Bane Wraith |
The question: Can an Unarmed Strike ever be considered a Concealed Weapon?
This topic is particularly of interest to rogues or ninjas wishing to use the "underhanded" rogue talent.
A previous thread I posted was marked for FAQ; Staff response was 'no response needed'.
Looking up questions regarding the Underhanded rogue talent, it seems there was a thread that might clarify its use of concealed weapons, And it claims to have been answered in the FAQ, but I have found no such entry.
Other threads have some community input, but no official answer.
Could anyone lend some aid on the matter?
Secret Wizard |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is fully concealed. I would allow anyone with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, however, to identify someone's training with blows though, just like proficiencies with concealed weapons make it easier for those weapons to be identified.
Also, it's not like the Underhanded feat is THAT powerful that it needs to be checked, it only allows for a single attack so it's efficiency is capped from beforehand.
Bane Wraith |
Sap Adept, Sap Master, Knockout Artist, and underhanded all together can be used to specialize in exceptional high non-lethal sneak attack damage, even if only one such strike is maximized.
Furthermore, concealed weapons have a significant number of mechanical drawbacks already included with them. Regardless whether or not "Underhanded" is subjectively viewed as underpowered, one can't ignore other such restrictions.
Knowing whether Unarmed Strikes can be concealed might also hint towards their unexpected use in starting Surprise Rounds.
All in all, it's powerful enough to consider rule checking, regardless what sheer intuition yields.
Artemis Moonstar |
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work, in all honesty.
Now I can just see some ninja, OoTS style, jumping out and shouting "SUCKER PUNCH!" as he nails some unsuspecting mook in the face.
Considering I'd never thought of this particular talent + unarmed strikes... I'm now going to slot this talent into my grapple-strangle-nonlethal ninja. Thanks buddy.
Bane Wraith |
I should have read "Underhanded" a bit better. Actually, it seems that unarmed strikes, even if somehow counted as concealed weapons, Cannot be used with "Underhanded" unless the rogue/ninja is also literally concealed, or unknown to the victim.
... Furthermore, if she makes a sneak attack during the surprise round using a concealed weapon that her opponent didn't know about, ...
Keywords are "Didn't know about". Arguably, everyone Knows that a moving body can be used as a weapon, regardless of proficiency, lethality or lack thereof. This suggests the only an undetected body can apply.
This seems to make the talent somewhat useful to a stealthed character, but of much greater use to a character adept at using concealed weaponry.
Apologies for any hopes that were raised.
Edit: However, an official answer may still clarify whether or not unarmed strikes can start surprise rounds, or be considered concealed weapons elsewhere.
graystone |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should have read "Underhanded" a bit better. Actually, it seems that unarmed strikes, even if somehow counted as concealed weapons, Cannot be used with "Underhanded" unless the rogue/ninja is also literally concealed, or unknown to the victim.
PRD, under 'Underhanded' rogue talent wrote:
... Furthermore, if she makes a sneak attack during the surprise round using a concealed weapon that her opponent didn't know about, ...Keywords are "Didn't know about". Arguably, everyone Knows that a moving body can be used as a weapon, regardless of proficiency, lethality or lack thereof. This suggests the only an undetected body can apply.
This seems to make the talent somewhat useful to a stealthed character, but of much greater use to a character adept at using concealed weaponry.
Apologies for any hopes that were raised.
Edit: However, an official answer may still clarify whether or not unarmed strikes can start surprise rounds, or be considered concealed weapons elsewhere.
Put the arm in a fake splint/bandage/cast. By making it look useless you could make it an a 'a concealed weapon that her opponent didn't know about' by bluffing that it isn't usable.
Bane Wraith |
Put the arm in a fake splint/bandage/cast. By making it look useless you could make it an a 'a concealed weapon that her opponent didn't know about' by bluffing that it isn't usable.
I love the idea. Unfortunately I'd argue firstly that such a method would require a full-body-cast, a bluff to be asleep, immobilized, unconscious, etc, such as that No part of one's body can be used.
Secondly, it's debatable whether "know" implies belief or disbelief, rather than blunt physical awareness. Thus, if a body is there, visually perceived, one knows about it.
So far it seems blackbloodtroll's interpretation is the only one that sticks, seemingly counting the whole body as a weapon, and thus, needing the whole body to be concealed.
blackbloodtroll |
I'd argue most people *can't* use their body as a weapon (effectively, anyway), so most people have no reason to suspect you're a trained unarmed fighter.
But I'm pretty lenient.
Meaningless.
A Commoner could have a Katana smuggled away, that they could not "effectively use".
