Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Two weapon fighting unarmed


Rules Questions


6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I have had some people tell me that two weapon fighting using only unarmed strikes is legit, while others say no.
Is there anyone out there who knows for sure?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

It's legit and anyone that tells you otherwise quoting some piece of rules and screaming RAW is a robot.

Nothing in any way shape form or fashion precludes this and there is a rage power dedicated to doing so.


Monk already have flurry of blows and so are not intended to take it, but for any other class it is not an issue.

Unarmed strike can be punches, knees, and so on.


Theres nothing to stop a monk from taking it; except it nukes your chance to hit.
Unless you use light monk weapons with big enhancements, which nukes your damage.

Flurry of blows uses the language of "as if using two weapon fighting".
So flurry and 2WF stack, it's just a crappy combo. I know, I tried it.


zagnabbit wrote:

Theres nothing to stop a monk from taking it; except it nukes your chance to hit.

Unless you use light monk weapons with big enhancements, which nukes your damage.

Flurry of blows uses the language of "as if using two weapon fighting".
So flurry and 2WF stack, it's just a crappy combo. I know, I tried it.

Monk can't 2WF when they flurry, they do it already.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I have had some people tell me that two weapon fighting using only unarmed strikes is legit, while others say no.

Is there anyone out there who knows for sure?

I suspect that those other people have made an overly literal interpretation of the Two-Weapon Fighting rule: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." In the case of Unarmed Strike, whether it is improved or not, the second weapon is not in the hand, it is the hand.

However, long discussions in this forum, with input from the developers (summaried in the Multiple Weapon FAQ entry), have clarified that the extra attack is the essence of Two-Weapon Fighting and don't nitpick too much about exact phrasing.

Whether the second weapon is in the hand, or is a punch by the hand, or even is a kick by the foot, it all counts as a second light weapon wielded by an off hand. Just don't punch twice with the primary hand, because that would be one-weapon fighting.


Everyone who's posted here missed the point of the question. It wasn't "Can you TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes?" which has been clarified by the devs.

The original question was "Can you TWF with unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes?"

I think the answer is yes, but I don't know where I'd back that up from the rules.


Bobson wrote:

Everyone who's posted here missed the point of the question. It wasn't "Can you TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes?" which has been clarified by the devs.

The original question was "Can you TWF with unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes?"

I think the answer is yes, but I don't know where I'd back that up from the rules.

There doesn't need to be a rule addressing this. An unarmed strike can be a primary attack, yes? Why would this change when adding a second unarmed strike, which the devs have confirmed as being a legit use of TWF?

For precedent, see the Monk's Flurry of Blows, which functions as if the Monk has TWF. There's nothing in the text to indicate a special exception for unarmed strikes, inferring that it always works on unarmed strikes.


joeyfixit wrote:
Bobson wrote:

Everyone who's posted here missed the point of the question. It wasn't "Can you TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes?" which has been clarified by the devs.

The original question was "Can you TWF with unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes?"

I think the answer is yes, but I don't know where I'd back that up from the rules.

There doesn't need to be a rule addressing this. An unarmed strike can be a primary attack, yes? Why would this change when adding a second unarmed strike, which the devs have confirmed as being a legit use of TWF?

For precedent, see the Monk's Flurry of Blows, which functions as if the Monk has TWF. There's nothing in the text to indicate a special exception for unarmed strikes, inferring that it always works on unarmed strikes.

But you can't use the same weapon for both sides of a TWF sequence. Even a double weapon you have to use alternate heads. So can you justify using unarmed strikes as both sides?


joeyfixit wrote:
Bobson wrote:

Everyone who's posted here missed the point of the question. It wasn't "Can you TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes?" which has been clarified by the devs.

The original question was "Can you TWF with unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes?"

I think the answer is yes, but I don't know where I'd back that up from the rules.

There doesn't need to be a rule addressing this. An unarmed strike can be a primary attack, yes? Why would this change when adding a second unarmed strike, which the devs have confirmed as being a legit use of TWF?

