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!

TWF and Unarmed Strikes


Rules Questions

451 to 500 of 575 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

thank you for making your statement clear, I am sorry I missed your "acute" quip.
I disagree on your understanding and reading of the above statements. IN fact I see them has the exact opposite of what you suggest. this is why I hate the internet and arguing/discussion things on the internet.

but before one of us starts comparing the other to Hitler or using the term "straw man". I think I cant change your mind and you wont change mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


Kazaan wrote:
Combat: Unarmed Strikes - The "much like striking...

Please explain what 'Much like' means. In English, 'like' means two things sharing some properties. This explicitly means that the things are not the same. 'This apple is like an apple' is nonsensical. The quoted line would be nonsensical if striking unarmed were striking with a weapon, as you claim.

And why do you simply overlook the fact that this is in the action section?

Quote:
Nowhere in RAW does it specify that you have x number of unarmed strikes available to use

You're begging the question. It does not say this in RAW because an unarmed strike is not an object, therefore saying you have 'x number available to use' would be nonsensical. It does list the limbs that are capable of making the attack, however.

You are basing your entire argument on the fact that unarmed strike is listed in the weapons table. But text trumps tables. Tables exist as a convenience, placing the stats there just makes sense.

If 'Harsh words' could be used to do stun damage and was listed in the weapons table, would you be making the same claims? That Harsh Word is an object that exists somewhere on the body? (is the body?) It's nonsense. So is the claim that by RAW unarmed strike is singular object.

But, let's pretend an unarmed strike actually is an object for a moment, it still works just fine:

'Unarmed Strike' is listed in the weapons section. 'Unarmed Attack' is the attack option, which states which limbs can wield an 'Unarmed strike' weapon. There is nothing to indicate this weapon is wielded any differently than any other weapon (quite the contrary), and it is listed as a light weapon, ergo you can wield it with any of the aforementioned limbs, ergo it is possible to wield more than one at a time. Whichever limb is making the unarmed attack is wielding the weapon.


Kazaan wrote:
BLUF (bottom line up front): The bottom line is that, while seemingly contradictory, the RAW portions that support UAS as a single weapon are far stronger and more convincing than those that support UAS as multiple weapons.

BLUF - Lulz, no.

Quote:
Rage: Brawl, Greater - The claim that the brawl, grater rage power presupposes the ability to TWF with solely UAS. Once again, ambiguous and the function of UAS and TWF defines the rage power; not the other way around. An equally plausible example of using a standard melee weapon in conjunction with a UAS off-hand attack was put forward that fulfills the verbiage used.

Somewhat equally plausible if you divorce the rage power from all possible context. It's suggested for use on a class archetype designed explicitly around being a boxer whose primary powers gained through levels involve grappling. Holding a weapon while grappling means the PC will incur substantial penalties to grappling, completely defeating the purpose of the archetype design. An attack with a melee weapon and a second attack (or vice versa) with an unarmed strike is not a reasonable interpretation of the Greater Brawler rage power. Such an interpretation makes the entire archetype construction nigh pointless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vestrial wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Combat: Unarmed Strikes - The "much like striking...

Please explain what 'Much like' means. In English, 'like' means two things sharing some properties. This explicitly means that the things are not the same. 'This apple is like an apple' is nonsensical. The quoted line would be nonsensical if striking unarmed were striking with a weapon, as you claim.

And why do you simply overlook the fact that this is in the action section?
"Much like" means that even though Unarmed Strikes aren't manufactured weapons like a sword, they follow all the same rules barring a handful of explicitly stated exceptions. In other words, it's saying they aren't "technically" weapons in the 'physical held object' sense but they function "mechanically" as weapons in the 'game system sense and any situation where wielding weapons is requisite, Unarmed Strike qualifies (note, it satisfies "wielding weapons" requirements, not "armed" requirements unless the subject has IUS). For example, TWF requires you to wield a "second weapon". If the argument is that Unarmed Strikes are not considered weapons but that Unarmed Strike is an attack action, you can't wield a "second weapon" as either weapon/UAS or UAS/UAS combos and UAS can NEVER be utilized in TWF unless a specific exception is noted, because unarmed strikes aren't "wielded". The quoted phrase is intended to do is draw the similarities and differences between attacking with a sword or unarmed strikes. It never states that unarmed strikes are not considered weapons; just that USING them is similar to (but not precisely like) using a held melee weapon. If you look under Combat: Attack, you'll notice the categories are Melee Attacks, Unarmed Attacks, Ranged Attacks, and Natural Attacks. Unarmed Attacks aren't considered "melee"; that term is reserved to describe attacks with manufactured weapons. This does not translate to "Unarmed Attacks are not weapons". Furthermore, the exact statement is

prd wrote:
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon...

The whole phrase "Striking for damage with punches, kicks and headbutts..." is described as "a melee weapon," singular, rather than "melee weapons," plural; as in all the body parts used to make an unarmed strike counts as a single weapon.

Quote:
Nowhere in RAW does it specify that you have x number of unarmed strikes available to use

You're begging the question. It does not say this in RAW because an unarmed strike is not an object, therefore saying you have 'x number available to use' would be nonsensical. It does list the limbs that are capable of making the attack, however.

