Well I can kick but I don't know about most classes.
Anyway being serious for a second, I a horse can use its hooves to kick. So you could change into one to kick as a druid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An unarmed strike is an attack such as a punch or a kick where the attacker is not using a weapon to make the attack.
There ya go.
I was under the impression that all unarmed strikes could be considered as any part of the body? There's also sea knives, and while they're difficult to use on land, if you're underwater or can fly/hover they could essentially give you a slashing kick. I'm fairly certain there are other weapons that are used with one's feet or attached to boots.
Even discounting kicks as solid attacks, I'm fairly certain that as long as you have legs you can kick. Is there a reason you'd need to kick with a class other than monk or brawler? Did you want a warrior to pierce through an enemy with impaling critical and use a kick to dislodge the enemy from his weapon? Did you want someone to kick a door down? Were you planning to have your party face off against another in a thrilling football/soccer match?
In the combat section of the Core Rulebook it describes unarmed attacks as "punches, kicks, and headbutts". Seems pretty clear
Yes.
In some old posts SKR seems (to me anyway) to think thats a monk only thing though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any class can kick. But only a monk (edit: or brawler) can kick with their hands full.
Any class can kick. But only a monk (edit: or brawler) can kick with their hands full.
I'm pretty sure thats not true, could you post where that's written?
Any class can kick. But only a monk (edit: or brawler) can kick with their hands full.I'm pretty sure thats not true, could you post where that's written?
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. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Doesn't mean that others can't do it, but it at least implies it.
The combat chapter does say:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
|
Monks and brawlers can use other parts of their body than fists to attack with unarmed strike. Can other classes kick at all by the rules?
Unarmed strike means, literally, any strike made unarmed. Kicks, punches, whatever. GM's digression, certainly, but if you really wanted to use a tongue strike like Mercenary Tao (Dragonball), you could use unarmed strike for that.
That said, just because you are kicking, doesn't mean you have that many more attacks. You have two "hands" worth of attacks, even if you aren't using your actual hands. So two weapons, or one weapon, even if that weapon is an unarmed strike.
The improved unarmed feat strike changes the normal unarmed strike to not provoke and to be able to deal lethal damage.
Monks and Brawlers (and a few others) also have increased damage with their unarmed strikes.
As in real life, actual weapons are better unless you've actually trained to make your unarmed strikes impressive.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If you were a non-flurry-based unarmed fighter, you could two weapon fight with your unarmed attack kicks and still use some natural claw attacks with your hands, albeit at the -5 penalty for secondary attacks.
There are a lot os "special" abilities in the game that are normal. I don't see why someone can't kick even if they're holding a dagger.
There are a lot os "special" abilities in the game that are normal. I don't see why someone can't kick even if they're holding a dagger.
You can kick someone if you're holding a dagger. But by RAW the unwritten metaphysical hand rule that isn't official but just how the designers and developers play the game; you can't kick someone if you're wielding two daggers or wielding a 2-handed weapon or wearing armour spikes and wielding a dagger.
There are a lot os "special" abilities in the game that are normal. I don't see why someone can't kick even if they're holding a dagger.You can kick someone if you're holding a dagger. But byRAWthe unwritten metaphysical hand rule that isn't official but just how the designers and developers play the game; you can't kick someone if you're wielding two daggers or wielding a 2-handed weapon or wearing armour spikes and wielding a dagger.
No, you can HOLD two daggers and kick someone on the head, or even hold two daggers and kick someone in the head twice and not violate the metaphorical hands rule. Dagger dagger boot to the head boot to the head WOULD violate that rule. You can allow one without getting into the other.
No, you can HOLD two daggers and kick someone on the head, or even hold two daggers and kick someone in the head twice and not violate the metaphorical hands rule. Dagger dagger boot to the head boot to the head WOULD violate that rule. You can allow one without getting into the other.There are a lot os "special" abilities in the game that are normal. I don't see why someone can't kick even if they're holding a dagger.You can kick someone if you're holding a dagger. But byRAWthe unwritten metaphysical hand rule that isn't official but just how the designers and developers play the game; you can't kick someone if you're wielding two daggers or wielding a 2-handed weapon or wearing armour spikes and wielding a dagger.
I agree, you can hold but not wield. Interestingly, by following the same logic a PC can carry treasure sacks in their hands/arms and legitimately kick and head-butt as their metaphysical hands are empty.
Actually, you're perfectly fine to wield weapons in both your hands while continuing to kick.
Just don't break your metaphysical attacks per round and you're good.
