oneyou's page

Hasn't it been stated before to not overreach on what FAQs apply to?

I see your issue with the rules now that you brought it up..

The problem is that you're assuming that the faq applies, which you need to show.

"Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."

So why does this / does this not apply?

I would contend that it does not apply, as the statement is not complete for the case we are discussing:
We have the logic:
"you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon"
Therefore:
"your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."

This says that because you are using both hands for the TH weapon, you do not have an available offhand to make an attack with.

Why?
Well thats because the offhand is unable to use a second weapon, so it cant make an extra attack.

But we dont care about needing a second weapon. The offhand is perfectly allowed to attack with the weapon it is wielding.

This fulfills the requirement of TWF and does not disagree with the logic of the faq.

You really need to use some explicit rules logic if you want me to believe that this is not the case.

Show that the faq applies past the standard case.
Show that the twf rules you claim for this case actually exist.
You have not yet shown any way of getting an extra attack using a two handed weapon and this brawlers flurry.
You have made claims of penalties being less due to not having a penalty reducing requirement, which is ridiculous.

Please back up your claims with actual rules text in some clear progression of logic.

While this appears to be mostly negative compared to a monks flurry of blows, a brawler counts as twf in this, so any feats, traits, or abilities affecting twf will affect a brawlers flurry.

So you can do helpful things like using dual-balanced weapons (possibly on your weapon and on a armor spike or something), use hand's autonomy (twf penalty reduction), use a blocking weapon(+1 shield bonus while twf), and get the benefits for your brawlers flurry.

If playing with these rules on the brawlers flurry, you could ask your gm to qualify as having twf etc. for prereqs where it makes sense.

Tommy you are stuck assuming that Brawler Flurry is not a special case where there is no off hand weapon nor an off hand attack. This is very likely incorrect.

No off hand weapon is less than light in terms of how we determine the penalties for Two Weapon Fighting. Your assertion that it would be -4 or -10 not only does not fit with the fact that the Brawler Flurry is special case for Two Weapon Fighting and not basic two weapon fighting, but it would make those options virtually inoperable.

Your interpretation of Flurry simply makes no sense for the class because your ideas cause there to be:
- undefined two handed weapon penalties for two weapon fighting
- aspects of flurry that become virtually inoperable
- multiple twists of logic making a 1 weapon to be both primary and off hand in the middle of attacks

All these make your argument for Brawler Flurry functioning in line with standard TWF, rather than a specific set of twf rules that trumps the general twf rules, highly unlikely. Play the way you like, but I doubt many will agree with you.

I'll answer this as it is the best description of the confusion and problems inherent in the brawler ability.

"Tommy you are stuck assuming that Brawler Flurry is not a special case where there is no off hand weapon nor an off hand attack. This is very likely incorrect."
It is up to you to show that this is so. Namely, the default is to use the twf rules, and exceptions to those rules must be shown.
The primary problem is that unlike a monk, brawlers flurry does not say it gives an extra attack, and it does not set the penalties static. It merely says that you may use twf rules with the exceptions that brawlers flurry provides.

"No off hand weapon is less than light in terms of how we determine the penalties for Two Weapon Fighting."
No off hand weapon means that there is no extra attack as defined in two weapon fighting, and thus there is no penalty as you are not two weapon fighting.
It remains to be shown that this ability (unlike monk) provides an extra attack not from an offhand weapon (from twf).

"Your assertion that it would be -4 or -10 not only does not fit with the fact that the Brawler Flurry is special case for Two Weapon Fighting and not basic two weapon fighting, but it would make those options virtually inoperable. "
Making an option virtually inoperable is not impossible, it can happen when the rules are written poorly. The assumption that things are simple and make sense is an assumption.
If the designer wanted it to work like monk, they would have used the monk wording and we would not need this discussion.

"Your interpretation of Flurry simply makes no sense for the class because your ideas cause there to be:
- undefined two handed weapon penalties for two weapon fighting
- aspects of flurry that become virtually inoperable
- multiple twists of logic making a 1 weapon to be both primary and off hand in the middle of attacks"

In order:
"undefined twf penalties":
The twf penalties are perfectly well defined.
You have: mainhand/offhand = -6/-10 at base
reduce penalties by 2/6 for twf feat.
reduce penalties by 2/2 for light offhand.
This defines the twf penalties across all possible inputs, so this is well defined.

" aspects of flurry that become virtually inoperable"
In rules discussion, this is not really a sufficient argument.

"multiple twists of logic making a 1 weapon to be both primary and off hand in the middle of attacks"
True, this is the least intuitive part of twf with one weapon.
But how else can you define it?
If you want the extra attack from twf, you must have an offhand attack, which is carried out with some weapon. Since you do not need a second weapon for this, we can make an offhand attack with the same weapon as the regular attack. This makes the same weapon both the main hand and offhand weapon for the purposes of this discussion.