You are basing your entire argument on the fact that unarmed strike is listed in the weapons table. But text trumps tables. Tables exist as a convenience, placing the stats there just makes sense.
You aren't using the "begging the question" fallacy correctly. To 'beg the question' means that the preposition contains an implied support that tries to bypass the need for proof. If anything, the premise that Unarmed Strikes can be delivered separately by each applicable limb is the premise begging the question because it presumes that each limb is counted as a separate UAS without that being explicitly stated anywhere. Unarmed Strike isn't an object in the literal sense but you have to remember that this is a game system; you have to think like a computer in this matter; Unarmed Strike is a weapon, even if it isn't a physical object. That weapon has several faces on its head (fists, feet, head, elbows, knees), but still only a single head in the exact same way that a cat-o-nine-tails has 9 faces on its single head or a scythe has both a bladed edge and a pointed tip but they can't be used separately. Unarmed Strike being present in the weapons table isn't the only basis for the argument but it is a primary piece of evidence when taken in context of the plentiful other supports that I and others have provided.

If 'Harsh words' could be used to do stun damage and was listed in the weapons table, would you be making the same claims? That Harsh Word is an object that exists somewhere on the body? (is the body?) It's nonsense. So is the claim that by RAW unarmed strike is singular object.
If it were listed on a list of weapons available in the game, then yes, I'd make the claim that 'Harsh Words' is a weapon in the context of 'game mechanics' in the same manner as "Ray spells" are a legitimate option for the Weapon Focus feat. This is a game system we're talking about here; when we say something non-physical is an 'object' it's the same as describing a line of code as defining an 'object' in a program.

But, let's pretend an unarmed strike actually is an object for a moment, it still works just fine:

'Unarmed Strike' is listed in the weapons section. 'Unarmed Attack' is the attack option, which states which limbs can wield an 'Unarmed strike' weapon. There is nothing to indicate this weapon is wielded any differently than any other weapon (quite the contrary), and it is listed as a light weapon, ergo you can wield it with any of the aforementioned limbs, ergo it is possible to wield more than one at a time. Whichever limb is making the unarmed attack is wielding the weapon.
Which is why we ask, "How many Unarmed Strikes does a character have?" Do you have one UAS attached to each limb or a single UAS that all your limbs share like a two-handed, two-footed, and one-headed weapon? This is not explicitly stated anywhere, hence the ambiguity and confusion. However, other factors that have been put forth imply that it's the latter option, that UAS is like a two-handed weapon; a single weapon that is wielded by your whole body. The same goes for Armor Spikes; you can have a single set of armor spikes that are mounted on various parts of your armor but they still count as a single instance of the weapon wielded by your whole body.

fretgod99 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
BLUF (bottom line up front): The bottom line is that, while seemingly contradictory, the RAW portions that support UAS as a single weapon are far stronger and more convincing than those that support UAS as multiple weapons.

BLUF - Lulz, no.

"Lulz, no" does not a counterpoint make.

Quote:
Rage: Brawl, Greater - The claim that the brawl, grater rage power presupposes the ability to TWF with solely UAS. Once again, ambiguous and the function of UAS and TWF defines the rage power; not the other way around. An equally plausible example of using a standard melee weapon in conjunction with a UAS off-hand attack was put forward that fulfills the verbiage used.

Somewhat equally plausible if you divorce the rage power from all possible context. It's suggested for use on a class archetype designed explicitly around being a boxer whose primary powers gained through levels involve grappling. Holding a weapon while grappling means the PC will incur substantial penalties to grappling, completely defeating the purpose of the archetype design. An attack with a melee weapon and a second attack (or vice versa) with an unarmed strike is not a reasonable interpretation of the Greater Brawler rage power. Such an interpretation makes the entire archetype construction nigh pointless.

I'm not saying that Brawl, Greater doesn't need clarification of its own. Honestly, I'd love for them to errata it to make it function like Flurry in that it allows you use UAS for any attack in TWF. But you can't use an ambiguous rage power from an expansion to define a core aspect of gameplay; that's putting the cart before the horse.


I am tried of this stupid thread I am going to ask Gary or Ross to shut it Down the arguing is pointless untill developers weigh in.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You can't do that. We need to get to at least 1,000 posts before they will take this seriously.


Round and round and round she goes when it stops no one knows.

I agree with lobolusk on this we aren't going to reach an in thread cocclusion until the rules team has time to break it down.


Lobolusk wrote:
I am tried of this stupid thread I am going to ask Gary or Ross to shut it Down the arguing is pointless untill developers weigh in.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but asking an admin to shut a thread down because you don't like it seems pretty lame. You could just not participate. Is there a reason you want to have it shut down besides that you just dislike the thread? Even if you felt it was because the thread is full of trolls and idiots, wouldn't it be better to keep them all in one place for a little while. :3


Talonhawke wrote:

Round and round and round she goes when it stops no one knows.

I agree with lobolusk on this we aren't going to reach an in thread cocclusion until the rules team has time to break it down.

To be fair, nobody ever reaches a conclusion in these threads because many people on these Paizo boards refuse to accept that some things are not as they think in their perfect little D&D worlds, or refuse to accept evidence. Honestly, last I checked, debates were smoother on Giant in the Playground.

We should probably just ban debating in general on these boards, if we are going to close threads that people cannot come to an agreement on. I'd bet money that you could find someone on these boards who would argue something was black and not white, even after you quoted "X is white, and not black" from the rules.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, someone quoted the rules when it said to make multiple unarmed strikes you had to use the Two Weapon Fighting attack option. That probably should have been the end of it way back when.

PRD wrote:
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.

"I want to hit him twice with my unarmed strikes. I declare two-weapon fighting special attack. *1d20+bonus-2 and 1d20+bonus-2*"


The most absurd thing about his thread is that it have 400+ post and just 7 people have hitted the FAQ button.


Ashiel wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Round and round and round she goes when it stops no one knows.

I agree with lobolusk on this we aren't going to reach an in thread cocclusion until the rules team has time to break it down.