That argument isn't supported if you believe the specific rule overrides the general rule. The Monk and Brawler have the specific rule saying that they can. The general wording for improved unarmed strike omits that statement.
Anyone with legs can kick.
You do not need to be a monk to kick with your hands full. That is reminder text.
But without any feats or class investiture,the best you'll get is one unarmed attack per BAB iteration for d3 +strength non lethal damage,and you'll provoke against any armed opponent, which includes someone with the improved unarmed strike feat.
Wield isn't a very well defined term. (I tend to think of it as "is making a good faith effort to pt the pointy end of said item into someone)
As long as you don't attack with a two-handed weapon, or 2 daggers in your hands, a shield bash and armor spikes, etc., you can make unarmed attacks with parts of your body other than your hands. The text that specifies that the monk can make unarmed strikes with hands full came over from the original 3.x OGL monk, and was not meant to restrict what non-monk characters can do.
That argument isn't supported if you believe the specific rule overrides the general rule. The Monk and Brawler have the specific rule saying that they can. The general wording for improved unarmed strike omits that statement.Actually, you're perfectly fine to wield weapons in both your hands while continuing to kick.
Just don't break your metaphysical attacks per round and you're good.
It's not a case of specific vs. general when specific and general don't contradict each other. Monk/Brawler says you can make unarmed strikes with your hands full. Unarmed Attack says you can kick people, and doesn't introduce any conditions such as not having your hands full. These are in no way contradictory statements; omission is absolutely not the same thing as contradiction.
Honestly, saying that a character can't do something because some other specific rules text somewhere about doing it could be read to imply that it's not possible some other way is a truly terrible way to go about things. It would mean that every time you wanted to know if you could do something, you'd have to read the whole damn book(s?) to make sure nothing else could maybe imply some contradiction to the thing that says you can. That's a horror show.
That argument isn't supported if you believe the specific rule overrides the general rule. The Monk and Brawler have the specific rule saying that they can. The general wording for improved unarmed strike omits that statement.Actually, you're perfectly fine to wield weapons in both your hands while continuing to kick.
Just don't break your metaphysical attacks per round and you're good.
It's not a case of specific vs. general when specific and general don't contradict each other. Monk/Brawler says you can make unarmed strikes with your hands full. Unarmed Attack says you can kick people, and doesn't introduce any conditions such as not having your hands full. These are in no way contradictory statements; omission is absolutely not the same thing as contradiction.
Honestly, saying that a character can't do something because some other specific rules text somewhere about doing it could be read to imply that it's not possible some other way is a truly terrible way to go about things. It would mean that every time you wanted to know if you could do something, you'd have to read the whole damn book(s?) to make sure nothing else could maybe imply some contradiction to the thing that says you can. That's a horror show.
There's a big difference between doing something and doing it with effect.
You may watch a karate demonstration, and say "Hey, I can slam a pile of bricks with MY hand." But without the training, the only thing you're likely to do with your hand trying the same stunt is break it.
That's the difference between a monk, brawler, and some average idiot flailing with his fist.
...
There's a big difference between doing something and doing it with effect.
You may watch a karate demonstration, and say "Hey, I can slam a pile of bricks with MY hand." But without the training, the only thing you're likely to do with your hand trying the same stunt is break it.
That's the difference between a monk, brawler, and some average idiot flailing with his fist.
That "average idiot" provokes an AoO with every swing. We almost certainly aren't talking about that person. We are talking about someone who is actually competent. Someone who almost certainly has Improved Unarmed Strike. Someone who is either a very capable warrior(has a respectable HD) or has devoted much of their spare time to unarmed combat (spending what might be their *only* feat on IUS).
Are you seriously trying to argue that, aside from the monk, brawler and a handful of archetypes, it's reasonable that it is totally impossible for anyone to be able to hurt someone with a kick while their hands are occupied, regardless of training. Someone who can effectively engage a sword wielding maniac with their bare fists somehow can't headbutt a person without dropping what they are holding? Really?
That "average idiot" provokes an AoO with every swing. We almost certainly aren't talking about that person. We are talking about someone who is actually competent. Someone who almost certainly has Improved Unarmed Strike....
There's a big difference between doing something and doing it with effect.
You may watch a karate demonstration, and say "Hey, I can slam a pile of bricks with MY hand." But without the training, the only thing you're likely to do with your hand trying the same stunt is break it.
That's the difference between a monk, brawler, and some average idiot flailing with his fist.