"All these make your argument for Brawler Flurry functioning in line with standard TWF, rather than a specific set of twf rules that trumps the general twf rules, highly unlikely. Play the way you like, but I doubt many will agree with you."

Pure RAI argument. While probably true, it's not particularly relevant to how the text functions.
Specifically, you need to show that brawler's flurry is a specific set of twf rules, given that it must work through the original twf rules and has only one notable exception in mechanics: (may use twf with one weapon).

I'm not really sure how you think it works, but it certainly cannot be identical to the monks. A monk does not use the twf rules, its extra attacks and penalties are fully defined within its own rules section.

A simple example is if a monk uses two seperate 1h weapons to twf with, it takes -2 penalty. If a brawler does that, its clearly a -4 penalty.

Wonky rules: It is likely better for everyone to just pretend that it works like monk's flurry of blows.

1."Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability."

Key points: no extra attack is given (unlike monk), so we must use twf rules to get one (unlike monk), but we only need one weapon (like monk).

Two-handed weapon being used with twf:
main hand is two handed
off hand is two handed (allowed to use same weapon)

Note that by "If you wield a (second) weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." we need an off hand weapon to gain an attack with it.

+2/+2/-3
(-4 penalty since base is -6/-10, and reduced by 2/6 from twf feat, no light offhand to further reduce the penalty)

Base damage is 1x str in every attack. (see brawlers flurry)

Power attack is still +50% for attacks 1 and 3 (two handed)
For attack 2, its +50% -50% (two handed + for being off hand attack from twf)
idk how that stacks, probably easiest to just have it be one-handed PA damage. The alternative would be taking the percentages consecutively and then rounding.

Again, the flurry of blows rules make more sense, and are easier to use.

That is what results from your claim of no off hand weapon.

(This whole ability is a mess when you look at what it says it does, it would probably be best to rule -2 penalties work, like how monk flurry works.)

" My assertion is that since you can TWF with out an off hand weapon when flurrying, there is no "off hand attack" so the penalty remains -2."

The problem is that having heavier than a light weapon making the extra attack does not impose a penalty on twf. It is having a light weapon for the extra attack that reduces the twf penalty.

If you do not have an "off hand" weapon, then nothing is reducing the penalty of twf, so you get -4,-4. So by your interpretation attacking with one weapon is always -4,-4 since there is no off hand weapon.

He can always make it a magical tattoo, no need to worry about it falling into the pc's hands then.

In the vermin type (from prd) we have:
"A vermin-like creature with an Intelligence score is usually either an animal or a magical beast, depending on its other abilities."
Which would indicate that the vermin should become magical beasts.

There is at least one case where a familiar loses its type when it becomes a familiar.
If it does not gain the magical beast typing, then I guess it is typeless.
(Hand's Detachment from Haunted heroes handbook: "Use the statistics for a crawling hand... save that the hand is not undead")

Either:
1. The guardian property is giving the bonus. This means the bonus would not stack as you have two bonuses from the same source (and the guardian bonus only stacks with other bonuses).
(Think of this as treating the guardian property like a spell, you can only get one bonus derived from the property.)

2. The weapons are giving the bonus. Here you have two bonuses to saves which stack with all other bonuses. So they should stack.

To me, reading the property gives me the impression that it is 1.
It is not exactly clear which is the case.

And as Calth said, you will need to attack with the weapon to get the bonus due to the defending faq. (Defending and guardian have very similar wording, and trigger in the same way.)

I don't see how you apply slashing grace to unarmed attacks through boar style for your normal feats.
Boar style is not a passive ability (style feats are activated in combat only as a swift action), so unarmed strikes fail to be a light slashing weapon choice for when you take slashing grace.
(Assuming that slashing unarmed strike is not a valid choice by default)

If you gain a feat in combat, after boar style is active, then slashing grace for unarmed strikes might? be a valid choice.
(I do not know if it qualifies as a slashing weapon)

So something like martial flexibility would work if boar style qualifies your unarmed strike as a slashing weapon.

On the other hand, the familiars default state is a tumor, which is not a creature, and it only acts as a creature while detached.

Afaik the tumor familiar is not an independent creature while in tumor form and thus does not get actions in that form.

It looks like they gain the property, although its very hard to tell.

Normally things that only bypass the DR/alignment just give the weapon "treated as lawful" (from unchained monk ki strike),
"treated as good-aligned" (from paladin aura of faith)
"Align weapon makes a weapon chaotic, evil, good, or lawful, as you choose." (from the align weapon spell).

There appears to be a fairly clear convention for bypassing alignment dr, and so Aligned Strike is doing something different from just alignment bypass.

Although what the first part describes the ability as does not match the final choices, it seems to be the flavour description of what is happening. The choice list is pretty explicit in what you treat your weapon as, so it appears that your weapon is treated as having one of those properties.