|
So I have been tossing around a character I've wanted to do for a while; basically a bare-knuckle bruiser. I like the idea of bare fists, but the Monk's flavor didn't appeal to the concept, and besides, I needed him to be Chaotic. The Martial Artist was a consideration, but a d8 hit die and 3/4 BAB are just not going to cut it for me. Also I wanted the ability to wear some armor.
So there are 3 non-monk Hand-to-Hand combatants (that I can see): Brutal Pugilist (Barb archetype), Brawler (Fighter archetype), or Unarmed Fighter (self explanatory).
I'm leaning toward the Brawler, as it seems to have the highest DPR potential, but I'm wondering if I might be giving up better abilities mechanically from the Pug or UAF archetypes? I know going barehanded isn't optimal, but I'd really like to pick the class that gives me the most bang for my buck.
What level? A 10th level ninja can select Unarmed Combat Mastery as a master trick. This gives the ninja the unarmed strike damage dice of a monk equal to his ninja levels -4. That is in addition to 5d6 sneak attack at that level. Might be an option.
Master Arminas
|
|
What level? A 10th level ninja can select Unarmed Combat Mastery as a master trick. This gives the ninja the unarmed strike damage dice of a monk equal to his ninja levels -4. That is in addition to 5d6 sneak attack at that level. Might be an option.
Master Arminas
We are going to be starting 1st level and the game will probably cap at about 8-10th level. So I'm going to need something viably unarmed out of the gate.
Also, the character concept is of a brutal street fighter who dishes out punishment and soaks it up. Unfortunately the finesse-style ninja does not quite fit the bill of what I am looking for. Think Ray Jackson in Bloodsport. (A visual, if you haven't seen the movie. Jackson is the tall bearded fellow: http://youtu.be/3HHdZl4McSY)
unarmed fighter is surprisingly good, their damage reduction while in a grapple applies to attacks made by people other than the guy you're grappling for instance.
|
Have you considered using Natural Weapons? A Brutal Pugilist who manages to grab a natural weapon (Half-Orc with Toothy for example, or someone taking multiple Totems) can go Beast Totem, followed by Multiattack and get all his iterative unarmed attacks as well as three Natural Attacks. And Pounce, so he gets his, what, 7 or 8 attacks close to every turn. Hell, the AoMF is even reasonably priced for him.
That nat weapon trick doesn't work. Multiattack is the natural weapon version of TWF...you use Multiattack for Nat Weapons, you've got nothing left to use UA with.
You'd have to give up one Natural attack, and you couldn't flurry, of course. Probably not really worth it.
Pounce is great, however.
==Aelryinth
|
|
That nat weapon trick doesn't work. Multiattack is the natural weapon version of TWF...you use Multiattack for Nat Weapons, you've got nothing left to use UA with.
You'd have to give up one Natural attack, and you couldn't flurry, of course. Probably not really worth it.
Pounce is great, however.
==Aelryinth
Unarmed attacks work like manufactured weapon attacks: i.e. you can use iteratives with them, and use all of them if you have a limb free to do so with. You are allowed to kick people as an unarmed attack, leaving both arms and your face free for Natural Attacks. It works fine.
The big disadvantage of doing so, is that it makes all your Natural Attacks secondary...hence Multiattack.
And what the heck do you mean by Flurry? We're doing a non-Monk unarmed build here.
The ranger can do this well.
Natural Weapon If the Ranger selects natural weapon [APG] style, he can choose from the following list whenever he gains a combat style feat: Aspect of the Beast [APG] ,Improved Natural Weapon [APG] ,Rending Claws [APG] ,and Weapon Focus. At 6th level, he adds Eldritch Fangs [APG] and Vital Strike to the list. At 10th level, he adds Multiattack [APG] and Improved Vital Strike to the list.
unarmed fighter dragon style and brutal pugilist
|
|
DeadmanWalking, that is a pretty slick idea. And fits the concept well.