This does not mean they can carry it in plain sight, and claim it "concealed".
wraithstrike |
I don't think you can really conceal an unarmed strike, but then again would you need to? If someone sees that you are unarmed they will not likely see you as a dangerous person unless they have information on you.
RAI, I think the intent was only for manufactured weapons. Anything else would likely require a GM call.
Kazumetsa_Raijin |
The question: Can an Unarmed Strike ever be considered a Concealed Weapon?
This topic is particularly of interest to rogues or ninjas wishing to use the "underhanded" rogue talent.
A previous thread I posted was marked for FAQ; Staff response was 'no response needed'.
Looking up questions regarding the Underhanded rogue talent, it seems there was a thread that might clarify its use of concealed weapons, And it claims to have been answered in the FAQ, but I have found no such entry.
Other threads have some community input, but no official answer.
Could anyone lend some aid on the matter?
IMO, you should ask Every GM you deal with about this. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it either. A non-lethal high-damage dealer is something that's pretty rare, ultimately really cool, and probably quite effective!
The way I see it, is an unarmed strike considers you armed all the time. That weapon is always out and available. However, just because you have your arms out, like your fellow comrade, other NPCs shouldn't look at you like YOU'RE plotting something, and then ignore your comrade. Arms are Arms; and everyone(almost) has them. Unless you have it in the readied position to strike, I'd see it as rested and essentially concealed. I could understand if the GM wanted a Bluff roll vs an NPC's Sense Motive if you indicated to the GM you were going to attempt the Underhanded Rogue Talent - at the most. Reason with your GM - It's not like it'll be game-breaking or even near game-breaking.
RAW - I don't recall seeing anything, so I cannot help you with that :T
RAW and RAI both need to be taken into account, for both the sake of balance and sense. Good luck, and I hope it works out for you!
Bane Wraith |
IMO, you should ask Every GM you deal with about this. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it either. A non-lethal high-damage dealer is something that's pretty rare, ultimately really cool, and probably quite effective!
The way I see it, is an unarmed strike considers you armed all the time. That weapon is always out and available. However, just because you have your arms out, like your fellow comrade, other NPCs shouldn't look at you like YOU'RE plotting something, and then ignore your comrade. Arms are Arms; and everyone(almost) has them. Unless you have it in the readied position to strike, I'd see it as rested and essentially concealed. I could understand if the GM wanted a Bluff roll vs an NPC's Sense Motive if you indicated to the GM you were going to attempt the Underhanded Rogue Talent - at the most. Reason with your GM - It's not like it'll be game-breaking or even near game-breaking.
RAW - I don't recall seeing anything, so I cannot help you with that :T
RAW and RAI both need to be taken into account, for both the sake of balance and sense. Good luck, and I hope it works out for you!
It is quite powerful. Given the ability to flank, and/or catch an enemy flat-footed, as appropriate:
At level 5 vs an ordinary humanoid, an ordinary rogue (w/ Improved Unarmed Strike) can deal out 1d3 + 3d6 lethal damage, plus, perhaps, some sneak-attack modifying talent, or helpful feat.
At level 5 vs an ordinary humanoid, a non-lethal specialized rogue can deal 1d3 + 54 non-lethal damage (Sap Adept, Sap Master, Knockout Artist, Underhanded). Enough to 1-hit-KO some npcs.
Vs some other hostile creature, the normal rogue deals 1d3 +3d6 lethal damage.
Vs some other hostile creature, given No benefit from the above talents and feats, a non-lethal rogue deals... 1d3 + 3d6 lethal damage.
That being said, I'm fond of building characters that'd be readily accepted in any pathfinder game. Having a useless talent, and a character misleadingly built around the concept of "I like to dress up as a noble, infiltrate a wealthy house, and surprise-round roundhouse kick them in the face" .... would not be ideal. It is always wise to pursue the RAW.
Thank you for your input. I hope this thread helps others make their decision until an official call is made, should one be.
Bane Wraith |
the reason they replied with "no comment needed" is because: use your logic.
no one expects your hands to be a deadly weapon.
It's really more like a need for clarification on:
What constitutes being "Aware" of the possibility of an unarmed strike for surprise rounds, and
What "knowing" about the unarmed strike (and whether it can be concealed in the first place) for the Underhanded rogue talent.
Common sense only takes one so far, makes it a GM-call. Logic in the matter seems to actually point to the conclusion that one's Entire Body is considered a light weapon, and thus, needs to be concealed, to meet the requirements.
Artemis Moonstar |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually that's taking the logic a little too far, in comparison to game rules.
Take this with a grain of salt, since I can't recall where I read it, but last I was aware of, an "unarmed strike" only occurs with one's hand. You need, for some reason, Monk training (or Brawler now) to UAS with another part of your body.
