| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
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.
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large monk Unarmed Damage.
That is the specific text from the monk unarmed strike ability.
So lets say I grab a monk archetype that takes away flurry of blows (master of many styles for sake of argument) and then take two weapon fighting.
Can I two weapon fight with unarmed strikes as my only attacks (take unarmed strikes as both my primary and off hand attacks) and what (if any) penalties do I take for doing so?
It seems that was written to support flurry of blows(since it has the penalties built into it), and it assumes the TWF feat tree was never going to be needed.
I think that an errata should be made so people are not dropping flurry of blows with an archetype, picking up TWF, but avoiding the penalties for it(TWF), or trying to anyway.
They would also not need double slice as written.
The problem is you specifically don't have off hand attacks with unarmed strike as a monk. As such as provided currently you honestly can't two weapon fight with unarmed strikes as a monk. It would be like trying to two weapon fight with a single long sword.
There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
This isn't a bunch of separate statements -- it is one sentence. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. It is specifically disallowed.
Read the ability next time instead of doing a TL:DR.
The other parts of it are their own issues but have the specific over general to keep them cleaned up.
The major problem here is the fact that a monk cannot make an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The staff really need to clean up to monk. It's horridly messy written.
I really, really wish they had deleted the sentence "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." I honestly think it adds nothing and, in fact, makes things less clear rather than more clear.
They really need to rewrite the Monk's level 1 class abilities.
This one needs more FAQ's.
There is also the issue of the unarmed strikes of a monk not having off-hand attacks, and by RAW TWF requires off-hand attacks.
That is what the 3rd question was about.
It's a ridiculous assumption to think that a monk could not TWF with unarmed strikes and everyone else can.
Its not ridiculous if its in fact RAW... and figuring out the RAI, and applying those is important for people playing in organized play who dont have the advantage of a single DM being able to say "Clearly non-FoB monks TWF as anyone else!" or another equivalent ruling.
Ive been told straight up by James that if a monk wants to TWF he has to flurry. I don't like it, and I know some people don't take his words as strongly as other developers, but I thought I'd add that to the discussion.
Imagine you work out. You train with weights, lifting dumbbells, barbells; you have a Total Gym or a Nautilus. What are you doing?
You're performing an action (flexing your pectoral muscles, hamstrings, biceps, whichever) with difficulty (weight is added against you making it more difficult). Why? Because if you can perform an action with weight, then you should be able to perform the same action without the weight a heck of a lot easier. I mean, we don't walk around carrying 50 lb backpacks because it's easier than walking around without them, do we? If you can hold up a 10 lb dumbbell, your arm doesn't suddenly collapse under its own weight if someone takes the dumbbell away, does it?
The game even reflects this, via the carrying capacity rules. If you carry less than your light load, you can move (land speed and Dex- and Str-based skills) easily. Carry a medium load and you are less able to move around. Bump that up to a heavy load and you're even worse off.
So imagine we have a 20-th level Fighter with TWF, ITWF, and GTWF. He has a pair of gauntlets on. He can make a full attack action and make seven attacks (four with one gauntlet-covered hand, three with the other).
Now, remember that those gauntlets weigh 2 lb (1 lb each). So if he takes those gauntlets off, not only should he be able to do the exact same thing he was doing before, but if anything, he should be able to do it even easier.
I have never bought into the notion that a person's unarmed strikes count as one weapon across his entire body. We (most of us, anyway) have two fists, a left fist and a right fist. Any TWF (whether a pair of gauntlets, a pair of swords, or a double weapon) involves those two fists, flailing them about in some fashion according to how the weapon being held in those fists should be used.
So why do those flailing arms cease to do anything after the fourth flail just because they're not holding anything (or being encased in anything, in the case of gauntlets)?
...
The statement that Monks have no such thing as a off-hand unarmed attack is used as a reason (poorly concocted, IMO, but that is that statement's reason for being) why you get to make up to seven attacks with your unarmed strikes without having to keep track of the busywork of "Was my last attack using my full Str mod or half of it?"
...
The capacity for the Monk (or well, anyone else for that matter; just because the Monk is spelled out to be able to headbutt someone doesn't mean a Fighter can't also use other parts of his body besides his fists) to sub-in other parts of his body to make unarmed strikes is just a reinforcement of flavor (i.e., it's merely a suggestion for how a player might describe an attack and that suggestion got placed in rules text and is now mistaken as such).