Jarl, I hadn't even considered Ranger. The spell list and hunter's bond would definitely be a boon to what will most likely start as a suboptimal build. I will read up on the Archetype. My only pause is that it might be a bit too wilderness . . . this is a predominately urban campaign so I want the fluff to fit that.
Lobolusk, by Unarmed Fighter/Dragon Style and Brutal Pugilist, did you mean that either would work, or are you saying I should multiclass?
That nat weapon trick doesn't work. Multiattack is the natural weapon version of TWF...you use Multiattack for Nat Weapons, you've got nothing left to use UA with.
You'd have to give up one Natural attack, and you couldn't flurry, of course. Probably not really worth it.
Pounce is great, however.
==Aelryinth
Unarmed attacks work like manufactured weapon attacks: i.e. you can use iteratives with them, and use all of them if you have a limb free to do so with. You are allowed to kick people as an unarmed attack, leaving both arms and your face free for Natural Attacks. It works fine.
The big disadvantage of doing so, is that it makes all your Natural Attacks secondary...hence Multiattack.
And what the heck do you mean by Flurry? We're doing a non-Monk unarmed build here.
Nah, Dead, you're missing the fact that when you attack with a weapon, all Nat weapons go secondary, which means your UA is primary. To be primary, it needs to be on a primary limb, and a foot is not a primary limb.
So you're going to have to use one of your arms since it's your primary attack, and then the multi-attack penalties on top. You can't just choose to assign UA to a secondary limb in the face of the rules, just like they won't let you assign UA to both primary and secondary hands so you can TWF and Flurry at the same time. What you're trying to say is "I'm using my whole body to attack with, except the primary limbs I use to attack with!", which is just cheese trying to get around UA, especially with the 'always secondary attacks' language of natural attacks.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth Nothing in the rules supports the notion that Primary Limbs exist. I can TWF with a pair of kicks if I wanted or kick main hand and dagger off hand.
DeadmanWalking, that is a pretty slick idea. And fits the concept well.
Jarl, I hadn't even considered Ranger. The spell list and hunter's bond would definitely be a boon to what will most likely start as a suboptimal build. I will read up on the Archetype. My only pause is that it might be a bit too wilderness . . . this is a predominately urban campaign so I want the fluff to fit that.
Lobolusk, by Unarmed Fighter/Dragon Style and Brutal Pugilist, did you mean that either would work, or are you saying I should multiclass?
Urban Ranger, perhaps?
I'm leaning toward the Brawler, as it seems to have the highest DPR potential, but I'm wondering if I might be giving up better abilities mechanically from the Pug or UAF archetypes? I know going barehanded isn't optimal, but I'd really like to pick the class that gives me the most bang for my buck.
I've run a game with a Brawler in it, and I can safely say its completely made of Win. Its absolutely brutal.
I've also played alongside a Natural Weapon Beast-Totem barbarian with Improved Unarmed Strike, whom was also brutal.
Dragon Style/Dragon Ferocity is a huge boon for these sorts of builds, and should be shot for ASAP.
As far as comparison goes... the Brawler is probably more frustrating to play against as a DM; it can mount really good grapple CMB, Menacing Stance's attack penalties apply to CMB checks to escape that grapple, and can make it VERY difficult to safely cast nearby. The archetype also prevents the most common methods of escaping such lockdowns via No Escape and free Stand Still. It also gets effective free, stacking Weapon Specialization on unarmed attacks.
The Natural Weapon/Unarmed barbarian does tons and tons of damage with lots of attacks. Hard to beat on that level. AND it gets rage powers. But it lacks some of the proactive control Brawler gets.
Both, however, looked like tons of fun to play. I dont know about optimal, but I dont think either build will ever feel really outclassed by anything level appropriate.
|
|
Aelryinth Nothing in the rules supports the notion that Primary Limbs exist. I can TWF with a pair of kicks if I wanted or kick main hand and dagger off hand.
