ok so i had an idea for a feat but it might work as a class ability better.
the idea i have is this, whenever the character is wielding a weapon in combat they gain some sort of bonus to making an unarmed strike. the idea is that your opponent is expecting an attack from your weapon not from your fist or a head butt or a kick.
i was thinking of something along the lines of making the opponent flat foot against this attack but it only works once per combat against the same target but i would love to hear from you all on what you think.
ok so i had an idea for a feat but it might work as a class ability better.
the idea i have is this, whenever the character is wielding a weapon in combat they gain some sort of bonus to making an unarmed strike. the idea is that your opponent is expecting an attack from your weapon not from your fist or a head butt or a kick.
i was thinking of something along the lines of making the opponent flat foot against this attack but it only works once per combat against the same target but i would love to hear from you all on what you think.
In essence, that would be a bluff or more precisely, a feint. Could a feat improve that in some way to go along your idea? Probably.
Improved Feint already allows a feint as a move action. A feat with Improved Feint as a pre-requisite giving a situational bonus on a feint with unarmed strikes while holding a weapon seems reasonable to me.
'findel
Letting a rogue have it as one of his/her rogue talents sounds cool. Make it part of the attack and not count it as a move is about right. You are occupying a hand. It might be part of the path of the monkey.
"He was holding a staff and he kicked me! WTF?"
+1 for the feint
I would just give a bonus to feint if you have a weapon but won't use it to attack.
Thematically it does sound great. The problem is the implementing it. What are you going to do to make it a worthwhile thing? Does the PC still need Improved Un-armed strike if the enemy doesn't see it coming? Can it only be used once against that enemy, or against that one and any others who saw you use it? What would the damage be? Would sneak attack apply? Not to over-whelm you, but here are my answers.
No, they wouldn't need Improved Un-armed strike.
Can't be used twice against the same opponent without increasing the feint DC, or against any who pass a Perception check to notice.
Can only be used against opponents you could otherwise feint.
Sneak attack would apply.
and lastly....
If the attack hits, treat it as an automatic critical threat so long as your unarmed damage is equal to or less than 1d6.
ok so lets try to lay it out like this
while fighting with a melee weapon you may make a unarmed attack vs your opponent, this attack counts a faint attack. this attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity, this attack can only be used once per combat against the same foe and any other foes that pass a perception check (DC to be figured out later). if other foes fail this perception foe this ability may be used against them. precision based damage can be added to this attack.
ok so lets try to lay it out like this
while fighting with a melee weapon you may make a unarmed attack vs your opponent, this attack counts a faint attack. this attack does not provoke an attack of opportunity, this attack can only be used once per combat against the same foe and any other foes that pass a perception check (DC to be figured out later). if other foes fail this perception foe this ability may be used against them. precision based damage can be added to this attack.
The mechanics for a feint are already into the game:
FeintFeinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
When feinting against a nonhumanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a creature lacking an Intelligence score, it's impossible. Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Feinting as a Move Action: With the Improved Feint feat, you can attempt a feint as a move action.
Do you mean that the opponent would be allowed a Perception in addition to the Sense Motive?
In the haze of battle? I'm thinking of DC19.
The only requirement I see is must have an unarmed attack.
Claws, monk abilities, or something.
This is why this kind of argument should be in general discussion.
I think a fighter would no more expect someone with a weapon to kick them than I would expect a punch from someone with a gun. Sure it wouldn't work if someone is wearing a big flashing "Monk" sign.
Forget my reaction. In your game make your fighters immune to deceptive combat maneuvers and all kinds of fear. Some people feel fighters are being cheated by the game rules. You must be one of those people. I would like to hear if anyone agrees that all fighters know bloody everything.
I'm sorry, it read like a specialized feint to me.
I will try to relax.
i have come up wit this idea based on watching movies and tv shows and just about every time there is two people fighting with weapons some one throws a punch or a kick or a head butt and the first time they do it it always hits and i just felt the idea of giving players the option to simple do an unarmed attack while fighting with weapons would be cool.
it is meant to be a special feint attack and i have read the combat maneuvers and while i love them all i don't feel this is truly represented.
i have come up wit this idea based on watching movies and tv shows and just about every time there is two people fighting with weapons some one throws a punch or a kick or a head butt and the first time they do it it always hits and i just felt the idea of giving players the option to simple do an unarmed attack while fighting with weapons would be cool.
it is meant to be a special feint attack and i have read the combat maneuvers and while i love them all i don't feel this is truly represented.
