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

351 to 400 of 575 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Kazaan wrote:
Remember, unarmed strikes can be flavored to be a combo of attacks that all add up to a single iteration and a single instance of unarmed strike damage. You could say that a whole unarmed combo of strikes with both hands, both feet, and your head all adds up to a single hit of 1d3 damage so as long as your enchanted fist is included in whatever attack you make, the whole attack benefits from the enchantment. And that's not even presuming that this wasn't an artifact definition meant to affect some "fist" type natural attack (ie. a golem with hands permanently fixed into fists) that was never included in the game (likely generalized into the Slam attack). Or, that "fists" was meant in reference to Unarmed Strike without consideration of US utilizing not only fists but other body parts as well. But if it really does affect a particular body part, then it's more plausible that you only get the benefit so long as you are able to use that part in your unarmed strike (ie. if both hands are full, enchanted fists do nothing but you can still deliver a combo involving two kicks and a headbutt that amounts to a single hit of 1d3 damage).

I did a quick search on d20srd, and didn't find any creature with a 'fist' attack, so if it exists it's 3.0 or Wizard's IP.

So if the spell affects a singular body part, like a fist, doesn't that mean it affects "one (natural weapon or unarmed strike)", rather than "(one natural weapon) or unarmed strike"? Wouldn't the latter mean I could enhance my unarmed strike as a whole, and make enhanced attacks in any combination I wish? Leaving the fist option as redundant and unnecessary?


Here's the problem with the spell:
In 3.X you only needed a single casting of GMF to cover all your potential unarmed strikes. In Pathfinder, they seem to have changed their mind in regards to this, but the Devs have failed to list specifically how many times one would need to cast GMF to cover all potential Unarmed Strikes.

In short: The PF devs took something that worked just fine, and made it all sorts of complicated, and then failed to explain why and failed to explain exactly how their change works.

It's a bad rule.


Neo2151 wrote:

Here's the problem with the spell:

In 3.X you only needed a single casting of GMF to cover all your potential unarmed strikes. In Pathfinder, they seem to have changed their mind in regards to this, but the Devs have failed to list specifically how many times one would need to cast GMF to cover all potential Unarmed Strikes.

In short: The PF devs took something that worked just fine, and made it all sorts of complicated, and then failed to explain why and failed to explain exactly how their change works.

It's a bad rule.

While i do love much of paizo work i have to agree with you. The mechanic of unarmed strike/flurry of blows/monks/AoMF/TWF is unnecesary convoluted and confusing.


Neo2151 wrote:

Here's the problem with the spell:

In 3.X you only needed a single casting of GMF to cover all your potential unarmed strikes. In Pathfinder, they seem to have changed their mind in regards to this, but the Devs have failed to list specifically how many times one would need to cast GMF to cover all potential Unarmed Strikes.

In short: The PF devs took something that worked just fine, and made it all sorts of complicated, and then failed to explain why and failed to explain exactly how their change works.

It's a bad rule.

It's really not as complicated as you try to make it. It's fairly obvious that the appendage making the attack needs to be the thing that's enchanted. By default there are only five appendages capable of making unarmed strikes on a (non-monk) humanoid. If you want to use them all, each must be enchanted. Pretty simple, really.

Taldor

Vestrial wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

Here's the problem with the spell:

In 3.X you only needed a single casting of GMF to cover all your potential unarmed strikes. In Pathfinder, they seem to have changed their mind in regards to this, but the Devs have failed to list specifically how many times one would need to cast GMF to cover all potential Unarmed Strikes.

In short: The PF devs took something that worked just fine, and made it all sorts of complicated, and then failed to explain why and failed to explain exactly how their change works.

It's a bad rule.

It's really not as complicated as you try to make it. It's fairly obvious that the appendage making the attack needs to be the thing that's enchanted. By default there are only five appendages capable of making unarmed strikes on a (non-monk) humanoid. If you want to use them all, each must be enchanted. Pretty simple, really.

Having said that, I think the answer 'five' there might be a bit of a red herring, since you're only going to be able to use any two of them in any particular TWF attack; it's pretty self-evident that two-weapon fighting is limited to two weapons.

