Two weapon fighting Fighter makes two Unarmed strikes With weapon per round at no penalty.
I'm utterly confused. Bamboozled.
You must work in military intelligence to get away with an oxymoron like that. "Unarmed strikes With weapon" indeed.
The good news is, if nobody replies, this will very quickly fall off the page and never be seen again.
Wait...
Oh, crap!
OK, in case that last post was too goofy, what I meant to say was this:
WTH? Can you come back in here and clarify just what your idea really is?
Here's another idea:
By using loopholes in the rules and abusing oblivious GMs, characters can take over the world using unmanned airships manned to the teeth with ninja pirates!
OK, in case that last post was too goofy, what I meant to say was this: WTH? Can you come back in here and clarify just what your idea really is?
You can punch with a sword in your hand. Unmanned airships: obviously the ninjas would be in the soft ballooney part where they would fall gently to the ground if shot down.
You can punch with a sword in your hand.
Ahh, so now we're talking about a guy holding two swords (or any other melee weapon), but instead of hitting for some impressive sword damage, he would rather punch with his hand.
Non-lethal damage.
Provokes attack of opportunity.
Other than that, sure, he can do it. There is no tactical advantage to doing less damage and putting yourself at greater risk, though I suppose it might be handy to subdue an enemy with non-lethal damage. Of course, he could just hit the guy with the flat of his sword. Sure, there's a penalty, but it's less personal danger.
However, your original post talks about making two strikes.
Two weapon fighting Fighter makes two Unarmed strikes With weapon per round at no penalty.
Well, assuming those melee weapons in his hand are light weapons, his penalty will still be -2/-2. If they are not light weapons, his penalty will be -4/-4. After all, he would suffer those penalties if he tried to use his 3 feet of steel to strike his enemy, why would the penalty stop applying if he is still holding the same 3 feet of steel but choosing to do things the hard way?
|
OK, in case that last post was too goofy, what I meant to say was this: WTH? Can you come back in here and clarify just what your idea really is?You can punch with a sword in your hand. Unmanned airships: obviously the ninjas would be in the soft ballooney part where they would fall gently to the ground if shot down.
Why would ninjas be in an airship in the first place, they use jet packs DUH!
Why would ninjas be in an airship in the first place, they use jet packs DUH!OK, in case that last post was too goofy, what I meant to say was this: WTH? Can you come back in here and clarify just what your idea really is?You can punch with a sword in your hand. Unmanned airships: obviously the ninjas would be in the soft ballooney part where they would fall gently to the ground if shot down.
because no one would expect them to use the airship, duh! lol
Well, assuming those melee weapons in his hand are light weapons, his penalty will still be -2/-2. If they are not light weapons, his penalty will be -4/-4. After all, he would suffer those penalties if he tried to use his 3 feet of steel to strike his enemy, why would the penalty stop applying if he is still holding the same 3 feet of steel but choosing to do things the hard way?
You'd apply a penalty for non-light weapons to get non-light weapon damage. If he's doing damage with his unarmed strikes, then holding something in his hand doesn't technically affect that.
I'd live with the DM call to apply the penalties though, since it makes logical sense enough.
Then again, as DM, I'd allow someone to headbutt or knee someone as an unarmed strike (not TWF though, as that specifically says "offhand"), and the Monk entry has special rules for his flurry.
unarmed strike isn't defined as a punch, kick, elbow, knee, or any other specific type of blow. It is a generic term for a attack using your body as a weapon. so it can be any of those, or some other creative part of your anatomy that doesn't have "weapon" as it's primary function. Therefore there is no reason that you can't make an unarmed attack while wielding a weapon in each hand, you are just kicking them or elbowing them instead of punching them.
No, really, skip the penalty for two attacks for a fighter with two weapon fighting and two weapons if it is an unarmed attack. The fighter can't grapple with his hands full and about attack of opportunity, it gives the opponenet the opportunity to defend himself. And, yes exactly, to subdue the opponent, and then kill him! It makes heavy armor more reasonable and tactical movement easier. A sword has a hilt and a butt also, you know.
No, really, skip the penalty for two attacks for a fighter with two weapon fighting and two weapons if it is an unarmed attack. The fighter can't grapple with his hands full and about attack of opportunity, it gives the opponenet the opportunity to defend himself. And, yes exactly, to subdue the opponent, and then kill him! It makes heavy armor more reasonable and tactical movement easier. A sword has a hilt and a butt also, you know.But a TWF-fighting fighter without a weapon in each hand could also punch his opponent, no?
The weapons could add a damage point each and both attacks would be without penalty. A fighter with no empty hands should be able to punch/punch or punch/kick, kick/kick, and there is still the issue of making a conscious fullu health opponent prone with a takedown. It is like tripping, but should do unarmed damage. Sure a fighter could punch, anybody can punch and use weapons or grappling too.
Keep in mind unarmed attacks count for only a single weapon unless you are a monk. Two weapon fighting does not allow you to make 2 unarmed attacks.