Sometimes, combat scenes presented in movies (which is an abstracted form of reality) does not match the abstraction of the gaming world. In this case however, I think it does, in a way.
Someone without Improved Unarmed Strikes provokes attack of opportunity when hitting an opponent with his fist. Feint allows you to place a genuine blow after a misleading one (pretty much what you described). The rule says feinting does not provoke AoO. Whether or not the unarmed strike would provoke is up to interpretation, but I'd be willing to rule that it wouldn't when performed after a successful feint.
The problem with the RaW in this instance, I don't see why hitting an opponent with unarmed strike might be preferable to an 'armed' strike...
that is actually one of the points i wanted to address with this, i dont think i did it very well but the idea was to give a bonus because you are using an unarmed attack while in melee with a weapon.
that is actually one of the points i wanted to address with this, i dont think i did it very well but the idea was to give a bonus because you are using an unarmed attack while in melee with a weapon.
Ok, lets go back to square one. Nevermind rules for the moment. What do you intend to do? Describe the scene you'd like your players to perform.
I though the feint route would be appropriate, but I might have been wrong.
OK basically we have character A and character B, they both are fighting lets say with longsword's just two worriers fighting each other.
so character A sees a small opening, not big enough to get his sword in but one that character B isn't aware of since he is paying attention to character A's sword. so character A punches character B in the rib's, a solid hit hurting far more than if character B knew the hit was coming and since character B didn't think the attack was coming it wouldn't have mattered if character A had been trained in hand to hand combat and it did more damage than if character B had seen it coming.
OK basically we have character A and character B, they both are fighting lets say with longsword's just two worriers fighting each other.
so character A sees a small opening, not big enough to get his sword in but one that character B isn't aware of since he is paying attention to character A's sword. so character A punches character B in the rib's, a solid hit hurting far more than if character B knew the hit was coming and since character B didn't think the attack was coming it wouldn't have mattered if character A had been trained in hand to hand combat and it did more damage than if character B had seen it coming.
Gotcha
Now, the 'problem' with unarmed strikes in Pathfider is that they either deal next to nothing or make someone's head explodes. For that reason, and for fluff you explained above, I'd suggest fixing the damage (1d6 + 1/2 STR?) without stating that this is an actual unarmed strike (avoid monk aberations and grey area like whether or not the unarmed strike should provoke AoO etc).
Since we're dealing with low damage, it could be a "consolation price" type of ability, like "use this ability after a mellee attack misses" to illustrate the fact that character A could not place a better blow with a better weapon. The "can't fool me twice" clause of the ability being possible once per opponent is a good balancing factor.
Now this makes a very 4E-esque type of feat that will make the blood of some Paizonian curl and boil. But if it works...
Speaking of AoO, this attack could use character A's AoO for the next turn.
Anyways, just throwing out ideas outside the Feint mechanic and the Dirty Trick feat which cover this type of move to the best of Pathfinder RPG's ability. I also beleive that once you conceptualize the combat system, these small blows and 'cheap shots' are abstracted and included in the combat mechanic. Rolled minimum damage? Who says you actually hit with the blade? Could have been a hilt punch or an elbow in the chest. For all kinds of reasons, we use the sats given by the weapon (because we don't want to get into a mechanical nigthmare (elemetal damage here, no enhancement bonus there, damage reduction here not not there etc) but in your mind's eyes, you can go a lot further that "I hit him. 3 point of damage".
i really like it, you have helped a bunch with this and have put it into gaming terms that work for what i wanted it to do. thank you very much
Okay, so this thread may be over, but I have one more idea to throw in. 'Findel is right about the damage comments, so make it do something else. Like stunned or some such.
I just realized that flurry of blows could include one monk's weapon and be the same thing. Maybe just create a feat that simulates flurry of blows that includes one small weapon. I don't know.