THAN FOUR HANDS?
>
>ANSWER THE QUESTION!
We're talking about a quarterstaff. They're the same weapon. The
same stick. You bat left-handed, then shift grips as part of the
same motion and bat right-handed. Is it really so hard to understand?
Donald
Matt Frisch
(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:
I guess the part about why you are wasting your time switching grips
instead of hitting the guy again the same way.
Also, why you would be risking the existance of your staff by exposing the
long end to that sort of stress. Baseball bats are both thicker and shorter
than quarterstaves, and they break all the time.
Matt Frisch
<ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> scribed into the ether:
>Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch hastily scrawled:
>>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:49:35 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>><mister...@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>"Matt Frisch" <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kea4g194f6ur9lv9f...@4ax.com...
>>>> >> They are similar from the perspective of:
>>>> >> Get an additional attack per round, with a -2 to all attacks made that
>>>> >> round.
>>>> >
>>>> > <cough> Rapid Shot <cough>
>>>>
>>>> Also similar. IME, going for TWF is a lot more common than rapid shot.
>>>
>>> *IRRELEVANT*. Rapid shot's mechanics ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF THE
>>>(basic) FLURRY. Take -2 to all attacks, get one more attack. JUST LIKE
>>>FLURRY. *NOT* like TWF - there is no funny business with strength bonuses,
>>>no funny business with the penalty depending on the size of weapon.
>>
>>Please stop confusing the words "similar" and "identical".
>
>Identify the mechanical difference between RS and Flurry.
WRT: Flurry/TWF.
Donald Tsang
>ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:
>>Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>>>HOW DO YOU WIELD TWO TWO-HANDED WEAPONS WITH FEWER THAN FOUR HANDS?
>>>
>>>ANSWER THE QUESTION!
>>
>>We're talking about a quarterstaff. They're the same weapon. The
>>same stick. You bat left-handed, then shift grips as part of the
>>same motion and bat right-handed. Is it really so hard to understand?
>
>I guess the part about why you are wasting your time switching grips
>instead of hitting the guy again the same way.
Usually because the guy has his defenses ready for 'hitting him the same
way'. It may not actually be switching grips. Heck, my original argument
was for the flurrying of *one end* of a quarterstaff. "Since it's being
flurried, you have to have both ends readied", came the reply.
>Also, why you would be risking the existance of your staff by exposing the
>long end to that sort of stress. Baseball bats are both thicker and shorter
>than quarterstaves, and they break all the time.
Have you ever watched a /kuen/ in use?
Donald
Ed Chauvin IV
I don't care what qualifiers you put on it, just name the difference
already.
Ed Chauvin IV
>>HOW DO YOU WIELD TWO TWO-HANDED WEAPONS WITH FEWER THAN FOUR HANDS?
>>
>>ANSWER THE QUESTION!
>
>We're talking about a quarterstaff. They're the same weapon. The
>same stick.
But the ends are "treated as two separate weapons". It's called
"context", perhaps you've heard about it?
>You bat left-handed, then shift grips as part of the
>same motion and bat right-handed.
Nonsense.
>Is it really so hard to understand?
I didn't think so, but you're proving that it is very aptly.
Michael Scott Brown
news:ipd9g1penla87lh9j...@news.supernews.com...
> >"Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> >news:ddvvfs$qe1$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >> They don't say anything about "both weapons are considered one-handed",
> >> "both weapons are considered light", or "both weapons are considered
> >> two-handed" at all.
> >
> > Except for the strength bonus, of course.
> > *Moron*.
>
> Granted, that's not definitive, since all the light monk weapons get
> 1x Str bonus when flurried with.
Irrelevant. Light weapons don't restrict strength to 1/2 bonus;
*off-hand* weapons do.
> But, that's not an indicator that
> the mode of use changes for flurry, rather that the normal mode rules
> do not apply. Which just means that there's no two-handed weapon
> action going on, because all monk weapons are used in Flurried Monk
> Weapon mode and you get 1x Str bonus. Period.
Which is the point Donald just isn't capable of comprehending. The only
relevant issue is that we know for *certain* that the weapons are not being
used in a fashion which matches the mechanics for two handed weapons.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >> They don't say anything about "both weapons are considered one-handed",
> >> "both weapons are considered light", or "both weapons are considered
> >> two-handed" at all.
> >
> > Except for the strength bonus, of course.
> > *Moron*.
>
> With all of your other techinical correctness, I don't see how you can
> make the leap from "1x STR bonus" to "wielded as one-handed weapon"
That's your problem, not mine. Figure this out: "separate weapons" and
1x STR bonus means *NOT* *TWO* *HANDED*.