Now, really. Think about it. Some random guy is walking down the street, or a new servant is preparing your meal, or that guy in the bar is buying you a drink. Would you expect ANYONE to have as deadly a training as a Monk/Brawler? Or that they would invest their first level perk into IUAS?
Walking down the street, do you expect anyone you pass, real world, to be able to punch you in such a way that indicates serious martial training and practice? Or, even if not with said practice, in any real way that would KO you in one shot?
How many people are paranoid enough that some random guy they're talking to is going to sucker-punch their lights out? Sure, someone could just up and hit you for no reason, but if everyone was expecting someone to nail them, and thus 'be aware' of such an attack, then there would never need to be any surprise rounds in the game!
Kazumetsa_Raijin |
How many people are paranoid enough that some random guy they're talking to is going to sucker-punch their lights out? Sure, someone could just up and hit you for no reason, but if everyone was expecting someone to nail them, and thus 'be aware' of such an attack, then there would never need to be any surprise rounds in the game!
Well, maybe if you're on the streets of New York and all those punks playing the "knockout game"... XD
Bane Wraith |
Actually that's taking the logic a little too far, in comparison to game rules.
I do take it as far as I can, yes. And I do not disagree at all with your points. Had I been GM, of course I'd be aiming at a fair balance between a literal interpretation of the rules, and common sense. However, the point is a bit moot unless there's a final say in what the RAW are, and I feel the most literal reading of the rules is as "safe" as it's going to get otherwise.
The main point to be made is that, regardless of proficiency or applicable feats, unarmed strikes from anywhere count as light weapons. The PRD mentions punches, kicks, and headbutts, and seems to hint to more possibilities. Thus, the body as a whole is a "light" weapon.
If you are "aware" of it, there is no surprise round. However, the text under 'surprise rounds' suggests there could be checks Other than perception (such as sense motive?) to determine who's 'aware' that the opponent is armed. It passes.
For underhanded, it's not so simple; They simply need to Know about it. Arguably, anyone that meets a physical creature capable of movement, knows they have a physical body capable of unarmed attacks (regardless of expectation). The only Truly safe solution seems to be as blackbloodtroll suggests; Hide the body entirely.
That being said, I'm thankful for the input. I've seen it repeated several times. I agree with it, should I ever be in the judging position. The point of putting this in the Rules section was merely to see if there's any other proof in the RAW, to be as safe as possible.
Secret Wizard |
Yo, I know the combo.
I still think this isn't that powerful. You can only do it CHA*times a day and only for a single hit on a dude on the surprise round.
To me, all unarmed strikes are concealed unless the opponent has Improved Unarmed Strike, or some Knowledge that pertains that training (religion for Monks, local for Brawlers).
I just think that an armed guard wouldn't mind an unarmed dude coming close up... but then, you need to be pretty unassuming too.
I'd require some Sleight of Hand check though.
Bane Wraith |
I'd require some Sleight of Hand check though.
Was considering it as the other possible alternative. Gives a chance for the opponent to realize they're about to be jumped, even if there's no other suspicious activity. A Sleight of hand check to, say, inconspicuously maneuver a fist or foot outside of their field of vision...
It seems like a good compromise, but not one I'd expect Every GM to abide by.
Magicdealer |
Here's my take: how many people do you look at and go, "There's no possible way they could ever attack me with a part of their body!"
Very, very few.
When I look at another person, I don't automatically assume that they couldn't try to slap me, punch me, or kick me. It's part of the basic toolkit people are born with.
Unless the person literally has no body, I'm going to assume they could lash out with their limbs. It's tough to argue that an enemy will look at another person and assume they don't have the default capabilities of any humanoid.
So, it's the "didn't know about" part that catches me. If the opponent has the opportunity to recognize another person is present, and possesses arms and legs, they're not going to get that ability.
If, on the other hand, the attacker has been invisible/stealthed the whole time, and the opponent is unaware of their presence/physical form, then it would work.
Bob Bob Bob |
I can't see any circumstance in which an unarmed strike would count as a concealed weapon unless you were literally just a torso or just a head. And I do mean just a torso, not even a head attached.
Everyone can make an unarmed strike. The only penalty for not being proficient is that it provokes but you can't take the AoO unless you're armed. So if the guard doesn't have his weapon out or Improved Unarmed Strike, random people can totally walk up and just punch him in the face all day long. The solution to this for guards is to wear gauntlets so they're always armed. Still, they expect the punch.