So, just pick your favourite two unarmed strikes, GMF them up, and go to town. Who cares about the rest? Mechanically, you won't be using the others.


Skeeve Plowse wrote:

Having said that, I think the answer 'five' there might be a bit of a red herring, since you're only going to be able to use any two of them in any particular TWF attack; it's pretty self-evident that two-weapon fighting is limited to two weapons.

So, just pick your favourite two unarmed strikes, GMF them up, and go to town. Who cares about the rest? Mechanically, you won't be using the others.

For general use, yes. There are many reasons various appendages might be otherwise occupied though, (feet shackled, carrying something in hand, etc)so saying you won't be using them ever isn't really accurate. Not to mention you might just decide to kick or headbutt for style points...

Taldor

Well, life is full of little risks like that. But you're correct, I was speaking to the general case.


Neo2151 wrote:

Here's the problem with the spell:

In 3.X you only needed a single casting of GMF to cover all your potential unarmed strikes. In Pathfinder, they seem to have changed their mind in regards to this, but the Devs have failed to list specifically how many times one would need to cast GMF to cover all potential Unarmed Strikes.

In short: The PF devs took something that worked just fine, and made it all sorts of complicated, and then failed to explain why and failed to explain exactly how their change works.

It's a bad rule.

Why do you need to cover all potential unarmed strikes? Seems like overkill.


Kazaan wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
The rules of the game may try to keep realism in mind, but realism still takes second seat to establishing a game system because the balance of the game system is paramount. Yes, in real life someone can flurry even without monk training and it will probably injure someone more than just a single straight punch. But, ultimately, Pathfinder =/= Real Life. In pathfinder, you're wielding 'unarmed strike' as your weapon. If the fighter with +6/+1 bab uses US/US, he may be attacking with two unarmed strikes, as the verb, but he's attacking with one unarmed strike as the weapon and "swinging" it twice the same way that he'd swing twice with a single shortsword.
And if this were true, why would you need to enchant each limb separately for the purposes of unarmed strikes?

Because, as so many have said, the developers don't seem to know what direction they want to go in regards to it. They're adopting mutually exclusive stances regarding the rules and not clarifying existing rules to fit. If they want to make each of 5 body parts (2 arms, 2 legs, 1 head) a separate head of a 5-headed weapon (or 9 heads for a monk), they need to declare that explicitly in regards to Unarmed Strike (and armor spikes). If they don't do that, then they're leaving it as it stood in the first place (the manner I described) but throwing in an ambiguous new ruling. But the RAW wording of Magic Fang which stumbles people (including the devs, apparently) is as follows:

"Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject..."
People seem to be reading that as 'one (natural weapon or unarmed strike') when it should be read as '(one natural weapon) or unarmed strike'. In other words, if you switched the order, it would read "Magic fang gives unarmed strike or one natural weapon of the subject..."

*shrug* The clarification seems to pretty clearly state they're to be treated as separate weapons, despite your insistence otherwise. Whether you think it's ambiguous or not, I really don't think this is a particularly complicated issue. And the language from Magic Fang clarifies nothing beyond giving you another opportunity to demonstrate your preferred interpretation of the rule.


If the dev's rule that a typical humanoid has five unarmed strike weapons (2 arms, 2 legs, 1 head), it does solve the problem. You just restate that multi-weapon fighting is for creatures that have more than two hands (regardless of total number of limbs) and that humanoids are limited to two-weapon fighting because they only have two hands. Having weapons on other limbs allows you to replace a "hand attack", but doesn't give you any extra attacks.

I think if you use the above they wouldn't need any errata at all. They can just call it a FAQ and they don't have to re-write anything.

Mechanically you only need to enchant two unarmed strike weapons to use two-weapon fighting. This kills the RP of using any body part to fight unarmed, but only if you use the spell. If you use the Amulet of Might Fists (like you are supposed to), then it is not a problem.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The idea of a limb based number of unarmed strikes is an infuriating mess.

Whether a creature has one or twenty limbs, should not decide how many unarmed strikes it has.

