When I get home I will post my build but I have a level 10 Brawler with the Improved Unarmed Strike Feat I am using Hero Lab and have taken TWF improved TWF and Double Slice. I am not seeing it allowing me to use my unarmed strike with TWF. now I am new to the program.
but I didn't take a level in monk so my unarmed strike has an of hand correct? is it possible to do TWF with UAS?
It should be posible. The devs says thata every limb is a diferent weapont for enchanting purposes, so they should be diferent weapons for TWF.
The specification of unarmed strike in the description of TWF makes it implicit that you can TWF with unarmed strikes.
Further there are several places that note unarmed strikes are considered light weapons for most purposes, and since you can two weapon fight with weapons, you can two weapon fight with unarmed strikes.
Not sure why HeroLab would not allow this--seems a big oversight. Make sure you report it to their tech support.
DracoDruid, you may be confusing unarmed strikes with natural weapons, which are explicitly in the rules not the same thing. (From PRD in equipment section: "Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).").
Natural weapons cannot be used with TWF -- they follow their own rules for multiple attacks.
It gets confusing because there are some places or items that cause what can affect an unarmed strike can also affect a natural weapon or vice versa, even though they are set up mechanically to be quite different in other areas. And it's a muddy area that is a carryover from 3.x that Paizo's had trouble clearing up, from the looks of it.
The Unarmed strike is one weapon.
I know the monk's flurry will be brought up to refute this, but the monk's flurry is a special full round action that, at this point, nobody, not even all the Paizo employees, can agree on how it works.
In the end, the unarmed strike is one weapon, that you cannot two weapon fight with alone. Unless something official comes out to disprove this, I will stand by this view.
It's gonna be a shame if one day in a future edition we're going to have to have separate "punch," "kick," and "head butt" attacks and specific rules made for them because common sense is not allowed to prevail otherwise.
It's perfectly okay to TWF with unarmed strike(s), you technically (as a non-monk humanoid) have five unarmed strikes you can use (head, 2 arms and 2 legs). I think it's the height of stupidity to say unarmed strike is a single weapon, when races with natural weapons count hooves or claws as separate weapons. Yes natural attacks are treated differently but I just can't see how anyone could justify how someone not having really sharp nails or cloven feet means they treat their entire array of limbs as a single entity.
The Greater Brawler rage power simply gives you TWF, it says nothing specific about requiring a manufactured weapon to work.
My reading of the unarmed and TWF rules is that unarmed strikes can be used on their own for it, so I have to disagree with you BBT.
On a sidenote, not aimed at anyone in particular, I am ****ing sick to death of theses threads. This is a top priority question once Paizo makes official FAQ threads IMO, in the meantime please just use common sense people...
And thank you DeathQuaker it's nice to see one person on this forum who has their head screwed on right :)
I would like to hear about those crazy situations.
Need I go on?
You have good questions. I disagree with a couple of your objection but it seems like allowing the unarmed strike to be more than one weapon can cause problems.
I don't see how any of these things really matter. We can assume with common sense that most humanoids have around 5 possible options for making an unarmed strike (two arms, two legs, one head).
We also know that unarmed strike follows most weapon rules, and counts as a light weapon.
We know from the combat rules that your choices for fighting with a weapon, including unarmed strike, include:
- Make a single attack as a standard action. Making a single attack, doesn't matter how many limbs/attacks you have, you're still only making one.
The PRD uses wording that alleviates these concerns:
PRD Monster Feats wrote:
You will note that the prerequisite is having three or more HANDS, not LIMBS. Therefore this only applies when you have a many-handed creature, no matter how many unarmed strikes you determine a creature otherwise has. That alone pretty much resolves any of the questions you list above.
You'll also note that it replaces TWF so there's no conflict there.
It's also a monster feat and thus not available to players without the GM's say-so. If the GM is willing to open the can of worms of allowing Bestiary feats to player characters, then the GM is willing to accept any possible rules conflicts from doing so. It's a problem that might come up if you have a marilith PC, but not your bog standard two-handed human or half-orc.
I'm saying most folks are able to recognize that people have two hands and two feet without having it to be explicitly described in the rulebook.
Given most of the points you make are moot, perhaps you do, as I still don't see the problem.
First off, not allowing bestiary feats is a houserule, besides many thinking the opposite is true.
Now, let's walk the path of the Eidolon.
That's fist/fist/fist/fist/fist/fist/foot/foot/head, and as it is not a natural attack, it is not limited by the Eidolon's limit on natural attacks.