Sleight of Hand to hide your hands seems... silly, at the very least. Bluff doesn't really stop them from realizing you can punch them (even children hit things all the time). Stealth works best I think, because if they don't know you're there they definitely don't know about your weapons. Do brass knuckles in a glove count as concealed enough? Nobody can be aware of them and they're always wielded. No idea if wearing a glove over brass knuckles stops them from working. I know how reality works, but it and the game don't always agree.
Bandw2 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Artemis Moonstar wrote:Actually that's taking the logic a little too far, in comparison to game rules.I do take it as far as I can, yes. And I do not disagree at all with your points. Had I been GM, of course I'd be aiming at a fair balance between a literal interpretation of the rules, and common sense. However, the point is a bit moot unless there's a final say in what the RAW are, and I feel the most literal reading of the rules is as "safe" as it's going to get otherwise.
The main point to be made is that, regardless of proficiency or applicable feats, unarmed strikes from anywhere count as light weapons. The PRD mentions punches, kicks, and headbutts, and seems to hint to more possibilities. Thus, the body as a whole is a "light" weapon.
If you are "aware" of it, there is no surprise round. However, the text under 'surprise rounds' suggests there could be checks Other than perception (such as sense motive?) to determine who's 'aware' that the opponent is armed. It passes.
For underhanded, it's not so simple; They simply need to Know about it. Arguably, anyone that meets a physical creature capable of movement, knows they have a physical body capable of unarmed attacks (regardless of expectation). The only Truly safe solution seems to be as blackbloodtroll suggests; Hide the body entirely.
That being said, I'm thankful for the input. I've seen it repeated several times. I agree with it, should I ever be in the judging position. The point of putting this in the Rules section was merely to see if there's any other proof in the RAW, to be as safe as possible.
when Paizo says that they don't need to comment, it's because they're pretty sure people are just doing illogical things. They don't want to FAQ everything, and people need to know that the rules imply more than the letter of the law. the Game is supposed to be heavily based on GM interpretation, especially non-combat and what constitutes things like aware or what can give a surprise round.
claudekennilol |
Here's my take: how many people do you look at and go, "There's no possible way they could ever attack me with a part of their body!"
Very, very few.
When I look at another person, I don't automatically assume that they couldn't try to slap me, punch me, or kick me. It's part of the basic toolkit people are born with.
Unless the person literally has no body, I'm going to assume they could lash out with their limbs. It's tough to argue that an enemy will look at another person and assume they don't have the default capabilities of any humanoid.
So, it's the "didn't know about" part that catches me. If the opponent has the opportunity to recognize another person is present, and possesses arms and legs, they're not going to get that ability.
If, on the other hand, the attacker has been invisible/stealthed the whole time, and the opponent is unaware of their presence/physical form, then it would work.
You're seriously trying to tell us that the first thing you think whenever you see someone is that they have the potential to attack you? What a sad state of life to be in..
Snorter |
For those saying the ability only works if the attacker is invisible, stepping out from cover, etc, you're effectively houseruling the ability into pointlessness.
The reason for the extra damage, is that you've tricked your enemy into a false sense of security, by appearing less dangerous than you actually are. That isn't negated, by having them see you. It's how the trick is carried out.
If you rule that it only applies when attacking from invisibility/cover, or being teleported into the fray, then the talent wouldn't be called 'Underhanded'; it would have a name like 'SooperDooper Extra-Damage Dimension Door Groin Punch', and the attacker has no obligation to appear unassuming. You could carry it off while doused in a bucket of your enemies' blood, wearing a banner pole of skulls, a necklace of severed ears, and a sign round your neck saying 'World's Most Experienced Unarmed Combatant', while screaming "I'VE KILLED A MILLION PEOPLE WITH MY BARE HAAAAANDS!"
Snorter |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if one of THOSE people, who wants to insist that 'My character would never be surprised/never fall for a ruse/never be subject to a feint/never underestimate a foe/never fail to react to an incoming attack' (of which I've had the 'pleasure' of gaming with in the past), then I'll insist on making you roll a Fort save vs coronary every minute, as you spin around on the spot, wherever you go, weapon drawn, keeping every person in move range fully watched at all times, and batting at thin air to scare away potential invisible assailants, 'Just in case, because that is where I would have ambushed me...'.
"That inebriated beggar, vomiting in the gutter, he could be a drunken master of the Cider-Winder dojo!"
"That fat bloke sat outside the pie shop? He could be the world's most lethal sumotori!"
"That little girl with the skipping rope could be a Childlike halfling Nunchuk Sensei!"
"FLEE! FLEE FOR YOUR LIVES! DON'T LET THEM NEAR YOU! FIREBALL THE STREET! DROP COMETS ON THE HOUSES! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO BE SAAAAAFE!"
