|
| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not looking to start a debate, just asking the question to get FAQ hits:
The description for Unarmed Strike in the Monk class (page 58, CRB) states that the Monk may make unarmed strikes even when his hands are full. Does this line imply that only Monks are capable of making unarmed strikes with their hands full, or are non-monks also able to make unarmed strikes even if their hands are full?
Do not discuss, please hit the FAQ.
I refuse to FAQ such an inane question.
Do you feel that discussing will somehow impact whether or not a person is capable of hitting the FAQ button? Do you completely block out the possibility that you've simply overlooked something someone could just show you in discussion?
|
|
Do you feel that discussing will somehow impact whether or not a person is capable of hitting the FAQ button? Do you completely block out the possibility that you've simply overlooked something someone could just show you in discussion?
I'm not opposed to discussion, I've already dealt with the discussion in another thread. I didn't intend to come off as snarky, so I apologize for that. My intent was to avoid the pointless back and forth, but to get the FAQ hits. But, I'm more than game to discuss.
You might want to read the unarmed strike entry.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You might want to read the unarmed strike entry.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
The question posed is whether this is an exception that proves the rule (meaning non-monks ordinarily cannot strike with their hands full because here exists a specific rule explaining a special case in which that can occur) or simply added fluff language (meaning non-monks can also strike with their hands full). Since the ordinary description for Unarmed Attacks lists punches, kicks, and headbutts, and then does not address whether a person may attack with an unarmed strike while their hands are full, there's an ambiguity.
Oh, I see. Sorry, I must be really tired and totally misread the OP's post.
I still say yes, though.
(Edited because I realise how confusing that sounded)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unarmed Attacks: "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for..." (blah blah blah)
Right there in the Combat chapter, nothing to do with monks.
There is no FAQ needed.
|
|
Unarmed Attacks: "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for..." (blah blah blah)
Right there in the Combat chapter, nothing to do with monks.
There is no FAQ needed.
Well, the issue isn't as cut and dry as you would like it to be. A first level fighter doesn't make 5 unarmed strikes, they make 1 unarmed strike that can be described as being made with a particular appendage. I am of the opinion that you are quoting flavor text, not a mechanical rule.
There are no feet unarmed strikes or hand unarmed strikes or head unarmed strikes. There is only unarmed strike. the rules deal with unarmed strike, not fist, feet, or headbutts.
Furthermore, the Monk description of unarmed strike takes the flavor one step further: it states that a Monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. This is more than flavor text, this is a direction telling you what you can do with a Monk's unarmed strike. The question I am asking is is this directive a specific exception that applies only to monks or is it something that applies to all. If it only applies to monks, then non-monks may not do unarmed strikes if their hands are full (even though I do realize that in real life, we can hold a sword in each hand and still kick someone). If it applies to non-monks too, why isn't it written in the combat section so it can apply to all? This is why there needs to be an FAQ.
EDIT: Fretgod states the issue pretty clearly.
Unarmed Strikes are treated as Light Weapons, they use BAB.
(I FAQ'd it, btw)
It is not flavor text. For the most part flavor text is artistic in nature, and not permissive.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:...
So the flavor text is going to tell you ways to use unarmed strike and then list exceptions(except for the following)?
Other than one intelligent monk ooze I have never seen a creature use an unarmed strike without limbs. Heck I've only ever seen it listed on a handful of humanoid stat blocks.
You want to make claims of many examples lets see them. Either on a stat block or listed in tactics I'm not picky.
Can a fighter take Improved Initiative as a bonus feat? The CRB says it's a Combat feat, but that's probably just flavor text. In fact, are there actually any feats that can be taken as fighter bonus feats? Since Barbarians also fight, shouldn't they also get all Fighter class features? Please FAQ my reasonable question to plug this obvious ambiguity in the rules.
A first level fighter doesn't make 5 unarmed strikes,
I fail to see what "Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons" has to do with anything.
|
|
It is not flavor text. For the most part flavor text is artistic in nature, and not permissive.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:...So the flavor text is going to tell you ways to use unarmed strike and then list exceptions(except for the following)?