If you simply ignore the mess that Flurry is, and replace "fist" with "Unarmed Strike" in the Magic Fang description, you will have your answer.

I mean, if you don't have a fist, can you not use Magic Fang on your unarmed strike?

No, that's silly.


Lord Twig wrote:
This kills the RP of using any body part to fight unarmed, but only if you use the spell. If you use the Amulet of Might Fists (like you are supposed to), then it is not a problem.

But then you're paying extra for the role-playing fluff that the 3.5 version had baked in.

Count me in the, "unarmed strike is one weapon" camp. Monks can flurry with it because they're special (any combination, despite SKR's redefinition of "any").


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How about two sides of the body? Then it doesn't matter whether the unarmed strike is delivered with fist, foot, whatever, it's all part of the total body weapon - it's just that it allows you to strike multiple times and it permits you to TWF with it, and takes two castings of magic fang to cover both potential attacks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

The idea of a limb based number of unarmed strikes is an infuriating mess.

Whether a creature has one or twenty limbs, should not decide how many unarmed strikes it has.

If you simply ignore the mess that Flurry is, and replace "fist" with "Unarmed Strike" in the Magic Fang description, you will have your answer.

I mean, if you don't have a fist, can you not use Magic Fang on your unarmed strike?

No, that's silly.

I see this way:

All creatures has at least one unarmed strike. If it has no limbs, it has one unarmed strike.

To make two weapon attack, you must wield two weapons, therefore, if you can wield two weapons, you can make two unarmed strikes (one off-handed).

To make multiple weapon attacks, you must wield multiple weapons, so, if you can wield 4 weapons, you can make 4 unarmed strikes, regardless how many limbs do you have.

Of course, this is how i deal with this problem, not the RAW. RAW do not have solution for this question.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

In fact, checking the wording, all you need to do is replace that "fist" line with "unarmed strike", and both Magic Fang, and Greater Magic Fang, work fine for the idea of an unarmed strike as one weapon.

What about Brawler Rage Power? Well, that reduces penalties when including an unarmed strikes into your two weapon fighting routine.

What about Flurry? Well, flurry is a mess, but putting it as special Full Attack action, that cannot be combined with two weapon fighting is the simplest solution. No need to actually make it two weapon fighting, but weirder, just make it something special you cannot combine with two weapon fighting.


Darklord Morius wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

The idea of a limb based number of unarmed strikes is an infuriating mess.

Whether a creature has one or twenty limbs, should not decide how many unarmed strikes it has.

If you simply ignore the mess that Flurry is, and replace "fist" with "Unarmed Strike" in the Magic Fang description, you will have your answer.

I mean, if you don't have a fist, can you not use Magic Fang on your unarmed strike?

No, that's silly.

I see this way:

All creatures has at least one unarmed strike. If it has no limbs, it has one unarmed strike.

To make two weapon attack, you must wield two weapons, therefore, if you can wield two weapons, you can make two unarmed strikes (one off-handed).

To make multiple weapon attacks, you must wield multiple weapons, so, if you can wield 4 weapons, you can make 4 unarmed strikes, regardless how many limbs do you have.

Of course, this is how i deal with this problem, not the RAW. RAW do not have solution for this question.

Seems completely reasonable to me and pretty much how I view and handle this situation.


are you honestly saying that by RAW you cant TWf with IUS?. I have to say until I made this thread I had never though of the possibility that so many people could be so wrong by using such crazy logic.....


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Define "crazy" logic.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Define "crazy" logic.

I refuse.... greater brawler Rage power, common sense... and Grick says you can and has you know he famously argued you cant make Coup de grace with unarmed strikes because they are not a "melee weapon"


blackbloodtroll wrote:

In fact, checking the wording, all you need to do is replace that "fist" line with "unarmed strike", and both Magic Fang, and Greater Magic Fang, work fine for the idea of an unarmed strike as one weapon.

What about Brawler Rage Power? Well, that reduces penalties when including an unarmed strikes into your two weapon fighting routine.

