Unarmed Strikes: One Weapon or Multiple Weapons?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Malach the Merciless wrote:

The issue? You are trying to apply logic and realism to a combat system that is not logical or realistic.

That's not the issue.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, if an unarmed strike is multiple weapons, what happens to creatures with the mutiweapon fighting feat?

I would consider it a non-issue.

Mathmuse posted that great post showing that although unarmed strike is treated like a light weapon, it is NOT a weapon.

Thus, I would say that multiweapon fighting does not work with unarmed strike.

"Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands."


Malach the Merciless wrote:
All humanoids have two unarmed strikes (lets say left side and right side just for ease, again an abstraction).

Everyone keeps saying this. I do not think the rules support you. Unarmed strike is a single attack any creature can make. See the table entry in equipment.


Tarantula wrote:
Malach the Merciless wrote:
All humanoids have two unarmed strikes (lets say left side and right side just for ease, again an abstraction).
Everyone keeps saying this. I do not think the rules support you. Unarmed strike is a single attack any creature can make. See the table entry in equipment.

Sorry I should of said "potential" of two unarmed strikes. It is of course based on feat and class skills and the usual negatives of fighting with "two weapons" without those feats if they can do both effectively in a round.

I think the real issue is that people are trying to overly-complicate the system. The system is designed to be simpler compared to other games combat systems. And there are of course issues with the 6 second round and how long that is. I am just looking at it simply to fit with the system.

If you want to see a more "realistic" combat system try GURPS of course a 15 second combat in GURPS could last over an hour real time.


Ok...I have been thinking it over some more. Looking at the rules and trying to piece together what the RAW would be.

Magic Fang:
"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."

I bolded the appropriate pieces.
1)You can use magic fang to give one unarmed strike a +1 enhancement bonus
2)You may apply this bonus to a fist. Not your feet, elbows, head, knees, etc (they are not on the list and are not "other natural weapons". Just fists. So at max, a monk can only enhance their two fists. A monk's other unarmed strikes can not be enhanced by magic fang.


Malach the Merciless wrote:
Sorry I should of said "potential" of two unarmed strikes. It is of course based on feat and class skills and the usual negatives of fighting with "two weapons" without those feats if they can do both effectively in a round.

Actually, a level 20 fighter has a potential of 4 unarmed strikes from BAB iterative attacks. Where does it say that you have an on and off hand unarmed strike?

Lab_Rat wrote:

Magic Fang:

"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."

"Monk: Unarmed Strike: 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."

The monk can enhance his "unarmed strike" as a singular natural weapon. Thus it would apply to all his unarmed strike attacks he makes.


Tarantula wrote:
Malach the Merciless wrote:
Sorry I should of said "potential" of two unarmed strikes. It is of course based on feat and class skills and the usual negatives of fighting with "two weapons" without those feats if they can do both effectively in a round.

Actually, a level 20 fighter has a potential of 4 unarmed strikes from BAB iterative attacks. Where does it say that you have an on and off hand unarmed strike?

Again what the actual blows are doesn't matter. I was just trying to simply show how the mechanic of flurry of blows operating as two weapon striking works with something visual (left right left right) to try and better understand the mechanic.


Malach the Merciless wrote:
Again what the actual blows are doesn't matter. I was just trying to simply show how the mechanic of flurry of blows operating as two weapon striking works with something visual (left right left right) to try and better understand the mechanic.

The blows don't matter, that is correct. Where does it say that a humanoid has 2 unarmed strikes?

Actually, this makes sense, and makes FoB unique. I just thought of a new interpretation.

Every human only has one unarmed strike. You can't TWF with unarmed because you don't have 2 unarmed strikes. Monk's with FoB are the exception. (Sorry unarmed fighters, but you're better off with weapons anyway.)

This makes sense with the new ruling, and makes FoB special in that it effectively grants you a second unarmed strike.

Grand Lodge

I think we need to ignore the monk to understand the true nature of unarmed strikes. Right now, the inter workings of the monk are in the air, and thus make a poor example. Also, as all creatures can make an unarmed strike, it is best to work from that.