As joeyfixit said, why would TWF with unarmed strike and unarmed strike be a different case from TWF with longsword and unarmed strike? Is it because it looks like using the same weapon twice? Unarmed strike is not one weapon. It can be the left fist, the right fist, the left foot, the right foot, a head butt, the left elbow, the right elbow, the left knee, the right knee, and a few more awkward body parts. Would the same people object to TWF with dagger and dagger because the two weapons are identical?

joeyfixit wrote:
For precedent, see the Monk's Flurry of Blows, which functions as if the Monk has TWF. There's nothing in the text to indicate a special exception for unarmed strikes, inferring that it always works on unarmed strikes.

Um, the Flurry of Blows does mention unarmed strike as a special case, because it is not a monk weapon.


Mathmuse wrote:
joeyfixit wrote:
Bobson wrote:

Everyone who's posted here missed the point of the question. It wasn't "Can you TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes?" which has been clarified by the devs.

The original question was "Can you TWF with unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes?"

I think the answer is yes, but I don't know where I'd back that up from the rules.

There doesn't need to be a rule addressing this. An unarmed strike can be a primary attack, yes? Why would this change when adding a second unarmed strike, which the devs have confirmed as being a legit use of TWF?
As joeyfixit said, why would TWF with unarmed strike and unarmed strike be a different case from TWF with longsword and unarmed strike? Is it because it looks like using the same weapon twice? Unarmed strike is not one weapon. It can be the left fist, the right fist, the left foot, the right foot, a head butt, the left elbow, the right elbow, the left knee, the right knee, and a few more awkward body parts. Would the same people object to TWF with dagger and dagger because the two weapons are identical?

The problem with that logic is then you get the people saying "I make iterative strikes with my left fist, then I take off-hand attacks with my right fist, left foot, right foot, headbutt, etc."


Mathmuse wrote:
joeyfixit wrote:
Bobson wrote:

Everyone who's posted here missed the point of the question. It wasn't "Can you TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes?" which has been clarified by the devs.

The original question was "Can you TWF with unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes?"

I think the answer is yes, but I don't know where I'd back that up from the rules.

There doesn't need to be a rule addressing this. An unarmed strike can be a primary attack, yes? Why would this change when adding a second unarmed strike, which the devs have confirmed as being a legit use of TWF?
As joeyfixit said, why would TWF with unarmed strike and unarmed strike be a different case from TWF with longsword and unarmed strike? Is it because it looks like using the same weapon twice? Unarmed strike is not one weapon. It can be the left fist, the right fist, the left foot, the right foot, a head butt, the left elbow, the right elbow, the left knee, the right knee, and a few more awkward body parts. Would the same people object to TWF with dagger and dagger because the two weapons are identical?

The problem with that logic is then you get the people saying "I make iterative strikes with my left fist, then I take off-hand attacks with my right fist, left foot, right foot, headbutt, etc." The only solution to that is to say that unarmed strike is a single weapon which represents attacking with any of the above body parts, but the specific part doesn't matter. But then that brings us back to TWF with a dagger and the same dagger.


Bobson wrote:
The problem with that logic is then you get the people saying "I make iterative strikes with my left fist, then I take off-hand attacks with my right fist, left foot, right foot, headbutt, etc." The only solution to that is to say that unarmed strike is a single weapon which represents attacking with any of the above body parts, but the specific part doesn't matter. But then that brings us back to TWF with a dagger and the same dagger.

It is not a problem, because you can never have multiple off hands. Otherwise, people would already do this with armor spikes, barbazu beards, boots blades, and so on.

Andoran

Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
Bobson wrote:
The problem with that logic is then you get the people saying "I make iterative strikes with my left fist, then I take off-hand attacks with my right fist, left foot, right foot, headbutt, etc." The only solution to that is to say that unarmed strike is a single weapon which represents attacking with any of the above body parts, but the specific part doesn't matter. But then that brings us back to TWF with a dagger and the same dagger.
It is not a problem, because you can never have multiple off hands. Otherwise, people would already do this with armor spikes, barbazu beards, boots blades, and so on.