To be fair, nobody ever reaches a conclusion in these threads because many people on these Paizo boards refuse to accept that some things are not as they think in their perfect little D&D worlds, or refuse to accept evidence. Honestly, last I checked, debates were smoother on Giant in the Playground.

We should probably just ban debating in general on these boards, if we are going to close threads that people cannot come to an agreement on. I'd bet money that you could find someone on these boards who would argue something was black and not white, even after you quoted "X is white, and not black" from the rules.

I started this thread to ask a question about a character I made for a saturday game and he has been made and I have my answer I never intended for this thread to be a debate between 2 sides.Plus I want the devs to comment on all of this and one more thread is not the wway to go. I feel responsible.

EDIT plus any time I feel liek I am in a philosophy class with all the Argument names I am out.


Lobolusk wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Round and round and round she goes when it stops no one knows.

I agree with lobolusk on this we aren't going to reach an in thread cocclusion until the rules team has time to break it down.

To be fair, nobody ever reaches a conclusion in these threads because many people on these Paizo boards refuse to accept that some things are not as they think in their perfect little D&D worlds, or refuse to accept evidence. Honestly, last I checked, debates were smoother on Giant in the Playground.

We should probably just ban debating in general on these boards, if we are going to close threads that people cannot come to an agreement on. I'd bet money that you could find someone on these boards who would argue something was black and not white, even after you quoted "X is white, and not black" from the rules.

I started this thread to ask a question about a character I made for a saturday game and he has been made and I have my answer I never intended for this thread to be a debate between 2 sides.Plus I want the devs to comment on all of this and one more thread is not the wway to go. I feel responsible.

Ah. That makes perfect sense. Sounds fine to me. (6~6)


Lobolusk wrote:
EDIT plus any time I feel liek I am in a philosophy class with all the Argument names I am out.

But philosophy class would be fun. (Q.Q)


Kazaan wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
BLUF (bottom line up front): The bottom line is that, while seemingly contradictory, the RAW portions that support UAS as a single weapon are far stronger and more convincing than those that support UAS as multiple weapons.
BLUF - Lulz, no.
"Lulz, no" does not a counterpoint make.

Actually it does. It's a sarcastic way to say, "This point is ridiculous". Support that UAS is a single weapon is scant, at best. You don't have historical precedent. You don't have in-game fuctionality. You don't have examples of use in the rules. You have an entry on a table and the fervent desire of the proponents of the single-weapon theory.

And the point of referencing Greater Brawl is that it is a clear indication of developer intent. Since many are arguing ambiguity in the core role, you look to ancillary, supporting rules that apply the same principles to see how the people who wrote the language intended it to be used. It's pretty clear that by creating a class archetype called Brutal Pugilist (quite literally, Vicious Boxer) and giving that archetype access to abilities that necessarily imply an empty-handed primary build, that's a clear reflection of intent that TWF was intended to be available when using solely UAS. Any alternative reading is not nearly so reasonable by comparison. Any other reading leads to contradictory and wasted results. It's simply not nearly as good of an interpretation, despite your protestations otherwise.

That point alone provides more support for not treating UAS as a single weapon than anything I have yet seen a proponent for that theory provide.

Hence, lulz, no.


Nicos wrote:
The most absurd thing about his thread is that it have 400+ post and just 7 people have hitted the FAQ button.

I didn't hit FAQ for a couple reasons. 1. Like the recent Manyshot thread, I honestly don't think it's necessary. 2. Any resolution of this issue is likely to be linked to any potential overhaul of FoB. That resolution is likely to come first and, hopefully, will resolve this issue as well.


Kazaan wrote:
stuff

You agree that US isn't an object in the literal sense, yet you fall back on the 'how many US does a character have' rhetoric. This question is nonsensical. If US is not an object, a character may not 'have' any. US is in the action section, the relevant question is 'how many US may a character make?' And the answer is quite explicitly defined.

It seems like some people have to just fabricate issues so they have something to rail against. US is fine as written, it works as written. The only problem comes in when you force a ridiculous, nonsensical interpretation of the rules in order to have something to complain about.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
2. Any resolution of this issue is likely to be linked to any potential overhaul of FoB. That resolution is likely to come first and, hopefully, will resolve this issue as well.

While probably true, I would hope that this simple comment from the Devs wouldn't be dependent on comments about FoB. You know, FoB being a unique ability to the monk class and Unarmed Strike being a general rule and all that schtuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
"Lulz, no" does not a counterpoint make.

Actually it does. It's a sarcastic way to say, "This point is ridiculous". Support that UAS is a single weapon is scant, at best. You don't have historical precedent. You don't have in-game fuctionality. You don't have examples of use in the rules. You have an entry on a table and the fervent desire of the proponents of the single-weapon theory.

This isn't the point. It's the conclusion of the points. BLUF means putting the bottom line at the beginning so people know what conclusion you're getting to before reading your supporting points. It's like putting a tl;dr at the beginning and without the implication that you're too lazy or ignorant to read.

And the point of referencing Greater Brawl is that it is a clear indication of developer intent. Since many are arguing ambiguity in the core role, you look to ancillary, supporting rules that apply the same principles to see how the people who wrote the language intended it to be used. It's pretty clear that by creating a class archetype called Brutal Pugilist (quite literally, Vicious Boxer) and giving that archetype access to abilities that necessarily imply an empty-handed primary build, that's a clear reflection of intent that TWF was intended to be available when using solely UAS. Any alternative reading is not nearly so reasonable by comparison. Any other reading leads to contradictory and wasted results. It's simply not nearly as good of an interpretation, despite your protestations otherwise.
Because class archetypes in supplementary books are always right and accurate and never suffer from oversight or a particular writer not being familiar with a certain rules or the writers suffering from the same ambiguity that we're currently debating. Need I bring up the issue of juju zombies? They were written with an intent much more clear and explicit than Greater Brawl; it makes non-evil undead. But then the devs came right out and said, "That was a complete screw up... we didn't want juju zombies to be non-evil." And yet you claim that a rage power that seemingly supports presumed RAI for either side is airtight evidence for a particular interpretation of RAW. That reeks of BS and you know it.