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another question whose answer will shed light on the discussion:

Can two weapon fighting feats be used with only unarmed strikes? If each character only has one, then no. If unarmed strikes are a not a weapon then could they be used at all? If not, then since flurrying works like twf, a monk couldn't flurry with unarmed strikes. If yes, then you would have to have atleast two unarmed strikes.

Grand Lodge

If anyone really wants something official, please hit the FAQ button on the top right.


You can two weapon fight with unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes are a light weapons, may be used as an offhand weapon or primary. Nothing prevents a non monk from using both fists in two weapon fighting. If a ranger or other combatant wants to box in a bar room brawl they can.

To rule otherwise just creates more problems than fixes. Flurry of blows was always meant bro depict the rapid attacks of Kung Fu fighting. It should be a separate thing from two weapon fighting. It was its own thing prior to PF, it just had a low hit ratio due to it bab.

PF made flurry convoluted and problematic. I get the goal of increasing the hit ratio, bit it was poorly implemented.

In my opinion, making FoB a form of two weapon removes flavor from the monk. I want them to be like chin li, ryu, crouching tiger, etc. I don't want them to be a slightly more exotic two weapon fighter. That is just lame, lame, lame.

If they are just two weapon fighting, then give them the stupid feats with a restriction the ranger and be done with it. I don't like that idea as its LAME, but whatever.

Why is so bad to have a versatile, flavorful, and workable monk? Why can't they have the same bab on there standard attack? Why is it that the most mobile, class has their primary ability make them stand still. So many things just so wrong with it it just ticks me off.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Davick wrote:

Another question whose answer will shed light on the discussion:

Can two weapon fighting feats be used with only unarmed strikes? If each character only has one, then no. If unarmed strikes are a not a weapon then could they be used at all? If not, then since flurrying works like twf, a monk couldn't flurry with unarmed strikes. If yes, then you would have to have atleast two unarmed strikes.

Here's another other place where the rules think you can TWF with unarmed strikes--this barbarian rage power from the APG:

Brawler, Greater: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks. A barbarian must have the brawler rage power to select this rage power.

If you can't TWF with unarmed strikes, what good does it do you to have TWF when you make unarmed strikes?

Grand Lodge

The ability to combine unarmed strikes with other weapons with less penalties. That's what the rage power does.


Umm, no. Its specifically states making unarmed attacks, nothing about combining with weapon attacks. Nothing states anywhere that you can't two weapon fight with two fists. You have to follow the rules laid out, declaring one as offhand.

This is one of the reasons flurry was not two weapon fighting in3.5.

A ranger can use two fists for his two weapons. There is not a single place any where that says otherwise. Its just not optimal. This is one of the very reasons why I prefer the old FOB, except for the low BAB.

Again this why I think using the old FOB, and giving monk a training feature for their weapons and unarmed is much better. It gives them a decent hit ratio, improves the damage of monk weapons a little, and retains the flavor. And its a simple fix. You don't need to add special case rules, multiclassing doesn't have overlapping suboptimal issues, etc. On top of that, standard attacks with their "trained" weapons are on par, encouraging movement making the monk an effective skirmishers again. It puts the monk where it should be, an effective light warrior that doesn't outshine or or lag behind the rest of the classes.


I think that they should make unarmed strikes as a single weapon for the purposes of feats and spells, but a multiple weapon when used. Meaning that you can only have one Unarmed Strike statistic. What I mean by this is a single damage, type, enhancement, etc.

So regardless of what limb I use it's always the same. You have more than one implement, so can two-weapon fight with just unarmed or use as one of the two. If you some how increase or enhance your strike you enhance it for all of them. Its not a natural weapon so you can't use it as such, so retains the standard use as already written.

So if you get a +1 to hit and damage, you get for all the unarmed strikes. Not a single fist. No flaming right fist, cold left fist, electric headbutt, etc... It's just too much. Make a single weapon of the body. It's simple and works. Why does the worst weapon already need to suck that much more.


I have put deep thought into this. The answer is three.

The question for that answer is, "How many distinct weapons can unarmed strikes be?"