This.
I'm not arguing that the Natural Attacks wouldn't become secondary. They do, and suffer a -5 penalty (while your feet as an unarmed attack are at no penalty). That's why doing this is only a good idea if you qualify for Multiattack (which vastly reduces the penalties of the Natural Attacks being secondary).
The TWF dictate primary hand and secondary hand. It doesn't matter if you decide you attack with that hand or not...it has to be available for the attack.
So yeah, you could kick with primary and use dagger as secondary...in the off hand, and your primary hand does nothing. You can have your hands full of stuff and kick primary...but your hands are STILL not being used for other attacks. That's the key...you can't attack with that primary hand, although you can use it for something else.
As has been noted many times, using UA uses the whole body...that hand has to be available for the attack. YOu can't make UA a secondary attack in this instance, so you're restricted by the primary weapon rules. UA does NOT get around those.
Otherwise you're just cheesing the rules. Legs are not primary limbs, and saying 'kicks' is flavor, it is not dictating a primary hand/limb.
YMMV, but doing otherwise is just abusing UA flavor text.
Your justifications are the exact same thing used on the WOTC optimizer boards, but they don't hold in the face of how Paizo has redefined UA. UA still has to be assigned to a primary limb, like any other weapon, even if any part of the body delivers it. Manufacturing additional limbs out of thin air is not what UA does rules-wise.
==Aelryinth
Otherwise you're just cheesing the rules. Legs are not primary limbs, and saying 'kicks' is flavor, it is not dictating a primary hand/limb.
YMMV, but doing otherwise is just abusing UA flavor text.
There is no such thing, anywhere in the rules, as a 'primary limb'. Unarmed Strikes can be made with several specific limbs, and if you aren't using a limb for a natural attack, its available for Unarmed Strikes. So two claws on your hands, plus a bite, plus a pair of kicks, is totally legal and in no way reasonably debatable.
And I dont see how this fighting style is in any way not-flavorful; its the sort of thing I'd attribute a truly feral fighting style; a literal no-holds barred, clawing and biting to the very end fighting style.
I'd go brawler. Brutal pieces of work, they are.
|
|
What KrispyXIV said. Really, there's no rules defining 'primary' and 'secondary' hands. Or limbs in general.
Now, TWF uses that language...but the idea I'm suggesting in no way necessitates TWF. You could do it purely with iterative attack kicks plus claws and a bite, if you wanted. By a very literal reading of the TWF rules you might not be able to TWF with kicks, but you can certainly do this tactic sans TWF and that being the case, I think most GMs would allow TWF with it as well (though if you have to pick between the two, it's just better than TWF, being two Feats and a Rage Power for three attacks at -2, instead of three Feats for -2/-7/-12 that also put your primary attack at -2).
The TWF dictate primary hand and secondary hand. It doesn't matter if you decide you attack with that hand or not...it has to be available for the attack.
So yeah, you could kick with primary and use dagger as secondary...in the off hand, and your primary hand does nothing. You can have your hands full of stuff and kick primary...but your hands are STILL not being used for other attacks. That's the key...you can't attack with that primary hand, although you can use it for something else.
As has been noted many times, using UA uses the whole body...that hand has to be available for the attack. YOu can't make UA a secondary attack in this instance, so you're restricted by the primary weapon rules. UA does NOT get around those.
Otherwise you're just cheesing the rules. Legs are not primary limbs, and saying 'kicks' is flavor, it is not dictating a primary hand/limb.
YMMV, but doing otherwise is just abusing UA flavor text.
Your justifications are the exact same thing used on the WOTC optimizer boards, but they don't hold in the face of how Paizo has redefined UA. UA still has to be assigned to a primary limb, like any other weapon, even if any part of the body delivers it. Manufacturing additional limbs out of thin air is not what UA does rules-wise.