That point alone provides more support for not treating UAS as a single weapon than anything I have yet seen a proponent for that theory provide.
If that's the best support for not treating UAS as a single weapon, then I can say that barring an explicit and official statement (such as an errata or at least official FAQ) stating otherwise we can all safely interpret UAS as being definitively a single weapon wielded by your whole body as I've been saying this whole time.

Vestrial wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
stuff

You agree that US isn't an object in the literal sense, yet you fall back on the 'how many US does a character have' rhetoric. This question is nonsensical. If US is not an object, a character may not 'have' any. US is in the action section, the relevant question is 'how many US may a character make?' And the answer is quite explicitly defined.

The whistling sound you just heard was my point sailing over your head. I said that UAS isn't an object in the literal sense, however it is an object in a mechanical sense. And the issue of "how many UAS may a character make by default" is not explicitly defined anywhere. There are implied definitions, but nothing comes out and states in no uncertain terms.

It seems like some people have to just fabricate issues so they have something to rail against. US is fine as written, it works as written. The only problem comes in when you force a ridiculous, nonsensical interpretation of the rules in order to have something to complain about.
Some people indeed do fabricate issues; such as the people who seem to be taking it as a personal affront that I've logically deduced from unclear rules the most likely and mechanically logical, if not realistically appealing, intent for the interplay of UAS and TWF. If people are still asking for explicit RAW... there isn't any; not for either side of the issue. There's implicit RAW both in support of and against, but the support for one 'UAS per iteration' is more pertinent and simply carries more weight. And as I said before, if the devs come out and clarify it one way or the other, I won't take it personally. If they say, "Yes, we intended for people to replace any melee attack, main-hand or off-hand, with UAS without limitation just like we intended for FoB," I'll be happy with it. I won't be disappointed that it turned out that what they intended was what I determined to be the less likely intent based on what they wrote. And if they come out and say, "By default, you only get to use UAS once per attack iteration, either as main-hand or off-hand, because only monk training allows you to fight like Bruce Lee," I'll also be happy with that, finding out that I analysed correctly, without arrogance. Now the question that everyone else needs to ask themselves is, "Will I take the official answer with as much grace? If their ruling coincides with my beliefs will I rub it in the faces of everyone who stood against me because I knew for sure I knew what the devs were thinking before they announced any official clarification? If I find out I was pressing so hard to drive home an idea I was absolutely sure was right, only to find that the devs don't see it that way and ruled the other way, will I get upset and irritated at myself for calling everyone else's argument (the right ones) ridiculous, stupid, and irrational?"

Cheliax

However Kazaan you still havent successfully refuted the bestiary text, which is explicit on the fact that unarmed strikes can be used with two weapon fighting with two hands.

Just ignoring the rules text and trying to pick on the way people are presenting their arguments doesnt prove anything, until you can refute that very specific ruling with rules text explicitly saying that you cannot TWF with unarmed strikes, then you have no leg to stand on the rules arent ambigious, sure its not in the easiest section to find, but then again rules for mounted combat are in like 5 places so thats not an uncommon thing in any system of sufficient complexity.

Rules are ambigious only if they say two contridict themselves, which in this case the rules never do, every section but flurry and the beastiary rules is silent on if you can or cant TWF with unarmed strikes (they might imply certain ideas but they never actually spell it out), and then those two areas define the specific rules that are applicable and explicitly spell out how it can be done.

That you are saying that the pro-TWF with unarmed strikes has only implicit support by the rules, when you can plainly see in the quoted section a specific and explicit example of how you can TWF with unarmed strikes makes me wonder if you actually read that section yet or just glossed over it.


So Kazaan just to ask a few things.

Are you of the belief that all people who box in Pathfinder either monks or 6th level?

Do you believe that somehow putting in gloves allows your punches to move quicker than someone without? Or even that brass knuckles somehow grant a magical 2 punch ability?

Martial artist aren't the only ones in the world who punch fast and yet somehow someway we have created a magic world where a man can pummel you senseless with both hands if something is worn on them but if you take that item away one hand falls, metophoricly, paralyzed to his side.

You say you have the most mechanically logical answer yet the questions above show glaring flaws in that logic.

You want to make the same claim that your side has mounds of evidence that its one single weapon but it weighs the same as the argument in reverse that it's multiple weapons.

Can I ask mechanically and speaking of as I have said before of reasonable things that might occur what makes unarmed strike as multiple weapons less mechanically logical?


Kazaan wrote:

blah blah blah...

The whistling sound you just heard was my point sailing over your head. I said that UAS isn't an object in the literal sense, however it is an object in a mechanical sense. And the issue of "how many UAS may a character make by default" is not explicitly defined anywhere. There are implied definitions, but nothing comes out and states in no uncertain terms.

'An object in the mechanical sense' is so much gibberish. Tell me where it discusses the type of action it is to draw an UAS. Tell me where it talks about sundering, or disarming, creating, storing, carrying, or ANYTHING regarding 'objects in the mechanical sense.' It does not exist. It's pure fabrication based on one entry in a table.

How many UAS a character can make by default is explicitly defined under attack actions. UAS are treated as weapon attacks (sans the listed exceptions). We know how many weapon attacks a character can make, therefore we know how many UAS they can make. This is a pretty straightforward reading of RAW.