> It's somewhat like saying someone wearing chainmail (max DEX bonus
> to AC of +2) MUST have an effective DEX of 15 or less while wearing
> it, because otherwise he'd have a DEX bonus of +3 or better. [okay,
> this is, at best, an awkward example]
It's an idiotic example. Like your argument. Why waste our time with it
at all?
> It just doesn't make sense to me. Flurry of Blows sets your STR
> bonus at x1, regardless of your weapon. That doesn't mean that you
> *must* be wielding it "as a one-handed weapon" or "as a light
> weapon"; it just sets the STR bonus multiplier to x1.
*AND* you treat the quarterstaff as two separate weapons!!!!
What the *fuck* is it going to take for you to get your head out of your
ass and LOOK AT THE RULES AS A WHOLE?
Let's stack up the arguments for a moment, why don't we?
*YOU*:
(a) "It doesn't explicitly say I don't". That's your *entire* fucking
argument.
Meanwhile: EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD WHO ISN'T A KOOK
(a) SEPARATE WEAPONS (conflicts with two-handed assumption)
(b) PRECEDENT for a two handed weapon (a staff, even!) being treated as
two not-two-handed weapons (conflicts with two-handed assumption)
(c) 1x STR BONUS (conflicts with two-handed assumption)
That's right, dumbshit. Despite the fact that your assertion of
two-handed status contradicts extant rules for two-handed weapons in three
different ways, you are just *sure* that the rules really, really meant to
have this magically implicit exception for monks, with power attack,
flurrying, with quarterstaffs. Meanwhile, every sane person on the planet
can manage to observe the correlations here and realize that the flurrying
Monk is not fighting in a "two handed" style.
> A three-sectioned staff, according to the rules, cannot be used as
> a double weapon, nor can it be used in one hand. Unless Wizards
> pulls a "wielded as a Flurrying Weapon, which always gains a x1 STR
> bonus multiplier and a x1 Power Attack bonus" rule out of their
> collective butts, I don't see how you can possibly argue that the
> Rules As Written don't grant you x2 Power Attack Bonus when flurrying
> with it.
You know, Donald, I castrated one of my political opponents at work for
making the argument you just did.
"I don't know how to do that!" ... is not much of an argument.
I believe my reply was "I think you have well established your
limitations at this juncture. Clearly, you are not the person to do this
work."
As long as the game has examples of two-handed weapons being treated as
two one-handed weapons when used in a different fighting style, there is NO
REASON ON EARTH why that couldn't be the case for the three-sectioned staff,
too. It's PERFECTLY ANALOGOUS. The only question you have to ask yourself
is whether the CORE RULES comment on the quarterstaff applies *solely* to
the quarterstaff, or whether it would apply to any other similar weapon
added via OPTIONAL rules.
What do you think, fuckwit? Was the 3-section staff introduced
*specifically* to not only give the monk higher base damage die with a staff
(effectively +1 damage) but to ALSO be super-powerattackable? Hmm? Do you
*really* think that was the game designer's intent?
-Michael
Donald Tsang
>"Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> A three-sectioned staff, according to the rules, cannot be used as
>> a double weapon, nor can it be used in one hand. Unless Wizards
>> pulls a "wielded as a Flurrying Weapon, which always gains a x1 STR
>> bonus multiplier and a x1 Power Attack bonus" rule out of their
>> collective butts, I don't see how you can possibly argue that the
>> Rules As Written don't grant you x2 Power Attack Bonus when flurrying
>> with it.
>
> You know, Donald, I castrated one of my political opponents at work for
>making the argument you just did.
> "I don't know how to do that!" ... is not much of an argument.
> I believe my reply was "I think you have well established your
>limitations at this juncture. Clearly, you are not the person to do this
>work."
Sounds like your workplace is a real joy. Notice that there's a
real difference between "I don't know how to do that" and "I don't
know [can't see] how you can make this argument".
> As long as the game has examples of two-handed weapons being treated as
>two one-handed weapons when used in a different fighting style, there is NO
>REASON ON EARTH why that couldn't be the case for the three-sectioned staff,
>too. It's PERFECTLY ANALOGOUS. The only question you have to ask yourself
>is whether the CORE RULES comment on the quarterstaff applies *solely* to
>the quarterstaff, or whether it would apply to any other similar weapon
>added via OPTIONAL rules.
Let's try this again. The quarterstaff is a double weapon. The 3SS is not.
The quarterstaff is enhanced separately on each end. The 3SS is not.
There is no "other end" for the weapon to count as "two separate weapons".