==Aelryinth
Please cite a single instance in all of PRD of the phrase "primary limb".
From the combat chapter.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
What level? A 10th level ninja can select Unarmed Combat Mastery as a master trick. This gives the ninja the unarmed strike damage dice of a monk equal to his ninja levels -4. That is in addition to 5d6 sneak attack at that level. Might be an option.
Master Arminas
I support this concept.
Add in bludegeoner, sap adept, sap master, enforcer, weapon focus (rogue talent), weapon finesse (rouge talent), dazzling display and shatter defenses.Or take the Scout archetype and save feats for Two-weapon fighting.
Or, again, play a Scout Rake Rogue and take unarmed combat training (ninja trick with rogue talent), bludgeoner sap adept and sap master...
The specific language is more properly noted above.
There are no off hand attacks for IUS. IF there is an off hand, there must, by logic, be a primary hand.
If you're going to argue that, then you're probably one of the people who think dead people can get up and walk around, because the rules don't say no.
No off hand means no secondary attacks without specific exceptions. It is a loophole that Paizo has closed that was wide open in 3.5.
There is no 'kick' in UA. All forms of UA are the whole body in Paizo. Kick is flavor text, and this rule is specifically there to stop people from wielding two weapons and adding UA in as a 'third limb'...or doing natural attacks for the same thing. UA does not manufacture extra limbs, and so this Natural Attacks + UA combo is NOT POSSIBLE in Pathfinder.
MOnks are unique because they can TWF with UA...it's called a 'flurry' for them. Nobody else can do it.
It very, very technically is possible if you are using 3.5, and created quite an uproar on the opt boards when the Sage used a lizardman monk as an example doing this...and the errata never corrected it.
Paizo has. There are feats that allow you to use natural attacks as part of a UA attack routine, but you never, ever get them IN ADDITION to UA.
That's manufacturing a 'phantom limb', and its not part of the game. If you could do it with natural attacks, then you could do it with normal attacks, i.e. every TWF would wield his kukri and take IUS for a free kick on the side.
Doesn't work. Balance issue, Paizo solved and closed the door on it.
-==Aelryinth
MacGurcles, up above he's saying he can get 3 Natural Attacks + UA attacks in.
He can't. UA uses the whole body. Nat attacks automatically become secondary attacks, and there are no secondary attacks with UA. He can swap out Nat Attacks for his UA iteratives, but he doesn't get them in addition.
I'm not arguing that UA can't be part of an iterative sequence. I'm noting that UA cannot be 'added on' as extra attacks, which is what he's trying to do...UA as iterative kicks + all three natural attacks.
Um, no. 'Whole body' specifically forbids this.
==Aelryinth
So, you're saying 'whole body' specifically excludes natural attacks, which are part of the body?
I'm not sure where your failure to understand is.
You can't use ANY secondary attacks with UA, because it uses the whole body. That's the point. WHOLE BODY. You can stagger iteratives with it, that's it.
Monks are unique because they CAN TWF with UA...a specific rule called a 'Flurry of Blows'.
There is no TWF with UA. There is no off-hand to use for attacks, there are no secondary attacks able to be used. You cannot use natural attacks at the same time as UA...you can only swap iteratives.
It was a loophole, and 'whole body' closes it. They've specifically said you can't TWF with UA as one of the weapons...unless you are a flurrying monk. Nat Attacks follow the same rules...moreso, because they are part of the body.
In the above circumstance, the character's C/C/B routine is demonstrably superior to UA, and he should use it. But he doesn't get UA IN ADDITION to it, in effect manufacturing more attacks out of thin air. The IUS feat is NOT that strong.
==Aelryinth
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
You missed the second part of it.
No off-hand attacks, which means no secondary attacks. Nat attacks are automatically secondary attacks when UA is around...they follow all the TWF rules, but because multiple limbs come into play, they have their own feat.