<gag> <choke>
BigNorseWolf |
considering that as an adventurer, you've been attacked by...
that "cloak of resistance" that was actually a cloaker
The "treasure chest" that was a mimic
The "stalactite" that was a piercer
The "harmless songbird" that was a druid with empowered call lightning
The "scyth trap" that came alive and attacked the rogue when he tried to disarm it because it was a deathtrap ooze.
The creepy little girl who turned out to be a demon in disguise
Your best friend, under a dominate person from the vampire...
who was also the mayor who sent you on the quest
I think a little paranoia is in order.
LazarX |
The question: Can an Unarmed Strike ever be considered a Concealed Weapon?
Has your target ever seen you hit with improved unarmed strike or have reason to suspect you have such abilities?
The answer to that question either makes it a non issue or impossible.
graystone |
The main point to be made is that, regardless of proficiency or applicable feats, unarmed strikes from anywhere count as light weapons. The PRD mentions punches, kicks, and headbutts, and seems to hint to more possibilities. Thus, the body as a whole is a "light" weapon.
If you are "aware" of it, there is no surprise round. However, the text under 'surprise rounds' suggests there could be checks Other than perception (such as sense motive?) to determine who's 'aware' that the opponent is armed. It passes.
For underhanded, it's not so simple; They simply need to Know about it. Arguably, anyone that meets a physical creature capable of movement, knows they have a physical body capable of unarmed attacks (regardless of expectation). The only Truly safe solution seems to be as blackbloodtroll suggests; Hide the body entirely.
That being said, I'm thankful for the input. I've seen it repeated several times. I agree with it, should I ever be in the judging position. The point of putting this in the Rules section was merely to see if there's any other proof in the RAW, to be as safe as possible.
Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?
Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
It's possible to deal with just one part of the body instead of the entire thing with unarmed strike. The above FAQ shows that. An arm/hand unarmed strike is treated differently that a kick or a head butt. So disguising the arm as wounded and unusable should work. You have to be aware of the weapon so you #1 have to know about it and #2 know it can be used as a weapon. An injured arm wouldn't be seen as usable and as such isn't a viable weapon. Hence it should work with underhanded.
Magicdealer |
You're seriously trying to tell us that the first thing you think whenever you see someone is that they have the potential to attack you? What a sad state of life to be in..
You're seriously trying to tell me that when you look at another person, you suddenly lose all understanding of the physical capabilities of their body?
Gee, I don't know of they could flail in my direction with their limbs! Or move at all! And what's that slit in their mouth for?!
That's a pretty sad state to be in, indeed.
There's a big difference between being aware that a person has the capability of punching you, and expecting every person ever to punch you. The ability in question talks about awareness of the weapon, not expectation that it will be used on you.
Bane Wraith |
... I am Quite pleased to see a vibrant controversy on the matter. It seems the one side argues towards "common sense", and/or that lack of expectation denotes being unaware. The other seems to sympathize that it's only logical to assume a body is Capable of attack by any moving part, and thus, witnesses are always "Aware". Others compromise between the two, such as feigning an injury.
when Paizo says that they don't need to comment, it's because they're pretty sure people are just doing illogical things. They don't want to FAQ everything, and people need to know that the rules imply more than the letter of the law. the Game is supposed to be heavily based on GM interpretation, especially non-combat and what constitutes things like aware or what can give a surprise round.
I'm particularly fond of the above comment, and would recommend that outlook to any GM I encounter, that might also be troubled about what is RAW.
A personal thank you to Snorter for the hilarity.
It seems to me that this is about as close to Consensus as the subject is going to go, with both sides being quite fair, unless any new evidence is brought to light. As none has been, I merely offer my thanks to those that have commented thus far.
Tarantula |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read it as this: Unless you make a sleight of hand check to conceal a weapon, then it is not concealed. So, if you want to underhanded suckerpunch somebody, make a sleight of hand check, and they get their perception against it. Unarmed strikes are light weapons, so they qualify for being concealed. I'd even go so far as to give the unarmed strike a +6 to conceal, as a shuriken grants a +4, and I think it would be easier than that to hide. Add in the +4 from the underhanded talent, and the sleight of hand check is at a +10.
If their perception check was lower than your sleight of hand check, they were unaware of you preparing to strike them, and you get the talent benefit. If their perception was higher than your sleight of hand, they see you make a fist, or otherwise somehow "tell" than you are prepared to attack. (Popping knuckles, something, explain it however you want).
I see the intent of underhanded is to offer a sleight of hand vs perception check, that if you succeed you get the benefits of the talent. So allow it that.