An unarmed strike is what the name says: unarmed. It involves no weapons. Thus, the unarmed strike is not an item to be dropped, disarmed, sundered, or enchanted. Nor is it a body part such as a hand, arm, leg, or foot.

Nevertheless, the rules define an unarmed strike as a weapon attack. The Combat chapter says, "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:..." Some rules and abilities insist on a weapon attack having weapon properties, so unarmed strikes have weapon properties, despite not being an item. The Equipment chapter says, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon." The character can declare his or her unarmed strike to be a light weapon whenever it is relevant for an attack. For example, a character with Weapon Finesse can apply it to unarmed strike.

Unlike a real light weapon, unarmed strike does not have to be held in a hand. The rule that weapons must be held in hand are in the Equipment chapter: light weapons are wielded in one hand, two-handed weapons are wielded in both hands, and one-handed weapons are typically wielded in one hand but may be wielded in both. An unarmed strike is no weapon. It is considered to be a light weapon; therefore, an unarmed strike can be wielded in one hand. The monk's Unarmed Strike ability says, "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." While it is possible that this rule applies only to monks, it matches the imagery from Unarmed Strikes from the Combat chapter, so I believe that this rule applies to all unarmed strikes. Thus, characters can make unarmed strikes without using their hands.

This gives three ways of wielding an unarmed strike:

  • in right hand, i.e., a right fist;
  • in left hand, i.e., a left fist; and
  • in no hands, i.e., an unspecified unarmed strike.

There is no way to formally specify that a particular non-hand body part is being used for an unspecified unarmed strike. Informally, say whatever roleplays well, such as, "I kick him!" or "Head butt!" or "Elbow in the gut!" Thus, we are limited to three distinct kinds of unarmed strikes.

Zero has the property that we can split it without it getting any smaller. Thus, the zero-weapon unarmed strike can be split to manifest in all three ways at once, if the player desires. A character with three attacks can attack with the right fist, left fist, and an unspecified unarmed attack. That will seldom act any different from three unspecified unarmed attacks.

Some rules and spells are unable to handle unarmed strike as no weapon. But they do handle unarmed strike as a light weapon that can be wielded in three ways.

Two=Weapon Fighting wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

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.

If an unarmed strike is no weapon, then it cannot be a second weapon. Furthermore, it cannot even be a first weapon in order for another weapon to be the second weapon. Thus, Two-Weapon Fighting only works while we consider unarmed strike to be a light weapon. Fortunately, the rule itself says, "An unarmed strike is always considered light." I wish it had been clearer and said, "An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon and can be wielded in each hand."

Two-Weapon Fighting declares that the extra attacks are made with the off hand. Thus, if the off-hand attacks are unarmed strikes, those unarmed strikes are in the off hand. If the rules were interpreted so that the off hand could be a leg, this would not help the unarmed strike, because we have no rule permitting a leg to hold a light weapon. For off-hand unarmed strikes, the off hand has to be a hand.

Technically, Two-Weapon Fighting does not insist that the regular attack with the first weapon be made with the primary hand, so the regular attack could be made with the unspecified unarmed strike. This would permit Two-Weapon Fighting if the primary hand were occupied, for example, holding a metamagical rod or holding onto the cliffside as the character climbs. On the other hand, the wording of Two-Weapon Fighting, when describing the penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting, assumes the character makes the regular attacks with the primary hand. Such assumptions hint that the rule as written might be missing details for the overlooked case. I am definite that penalties apply to all attacks even though the penalties are divided into primary hand and off hand.

Magic Fang wrote:

Magic Fang

School transmutation; Level druid 1, ranger 1; Casting Time 1 standard action Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Target living creature touched
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
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.

This spell mentions fist, which could only mean an unarmed strike by a hand. I clarify that as saying that an unarmed strike by a hand is the unarmed strike in a hand, two of the three ways of making an unarmed strike. I am uncertain whether the unspecified unarmed strike can be affected by Magic Fang.

This forum thread is part of an extended discussion that grew out of inventing rules for hand wraps in Ultimate Equipment. With some unarmed strikes being associated with hands, this would permit rules for hand wraps that apply to unarmed strikes in those hands, much like how Magic Fang can apply to those hands.