What about Flurry? Well, flurry is a mess, but putting it as special Full Attack action, that cannot be combined with two weapon fighting is the simplest solution. No need to actually make it two weapon fighting, but weirder, just make it something special you cannot combine with two weapon fighting.

So Brawler lets a Boxer make use of Improved Unarmed Strike while raging, but the subsequent rage power only allows a Boxer to make an offhand unarmed strike so long as they're using a weapon in their primary hand?

Also, let's not forget that the Brutal Pugilist (Boxer) is intended to incorporate Grappling as a primary component of the archetype. And humanoid creatures without two free hands suffer a penalty when making Grapple checks. So you're saying a recommended rage power for the Boxer archetype forces them to use a weapon to make use of it, which puts them at a severe disadvantage when using the other powers around which the class archetype is specifically built. How does that make sense? It's a nigh worthless rage power in this case.

And I really don't think Flurry is a mess. It functions just like TWF. I don't see how that's a problem. It's only an issue if you want to force unarmed strikes to be a single weapon (and even then, it's really not all that much of a problem).


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Define "crazy" logic.

my mind is literally blown right now! usually BBT you are right on the money a Southern gentlemen lizard fighter is pure solid gold.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I got to know where you're going.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lobolusk wrote:
are you honestly saying that by RAW you cant TWf with IUS?. I have to say until I made this thread I had never though of the possibility that so many people could be so wrong by using such crazy logic.....

I'd hesitate to call it logic. It's more a hazy application of logical principles based on excessive pedantry.

Me - I let people use TWF with unarmed strikes (improved or otherwise). Just tell me what you want to do. If you're getting an extra attack over your iterative, we use the TWF modifiers and designate your primary and secondary weapons. Doesn't matter if you're headbutting while using a greatsword, hipchecking while holding onto a short sword and a tankard of ale, or kicking with both legs while holding a chest of coins. Anything unarmed uses the unarmed strike on the weapon table. Any specific part of the body enchanted with magic fang gets the bonus.

And I still think that the amulet of mighty fists is too expensive for anything but creatures with 3+ natural attacks even if an unarmed strike can be virtually anything. But then, I think several other pricing schemes in 3e are out of whack (don't get me started on the comparison between the ring of protection and ring of shooting stars).


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Logic from a rules perspective?

You should define the logic as to what it pertains to.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Logic from a rules perspective?

You should define the logic as to what it pertains to.

your not using the rules your reading way to much into the brawler rage power.

it is meant to make IUS better than allow you to double punch.

your taking Unarmed strike and making it super complicated SKR's comments aside. why can't it just be a non weapon attack with your limbs and that's all. why do you need to know what limb? and how does a jelly get US? how about a robot cannonball! who cares? what purpose does it serve to take the most logical interpolation and stretch it out to its most ridiculous level. this is a fake fantasy game where a dude can cast a fireball underwater and a sword can kill a dragon the size of a Boeing 747. do we really need to part the veil so far back. I sometimes think that this is the best resource ever for my paizo questions and the worst ever....


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I still see my view as a simpler version.

Besides, the Greater Brawler Rage Power doesn't state your unarmed strike must be your off-hand attack.

There is no common sense lost either.


PRD wrote:

Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.

Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description.

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

The Damage Type column refers to the sort of damage that the natural attack typically deals: bludgeoning (B), slashing (S), or piercing (P). Some attacks deal damage of more than one type, depending on the creature. In such cases all the damage is considered to be of all listed types for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

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.

There Im home and I'll link it and bold it for you the rules say in black and brown text that to make attacks with both hands its TWF.

Now please explain how the rules are wrong.


here is what it is like this is completely off topic, but some people were opposed to the bill of rights the state of Georgia was one of them his biggest fear was that people would come back and say well it isn't a right because it is not spelled out in the bill of rights... just like the Greater brawler rage power,

the power is named brawler that implies unarmed strike
the first part of it gives you better unarmed strike damage
the second part of it gives you TWF. common sense would dictate you can TWF with unarmed.....

the designers don't have time to write out every possible scenario and every example. we are supposed to use common sense. and we dont need a time machine or whoopi goldberg to tell us what the designers intended.