Talonhawke wrote:

So Kazaan just to ask a few things.

Are you of the belief that all people who box in Pathfinder either monks or 6th level?

Do you believe that somehow putting in gloves allows your punches to move quicker than someone without? Or even that brass knuckles somehow grant a magical 2 punch ability?

Martial artist aren't the only ones in the world who punch fast and yet somehow someway we have created a magic world where a man can pummel you senseless with both hands if something is worn on them but if you take that item away one hand falls, metophoricly, paralyzed to his side.

You say you have the most mechanically logical answer yet the questions above show glaring flaws in that logic.

You want to make the same claim that your side has mounds of evidence that its one single weapon but it weighs the same as the argument in reverse that it's multiple weapons.

Can I ask mechanically and speaking of as I have said before of reasonable things that might occur what makes unarmed strike as multiple weapons less mechanically logical?

You're making that awful mistake again. The one where you're trying to compare in-game mechanics with real-world physics. (You don't say as much, but your intent seems pretty clear to me.)

That. Doesn't. Work.

I can swing a shortsword more than 4 times in a 6 second span of time. Does that mean I'm level 16+ and have a high BAB in real life?
Lol No.


Fine let's do it in game where we all use real world common sense.

Being dead has no impact whatsoever on your ability to do anything in game.
Do you often let players act after death if not suffering from any other condition preventing it?

Also one of my examples was real life needed. The others cause a logical disconnect.


Kazaan wrote:
This isn't the point. It's the conclusion of the points. BLUF means putting the bottom line at the beginning so people know what conclusion you're getting to before reading your supporting points. It's like putting a tl;dr at the beginning and without the implication that you're too lazy or ignorant to read.

Right, I'm aware of that. Sort of makes it curious why you the statement that "Lulz, no" wasn't a valid counterpoint when I was simply following your lead by putting my conclusion up front. *shrug*

Quote:
Because class archetypes in supplementary books are always right and accurate and never suffer from oversight or a particular writer not being familiar with a certain rules or the writers suffering from the same ambiguity that we're currently debating. Need I bring up the issue of juju zombies? They were written with an intent much more clear and explicit than Greater Brawl; it makes non-evil undead. But then the devs came right out and said, "That was a complete screw up... we didn't want juju zombies to be non-evil." And yet you claim that a rage power that seemingly supports presumed RAI for either side is airtight evidence for a particular interpretation of RAW. That reeks of BS and you know it.

That'd be a better argument if Greater Brawling appears to remotely change anything like the analogy you're trying to draw. The argument is it doesn't. Simply that it plays off of the already established intent of the developers. It's a rather clear example that really doesn't depart from how the standard rules operate. The rage power does support the idea that RAW allow for TWF with UAS unless and until a clear statement from the developers state otherwise. Everything released from the developers since has pretty much been the opposite, so take your fingers out of your ears.

Quote:
If that's the best support for not treating UAS as a single weapon, then I can say that barring an explicit and official statement (such as an errata or at least official FAQ) stating otherwise we can all safely interpret UAS as being definitively a single weapon wielded by your whole body as I've been saying this whole time.

Never said it was the best or only support. It's a clear statement of developer intent. Simply said that it alone is a better argument than I've seen you present.


Neo2151 wrote:

You're making that awful mistake again. The one where you're trying to compare in-game mechanics with real-world physics. (You don't say as much, but your intent seems pretty clear to me.)

That. Doesn't. Work.

I can swing a shortsword more than 4 times in a 6 second span of time. Does that mean I'm level 16+ and have a high BAB in real life?
Lol No.

You're presuming that each time you swing is an actual attack, or that by only getting one attack, a character would only make one swing. That would be incorrect.


I keep seeing Greater Brawling coming up as a rebuttal. It's a bad choice.
The VERY clear RAI with Zen Archers is that you can FoB with a bow. The actual rules do not allow this. Ditto Sohei. Juju Zombies were already brought up. Etc. Etc. Etc.

There are plenty of archetypes that are flawed because of a misunderstanding of the Core RAW, so using an archetype as an answer to a Core RAW issue is nonsensical. How many times does this have to be explained?

fretgod99 wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

I can swing a shortsword more than 4 times in a 6 second span of time. Does that mean I'm level 16+ and have a high BAB in real life?

Lol No.
You're presuming that each time you swing is an actual attack, or that by only getting one attack, a character would only make one swing. That would be incorrect.

Would you prefer if I had said, "I can stab somebody with a shortsword more than 4 times in a 6 second span of time?" Same argument.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
All creatures, with a physical body, can make unarmed strikes.

No.

There are a lot of creatures with physical bodies that can't make unarmed strikes. Gelatinous Cubes, for example.

And, by Raw, lions get natural attacks, not unarmed strikes. In the rules, it says that *some* humanoids, fey, and other stuff, have unarmed strikes instead of natural weapons. That *some* creatures have unarmed strikes, it does not mean *all* creatures do.

Nothing in the rules anywhere supports this. I challenge you to show me where it says certain creatures do not possess an unarmed strike. (Also, you're quoting the Beastiary wrong. It says some creatures do not have natural attacks. It does not say some creatures have unarmed strikes.)

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:

Also, your quoting of the feats section in the Bestiary does nothing to disprove the ability of PC's ability to take those feats.

It disproves that the feats are not meant to be taken by the PC, *except* in a few particular *exceptional* cases, such as craft construct, *and maybe others*. Which is completelly different to your blatant claim that "all of them are to be chosen by RAW, and stating otherwise is a houserule". It's not a house rule, as long as you are following strict reading of the RAW. The RAW says the monster feats are NOT for PC, unless *specially* stated otherwise by the DM, in a case by case basis. With "craft construct" being an example.
Monster Feats wrote:
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).