That's not what's being talked about in the passage "anyone can kick".
You can not get kicks in addition to your iterative attacks. Because unlike an animal's claws, bite, they are not natural attacks, at best only improvisations compared to effective animal attack modes. You can USE them instead for iterative attacks but for anyone not trained in unarmed combat, it's generally a poor choice to do so, for reasons already covered.
Improved Unarmed Strike makes weaponless attacks a better option, but you don't get them as a set of natural attacks to be layered on top of your weapon attacks, you get to choose them as one of your set of possibilities for iterative attacks. So if you aren't a class that flurries, you can use Improved Unarmed Strike as part of your iterative set. So yes, if you want to carry groceries and melee with your feet, you can do so. If you want to wield a great sword, you get to choose whether you kick with your feet or strike with your blade.... not both.
That's not what's being talked about in the passage "anyone can kick".That "average idiot" provokes an AoO with every swing. We almost certainly aren't talking about that person. We are talking about someone who is actually competent. Someone who almost certainly has Improved Unarmed Strike....
There's a big difference between doing something and doing it with effect.
You may watch a karate demonstration, and say "Hey, I can slam a pile of bricks with MY hand." But without the training, the only thing you're likely to do with your hand trying the same stunt is break it.
That's the difference between a monk, brawler, and some average idiot flailing with his fist.
Your excuse for why someone can't hold something and kick is because that person is untrained and incompetent at hand to hand combat.
Unfortunately, aside from a couple of classes/archetypes, the exact same thing goes for skilled combatants. A level 20 unarmed based fighter has exactly zero rules differences to a level 1 commoner with regards to this issue. Using "they are untrained" as a reason is nonsensical, because most trained people are in the same boat according to the same rules text.
EDIT: Hold on, what exactly is your position?
Improved Unarmed Strike makes weaponless attacks a better option, but you don't get them as a set of natural attacks to be layered on top of your weapon attacks, you get to choose them as one of your set of possibilities for iterative attacks. So if you aren't a class that flurries, you can use Improved Unarmed Strike as part of your iterative set. So yes, if you want to carry groceries and melee with your feet, you can do so. If you want to wield a great sword, you get to choose whether you kick with your feet or strike with your blade.... not both.
I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting you can get extra attacks with unarmed strikes beyond your normal iteratives+maybe TWF. What people are arguing about is if the mere act of wielding a weapon in your hand (and *not* attacking it) is enough to restrict unarmed strikes. That's what I assumed you were supporting, since you argued against someone who was against exactly that?
I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting you can get extra attacks with unarmed strikes beyond your normal iteratives+maybe TWF. What people are arguing about is if the mere act of wielding a weapon in your hand (and *not* attacking it) is enough to restrict unarmed strikes. That's what I assumed you were supporting, since you argued against someone who was against exactly that?
I was taking issue with the imprecise use of language 'anyone can kick" because it HAS been used by those who would argue that kicks should be a supplement to weapon attacks because arms plus legs equals 4 limbs.
Monks and brawlers can use other parts of their body than fists to attack with unarmed strike. Can other classes kick at all by the rules?
Yes, provided they haven't used their allowed attacks for the round. As in a level 1 fighter can kick once, a level 6 fighter can kick twice (excluding weird TWF attacks, which also resolve as normal). It doesnt matter what you are weilding/holding in your hands. Provided you don't attack more than your BAB and feats allow you to do.
This should sum it up nicely?
|
I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting you can get extra attacks with unarmed strikes beyond your normal iteratives+maybe TWF. What people are arguing about is if the mere act of wielding a weapon in your hand (and *not* attacking it) is enough to restrict unarmed strikes. That's what I assumed you were supporting, since you argued against someone who was against exactly that?I was taking issue with the imprecise use of language 'anyone can kick" because it HAS been used by those who would argue that kicks should be a supplement to weapon attacks because arms plus legs equals 4 limbs.
'anyone can kick' is definitely ambiguous.
I took it to mean 'You don't need a feat or a class feature to kick'
Not 'There is no circumstance that could possibly prevent someone from kicking'
I also think it is possible for someone holding a weapon to forgo their weapon attack to perform an unarmed strike. It will usually be suboptimal, but there may be good reasons to do it. Maybe you want to do nonlethal damage. Maybe you want to provoke an attack of opportunity. Maybe you want to humiliate your opponent. It shouldn't matter.