Because, in this instance, the rules are lame. An unarmed strike is a single weapon. Put a footnote in there that says despite being a single weapon, you can TWF with unarmed strikes (in the description of unarmed strikes) and sure. But since a creature only has one unarmed strike (regardless of whether he kicks, punches, uses his knee, elbows, or head), how can you two-weapon fighting with that single weapon? Or change the descriptor under special in the weapons section to include the word double.

If they do that, I'll quit arguing against it. Until then, I consider unarmed strikes a single weapon.

MA


Cibulan wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
This kills the RP of using any body part to fight unarmed, but only if you use the spell. If you use the Amulet of Might Fists (like you are supposed to), then it is not a problem.

But then you're paying extra for the role-playing fluff that the 3.5 version had baked in.

Count me in the, "unarmed strike is one weapon" camp. Monks can flurry with it because they're special (any combination, despite SKR's redefinition of "any").

Oh, I agree. You should not have to pay an excessive amount of extra money just so you can RP your unarmed strikes, but it would work.

As for designating two sides of your body, that would work. But which side is your head on? Would a Gorilon only need two castings (one per side) to enchant it's four fists and two legs? How about a Marilith?

Personally I think that Unarmed Strike should be a single weapon with a special exception that you can two-weapon fight with it. Done.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

@Talonhawke: You are quoting the incorrect line on natural attacks. The wording in the Bestiary is different, and correct.

This has been noted time, and time again.


Once again your pre supposing your arguement to already be correct and that its a settled issue that unarmed strikes are one weapon. Nothing in the books, nothing in any supplement, and nothing the Devlopers have said goes to back up your theory that its one weapon. If for five minutes you stop assuming what the rules are and actually realize that you might be wrong on the "unarmed Stike is one weapon and one weapon only even though the Devs have hinted at it being otherwise" and realize it might be more than one then suddenly it doesnt matter that it doesn't read double and it ceases to cause an issue on the front of TWF with one weapon.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You are still quoting incorrect text.

I am just pointing it out.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

@Talonhawke: You are quoting the incorrect line on natural attacks. The wording in the Bestiary is different, and correct.

This has been noted time, and time again.

Straight from the universal monster rules section of the bestirary part of the prd little goblin.


core rulebook section of the prd wrote:

Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

This is what you seem to think i am quoting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

@Talonhawke: You are quoting the incorrect line on natural attacks. The wording in the Bestiary is different, and correct.

This has been noted time, and time again.

You should quote your source then and cite it, then. I don't know which printing of the Bestiary you're talking about because my PDF of the Bestiary (dated mid-May 2012) is the same as the PRD that Talonhawke quoted.


master arminas wrote:

Because, in this instance, the rules are lame. An unarmed strike is a single weapon. Put a footnote in there that says despite being a single weapon, you can TWF with unarmed strikes (in the description of unarmed strikes) and sure. But since a creature only has one unarmed strike (regardless of whether he kicks, punches, uses his knee, elbows, or head), how can you two-weapon fighting with that single weapon? Or change the descriptor under special in the weapons section to include the word double.

If they do that, I'll quit arguing against it. Until then, I consider unarmed strikes a single weapon.

MA

No. This is purely based on your irrational devotion to the idea that 'unarmed strike' is an object. It is not. Stop treating as though it is and all the problems disappear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Once again your pre supposing your arguement to already be correct and that its a settled issue that unarmed strikes are one weapon. Nothing in the books, nothing in any supplement, and nothing the Devlopers have said goes to back up your theory that its one weapon. If for five minutes you stop assuming what the rules are and actually realize that you might be wrong on the "unarmed Stike is one weapon and one weapon only even though the Devs have hinted at it being otherwise" and realize it might be more than one then suddenly it doesnt matter that it doesn't read double and it ceases to cause an issue on the front of TWF with one weapon.