Please read the first sentence under "Monster feats." It says
That is not a house rule, that is a quote directly from the PRD. No, it doesn't specify which once PCs qualify for except for Craft Construct. But "most of these feats apply specifically to monsters" tells me enough that no, I cannot by RAW automatically assume all of the feats listed in monster feats are applicable to PCs.
With all due respect, blackbloodtroll, if you're going to say that RAW backs you up in your arguments, please start quoting said RAW which backs you up.
Please show me where an eidolon is able to make unarmed strikes, with quotes from the PRD. I looked up the summoner in the APG and Ultimate Magic, and all I could find was eidolons able to make natural attacks, not unarmed strikes. (I just did a Ctrl-F search for the word "unarmed" through those documents.)
I'm not trying to be snarky here, I don't actually know the Summoner class very well as we don't use it in our home games. I know the eidolon can get weapon training, but I believe it doesn't work that way for unarmed strikes.
Plus, if an eidolon can use unarmed strikes, wouldn't you be really high level before you could buy enough evolutions that multiweapon attack could even come into play?
Remember, I'm not saying that possessing a limb means you have an unarmed strike. That's your assumption. I'm saying that creatures assigned unarmed strikes--most humanoids usable as player races--can have more than one, based on humanoid physical characteristics. This "rule" as you put it would not give unarmed strikes to creatures that don't already have them.
All creatures, with a physical body, can make unarmed strikes.
Eidolon are creatures.
Also, your quoting of the feats section in the Bestiary does nothing to disprove the ability of PC's ability to take those feats.
There's nothing to say they can't, as they do get hands from the limbs evolution and have a BAB but you have to remember that those unarmed attacks would only apply half STR bonus damage at -2 to BAB and would only roll a 1d3 for damage. Compare that with an eidolon using four natural attacks at full BAB, full strength bonus and a larger damage die. Balance issues gone.
Multi-weapon fighting is not very clear and I can't think of a monster that uses it, if any of you could find one (not a marilith which uses a unique ability) and link it I'll try to work out how it functions, I don't think Paizo employees even knows how it works. I agree with DeathQuaker's earlier post, BBT, you don't seem to realise that unarmed attacks depend on the iterative sequence, so without TWF or MWF you can have as many limbs as you want and still only be able to make as many UAs as your BAB allows. If we can work out how MWF functions it would help immensely....
No need for snark remarks.
The text you quoted, has nothing containing an indication of disallowin PCs to take the said feats.
@BBT: I have seen no rules evidence for any of your assertions regarding the "one attack" limit of US. Please supply some if you wish to continue asserting that.
The fact is, nothing that directly states in the rules whether you have one or a thousand unarmed strikes (outside of the monk rules, which list various body parts that can be used, but not whether they count as separate weapons). Because nothing states it, you must go with common sense. Common sense dictates that my left fist is a different weapon from my right fist, and are also different from my left and right feet. As DeathQuaker says, the most sensible conclusion is "one per limb."
Also stated is that you cannot use more than two normal weapons to fight no matter how many you are equipped with (natural weapon rules are separate and are not applicable, and the Multi-Weapon fighting feat is likewise a distraction as no normal character is allowed to take it due to pre-reqs).
The eidolon example is a moot point because any number of attacks they can gain via unarmed strike they can do better via natural attacks or (at worst) grabbing some light maces (1d6 light weapon). Remember that MWF does not give you more attacks than you have hands, and a weapon is always better than a fist (sans Monk levels, which Eidolons cannot take).
The short and skinny of it is: You *can* two-weapon fight unarmed strike and unarmed strike without being some special class or creature, but it isn't remotely optimal to do so.
(Though DeathQuaker is incorrect that RAW restricts monster feats, as it does not. The quoted text is merely to indicate that players are generally incapable of qualifying for those feats, with the notable exception of Craft Construct which exists in the bestiary so that it sits in the same book as its relevant content. That said, outside of Craft Construct, a DM should be wary of where their game is headed if players begin qualifying for monster feats.)
I feel there is not enough evidence for either conclusion.
As such, I cannot fully prove, or disprove, the ability to two weapon fight with unarmed strikes only.
I will state that, for clarity, I prefer the unarmed strike as one weapon.
I do wonder how PFS would handle this.