Netherek wrote:

I think that they should make unarmed strikes as a single weapon for the purposes of feats and spells, but a multiple weapon when used. Meaning that you can only have one Unarmed Strike statistic. What I mean by this is a single damage, type, enhancement, etc.

So regardless of what limb I use it's always the same. You have more than one implement, so can two-weapon fight with just unarmed or use as one of the two. If you some how increase or enhance your strike you enhance it for all of them. Its not a natural weapon so you can't use it as such, so retains the standard use as already written.

So if you get a +1 to hit and damage, you get for all the unarmed strikes. Not a single fist. No flaming right fist, cold left fist, electric headbutt, etc... It's just too much. Make a single weapon of the body. It's simple and works. Why does the worst weapon already need to suck that much more.

That is close to what I concluded, but my conclusion differs at the end. Unarmed strikes cannot be enchanted directly. Instead, we have spells like Magic Fang that can be made permanent, and we have magic items like Amulet of Mighty Fists that affect the unarmed strike in all its manifestations. It should be possible to design a magic hand wrap that occupies the wrist slot that enhances only the unarmed strikes made with the hands. It should be possible to design a magic foot wrap that occupies the boot slot and creates a new category of unarmed strikes, leg kicks, that they enhance. Magic is versatile. The costing system for magic items is the sticking point.


I really don't know why its so hard to give the monk the brass knuckles back which keeps scaling unarmed strike damage. It really was the closest thing to giving the monk the ability to enchant his unarmed strikes. If that means the Monk has to switch between his unarmed strikes each round, so be it. Meet reason and persuasion.


Did something change since the AGP?

brass knuckles just change the unarmed damage to lethal, monks are proficient in them and they are monk weapons. I don't see a problem...

Silver Crusade

Netherek wrote:

Did something change since the AGP?

brass knuckles just change the unarmed damage to lethal, monks are proficient in them and they are monk weapons. I don't see a problem...

Not any more. The originals in Adventurer's Armory did the same thing, then got errata'd to no longer do a monk's unarmed strike damage.

Then APG came out with the brass knuckles again, written the way they were originally presented in AA. So most everyone thought that was the current standard.

Somewhere around a year later, it was stated that the post-errata AA knuckles were supposed to have been what was presented in APG, and thus that became the standard again.

That incident along with the long delay involved are a part of why this current development stings so much, especially since both essentially kick the monk while he's down.

I didn't even like brass knuckles, on account of the flavor not meshing with what I wanted out of the monk at all and it reduced the joy of flurrying to punch-punch-punch-punch, but at least it was something that could be reflavored and it helped other monk players out. That's no longer the case.


Yes, at least they worked.


So take it they are saying the damage is 1d3? Why? The monk just too powerful? What about anyone else who improves their unarmed damage? Like the raging brawler? Is there 1d6 too powerful too, or is this just to spite the monk?

This is one thing I just don't get.

Give the monk awesome Unarmed Damage, and do everything possible to make it unusable. Give the monk crappy weapons as an alternative. Really?

If unarmed is so powerful here's an idear. Reduce it's damage, and allow some love. Geez.

On top of that give every other class a way to improve their damage with their attack of choice. Seriously?

So a weapon that simply altered the monks attacks by special material or enhancement, that could be disarmed, taken, and suffer every other penalty associated with a weapon was TOO powerful??? Are you kidding? So because it makes AoMS less needed by the monk, they change the weapon? Did they forget you can't disarm AoMS, that it affects every limb, etc. On top of which to truly get the most out of Brass Knuckles you have to have a pair of them, so suffers all the associated penalties of weapon issues.

Lets not forget that it's easier to disarm a monk than a frontline fighter.

I guess it would over shadow the rest of the monk gear.

I think that when they revise PF, they should overhaul the monk. Give an increase to unarmed and monk weapons. Here's what I have in mind...