Or, to put it yet another way, it's a distinction between what's mechanically happening and what's narratively happening (a 20th-level Monk's FoB might be described as "elbow strike, elbow strike, knee strike, kick, kick, other leg kick, headbutt", but behind the scenes, it's "right fist, left fist, right fist, left fist, right fist, left fist, right fist". Even if the attack is seven kicks with the same foot using the same type of kick, it is mechanically still "RF, LF, RF, LF, RF, LF, RF").
...
So, to answer the OP: Yes, you can, and you take the prescribed penalties for TWF where one of the weapons is a light weapon (sure, the other one is as well, but all you need is one); either -4, -8 (if you don't have the TWF feat) or -2, -2 (if you do).
Anything else just doesn't make sense.
Ive been told straight up by James that if a monk wants to TWF he has to flurry. I don't like it, and I know some people don't take his words as strongly as other developers, but I thought I'd add that to the discussion.
I am sure he was talking about the core monk, and not any archetypes which would include the issues that Abraham pointed out. With a loss of FoB TWF seems appropriate. I do expect it to be errata'd after RPGSS is over.
@Tectorman:Balance over rules what makes sense. My favorite example is a paralyzed person getting a reflex save.
My other example is improved crit and keen not stacking.
@Tectorman:Balance over rules what makes sense. My favorite example is a paralyzed person getting a reflex save.
My other example is improved crit and keen not stacking.
But I don't see anything in the rules overruling anything here.
If a person (Monk or not) cannot TWF using just his unarmed strikes because his fists are attached to his body, then exactly how can a Fighter in full plate TWF with just his gauntlets (after all, a pair of gauntlets are automatically included in a suit of full plate and they're both attached to the same suit; aren't they then the same thing also)?
...
Wait, what do you mean "balance"? Either we're talking about the automatically assumed "best class for unarmed attacking" (the Monk) who can either TWF with just unarmed strikes either because it's always allowed or because the Monk is special (in which case, balance isn't overruling anything), or we're talking about what can be made into the actual "best class for unarmed attacking" (the Fighter) which can arguably outclass the Monk at least in the offense range (except that he could do this anyway, which means that balance isn't overruling anything), or we're talking about someone less capable at unarmed attacking (in which case, balance would require something to be added, such as being able to TWF with just unarmed strikes if that's not already a given).
What do you mean "balance"?
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.
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large monk Unarmed Damage.
That is the specific text from the monk unarmed strike ability.
So lets say I grab a monk archetype that takes away flurry of blows (master of many styles for sake of argument) and then take two weapon fighting.
Can I two weapon fight with unarmed strikes as my only attacks (take unarmed strikes as both my primary and off hand attacks) and what (if any) penalties do I take for doing so?
I think you are trying to over complicate it....Two Weapon Fighting gives you the rules. Yes, you technically have no "off hand" via the monk, but when you go into two weapon fighting, the rules clearly state that you have a primary and and off hand for the purposes of this feat. Therefor, since monk says you no "off hand", you would treat your "off hand" as the lightest possible for TWF, aka a "light weapon".
So, all of your attacks will gain a -2 to hit, and you will gain one additional attack at your highest BaB.
That's cute and all Shalander but it doesn't hold up. You don't have an off hand attack with unarmed strike. It would be like trying to two weapon fight with a single dagger and nothing else.
@Tectorman:Balance over rules what makes sense. My favorite example is a paralyzed person getting a reflex save.
My other example is improved crit and keen not stacking.But I don't see anything in the rules overruling anything here.
If a person (Monk or not) cannot TWF using just his unarmed strikes because his fists are attached to his body, then exactly how can a Fighter in full plate TWF with just his gauntlets (after all, a pair of gauntlets are automatically included in a suit of full plate and they're both attached to the same suit; aren't they then the same thing also)?
...
Wait, what do you mean "balance"? Either we're talking about the automatically assumed "best class for unarmed attacking" (the Monk) who can either TWF with just unarmed strikes either because it's always allowed or because the Monk is special (in which case, balance isn't overruling anything), or we're talking about what can be made into the actual "best class for unarmed attacking" (the Fighter) which can arguably outclass the Monk at least in the offense range (except that he could do this anyway, which means that balance isn't overruling anything), or we're talking about someone less capable at unarmed attacking (in which case, balance would require something to be added, such as being able to TWF with just unarmed strikes if that's not already a given).