Indeed, there is no evidence for either conclusion. Even using NPCs from the APs is not really an option as the only ones that would try to TWF unarmed strikes would be monks, which has extra rules spelled out about that (even though nobody agrees how those rules work). Even if they did, APs have mistakes in them. Using a Bestiary would have the same problems.
I prefer the "one per limb" response as it seems to be balanced, simple, sensible and opens up character options. I prefer saying "yes" to opening up character options in absence of reasons to do otherwise. Saying "no" opens up all sorts of questions without dodging any balance or sensibility issues.
If there are problems that would arise from treating the unarmed strike as one weapon, I have yet to see them.
This is how it is commonly run in many games I play in, so if there are problems that might arise from treating the unarmed strike as one weapon, I would very much appreciate hearing them.
@BBT: As Jiggy notes here, this is the kind of questions players start asking when you restrict options by default rather than open them by default.
Ditto, everyone here agrees that brass knuckles count as separate weapons on both hands. Why then do these small bit of metal suddenly make TWF viable when it wasn't before? It runs counter to common sense. I believe that the RAI treat unarmed attacks from different limbs as distinct weapons, i.e separate and therefore perfectly ok for TWF. I see far more problems with treating unarmed strike as a single weapon. Has JJ seriously never been asked about this (IUS + TWF in general)?
dual wielding short swords and having a boot blade equipped, same problem comes up as being able to multi weapon fight.
EDIT: for the sake of argument lets drop unarmed attacks and use real weapons. a fighter equipped with two short swords, boot blade, barbazu beard, and a boulder helmet. he has full TWF line at level 20, how many attacks does he get?
he would get 7 which can be used with any mix of the above weapons correct? why would it be any different then being able to hit with two punches, a kick, a head butt, and a knee?
You're still using examples of two separate weapons, that always count as separate weapons, can be enchanted as separate weapons, and are treated as separate weapons for spells and effects.
With, the unarmed strike, you have to decide just how separate those multiples of weapons you decided to divide it into. You also have to decide which spells and effects treat it as one, or multiple weapons.
I see more rules conundrums with the multiple unarmed strike, than the single weapon unarmed strike.
Answer to problem: "Attack" is an abstraction that doesn't equal "swing." Two punches and a kick may be equal to a single "unarmed strike" just as two sweeps and a thrust may be equal to a single "sword attack." So the ability (or lack thereof) to get multiple unarmed strikes as part of low-BAB TWF does not necessarily mean that the person's actual punches are particularly "slow."
isnt the amulet of mighty fists the solution to that problem? you physically cant just enchant your body so you use the amulet to enchant all your unarmed strikes at once, it doesnt matter if you kick them or headbutt them its what the amulet is for, at least thats why i assumed it cost so much?
like if you have spiked gauntlets sure your making a punch but its not unarmed since your striking them with the cold iron spikes embedded in your leather glove and not with your actual knuckle. Im no rules lawyer by any means and just find your point interesting, ive NEVER heard anyone else claim they were one single attack. im not calling you wrong by any means keep in mind if thats how it works for your group more power to you.
These questions have never been answered, but one would assume that if they have to allocate to a specific weapon that they would have to pick a limb for unarmed strike.
You keep looking for RAW justifications, but they (sadly) do not exist for either side. This means that all you can do is sit down and think "What is fair and sensible?" To me, it is fair that each limb counts as one weapon (for all purposes), but since they are treated as manufactured weapons you are still strictly limited on your attack quantity (no more than a character with a couple of daggers would be capable of).
Of course, my opinion comes from a justification that it is easier to allow what seems possible than to ban it, and thus you should reserve the ban/restriction to cases where it causes problems. Your opinion seems to be to ban it just because you can, then you talk about how banning it hasn't caused problems. Of course it hasn't! Removing an option never causes power problems because people will just not use that path. What you should be asking is "Would allowing this cause problems?" If the answer is no, then you should allow it. If the answer is yes, THEN you restrict it.
If I banned everything except rolling an unmodified d20 for fights (winner takes all), the game would still go on and even be balanced, but it wouldn't be very fun (or at the very least, the game's rules would no longer be helping).
Natural Attacks: "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."
That certainly implies you can TWF with two hands using unarmed strikes.
As for how multiple limbs work in regards to extra off-hands, there's a FAQ request post for that here.
i would say yes, but thats just me. at that point it would have to be specifically called out as the right fist and at that point if twf'ing with unarmed would have only his primary attacks affected by bane. (or if for some reason wanted his secondary to be the bane attacks)
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BBT the rules team says its more than one weapon.