Okay, for the third time, this is my idea. Fighters with two weapon fighting and a weapon in each hand make two unarmed attacks with a weapon at no attack roll penalty per round.
Okay, for the third time, this is my idea. Fighters with two weapon fighting and a weapon in each hand make two unarmed attacks with a weapon at no attack roll penalty per round.
Yes, I got it with your first clarification.
So, that fighter could make two attacks with his weapons. Let's say shortswords. If he does, he is -2/-2 for doing that because of the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. If those are longswords, he is -4/-4 because of the Two-Weapon Fighting rules.
Those penalties represent the fact that it's hard to do two things at once, so a fighter trying to split his attention between two attacks makes each attack a little weak (less likely to hit). Now, if that fighter is holding those weapons but not using them, choosing instead to punch with his hands, well, he is still splitting his attention and still less likely to hit. If his hands are empty, he is -2/-2 because of the Two-Weapon Fighting rule. If he's holding light weapons the penalty remains the same. And if he's holding one-handed weapons (non-light) then the penalty is -4/-4.
I don't know why you think he should lose the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties just because he's holding weapons that he is not using.
(and yes, I know that unarmed attacks can use all kinds of body parts, but doing so doesn't address the OP's original idea - if we're just going to kick the enemy, then what we're holding has no bearing on the OP).
|
Okay, for the third time, this is my idea. Fighters with two weapon fighting and a weapon in each hand make two unarmed attacks with a weapon at no attack roll penalty per round.
Also known as not allowed by RAW or hell even RAI...and an oxymoron to boot. You can NOT make an unarmed attack with a weapon...period. You can, punch with sword in hand, but then you follow ALL unarmed strike rules...and no having the sword in hand does not give you any bonuses or ability to negate penalties.
Are you sure it's not -2/-6? I'm not asking what the rulebook says. I am suggesting that fighters could have the option of attacking twice at no penalty (that would be -0/-0) if they choose unarmed attack, have a weapon in each hand, and have two-weapon fighting.
Are you sure it's not -2/-6? I'm not asking what the rulebook says. I am suggesting that fighters could have the option of attacking twice at no penalty (that would be -0/-0) if they choose unarmed attack, have a weapon in each hand, and have two-weapon fighting....why?
Because they are fighters, it is what they do.
Oxy-what?
Keep in mind unarmed attacks count for only a single weapon unless you are a monk. Two weapon fighting does not allow you to make 2 unarmed attacks.
Wha?
I'm like 114% you're wrong here.|
|
Are you sure it's not -2/-6? I'm not asking what the rulebook says. I am suggesting that fighters could have the option of attacking twice at no penalty (that would be -0/-0) if they choose unarmed attack, have a weapon in each hand, and have two-weapon fighting.
Why? There is no rule reason for it. Now game reason for. No mechanical balance reason for it. Hell you can´t even argue realism here. So basically if your the DM, do what you want anyways. If your a player, tough, your not gonna worm your way to get this short of sleeping with the DM/bribing him/her...or possible both.
WOW, don't light yourself on fire yet! I just started an all-new thread, you can protest me there. Yes there is a game reason, any class can use weapons and unarmed strikes at a penalty, this is the domain of fighters who should not be penaltized.
Also known as not allowed by RAW or hell even RAI...and an oxymoron to boot. You can NOT make an unarmed attack with a weapon...period. You can, punch with sword in hand, but then you follow ALL unarmed strike rules...and no having the sword in hand does not give you any bonuses or ability to negate penalties.
Don't the rules allow attacking with a weapon to deal nonlethal damage? I would dall that RAW. Don't swords and knives frequently have pommels designed to be used for striking? I don't see how that would violate RAI.
It IS an oxymoron though.
As a DM, I'd call an attempt to punch with a sword an attempt to deliver nonlethal damage with the weapon. It is NOT an unarmed attack because the character is NOT unarmed.
D20 combat is an abstraction. Nonlethal attacks with swords are not restricted to the flat of the blade. The system assumes that you use your best option at the time of the attack, whatever that option happens to be. That means the fuller/pommel/hilt/guard/ricasso/back/whatever.
Ditto with unarmed attacks. They are not strictly punches, but also kicks/headbuts/elbows/whatever. The unarmed attack assumes that you use your best UNARMED option available. Another abstraction is the damage. You take a generic HP value of damage, rather than a blow to your arm that hinders your use of the arm. In other words, neither the attack, nor the damage, is specific to a certain location.
If the character wanted to do an unarmed attack while holding a weapon, then they would use whatever they had available (kick/headbut/elbow/whatever) their opponent. No hands allowed. As a DM, I would assign a penalty if their options for unarmed attacks were limited (as in no hands).
Keep in mind unarmed attacks count for only a single weapon unless you are a monk. Two weapon fighting does not allow you to make 2 unarmed attacks.Wha?
I'm like 114% you're wrong here.
I am pretty confident about this. You can use an unarmed attack as your 'off hand' attack, but you cannot two-weapon purely with unarmed attacks. The monk is a specific exception to this. Otherwise the monk would just gain two weapon fighting as a bonus feat instead of it having to be specifically described in the monk's flurry of blows rules.