What do you mean "balance"?
By balance I mean what is good for gameplay.
As an example if keen and improved critical stacked a scimitar could crit with a 12-20. The designers thought that was bad for gameplay so they don't allow it, but since improved critical is a feat representing a character's skill, and keen is a magical ability they should stack other than the designers saying they don't like it.
Now I agree that the core monk should not be able to get TWF because it I can a lot of people trying to find a way to game the system, but once the monk loses flurry of blow to an archetype they should be able to get it.
That's cute and all Shalander but it doesn't hold up. You don't have an off hand attack with unarmed strike. It would be like trying to two weapon fight with a single dagger and nothing else.
Let's go this way then...what are you TRYING to do? Get TWF for free for the monk? Technically NO ONE has an off hand, as there is no off hand for Pathfinder (ambidexterity is gone). The monk can deal full damage with his "off hand" that is all the monk rules are saying.
I think he is just calling attention to the fact that RAW there are issues with a non-core monk taking TWF. Now for a home game it is an easy fix, but for something like PFS where GM's are not allowed to make such decisions because one GM's approval may be invalidated by another GM next week, this needs to be fixed.
PS:I would prefer the FAQ button be hit on this.
PS2: For a home game I would allow a monk without flurry of blows to take TWF, but I can't really say that is allowed by the rules since that line about no "off-hand" attacks is in the monk's unarmed strike section instead of the "flurry of blows" section. I almost forgot. There is also the issue of no penalty to damage on the off-hand because there is no off-hand, but as the masters of unarmed combat I would let them keep that.
Technically speaking, nothing anywhere states that *anyone* has an off-hand when fighting using only unarmed strikes; it is listed in the weapon entry as a single weapon. But the Barbarian Greater Brawler Rage Power, intended to let a raging barbarian emulate flurry of blows, grants them Two Weapon Fighting while they rage. Ergo, you can TWF with Unarmed Strike.
As an example if keen and improved critical stacked a scimitar could crit with a 12-20. The designers thought that was bad for gameplay so they don't allow it, but since improved critical is a feat representing a character's skill, and keen is a magical ability they should stack other than the designers saying they don't like it.
Actually, they changed it because of Vorpal not because you could get 12-20 Crit chance.
See Vorpal happened in 3.0 whenever you crit not just a Nat 20 like 3.5 and Pathfinder.So they changed those two and then Vorpal. Instead of just changing Vorpal.
In 3.0 they had the weapon master PrC that bypassed stacking criticals though so that does not seem right.
PS: It does not really matter because the Vorpal case is still a good example, and I should not be surprised at a PrC that bypasses a change to stop a potential abuse.
Technically speaking, nothing anywhere states that *anyone* has an off-hand when fighting using only unarmed strikes; it is listed in the weapon entry as a single weapon. But the Barbarian Greater Brawler Rage Power, intended to let a raging barbarian emulate flurry of blows, grants them Two Weapon Fighting while they rage. Ergo, you can TWF with Unarmed Strike.
Ahem:
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as shed light (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
(though I don't know why the word shed is in there)
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Description: An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
Damage:
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike.
A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage.A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at his discretion.
The only real problem is the monk line that specifically states they have no off hand attacks with unarmed strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You miss my point; the RAW assumes that one person's punch/kick/headbutt/etc. is all the same unarmed strike, the exact same weapon, yet you are at least implicitly allowed to TWF with it.
Besides, this is the kind of pedantry which would have dead characters able to take actions, because the rules do not define that dead characters cannot take actions.
This is different. The monk has a special rule that affects it differently than other characters. Now I am not advocating banning a monk from taking TWF in this instance, but I can see someone making the argument in organized play that it can definitely be an issue since GM fiat is supposed to be as small of a factor as possible.
Even in nonorganized play the issue is not working well RAW. I don't expect the devs to rule on every corner case, but things like this should be cleared up.
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.
So you can have more than one unarmed strike. And unarmed strikes are light weapons. The monk however is specifically disallowed from having an off hand unarmed strike.