I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting you can get extra attacks with unarmed strikes beyond your normal iteratives+maybe TWF. What people are arguing about is if the mere act of wielding a weapon in your hand (and *not* attacking it) is enough to restrict unarmed strikes. That's what I assumed you were supporting, since you argued against someone who was against exactly that?I was taking issue with the imprecise use of language 'anyone can kick" because it HAS been used by those who would argue that kicks should be a supplement to weapon attacks because arms plus legs equals 4 limbs.'anyone can kick' is definitely ambiguous.
I took it to mean 'You don't need a feat or a class feature to kick'
Not 'There is no circumstance that could possibly prevent someone from kicking'
I also think it is possible for someone holding a weapon to forgo their weapon attack to perform an unarmed strike. It will usually be suboptimal, but there may be good reasons to do it. Maybe you want to do nonlethal damage. Maybe you want to provoke an attack of opportunity. Maybe you want to humiliate your opponent. It shouldn't matter.
Anyone with a good leg and some way of standing or sitting without said leg can kick? If you dont have the IUS feat, it will provoke.
Think most people agree about all of this. We are just expressing it differently.
I also only posted as I found it amusing that this tread has become so large.
Most can kick. There are common sense exceptions (oozes or gelatinous cubes can't kick).
The list of conditions that can prevent a humanoid from kicking would be exhaustive if you skip common sense and look to rules as written only. (Can a sleeping humanoid kick? Not with proficiency or purpose).
Kicking does not grant added attacks without some sort of special class feature or feat, just a different method of delivering a standard attack.
Most can kick. There are common sense exceptions (oozes or gelatinous cubes can't kick).
They did in Everquest (or was it Everquest II?).
"Kick" was available as a bonus attack to all fighters at a very low level. Most "mobs" had an associated class, often fighter, which let them just use all the class abilities of their level or lower.
So you could be swimming in a river and suddenly get the message:
Giant Fish kicks YOU for 17 damage!
People can't kick is an implication from specificity from the monk. People CAN kick is a very specific, direct, statement from the rules. The later wins
With a kick to the head.
There is a vast difference between being able to do polynomial equations and ride a bull va being able to do polynomial equations while riding a bull. Likewise the ability to kick and the ability to kick while hitting someone with a two handed sword takes a little more training.
The monk/brawler being able to kick with their hands full has implications for AoO. If the character was wielding a two-handed reach weapon then normally they couldn't threaten an adjacent square. But a monk or brawler can.
I remember when I played an arm-less monk with "Weapon Focus (forehead)". Good times.
A character wielding a two-handed reach weapon actually does threaten adjacent squares with unarmed attacks. They don't have to be a monk or brawler to do so.
While true, they do need to be treated as armed to threaten squares with unarmed attacks. Improved Unarmed Strike is one of the many ways to achieve that. Though I suppose you could argue that wielding a weapon makes you count as armed even for attacks not made with that particular weapon.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character wielding a two-handed reach weapon actually does threaten adjacent squares with unarmed attacks. They don't have to be a monk or brawler to do so.
That would require 3 metaphysical hands of effort. Two for the two-handed weapon and a third for the kick. Given the hands rule is unwritten your interpretation isn't incorrect, just not the same as the designers and developers.
You only have those metaphysical hands during an attack sequence. If your holding a Greatsword in both hands you can still attack with your armor spikes on your turn just not both unless you have at least a +6/+1 BAB.
You only have those metaphysical hands during an attack sequence. If your holding a Greatsword in both hands you can still attack with your armor spikes on your turn just not both unless you have at least a +6/+1 BAB.
That is still 3 hands of effort. Two to wield the Greatsword and one for the armor spikes.
Longsword plus spikes is fine. Does it make sense? Only in game balance terms
No, its not three hands of effort. Alternating a two-handed weapon with a one-handed weapon is allowed.
Interesting, do you have any official reference or designer / developer comment to support that statement. The high BAB multiple weapons FAQ only has two one-handed weapons which does not break the two hands of effort concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, do you have any official reference or designer / developer comment to support that statement. The high BAB multiple weapons FAQ only has two one-handed weapons which does not break the two hands of effort free concept.
No, its not three hands of effort. Alternating a two-handed weapon with a one-handed weapon is allowed.
There's an FAQ that establishes that AOOs are outside of the hands concept. Someone holding a longsword and a mace that makes an attack with a longsword, then makes an AOO with the mace does not incur two weapon fighting penalties.
If you couldn't break two hands of effort on an AOO you wouldn't be able to make AOOs after swinging a two handed weapon or two weapon fighting. The entire point of an AOO is that its an additional attack.