Isn't Pathfinder supposed to be 'backwards-compatible' with 3.x? In 3.x, unarmed strikes were a single weapon. Flurry of blows was not Two-Weapon Fighting. The only thing that implies unarmed strikes are more than one weapon is the descriptive text in the spell magic fang, where it references a fist and not simply unarmed strike. Magic weapon, on the other hand (heh), refers to unarmed strikes as singular.

Sure, the developers certainly could have decided when writing Pathfinder that unarmed strikes are seperate weapons . . . so where is the listing of them? How many seperate weapons does one individual possess? Is each potential attack with unarmed strike a seperate and individual weapon that must be enhanced seperately? Does greater magic fang only provide a +1 bonus on ALL unarmed strikes and the greater scaling bonus based on caster level to ONE unarmed, like it does with natural weapons?

What happens if you are playing a monk and you wake up chained by the wrists to the walls of a dungeon, but are still under the effect of a greater magic weapon spell? (Remember that monks unarmed strikes are affected by spells that effect either natural weapons or manufactured weapons.) Do you not get the GMW bonus when you kick the guard? Does the caster have to specify what exact limb or part of a limb (in the case of elbows and knees) he is casting the spell upon?

No, the simplest explanation is best, and that is that unarmed strikes are a single weapon and that it is merely fluff describing your attacks as to whether you are using a fist, your foot, your knee, your elbow, or your head. We are not the ones overthinking this; that is what the designers did if it was their intention to classify unarmed strikes as multiple independent individual weapons.

Now, if they want to make unarmed strikes an exception to the general rule of Two-Weapon Fighting by including a footnote that read: "despite being one weapon, an individual can use the Two-Weapon Fighting feats to gain one or more additional attacks while fighting unarmed" . . . I would be glad to see that. If the designers want to designate unarmed strikes as a double weapon, I'm down with that. But don't give me this cock and bull story about unarmed strikes being multiple weapons. Because it is not.

MA


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I may have misread a post. If so, I apologize.

Other than the hell that is flurry now(due to Developer comments, that were retracted), ruling that the unarmed strike is one weapon creates no rules problems that I can see.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master arminas wrote:

What happens if you are playing a monk and you wake up chained by the wrists to the walls of a dungeon, but are still under the effect of a greater magic weapon spell? (Remember that monks unarmed strikes are affected by spells that effect either natural weapons or manufactured weapons.) Do you not get the GMW bonus when you kick the guard? Does the caster have to specify what exact limb or part of a limb (in the case of elbows and knees) he is casting the spell upon?

No, the simplest explanation is best, and that is that unarmed strikes are a single weapon and that it is merely fluff describing your attacks as to whether you are using a fist, your foot, your knee, your elbow, or your head. We are not the ones overthinking this; that is what the designers did if it was their intention to classify unarmed strikes as multiple independent individual weapons.

Of course, the simplest explanation in this case is that the monk's unarmed strike is specifically called out as an special case in the magic weapon spell description...

For me, the simplest explanation is that any part of the body the character strikes with is a weapon and they pretty much all use the same line on the weapon table for their description and effects. As I said, I ask the player what they want to do and then use the best fitting rules for the action. Punches, elbow smashes, headbutts, kicks, knees to the groin, whatever - I'm using the unarmed strike entry on the table. If they want to get in an extra attack - they use the TWF rule - even if both attacks will be adjudicated using the unarmed strike line on the weapon table. Simple. Effective. Easy to use and apply.


MA you know I love the monk but I have a question?

with Flurry of blows can a monk make it with just Unarmed strikes that are not enchanted? just 2 plain mean fists! is this possible?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Not all Monks have fists.


Lobolusk wrote:

MA you know I love the monk but I have a question?

with Flurry of blows can a monk make it with just Unarmed strikes that are not enchanted? just 2 plain mean fists! is this possible?

If unarmed strikes are one weapon? No. If unarmed strikes are multiple weapons? Yes.

Here's a question for you: can a Paladin pick a normal non-masterwork sword and use his divine bond class feature to enchant it? How about a Magus, who takes away a guard's weapon, and uses his arcane pool on that weapon?

It isn't too powerful for these classes to be able to almost always have their weapon enchanted when it matters. Why should it be too powerful for a monk to have their primary class feature (unarmed strike) enhanced as easily?