Unless something has changed significantly since 3.5 that i totally missed about two weapon fighting. Any better rules lawyers then me care to chime in?
Keep in mind unarmed attacks count for only a single weapon unless you are a monk. Two weapon fighting does not allow you to make 2 unarmed attacks.Wha?
I'm like 114% you're wrong here.I am pretty confident about this. You can use an unarmed attack as your 'off hand' attack, but you cannot two-weapon purely with unarmed attacks. The monk is a specific exception to this. Otherwise the monk would just gain two weapon fighting as a bonus feat instead of it having to be specifically described in the monk's flurry of blows rules.
Unless something has changed significantly since 3.5 that i totally missed about two weapon fighting. Any better rules lawyers then me care to chime in?
Well for one, unarmed attacks aren't strictly off hand attacks. They can absolutely be your primary weapon if you're not wielding anything else. It was like this in 3.0 and 3.5, you can punch people.
And yes actually something changed about monks in PF, they now just get TWF as virtual bonus feats. The only way this changed is to make monk less of an exception, however in 3.5 anyone could take TWF and get into fisticuffs.
Why would ninjas be in an airship in the first place, they use jet packs DUH!
Ninjas aren't in airship. They're RIGHT BEHIND YOU!
some other creative part of your anatomy that doesn't have "weapon" as it's primary function.
No monkey grip jokes!
Are you sure it's not -2/-6? I'm not asking what the rulebook says. I am suggesting that fighters could have the option of attacking twice at no penalty (that would be -0/-0) if they choose unarmed attack, have a weapon in each hand, and have two-weapon fighting....why?Because they are fighters, it is what they do.
Oxy-what?
No fighters don't use weird, ineffective fighting techniques.
And it's oxymoron. Nothing to do with the word moron.
|
|
Also known as not allowed by RAW or hell even RAI...and an oxymoron to boot. You can NOT make an unarmed attack with a weapon...period. You can, punch with sword in hand, but then you follow ALL unarmed strike rules...and no having the sword in hand does not give you any bonuses or ability to negate penalties.Don't the rules allow attacking with a weapon to deal nonlethal damage? I would dall that RAW. Don't swords and knives frequently have pommels designed to be used for striking? I don't see how that would violate RAI.
It IS an oxymoron though.
As a DM, I'd call an attempt to punch with a sword an attempt to deliver nonlethal damage with the weapon. It is NOT an unarmed attack because the character is NOT unarmed.
D20 combat is an abstraction. Nonlethal attacks with swords are not restricted to the flat of the blade. The system assumes that you use your best option at the time of the attack, whatever that option happens to be. That means the fuller/pommel/hilt/guard/ricasso/back/whatever.
Ditto with unarmed attacks. They are not strictly punches, but also kicks/headbuts/elbows/whatever. The unarmed attack assumes that you use your best UNARMED option available. Another abstraction is the damage. You take a generic HP value of damage, rather than a blow to your arm that hinders your use of the arm. In other words, neither the attack, nor the damage, is specific to a certain location.
If the character wanted to do an unarmed attack while holding a weapon, then they would use whatever they had available (kick/headbut/elbow/whatever) their opponent. No hands allowed. As a DM, I would assign a penalty if their options for unarmed attacks were limited (as in no hands).
Well not using the sharp bladey part of a sword to do non lethal damage is done at a -4 and deals the weapon damage. In case of a longsword, that would 1d8. If you just punch however, you would draw an AoO (without the improved unarmed strike feat) and do 1d3 (assuming medium size here) when you hit. What bright wants to do is basically do two punches, one with each hand without iterative attacks at no penalty...which is none of what you just mentioned...on the virtue that a fighter is a fighter. Which NOBODY else supports the idea of. There is no RAW or RAI to even remotely suggest a such. You could maybe RAI doing it at -2/-2, but that´s not what he wants. From a realism stance, it´s also a flop. It does nothing for game balance other then to step on the monk´s toes. There is really no angle he can argue for this change in rule besides I did sexual favors for the DM.
Well not using the sharp bladey part of a sword to do non lethal damage is done at a -4 and deals the weapon damage. In case of a longsword, that would 1d8. If you just punch however, you would draw an AoO (without the improved unarmed strike...
All true. That's why I said this:
As a DM, I'd call an attempt to punch with a sword an attempt to deliver nonlethal damage with the weapon. It is NOT an unarmed attack because the character is NOT unarmed.
I was agreeing with you in part, and disagreeing with you in part. Mostly agreeing, however. The only thing I disagreed with was the RAW/RAI bit. That part IS allowed, just not exactly like the OP wants to do it. You are correct, it would be a 1d8 (with a med. longsword) attack, with a -4 mod. to the attack roll.
Or -6 if he was two-weapon fighting, and had the appropriate feat, and the off hand was a light weapon.
He's better off asking his DM to let him kick his opponent. As I said, I would house-rule a -2 to unarmed attacks if his attack options were limited (as in his hands were full).