As a further example, the only time you see iteratives + Natural attacks is when a wielded weapon replaces a primary limb attack...an example is the Marilith. But the Marilith doesn't get all her nat attacks AND her weapon on top of it...it still replaces a claw.
The UA whole body ruling and no secondary attacks prevents even that...therefore, you won't see a Marilith using UA, because she'd have to give up her nat attacks to do it, and they are far more effective.
It's what makes monks unique.
==Aelryinth
you can 100% kick kick, then -5 claw claw bite.
Beast Totem states that the claw attacks are primary... but doesn't state that they are natural. So if you want to skirt around the rules... those claw attacks don't count as natural attacks. If you want to make logical sense, claw attacks are primary as per Beast Totem. Claws are natural attacks. Natural attacks made in conjunction with UA are secondary as per Core Rules. Primary does not equal Secondary. Both can't happen in the same round. As far as UA using the whole body... I need to see that in text. That would mean you only get one per round when the books refer to multiple unarmed strikes and that you can make as many as your limbs can support, you just take penalties. I can visualize what these 5-7 attacks would look like... but from what I read its skirting the rules.
Tossing my support in on the Brawler suggestion. Hits hard + armor + some nifty archetype-only abilities.
Seems to be what you're looking for.
1) You cannot 'assign' UA to a kick. It's not a limb you can assign an attack to. Don't even try to dispute that. That's manufacturing an extra attack out of nowhere.
2) You are now ignoring the language on the monk and UA that says no off-hand attacks with another rule that says you CAN get off-hand attacks with nat weapons. I'm not wrong...what is there are conflicting rules.
3) You still have to assign UA to a limb, which you cannot then use for natural attacks. What you are trying to do is assign it to a limb not used for natural attacks, anyways, which means you are trying to manufacture an attack out of nothing.
There is a big difference between having your hands full and using kicks for flavor text, and having your hands be open and attacking with them and THEN trying to say you're using kicks for UA and your hands to attack with something else. That's Three-Weapon fighting, and it doesn't exist.
To wit, I'm not wrong. #2 indicates rules in conflict. I'm down with that.
1 and 3 are the default method of exchanging weapons and attacks. You cannot assign UA to a limb that is not being used to attack, whether you are attacking with swords or nat weapons. That is making an attack out of nothing, which is far beyond the power of the feat.
Use the Marilith example. One limb gets iteratives, replacing the natural attack, and the others attack naturally. Having UA does not change that paradigm in the slightest.
===Aelryinth
Yes you can Kick with an unarmed strike text listed above.
The monk no off-hand section is the biggest section of FUBAR text in the monk class. Everything about that section confuses people into beliefs such as one level of monk means a ranger with GTWF cannot make all of his attacks using unarmed strikes.
You are not making an attack out of nothing i can attack with several limbs with unarmed strikes. In fact per the rules i can punch then claw since i am not holding a weapon in that limb.
Can I interject what is the actually issue are people arguing that you can punch punch claw claw then bite? and not take the -5 penalty for using primary and then natural?
Core Rules/ Combat/ Standard Actions/ Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following...
No you cannot punch punch claw claw bite. Clawing and punching both require the use of the hands, so that negates one or the other but you CAN kick. I would also argue that the physics behind a headbutt would forgo the use of bite as well under the same concept of punch/claw.
Where are you people pulling these random ideas from? If you are going to make a point in a debate in regards to rules, quote the SRD.
|
|
*nods sagely at above posts*
As the guy who brought this up, I feel I should note I'm still here...I just don't have much to say others aren't already saying.
Natural Attacks + Unarmed Attacks totally works, both mechanicaly and thematically.
And one to six of the Marlith's slams (not claws) are replaced because she's making her armed attacks with swords...which sort of necessitate a hand each. If she wanted to iterative attack headbutt instead she could do so without losing the slams...but they'd all become secondary, which would indeed be epicly stupid, but not because she'd lose them outright.