Well, you can, but you have to literally possess multiple off-hands (Multi-Weapon Fighting). However, seeing as that is a monster feat, it's fairly easy to say "well that's not meant for players anyway".


StabbittyDoom wrote:
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
Bobson wrote:
The problem with that logic is then you get the people saying "I make iterative strikes with my left fist, then I take off-hand attacks with my right fist, left foot, right foot, headbutt, etc." The only solution to that is to say that unarmed strike is a single weapon which represents attacking with any of the above body parts, but the specific part doesn't matter. But then that brings us back to TWF with a dagger and the same dagger.
It is not a problem, because you can never have multiple off hands. Otherwise, people would already do this with armor spikes, barbazu beards, boots blades, and so on.
Well, you can, but you have to literally possess multiple off-hands (Multi-Weapon Fighting). However, seeing as that is a monster feat, it's fairly easy to say "well that's not meant for players anyway".

The feat just reduces the penalties for doing so, it doesn't actually grant the ability.

And consider the 4-armed eidolon or synthesist summoner. He can hold four daggers and make four attacks. Could he punch four times instead? What if he wants to throw an unarmed strike (kick) into his four-dagger routine? What if he wants to do so to his four-punch routine?

The rules break down here, and I'm pretty sure the result is always going to be "if your GM lets you".

Andoran

Bobson wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
Bobson wrote:
The problem with that logic is then you get the people saying "I make iterative strikes with my left fist, then I take off-hand attacks with my right fist, left foot, right foot, headbutt, etc." The only solution to that is to say that unarmed strike is a single weapon which represents attacking with any of the above body parts, but the specific part doesn't matter. But then that brings us back to TWF with a dagger and the same dagger.
It is not a problem, because you can never have multiple off hands. Otherwise, people would already do this with armor spikes, barbazu beards, boots blades, and so on.
Well, you can, but you have to literally possess multiple off-hands (Multi-Weapon Fighting). However, seeing as that is a monster feat, it's fairly easy to say "well that's not meant for players anyway".

The feat just reduces the penalties for doing so, it doesn't actually grant the ability.

And consider the 4-armed eidolon or synthesist summoner. He can hold four daggers and make four attacks. Could he punch four times instead? What if he wants to throw an unarmed strike (kick) into his four-dagger routine? What if he wants to do so to his four-punch routine?

The rules break down here, and I'm pretty sure the result is always going to be "if your GM lets you".

Well, there's also the "each limb once" rule. Not sure if that one is actually in the book, but it is implied by rules like the fact that you can't use a natural attack and a manufactured weapon from the same limb in the same full-round attack action.

I guess it's just assumed that a creature that naturally has X hands can only effectively have X weapon attack tracks due to their brains wiring or something. (So 1 main hand and X-1 off hands, with a minimum of 1 off-hand.)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There is evidence that points toward the unarmed strike being one weapon. When you cast magic fang, you can choose unarmed strike, and you don't have to cast it multiple times. Being able to two weapon fight with one weapon seems to be something that was not intended. This is why they pulled the weapon swap feat from playtest.


How about this then if Unarmed strike is one weapon why does enchanting it Via the Amulet cost more than enchanting one weapon?

Shouldn't it be an exception. Also if thats the case then monks only need one casting of Greater magic weapon?(or Fang) which ever monks use to get the +5 to any attack made.

And its not one weapon if it is by some weird twist of rules logic then it means that one person can throw the ole one two punch until at least 6th level if they are not a monk. Unless someone is gonna say boxing gloves are some kind of gaunlet and that means you have two different weapons.

Greater brawler no longer works.
Prerequisite: Brawler rage power
Benefit: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks.

It means one could somehow swing a greatsword and then kick a guy with far less training than it takes to punch the guy with too different hands.

