4
\$\begingroup\$

I know the question of whether adding your natural attacks after you finish a Flurry of Blows (As secondary nat attacks at −5) has been asked many times (Monks, natural and unarmed attacks, and Feral Combat Training) and it has been generally agreed that it doesn't work. But now want to know if you are allowed to perform the process backwards. Natural attacks first, then the extra hits from FoB.

Example:

Level 3 Catfolk (With 2 claws, no Monk weapons) Unchained Monk with Feral Combat Training (Claws).

Flurry of blows without any natural weapons is 2 attacks at full BAB because they normally get 1 attack as full round action. This character can also get 2 claws as a full round action, would he be able to use flurry of blows to add a third hit in this scenario?

The claws would be primary Natural attacks, followed by the "extra" hits from flurry. The text says Flurry gives me some sort of max number of attacks, but that number is never mentioned. Is it my normal full attack +1? With natural weapons, full attacks can have varying number of hits.

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, this is (one of) the main purpose(s) of the Feral Combat Training Feat.

Feral Combat Training

(...) Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature.

By selecting Claw for Feral Combat Training, you gain the ability to use it as your weapon (similar to wielding a 'monk weapon') for the subsequent extra attack. The extra attack could be your Claw or an unarmed strike per the normal monk rules.

This differs from the other question because the other question wanted to use a full set of extra attacks; in your case, you are merely substituting your Claws as a valid option for the Flurry of Blows strike.

To clarify, this does not allow you to Full Attack with Natural Weapons+1, but instead allows you to use the benefits of your Monk class with your Claw(s) and the benefits of your Claw(s/Blades) with your Monk class.

Per this FAQ:

The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.

To summarize:

Level 3 Catfolk UnMonk 2 Claw attacks + 1 Flurry of Blows attack OR 1 Unarmed/Claw and 1 FoB

Level 6 Catfolk UnMonk 2 Claw attacks + 1 Flurry of Blows attack OR 2 Unarmed/Claw and 1 FoB

Level 11 Catfolk UnMonk 2 Claw attacks + 2 Flurry of Blows attacks OR 3 Unarmed/Claw and 2 FoB

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ However, a full attack with Claws is 2 hits instead of 1. So how many attacks total do I get at level 1? Would make flurry kinda irrelevant at early levels if it was just 1. \$\endgroup\$ – ChibiNya Jul 28 '17 at 3:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ I seem to have misunderstood you. See my edit. \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Jul 28 '17 at 12:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ So where does it say how many attacks I get per flurry? Where does the example's "four attacks" come from? Is it the number of unarmed strikes I can do in a flurry of blows? \$\endgroup\$ – ChibiNya Jul 28 '17 at 18:14
-5
\$\begingroup\$

First of all, your statement about adding natural weapons as secondary attacks after a flurry of blows is incorrect about unchained monks. The original monk got an errata-nerf that prevented this, but the unchained monk does not have that line. This also makes the rules more consistent, and is how things worked in D&D 3.5. It never caused problems.

But as for using a pair of primary claws as basically one attack, and then gaining a bonus attack from flurry of blows, that is ambiguous. Normally, when you use primary natural weapons, that is in place of iterative attacks. But flurry of blows bonus attacks are just that, bonus attacks, not iterative attacks.

Personally, I would allow it. Monks are one of the weakest classes in Pathfinder (see here), and in general gaining natural weapons also costs you something, so it seems entirely safe to me to combine the two. This is how things worked in 3.5, and it never caused problems (monks still sucked). The unchained monk is a better, but still not good, and natural weapons are usually overpriced, so if anything I would be worried that combining the two cost too much and was underpowered.

On the other hand, it seems reasonable to me to interpret Paizo’s statements about flurry of blows as indicating that in their mind, absolutely nothing ever should allow a monk to attack more times during a flurry of blows than it says on the table. This doesn’t make much sense to me (does that include haste? I would assume not, because why would it—but then what is the difference here?). Paizo has made a number of statements that don’t actually make sense with the rules as written trying to prevent various ways of gaining more attacks (see the entire “flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting” fiasco). So if you are unduly impressed with Paizo’s design skills and want to absolutely follow their ideas on game balance, then you probably would not want to allow it.

And the reason we have this situation is because, basically, the natural weapon rules of D&D 3.5 are a mess, and Paizo has only made things worse with the ways they have tried to edit the rules. It seems to me that they are dead-set on trying to claim that the 3.5 rules always worked the way they say the Pathfinder rules work, instead of admitting the 3.5 rules didn’t work that way (they didn’t), and then just changing the rules for their system. So instead of clear rules that say how things work, we have unclear rules that try to take 3.5 rules and imply that they always said what Paizo wants them to have said (even though they don’t). I do not know why this is the approach they took (but then, it isn’t that unusual for Paizo).

Monks are a bad class. They are very poorly designed, and they function very poorly in practice at many, many tables. Their abilities are an antisynergistic hodgepodge of tightly-limited effects and weak approaches to combat. The unchained monk is better, the qinggong monk is better, but ultimately they still leave a lot to be desired. Natural weapons are likewise a mess, and often cause problems of their own. My recommendation is really to just avoid both. A wise, mystical, bestial fighter could be a druid, and be a very similar character, just better, than trying to do the same with monk.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ What table? Unchained Monk doesn't have the list of Flurry sequences like the normal one. So yeah, remember this is unchained, which isn't as trash as the usual Monk. \$\endgroup\$ – ChibiNya Mar 16 '17 at 15:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ChibiNya Not as trash, but still trash. Removed the mention of the table and addressed the unchained-ness a bit more. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 16 '17 at 15:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ My goal was to make a Catfolk warrior who gets solid DPT using mainly Claws/Claw Blades. Have to actually understand how it would work as a Monk. Trying because of solid FCB... But I don't even know at this point. \$\endgroup\$ – ChibiNya Mar 16 '17 at 15:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I thought this wasn't a place to ask for builds. The actual FCB isn't posted anywhere online it seems, but it is on "Blood of Beasts" and reads as follows: "Add 1/2 to the monk’s damage rolls with claw attacks and claw blades. A monk who selects this bonus at 1st level also treats claw blades as a monk weapon. If he is an unchained monk, he can use his style strikes with unarmed strike or claw blade attacks." \$\endgroup\$ – ChibiNya Mar 16 '17 at 17:53
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @ChibiNya You can ask for builds as long as you are very specific about what you want. We need enough details to look at two different approaches and say “this one matches the question better than that one, so I will vote for this one.” \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 20 '17 at 15:55
-5
\$\begingroup\$

I asked the same question, and the consensus is no. Granted, I plan on using a more overpowered race and We are a higher level, but Flurry of Blows is the Full round action, while using your iterative attacks and natural attacks are something separate.

If you are seriously wanting a fully unarmed/natural attack character, grab Umonk for a level or two, then go fighter. The insanity that can come from this is huge. Also, I would like to note that if you are going to take this route, take note of the Advanced Weapon Training FEAT, as that will be extremely helpful in this regard. Other than that, you'll want Feral Combat Training and Multiattack (Full Round Attack, which would make your natural attacks secondary, but lessen the -5 to a -2).

\$\endgroup\$

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to the site! Consider taking our tour and visiting the help center. \$\endgroup\$ – the dark wanderer Mar 24 '17 at 5:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What consensus from whom and from where? Can you provide reasoning for the "no" beyond indicating some arbitrary group has that stance? I suggest that to put forward a stance effectively, the best choice is to make the case yourself directly, using whatever had that consensus of no form. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 20 '17 at 16:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.