There are two ways of reading this:

1 - All these feats are for monsters only, even if player characters qualify (which means Craft Construct is NOT player-legal.)
2 - These feats were intended for monsters but if a PC meets the requirements, they can take the feat.
Either way, RAW supports "rule 0." It's going to be "up to the GM" every time with this.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hey, at least the "I can multiweapon fight with my feet" argument has been finally put to bed.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The requirement of limbs to make unarmed strikes has come up again, though.


HangarFlying wrote:
Hey, at least the "I can multiweapon fight with my feet" argument has been finally put to bed.

That is because it sayts hands sadly.

Now, an alchemist with a third hand has 3 hands, so he qualifies sort of.


At popular request, I'll address the issue concerning the Bestiary.

prd wrote:
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.

This is the passage in question. Lets break it down:

"Some fey, humanoids, monsterous humanoids, and outsiders do not posses natural attacks."

This sets the stage for "creatures" that are various forms of humanoid (and, as such, posses humanoid hands, feet, heads, etc.).

Now the following sentence is a two-parter so I'll split it. Pay close attention.

"These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses..."

This declares explicitly that such creatures can use unarmed strikes. That's it... they are able to deliver unarmed strikes. Now the second part of this statement.

"...and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands."

First off, this does nothing to define the two-weapon fighting rules, it just says they have to use them. Secondly, it says they use those rules when "making attacks" with both hands... not making unarmed strikes but making attacks. These are creatures with humanoid hands so they can wield manufactured weapons given the option. To my eye, this rule does nothing to explicitly or implicitly define the rules concerning TWF. It says that such a creature has to "use TWF rules when making attacks with both hands". Well, under the interpretation that you can't use UAS for both main-hand and off-hand attacks, those rules would say that if such a creature wanted to TWF with UAS they'd need to pair a manufactured weapon with UAS to make it work.

fretgod99 wrote:
You're presuming that each time you swing (the shortsword) is an actual attack, or that by only getting one attack, a character would only make one swing. That would be incorrect.

Then by that logic, each time you swing an applicable limb for UAS doesn't necessarily count as individual attacks... just as I said before. A single unarmed strike can be a combo of 2 punches and a kick but it still only rolls attack once, deals 1d3 damage + damage bonus once, and takes up a single iterative attack. That means that UAS cannot be a weapon employed individually by each limb but, rather, is wielded by your "whole body" similarly to how a two-handed weapon is wielded with both hands (it doesn't count as both a main-hand and off-hand weapon despite it being held by both hands).

@Talonhawke:
Let's address your questions. Am I of the belief that all people who box in Pathfinder are either monks or (+6BaB)?
No. As I just stated in response to fret, a single iterative attack can be a series of boxing blows, left-right-left jab. But it still only counts as a single attack mechanically and does 1d3 damage. Having flurry grants an exception that allows you to use UAS for both main-hand and off-hand attack. +6 BaB grants you a second iteration so you have another instance of 1d3 damage.

Do you believe that somehow putting on gloves allows your punches to move quicker than someone without? Or that brass knuckles grant a magical 2 punch ability?
I have no opinion on the speed that someone attacks when wielding a gauntlet. It's heavy, but it also increases momentum so it could very well do the same 1d3 damage with fewer punches than a UAS. The important point is that mechanically (remember, we're talking about a mechanical game system here) a gauntlet is a weapon just like UAS. Same thing with having a pair of brass knuckles. The only difference is that Gauntlets and Brass Knuckles are manufactured weapons whereas UAS is not.

Martial Artists aren't the only ones in the world who punch fast and yet somehow, someway, we have created a magic world where a man can pummel you senseless with both hands if something is worn on them but if you take that item away one hand falls, metophoricly, paralyzed to his side.
Incorrect. I could be wielding a cestus and deliver a forward jab followed by a quick backhand (or just a single haymaker or whatever else I want to flavor the attack with) and it can still be a single iterative attack. I could TWF with the Cestus and UAS and it isn't necessarily Cestus first then UAS. I could jab with cestus, kick, punch, backhand with cestus, and headbutt but it can all mechanically fit under a single iteration of cestus damage and a single iteration of UAS damage. Mechanics trumps all.

You say you have the most mechanically logical answer yet the questions above show glaring flaws in that logic.
No, there have been several points that people disagreed on, there have been counter-arguments that people have brought up, and there have been frivolous non-arguments such as Vestrial disregarding the mechanical nature of a game system and confusing an UAS weapon with a manufactured weapon.

You want to make the same claim that your side has mounds of evidence that its one single weapon but it weighs the same as the argument in reverse that it's multiple weapons.
On the one side, there are lines from the core rulebook's Equipment section and Combat section. Additionally, there is the clarification on FoB (still under works) that a monk performing FoB can replace any weapon attack with UAS. If you could do that anyway, there would be no need to specify that monks can do this with FoB. On the other side are passages from supplementary books under class archetypes, references to how the real world operates, reference to a bestiary passage that, itself, refers back to the TWF rules it is being used to define (this is an actual example of the logical fallacy "begging the question"), willful disregard of the mechanical nature of the game system, and the standing presumption that this is a fabricated issue. Guess what, the whole game is fabricated and I haven't said that these counter-arguments are wholly invalid; just that they garner less weight and relevance than passages more strongly central to the game system. I'm not saying that I know for absolute certainty what the developers had in mind. I'm saying that based on the words they wrote, taking everything in its proper context, and understanding the mechanical nature of the system in general, the best interpretation of the implicitly stated rules is that TWF cannot solely use UAS. I've cited my reasons and my premises. The majority on the other side of the argument are claiming that the RAI is "obvious" and that any argument contrary to that obvious intent is a fabricated issue thought up only for the purpose of making an issue. They claim explicit RAW when the quoted passages are implicit at best and they beg the question by using parts of the game mechanics that rely on the TWF rules in question to turn about and define those very rules. They cite real life as having overly significant bearing on the interpretation of the rules of the mechanical system. Is all this discussion and debate useless? Absolutely not. Both sides of the issue have been brought to the table and laid bare and the developers can easily consider aspects that they may not have even thought about when the rules in question were first written. They could very well have had one thing in mind but decided, after reading some positions here, that the other option is better (and I don't care which side they started on nor which side they end up on).