There is no precedent in the game for a non-double-weapon to be treated as
two one-handed weapons. At all. There is the single case where the
lance (normally a two-handed weapon) can be wielded one-handed while
mounted, but in that case you are *literally wielding it one hand*.
Now, I _suppose_ you can make the argument that the 3SS should be
a double weapon, but that would be horridly shifting the goalposts.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you want to take the
Core Rules as Canon, it would behoove Wizards to have them templated
by better rules lawyers. Like, for example, the Magic: The Gathering
rules team (from after 1998 or so). As they're written, either:
(a) people have to agree to disagree on rgfd (hah!)
(b) we have to wait, with our thumbs up our collective butts, for The
Sage to churn out whatever ruling and rules changes he feels like,
and then MSB will have to back-rationalize them.
(c) we continue to argue from different rules, since nobody can
agree on an actual set of them.
> What do you think, fuckwit? Was the 3-section staff introduced
>*specifically* to not only give the monk higher base damage die with a staff
>(effectively +1 damage) but to ALSO be super-powerattackable? Hmm? Do you
>*really* think that was the game designer's intent?
You forgot *yet again* that the doubled Power Attack (and the
prohibition of power attack damage bonus for light weapons) was a
change in 3.5E. When OA was introduced, there was no such rule.
After 3.5E was released, no errata was printed for the 3SS (even
though they did a bunch of OA "upgrade" errata in Dragon).
Truth be told, I'd rather go back to the original Power Attack rules.
Donald
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > You know, Donald, I castrated one of my political opponents at work
for
> >making the argument you just did.
> > "I don't know how to do that!" ... is not much of an argument.
> > I believe my reply was "I think you have well established your
> >limitations at this juncture. Clearly, you are not the person to do this
> >work."
>
> Sounds like your workplace is a real joy. Notice that there's a
> real difference between "I don't know how to do that" and "I don't
> know [can't see] how you can make this argument".
Not in that conversation, Donnie, given that the discussion in question
was about analysis methodology.
And yes, my workplace has been a *spectacular* joy. <rolls eyes>
However, we just slew the last of the problem children, and so things
will improve markedly in short order.
And it only took 8 months to finish them off! <rattles cage> Then
again, it wasn't as if we weren't taking on an entire organization and its
vice president. Very stupid people, but very, very stubborn.
> > As long as the game has examples of two-handed weapons being treated
as
> >two one-handed weapons when used in a different fighting style, there is
NO
> >REASON ON EARTH why that couldn't be the case for the three-sectioned
staff,
> >too. It's PERFECTLY ANALOGOUS. The only question you have to ask
yourself
> >is whether the CORE RULES comment on the quarterstaff applies *solely* to
> >the quarterstaff, or whether it would apply to any other similar weapon
> >added via OPTIONAL rules.
>
> Let's try this again. The quarterstaff is a double weapon. The 3SS is
not.
Irrelevant. The monk is not using the quarterstaff as a double weapon
when he flurries.
> There is no precedent in the game for a non-double-weapon to be treated as
> two one-handed weapons. At all.
That much is true. But we *do* have precedent for TWO HANDED weapons
being treated as smaller weapons. And we *do* have precedent for doing so
with other two handed monk weapons.
> There is the single case where the
> lance (normally a two-handed weapon) can be wielded one-handed while
> mounted, but in that case you are *literally wielding it one hand*.
And it is not being treated as a two-handed weapon at that time, either.
You're boring us with the irrelevant examples.
> Now, I _suppose_ you can make the argument that the 3SS should be
> a double weapon, but that would be horridly shifting the goalposts.
The only person shifting goalposts is you. The fact that the two-handed
weapon that is treated as one-handed during a flurry can *also* be used as a
double weapon by non flurrying individuals is not relevant.
> > What do you think, fuckwit? Was the 3-section staff introduced
> >*specifically* to not only give the monk higher base damage die with a
staff
> >(effectively +1 damage) but to ALSO be super-powerattackable? Hmm? Do you
> >*really* think that was the game designer's intent?
>
> You forgot *yet again* that the doubled Power Attack (and the
> prohibition of power attack damage bonus for light weapons) was a
> change in 3.5E.
That's the gods-damnned point, you halfwit. It WASN'T.
-Michael
Donald Tsang
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdfeats.rtf
Power Attack [General]
Prerequisite: Str 13+.
Benefit: On the character's action, before making attack rolls for
a round, the character may choose to subtract a number from all
melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage
rolls. This number may not exceed the character's base attack bonus.
The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage applies until the
character's next action.
Donald