At level 1: US:1d4 Monk Weapons: Base damage
At level 5: US:1d6 Monk weapons: Up a die step
At Level 10: US:1d8 Monk Weapons: Up a second step
At Level 15: US:1d10 Monk Weapons a third step

Add training bonus on top.

So at level 17 with training it would look like this...

US:1d10+4, Kama: 1d12+4

Or don't improve the weapons and just improve the unarmed at half the pace with the training feature so that it would like this at 17

US:1d10+4 and Kama:1d6+4

IDK, the monk just keeps getting hosed...


Davick wrote:

Another question whose answer will shed light on the discussion:

Can two weapon fighting feats be used with only unarmed strikes? If each character only has one, then no. If unarmed strikes are a not a weapon then could they be used at all? If not, then since flurrying works like twf, a monk couldn't flurry with unarmed strikes. If yes, then you would have to have atleast two unarmed strikes.

Yes you can do so and I'll tell you why anyone can do it. In fact if we take the everso popular E6 and break it down to what it supposedly represents then everyone in the world has ever thrown 2 punches at full speed in less than 6 secs is above human potential since the only way to do so with out TWF is to be 6th level with a full BAB.


Talonhawke wrote:
Davick wrote:

Another question whose answer will shed light on the discussion:

Can two weapon fighting feats be used with only unarmed strikes? If each character only has one, then no. If unarmed strikes are a not a weapon then could they be used at all? If not, then since flurrying works like twf, a monk couldn't flurry with unarmed strikes. If yes, then you would have to have atleast two unarmed strikes.

Yes you can do so and I'll tell you why anyone can do it. In fact if we take the everso popular E6 and break it down to what it supposedly represents then everyone in the world has ever thrown 2 punches at full speed in less than 6 secs is above human potential since the only way to do so with out TWF is to be 6th level with a full BAB.

I'm confused as to how that answered the question in any way.


I find that if any one in existance in the real world can do something that fictional characters who are better trained at such things can.


Talonhawke wrote:
I find that if any one in existance in the real world can do something that fictional characters who are better trained at such things can.

Unfortunately that goes directly against what started this thread. That a monk must change his form of flurry if he has casted magic fang. ANy real person is capable of flailing fist wildly, but the highly trained monk must also kick or headbutt or whatever.


You asked about TWF and Unarmed strikes. I gave you and answer YES.

As to flailing wildly vs adding in attacks.
The monk always must use another weapon when flurrying according to the retcon to FoB its just if the attacks are the exact same there isn't a need to point out that attacks 1,3, and 5 are my right hand 2 is my left foot and 4 is a head butt.

Once you start having different numbers for one attack the Retcon says that you cannot make all your attacks with that one weapon. Now you have to say to the GM 1,3,5 are right hand with a +3 bonus and 3,4 are left hand with no bonus.

As for lets say a fighter with TWF and IUS nothing is different if he has nothing that makes the 2 attacks different there is no need to call out which hand/foot/head/knee is making the attack however if he ends up with one being different somehow then he has to decide which one is which attacks and where those attacks fall.


Mikaze wrote:
I didn't even like brass knuckles, on account of the flavor not meshing with what I wanted out of the monk at all and it reduced the joy of flurrying to punch-punch-punch-punch, but at least it was something that could be reflavored and it helped other monk players out. That's no longer the case.

AoMF was a great item for anything non-humanoid with natural attacks. It wasn't made redundant by brass knuckles by any means. But they nerf manks & brass knuckles anyway. Then they want to nerf FoB into the bargain.

Is it me, or does it seems that somebody in Paizo really does not want monks on a par with other combat classes, or indeed anywhere near a par with other combat classes?


It's the whole "Oh my god, he does 2d10 damage!" syndrome. That the monk has to pay and keep paying for doing more damage with his unarmed strikes than a barbarian (of equal strength) does with a greatsword.

Master Arminas


Dabbler wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
I didn't even like brass knuckles, on account of the flavor not meshing with what I wanted out of the monk at all and it reduced the joy of flurrying to punch-punch-punch-punch, but at least it was something that could be reflavored and it helped other monk players out. That's no longer the case.