Can I ask mechanically and speaking of as I have said before of reasonable things that might occur what makes unarmed strike as multiple weapons less mechanically logical?
I've discussed this ad nauseum and if you haven't caught the point by now, if you've really been trying, then my thought process is sufficiently alien to your own that I doubt you have any chance to successfully comprehend what I'm trying to put forth. Go back and review the points I've made if you want, but I've put forth my argument and, contrary to what you think, it is a solid, logical position with strong support.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:

At popular request, I'll address the issue concerning the Bestiary.

prd wrote:
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.

This is the passage in question. Lets break it down:

"Some fey, humanoids, monsterous humanoids, and outsiders do not posses natural attacks."

This sets the stage for "creatures" that are various forms of humanoid (and, as such, posses humanoid hands, feet, heads, etc.).

Now the following sentence is a two-parter so I'll split it. Pay close attention.

"These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses..."

This declares explicitly that such creatures can use unarmed strikes. That's it... they are able to deliver unarmed strikes. Now the second part of this statement.

"...and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands."

First off, this does nothing to define the two-weapon fighting rules, it just says they have to use them. Secondly, it says they use those rules when "making attacks" with both hands... not making unarmed strikes but making attacks. These are creatures with humanoid hands so they can wield manufactured weapons given the option. To my eye, this rule does nothing to explicitly or implicitly define the rules concerning TWF. It says that such a creature has to "use TWF rules when making attacks with both hands". Well, under the interpretation that you can't use UAS for both main-hand and off-hand attacks, those rules would say that if such a creature wanted to TWF with UAS they'd need to pair a manufactured weapon with UAS to make it work.

You do realize that this section is talking about natural weapons, not making attacks with manufactured weapons. You are being so pedantic with your response that you are inventing interpretation to justify your position.


Kazaan wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:

again, I don't understand what point your trying to make? I tend to be sarcastic, but my "argument" works just fine. unless you would care to give a counterargument backed up by the Rules?

you cant make a unarmed strike master work therefore it is not a melee weapon because only melee weapons can be made master work either by construction , or by spells. there fore you can TWF with UAS. you cant TWF with a single melee weapon. a UAS is not a melee weapon so you can TWF with it?

First, let me define obtuse in the context I've used it. In addition to the geometric definition, obtuse can also mean acting dumb (either intentionally or inadvertently). Someone who is obtuse isn't too sharp. The position you brought up about masterwork fists was obtuse. I provided an equally obtuse counterpoint, playing at "teh dumb" for illustrative purposes. Additionally, I made a pun regarding "a cute argument" but you seem not to have caught my angle so I'll let it slide.

BLUF (bottom line up front): The bottom line is that, while seemingly contradictory, the RAW portions that support UAS as a single weapon are far stronger and more convincing than those that support UAS as multiple weapons.

Next, lets address your logical fallacy, namely your misuse of Modes Ponens.

If UAS is not a single weapon, then you can TWF with it alone.

That's the base of the argument that you've proposed; that if it isn't a single weapon but rather something different that follows different rules, then it's fine to TWF with Unarmed Strikes and nothing more. So now, presuming this condition is correct, by modes ponens, you need to affirm the condition to affirm the consequence. Thus, you assert that UAS is not a weapon but rather a combat action that could replace any attack in a TWF sequence (similar to throwing in a Trip or Disarm combat maneuver). The following references have been cited by you and others:

Combat: Unarmed Strikes - The "much like striking...

this about sums my feelings on this thread

Your Wrong!


HangarFlying wrote:
You do realize that this section is talking about natural weapons, not making attacks with manufactured weapons. You are being so pedantic with your response that you are inventing interpretation to justify your position.

And yet, just above the table, it talks about how such a creature manages natural attacks in conjunction with manufactured weapons in the very same section. Ultimately, the phrase says nothing more or less than the creature uses TWF rules when attacking if it does not posses natural weapons. It does nothing to define those rules. Your problem is that you use circular reasoning. Furthermore, it specifies making attacks with "both hands". Not two UAS but attacks with the hands specifically. And, as we know, UAS isn't limited to hands. So another interpretation of this section that now comes to mind is that such creatures use the stats of Unarmed Strike to serve as a natural attack equivalent but centered on the two hands in the same manner that a creature might have two claws. By that interpretation, their "natural UAS" are special in that they are delivered with the hands only and they have one on each hand. Again, the exception doesn't disprove the default rule.

lobolusk wrote:

this about sums my feelings on this thread

Your Wrong!

I love that pic and I always quote it to my wife when I'm writing in threads like this. So the feeling's mutual.


For more not one weapon info check out adders strike and the Suli racial abilities.

Both of these apply effects to body parts not to a generic unarmed strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also the metal sub-domain points out using a pair of unarmed strikes uses TWF.


Talonhawke wrote:

For more not one weapon info check out adders strike and the Suli racial abilities.