MA


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lobolusk wrote:

MA you know I love the monk but I have a question?

with Flurry of blows can a monk make it with just Unarmed strikes that are not enchanted? just 2 plain mean fists! is this possible?

My experience is that a monk struggles with the AoMF.


master arminas wrote:

Isn't Pathfinder supposed to be 'backwards-compatible' with 3.x? In 3.x, unarmed strikes were a single weapon. Flurry of blows was not Two-Weapon Fighting. The only thing that implies unarmed strikes are more than one weapon is the descriptive text in the spell magic fang, where it references a fist and not simply unarmed strike. Magic weapon, on the other hand (heh), refers to unarmed strikes as singular.

Sure, the developers certainly could have decided when writing Pathfinder that unarmed strikes are seperate weapons . . . so where is the listing of them? How many seperate weapons does one individual possess? Is each potential attack with unarmed strike a seperate and individual weapon that must be enhanced seperately? Does greater magic fang only provide a +1 bonus on ALL unarmed strikes and the greater scaling bonus based on caster level to ONE unarmed, like it does with natural weapons?

What happens if you are playing a monk and you wake up chained by the wrists to the walls of a dungeon, but are still under the effect of a greater magic weapon spell? (Remember that monks unarmed strikes are affected by spells that effect either natural weapons or manufactured weapons.) Do you not get the GMW bonus when you kick the guard? Does the caster have to specify what exact limb or part of a limb (in the case of elbows and knees) he is casting the spell upon?

No, the simplest explanation is best, and that is that unarmed strikes are a single weapon and that it is merely fluff describing your attacks as to whether you are using a fist, your foot, your knee, your elbow, or your head. We are not the ones overthinking this; that is what the designers did if it was their intention to classify unarmed strikes as multiple independent individual weapons.

Now, if they want to make unarmed strikes an exception to the general rule of Two-Weapon Fighting by including a footnote that read: "despite being one weapon, an individual can use the Two-Weapon Fighting feats to gain one or more additional attacks while fighting unarmed" . . . I would be glad to see that. If the designers want to designate unarmed strikes as a double weapon, I'm down with that. But don't give me this cock and bull story about unarmed strikes being multiple weapons. Because it is not.

PF is only supposed to be backwards compatible when the rules haven't been changed, which is why you bringing up how FoB was not TWF in 3.5 is asinine, because they changed the rules. Similarly, whether unarmed strikes were or were not single weapons in 3.5 is wholly irrelevant. Why? Developers have implied otherwise for PF. So, again, 3.5 isn't relevant. Basing a barbarian archetype of boxing pretty clearly demonstrates that intent as well.

So stop giving me this cock and bull story about unarmed strikes being a single weapon. Because they are not.

See? I can do it, too. And it's just as convincing!


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I still see my view as a simpler version.

Besides, the Greater Brawler Rage Power doesn't state your unarmed strike must be your off-hand attack.

There is no common sense lost either.

So ... they can make a primary unarmed strike but have to use a weapon to make the second attack? That makes more sense? It still completely belies the purpose of having an archetype based entirely upon the concept of boxing and grappling.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The Archetype does not clarify the rules.
In fact, it offers nothing, but a reason for some to be upset that their multiweapon is actually a single weapon.

Remember the intent of the Titan Mauler?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Even on 3.5, they refer unarmed strikes, in plural.

The more important thing, in this case, is:

If you want that unarmed strikes be just one weapon, so be it! it's your game!

If not, if you want to consider multiple unarmed strikes, that's ok too! With the plus side that the greater brawler rage power makes sense!

Now, trying to shove your idea of what you think it's right down my throat i'll not accept!


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The Greater Brawler Power still makes sense.

The wording of "unarmed strikes" is plural in the same sense that Cat-o'-nine-tails is plural. It's one thing with multiple parts, but still one weapon.

Nobody get nine attacks with a Cat-o'-nine-tails.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Shuriken come in a set of five, why not shurikens? Come on! You cand do better than that!

351 to 400 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.