AoMF was a great item for anything non-humanoid with natural attacks. It wasn't made redundant by brass knuckles by any means. But they nerf manks & brass knuckles anyway. Then they want to nerf FoB into the bargain.

Is it me, or does it seems that somebody in Paizo really does not want monks on a par with other PC classes, or indeed anywhere near a par with other PC classes?

fixed it for you


Talonhawke wrote:

You asked about TWF and Unarmed strikes. I gave you and answer YES.

As to flailing wildly vs adding in attacks.
The monk always must use another weapon when flurrying according to the retcon to FoB its just if the attacks are the exact same there isn't a need to point out that attacks 1,3, and 5 are my right hand 2 is my left foot and 4 is a head butt.

Once you start having different numbers for one attack the Retcon says that you cannot make all your attacks with that one weapon. Now you have to say to the GM 1,3,5 are right hand with a +3 bonus and 3,4 are left hand with no bonus.

As for lets say a fighter with TWF and IUS nothing is different if he has nothing that makes the 2 attacks different there is no need to call out which hand/foot/head/knee is making the attack however if he ends up with one being different somehow then he has to decide which one is which attacks and where those attacks fall.

I wasn't asking because I didn't know the answer. I was presenting the question to add to the discussion. Specifically to call into question the Retcon no less.


Notice that nothing changes as far as how monks and non-monks function.

If its one weapon and no TWF then all monks must now either use a weapon or have an exception that states they can.

If its multiple weapons and you can TWF then no one can make more attacks with a single hand/foot/head than with a held weapon.

The only things that would make monks function differently is if the Devs also interpert the "monks unarmed strikes are never off-hand" as meaning some how becoming a monk means you lose the ability to throw a one two punch and now must use a weapon.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
I didn't even like brass knuckles, on account of the flavor not meshing with what I wanted out of the monk at all and it reduced the joy of flurrying to punch-punch-punch-punch, but at least it was something that could be reflavored and it helped other monk players out. That's no longer the case.

AoMF was a great item for anything non-humanoid with natural attacks. It wasn't made redundant by brass knuckles by any means. But they nerf manks & brass knuckles anyway. Then they want to nerf FoB into the bargain.

Is it me, or does it seems that somebody in Paizo really does not want monks on a par with other combat classes, or indeed anywhere near a par with other combat classes?

Brass Knuckles didn't make the AoMF redundant, but you know what they did make redundant? All the other monk weapons.

There's absolutely no reason to ever pick up a kama (1d6/x2) when you can deal scaling damage and get all the bonuses a kama can give you (cheap to enchant, bypass material DR) with brass knuckles (and before you mention the trip quality, no, the trip quality isn't worth it.) Ditto for the temple sword (and every other monk weapon) after a certain point. The brass knuckles were superior in almost every way, and that's bad game design.

Now, maybe the monk needs better options for enhancing his attacks to be a viable character. I don't believe that, but a lot of people do, and I could be wrong. However, even if you do believe that, you don't fix the issue by adding increasingly more powerful options to supplementary materials. That's just hiding errata for the monk in the new books and and forcing your customers to pay you for it. That's BS.

If the monk doesn't work as written, the Core Rulebook is where it should be fixed, not Ultimate Equipment (or the APG, or Adventurer's Armory, or anywhere else)


Agreed, which is why the unarmed should be reduced and a static bonus applied to both. Then brass knuckles don't spoil the fun for other weapons.


It seems to me that the PF rules have clearly said that FoB was effectively the same as TWF. That ruling alone would indicate to me that monks have a "right" and "left" unarmed strike. We have always played the monk this way. Any other approach creates more problems than it solves.
I have to side with Lab Rat. He is not the only gamemaster who read or interpreted the rules in this fashion. In fact, every gamemaster that I know personally with the notable exception of one, have always played PF with these interpretations from their very first sessions to today.
We all reviewed the rules together over about a week period. The only one who couldnt accept things as printed was an older edition monk fan.
We had these very discussions almost endlessly about these very same points and topics. He defended his point of view well, even as well as some of the articulate and learned persons who have posted here. In the end, he was still the only gamemaster in our circle to not embrace the FoB is TWF concept. Any other interpretation simply creates more problems than it solves.
You are not alone, Lab Rat. Many of us have been playing monks this way since our first Pathfinder game sessions.