For anyone who honestly wants to argue that you cannot twf with simply unarmed strikes I say you are running neither by RAW or RAI but with RAMVORD.

RAMVORD:
Rules As My Views Of Reality Dictates.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Amulet of mighty fists also effects natural attacks, thus cost more.
The greater brawler power makes adding a kick or headbutt to a full attack easier. Monks are a special case and allow one to flurry with an unarmed strike, monk weapon or both.
I am just looking for the evidence, and am finding little.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
There is evidence that points toward the unarmed strike being one weapon. When you cast magic fang, you can choose unarmed strike, and you don't have to cast it multiple times. Being able to two weapon fight with one weapon seems to be something that was not intended. This is why they pulled the weapon swap feat from playtest.

Look closely at the text of Magic Fang:

Magic Fang wrote:
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.

The first sentence is ambiguous: it could mean "one natural weapon or one unarmed strike" or it could mean "unarmed strike in general or one natural weapon." But the second sentence means "a fist" not "all fists" nor "fists in general." And fists are unarmed strikes.

But really, how often does any character use unarmed strike in TWF? It is not worth the effort to carefully describe a fringe case in the wording of Magic Fang. All we could learn from the wording of Magic Fang is whether the writer views "unarmed strike" as a singular noun or a collective noun.


Because your assuming that you need evidence. Your assumption is that unless you can find a rule that allows you to do it you can't. And for most things thats a good way to look at it. But here you have a weapon that is called out on how it works with two weapon fighting. Can be shown to be used with multiple body parts. There isnt a rule that states its one weapon there isnt a rule that states it functions differently than any other weapon when two weapon fighting.

Greater brawler allows you to use the Two weapon feat when making unarmed attacks. Nothing about it letting you use another weapon and just off-hand the attack much like how a monk gains TWF when using monk weapons. Monks dont get to use any weapon for the attacks from BAB then use monk weapons for the flurry extras its all monk weapons and brawler is all unarmed if you want TWF.

To top it off this wouldn't even come close to popping up as a broken or overpower way of fighting or even ping on any DMs radar unless that DM is a robot that demands rules citations for everything you do.


unarmed strike is listed as a simple weapon in CRB.


Mathmuse wrote:
joeyfixit wrote:
Bobson wrote:

Everyone who's posted here missed the point of the question. It wasn't "Can you TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes?" which has been clarified by the devs.

The original question was "Can you TWF with unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes?"

I think the answer is yes, but I don't know where I'd back that up from the rules.

There doesn't need to be a rule addressing this. An unarmed strike can be a primary attack, yes? Why would this change when adding a second unarmed strike, which the devs have confirmed as being a legit use of TWF?

As joeyfixit said, why would TWF with unarmed strike and unarmed strike be a different case from TWF with longsword and unarmed strike? Is it because it looks like using the same weapon twice? Unarmed strike is not one weapon. It can be the left fist, the right fist, the left foot, the right foot, a head butt, the left elbow, the right elbow, the left knee, the right knee, and a few more awkward body parts. Would the same people object to TWF with dagger and dagger because the two weapons are identical?

joeyfixit wrote:
For precedent, see the Monk's Flurry of Blows, which functions as if the Monk has TWF. There's nothing in the text to indicate a special exception for unarmed strikes, inferring that it always works on unarmed strikes.
Um, the Flurry of Blows does mention unarmed strike as a special case, because it is not a monk weapon.

What I meant is that the description doesn't say "the Monk's flurry of blows even works with unarmed strikes, which are normally restricted from TWF"


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

By evidence, I meant for either. Most evidence can be seen as pointing towards both conclusions. I have never stated it is overpowered either way. I welcome either conclusion to be proven.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Please hit FAQ button at the top right. Thank you.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Please hit FAQ button at the top right. Thank you.

We're sorry you have not reached the required 15 pages for Devlopment to step in with a ruling please check back when you have reached the required number of pages.

P.S. I did hit the button though.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Thank you.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Two weapon fighting unarmed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.