(Is this directed towards me?)
I don't know, it sounds pretty artistic to me to describe an unarmed strike as being made with a kick, or punch, or headbutt, or whatever when the actual mechanic, itself, is called unarmed strike.
The "except for the following" language is telling you how the "unarmed strike" attack differs from an attack made by a melee weapon.
|
|
Can a fighter take Improved Initiative as a bonus feat? The CRB says it's a Combat feat, but that's probably just flavor text. In fact, are there actually any feats that can be taken as fighter bonus feats? Since Barbarians also fight, shouldn't they also get all Fighter class features? Please FAQ my reasonable question to plug this obvious ambiguity in the rules.
If only you could see beyond your own nose...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, it sounds pretty artistic to me to describe an unarmed strike as being made with a kick, or punch, or headbutt, or whatever when the actual mechanic, itself, is called unarmed strike.
"Unarmed" means "without a weapon". The "arm" in it means "weapon", not "the things with hands on the end".
"Strike" is a generic term for several types of blunt force trauma attacks and likewise does not imply "punch".
The mechanic's name is "blunt attack with a body part". The name does not imply hands. And the description explicitly states it doesn't need to be made with hands. That's why everybody else knows unarmed strikes can be kicks - because you need to ignore everything written about unarmed strikes in the rules to pretend it's even remotely ambiguous otherwise.
Here's another piece of evidence I'm sure you'll find some moon logic way of denying: Punishing Kick can be taken by non-Monks.
|
|
Robert, you're being obtuse and snarky.
The question isn't "can non-monks kick", the question has to do with language that was added to the Monk's unarmed strike description (which didn't exist in 3.0 or 3.5). If this language doesn't make the monk special, then why was it added? If non-monk characters were always capable of making unarmed strikes while their hands were otherwise occupied, why did the developers feel the need to draw this kind of attention to the monk?
Robert, you're being obtuse and snarky.
The question isn't "can non-monks kick", the question has to do with language that was added to the Monk's unarmed strike description (which didn't exist in 3.0 or 3.5). If this language doesn't make the monk special, then why was it added? If non-monk characters were always capable of making unarmed strikes while their hands were otherwise occupied, why did the developers feel the need to draw this kind of attention to the monk?
Clarity maybe? It's the kind of thing a monk player is likely to find useful so they find a way to add it into the monk section of the book. It's not strictly necessary, but it's helpful.
Most other classes arent going to be fighting unarmed as a matter of course, so they dont need to know it - those that do will presumably be able to find the information in the unarmed strike section.
It seems to me that these kinds of issues come up if you read the rules expecting them to be as clear as legislation. Ultimately, I think it's more fruitful to approach them as if they're a guidebook rather than an exhaustive set of rules (which is unachievable - no matter where one draws the line, there will be something not spelled out explicitly. Best to just not even try and be explicit but rather call on the reader to apply a healthy dose of subjective judgement, in my view).
Having a natural attack does not disallow a creature to make an unarmed strike.
You do not even need limbs.
I can use Vermin Shape to become a Giant Slug, and still have the ability to make unarmed strikes.
The burden of proof is still on you here bbt. You make this claim and throw out the monk cube every thread but never provide any more of your many examples.
|
|
In Pathfinder Adventure Path #45: Broken Moon, they have a Werewolf who uses unarmed strikes whilst in wolf form.
In Pathfinder 4: Fortress of the Stone Giants, they have a Harpy Monk, who, without hands, is able to use unarmed strikes and talons, whilst flying.
Also, there is no where, that the requirement of limbs is stated.
Not but a list of available parts is check wraithstrikes post above.
I'll have to check the wolf but of course the harpy could make one based off the listed type of attacks. Kicks punches heck even a wolf could headbutt being that it has human int. show me the unintelligent wolf or the creature lacking those parts.
Musculature varies and most of the time for something like a slug or oize it's called a slam.
Agreed if they can head butt or punch or kick.
I'm not arguing its one or the other I'm saying that blobs/ cannonballs/ rugs do not have said ability.