And just as many (appaently including Devs and Authors) have been doing it the other way. Please we understand that it could be read in such a way so could everyone who wants to come into these threads and relate stories about how right they were please stop posting if your not bringing to the conversation.

I'm sorry i have to rant about this but each and everythread that has come up has dealt with this. We may have been misreading it for 3 years but apparently no one bothered to correct us on this. No one bothered to point out that the published monks were wrong. No Dev stepped in to tell us in the ,quite a few, one weapon monk threads that it didn't work. No one clarified that make all your flurry attacks with "that natural weapon" in the FaQ for feral combat training actually meant half your attacks.

Edit: Weslocke sorry this wasn't directed it at you I keep seeing post like yours and some of the previous attitudes set me off.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Weslocke wrote:

It seems to me that the PF rules have clearly said that FoB was effectively the same as TWF. That ruling alone would indicate to me that monks have a "right" and "left" unarmed strike. We have always played the monk this way. Any other approach creates more problems than it solves.

I have to side with Lab Rat. He is not the only gamemaster who read or interpreted the rules in this fashion. In fact, every gamemaster that I know personally with the notable exception of one, have always played PF with these interpretations from their very first sessions to today.
We all reviewed the rules together over about a week period. The only one who couldnt accept things as printed was an older edition monk fan.
We had these very discussions almost endlessly about these very same points and topics. He defended his point of view well, even as well as some of the articulate and learned persons who have posted here. In the end, he was still the only gamemaster in our circle to not embrace the FoB is TWF concept. Any other interpretation simply creates more problems than it solves.
You are not alone, Lab Rat. Many of us have been playing monks this way since our first Pathfinder game sessions.

Perhaps I am in the same boat as your dissenting voice. I have played monks since '86 in 1st edition AD&D. I played the monk update from Dragon Magazine throughout 2nd edition (no, the crappy sub-par cleric was NOT a monk), and I have played them in 3.0 and 3.5. I have also run Pathfinder monks. And yes, Paizo did some really nice things with the class. But I have always read it as flurry does equal equal two-weapon fighting. The reason? That troublesome little phrase in any combination. If they had left out those three words, yeah, I probably would have viewed it as two-weapon fighting from the get-go. But words have meaning. Words in rule books have meaning for the game.

And now, three years down the pike, after god alone knows how many threads on monks on these very boards, each debating this very issue; after Paizo's own authors have published material that reinforces my viewpoint that a monk can flurry with a single weapon if he wishes (because that is a legal usage of in any combination), after their editorial and rules and moderation and development staff has utterly failed to just listen to us; now they come out and deliver this retcon matter of factly.

I believe Jason when he says it was what he intended. I don't believe some of the other people on staff (not mentioning any names). Especially after the first hint of this came up in that big discussion on new monk gear in Ultimate Equipment. Especially after SKR made the comment that it wasn't fair to another class that uses two-weapon fighting for the monk to do it on the cheap.

It's Paizo's game. They can change whatever rules they want and it will not change my game. I just wish, that once, once, there was a senior member of Paizo's team that has played monks from first day's of Gygax's original Player's Handbook. A developer who likes the class and who listens to the players when they plead with Paizo about what is wrong.

Jason and his team have a tough job; we know that. We respect them for what they have done for our game. But sometimes, it feels like they don't listen to us, they don't take our concerns and issues seriously, and it boils over on issues like this.

So, to your final point, Weslocke. Flurry as TWF solves more problems than it creates? What about the Sohei who can flurry with two-handed weapons? The Zen Archer who can flurry with a bow? Does this mean a monk can take feat chains that list Two-Weapon Fighting (and Improved and Greater) as their prerequisites? When fighting with an unarmed strike as the primary and a temple sword as an off-hand, what's the TWF penalty? Does it stay the same or does it increase because a temple sword isn't a light weapon? Two temple swords? Is the extra attack from ki a primary or off-hand? Does the extra attack from ki stack with haste or a speed weapon?