So you can have more than one unarmed strike. And unarmed strikes are light weapons. The monk however is specifically disallowed from having an off hand unarmed strike.
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.
"A Monk may thus apply his full Strength modifier on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes."
The entry of the word "thus" is key here. It signifies the reason for existence for the preceding sentence, to establish the norm (you apply half your Strength modifier for off-hand attacks (unarmed or otherwise)) and how the Monk deviates from this (he applies full Strength modifier to all).
The rest of the takeaway from that sentence (that off-hand unarmed strikes do not exist for the Monk, possibly implicitly for anyone else) is a right-angle tangent from the point of that entry in that paragraph and just strikes me as a poor choice of language.
They could've just said "A Monk may apply his full Strength modifier on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes, both main hand and off-hand". Instead, they've been using the same language since 3.5 (possibly 3.0; I don't have a copy of that PHB). So unless someone was going to take the time to look at what the text was saying, then of course we're still paying for that poor phrasing a decade down the road.
Another example: the Monk's Perfect Body lets him be treated as an Outsider. That is, an Outsider with no subtype, something that is in complete violation to how Outsiders and Humanoids are typed (i.e., they ALWAYS have a subtype). As it stands, the 20th level Monk is immune to every single bane weapon in existence because of a technicality that no one has bothered to correct.
Same thing with the Monk Unarmed Strike's offending phrase.
The "thus" in this case pretty much means "because".
The lack of an offhand is why he his unarmed strikes don't do half damage ever.
edit: look up thus to make sure I read it correctly
1. In this manner: Lay the pieces out thus. See Usage Note at thusly.
2. To a stated degree or extent; so.
3. Therefore; consequently: Thus it was necessary for me to resign.
4. For example:[b/] Few of the nation's largest cities are state capitals; thus neither New York nor Chicago is the seat of its state's government.
I was close enough.
Yeah I had to look the below statement up also to be sure.
I will admit my statement would have been wrong since I thought it made him into a native outside, but your statement is also incorrect. Even you said he is treated as an outsider, which is not the same as becoming an outsider. The ability even says he is only treated as an outsider in certain situations.
He is forevermore [b]treated as an outsider rather than as a humanoid (or whatever the monk's creature type was) for the purpose of spells and magical effects.
That is not much different than a dhamphir being treated like an undead for the purpose of certain negative and positive energy affects.
Negative Energy Affinity: Dhampires are alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.
OK, so it actually say "reacts to", but there is not really a difference in this instance.
The major problem here is the fact that a monk cannot make an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike.By isolating a single sentence you've completely lost the context of what the game designers are trying say.
:)
It seems pretty clear to me. You can't do it. A more detailed post as to how this is not an oversight on their part is also in this thread.
So your saying a guy trained in fighting with his whole body and with using multiple weapons at once can't throw the ole one-two at some one but Jim the town drunk can do it all day with absolutly no training.
This is the rules forum. I am telling you what the rules say, and the throwing the old one-two, and doing it with skill are not the same thing. That is why the person with the feat does not provoke, and the feat represents that training since it allows you to not provoke, and do it lethally since all the town drunk can do is non lethal damage.
This can also be read in other ways as in a monk who attacks with high BAB going Fist Elbow isn't TWF which prior to the FAQ on that subject some people would have claimed he was and thus needed penalties.
When reading the rules you also have to apply some level of sense and logic and while i can read and understand your point on this it makes no sense that the X% of the population who have taken monk levels that lose flurry can't TWF with unarmed attacks.
What if a Brawler Barbarian were to take levels in martial artist with an archetype that loses flurry. Does his ability to TWF with unarmed attacks simply disappear now that he has monk levels?
Which in fact is part of the reason I brought it up -- it's at odds with what should be expected, pointing this out in the rules forum means that people can mark it for FAQ and hopefully it can get errata or otherwise fixed -- if not in this edition then in the next one (whenever that happens).
When reading the rules you read them as they are. I am not advocating applying the rules blindly at all. In my home game I would allow the monk to TWF, but I consider this a forum to discuss RAW and RAI.
RAW is what it is. RAI is nonexistent because I don't think the archetypes were even a thought at that time. Now that they exist the core rule needs to be rewritten.
As to the barbarian monk question I would hope the GM would let him keep it, but I can't say it would pass in PFS.