Both of these apply effects to body parts not to a generic unarmed strike.

And once again, these are all things subject to oversights, just like Zen Archer's/Sohei's FoB and Juju zombies. The verbiage in the peripheral rules doesn't match up with the verbiage used in the central rules. It also doesn't explicitly establish that UAS is one attack per limb; affecting particular limbs could simply mean that the affected limb needs to be available (ie. not bound or occupied by a manufactured weapon) for the effect to be used. Does it require clarification? Again, yes. It's still an arbitrary ruling but the weight of credibility still lies with the central aspects rather than peripheral ones.

I know I've marked the topic for a FAQ response and at this point, the only counter-points that seem to be coming up are peripheral rules. So unless someone has something that's actually new on the matter, say an official response, faq, errata, some section specifically and explicitly explaining the default function and mechanics of UAS that we've all seemingly missed (unlikely), we should all just give it a rest. Everything pertinent has been said on the subject and the only constructive thing we can do is wait for a formal response.


So anything that might prove you wrong is clearly an oversight? I mean there is no possible way that you might possibly be wrong?

Must be easy to be right when everything that contradicts your position is clearly a mistake. Heck we should not even bother to use books other than core until the devs recheck them all to make sure that all the possible oversights are patched up.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:

So anything that might prove you wrong is clearly an oversight? I mean there is no possible way that you might possibly be wrong?

Must be easy to be right when everything that contradicts your position is clearly a mistake. Heck we should not even bother to use books other than core until the devs recheck them all to make sure that all the possible oversights are patched up.

Heck, why even bother using the CRB?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh, and what is wrong with the juju zombie?


HangarFlying wrote:
Oh, and what is wrong with the juju zombie?

Apparently they never "meant" for it to make non-evil undead. Yeah, it makes no sense to me either.


Talonhawke wrote:

So anything that might prove you wrong is clearly an oversight? I mean there is no possible way that you might possibly be wrong?

Must be easy to be right when everything that contradicts your position is clearly a mistake. Heck we should not even bother to use books other than core until the devs recheck them all to make sure that all the possible oversights are patched up.

So his position the entire time has been "I'm not sure who's right for sure, because the rules support both sides of the argument. But, in my opinion, the mechanics that support a one-weapon theory carry more weight than the mechanics that support a multiple-weapons theory, and here is why..."

So, based on your reply, you're clearly not even reading his posts. And if you're not willing to take a rebuttal seriously, why should your argument be taken seriously?


I've listened to his whys however I have yet to see an example of one single feat spell or ability that points to the one weapon theory as plainly as what has been posted with regards to multiple weapons. I may have missed it in the flurry of posts and if so then I'm sorry. I have seen a lot of quotes with multiple interpitations and a lot if hefty assumptions, such as the assumption that anything non core is irrelevant because it might have been an oversight.

Wheres Jiggy when we need an argument / evidence recap?


Been gone for a bit anything new on this front?


*blinks curiously and gazes down at hands* ...hmmm...well...I got two of these suckers *proceeds to glance down at feet* ...and I got two of those suckers *thinks to self* ....yea....tis time...

*rolls dem common sense dice* (in a world full of dragons, magic, and brain-eating aliens no less)

Well, lets see here...what exactly is an unarmed strike?

1) It's a 'simple weapon'.

2) It's a 'Light' weapon.

3) It's a 'bludgeoning' weapon.

So...um...is there any rule that states that I can't two-weapon fight with a weapon with the above characteristics?

Not that I'm aware of.

Also, here's a curious note:

Pathfinder SRD wrote:
There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

It seems rather silly to clarify this if there is already 'no such thing' as an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike. Therefore, the implication of this rule seems to imply that off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes are possible.

I suppose it is also important to note that you can two-weapon fight with any weapon (aside from 'natural weapons' of course). Even a character wielding a two-handed weapon can make an 'off-hand' strike with spiked armor, a blade boot, or an unarmed strike (kick).

Furthermore, unarmed strikes are also very 'limb specific' (which essentially allows you to separate attacks onto different parts of your body). Thus, if such is the case, if I make an 'unarmed strike' with my left hand (and yes, the limb does matter), there is nothing preventing me from making an 'off-hand' strike with either my legs or my right hand.

Also, keep something else in mind:

Pathfinder SRD wrote:

Light Weapon: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

As you can see, an unarmed strike is 'one-handed' weapon, and there is NO RULE that says that I cannot use a 'one-handed' weapon for two-weapon fighting.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Though not a Developer, James is the only known Paizo official to comment on this subject.


I'd almost be tempted to draw everyone's attention to the example of 'double-weapons' (yes, I know that an unarmed strike isn't listed as a double-weapon, but the example I'm making is to explain how '1' weapon can be used to make attacks using Two-weapon fighting).

Essentially, with a double weapon, you have the capacity to use it as a single weapon, or use both ends of the weapon in order to perform 'two-weapon fighting' attacks.

This is accomplished because the nature of the weapon is such that both ends of the weapon can be deadly, and thus utilized to make two-weapon fighting attacks.

In many regards, unarmed strikes are no different.

You again have '1' weapon...but the weapon itself (your body) is such that you can use multiple 'ends' of it in order to achieve two-weapon fighting.

I realize that this example isn't strictly RAW, but it does explain how 'one weapon' can be used in regards to two-weapon fighting.


Thanks for the update bbt

Edit: Am I in a time anomaly it says someone else posted but I can't see it and my page isn't updating


And now the post exist! Seriously did DST cause a small temporal rift at Paizo?

451 to 500 of 575 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / TWF and Unarmed Strikes 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.