That last question doesn't concern flurry, but since it has never been answered, I thought I would throw it in there.

If you successfully stun an opponent in flurry, what hand are the extra attacks from Medusa's Wrath made with? If you can flurry with a reach weapon (Sohei again!) and there is person within 5', do you have to divide your flurry between your real target and use unarmed strikes on the secondary target? If there isn't anyone in reach, do you have kick the ground with your off-hand foot? How many magic fang or magic weapon spells does it take for a monk to be considered having all of his unarmed strikes equally enhanced?

No, Sir. I firmly disagree that flurry of blows, as many of us players, DMs, and writers saw it creates more problems than it solves.

Master Arminas


Its OK Talonhawke. I was not trying to sound imperical of holier-than-thou. I simply thought poor Lab Rat might feel outnumbered and wanted to reassure him that some of us had been doing things in the exact same fashion for some time. It was not my intention to

Hi Master Arminas,

You are obviously a long time fan of the game and your writing skills easily exceed my own. My own gaming experience is approximately equivalent to yours, beginning with running my first game at the age of 9 years in 1980. I have known many players who were very fond of the monk class, including a friend I have known and played games with for 29 years.
I would handle the situations that you mentioned in the following ways:

Flurrying with a two-handed weapon.
It seems to me I remember reading a monk can fight when handcuffed.
If he can fight when handcuffed, then he could also attack with a two-handed weapon for half his flurry and substitute "kick" unarmed strikes for his off-handed attacks.

Zen Archery requires no alteration. Simply assume its capabilities are an exception to the rule. Espescially since its abilities are only likened to FoB and actually more closely resemble an expanded rapid shot capability. If I am not mistaken is not that specific ability named Hail of Arrows or something like that?

Monks cannot take the higher chain feats requiring the TWF and ITWF as prerequisites in pathfinder. The Equivalency rule in 3.5 allowed for this, but I am unaware of any such rule in pathfinder. That does not mean it does not exist, it simply means I have not seen or do not remember it if I have.

As for the Temple sword questions. I thought all monk weapons were treated as light for purposes of FoB? Therefore there is no increased penalty. I am unfamiliar with the temple swords and am assuming they are a monk weapon.

The extra attack from a ki attack, it would seem to me, can be made with any "weapon" the monk currently has at his disposal and ready to use. After all, he cannot add more than one of these a round, can he?

Does the extra ki attack stack with a haste or speed effect? Good question! That one will require some research on my part.

I am unfamiliar with the Medusa's Wrath attack/effect that you mentioned. I am assuming it grants the player extra attack/s vs opponents stunned by the stunning fist feat, but if I had to guess how many were off-handed attacks I would be inclined to say half.

Flurrying with a reach weapon is easily addressed. You may make the primary hand attacks as reach attacks with the reach weapon and the rest as unarmed strikes against nearby foes. If there are not any foes nearby you do not have to stomp the empty square.

Magic Fang/Magic Weapon spells? You only have two unarmed attacks. "Right" and "Left", so it takes as many spells as you decide to use to get equal bonuses to your two modes of unarmed attack.

These are all simple, play and player friendly extrapolations. As you pointed out this is the developers game and they get final ruling on any official material (and by extension over PFS games), but anyone who doesnt like these can just adopt some house or table rules that they do approve of and call that their "patch" on the monk.

I apologize if any of this offends for any reason at all that was never my intention. Please remember the goal is to have fun!

Scarab Sages

Arminias, I feel that I have to address something important: I loved that Dragon Magazine monk! I'm in the same boat you are, having played since God knows when with 1st edition and loved the monk ever since.

I also agree with Weslocke that the rules stipulate the monk Flurry of Blows as Two Weapon Fighting. Adding in the TWF feats in place of the nebulous wording of FoB would clear up many of these issues, though I understand that some players would be upset by that. I do not think the idea is a bad one, as some have suggested, nor would it ruin the monk.

The issue really comes to light when using magical enhancements, as others have pointed out. I believe that the Magic Fang spell is of comparable power to Magic Weapon, and should therefore only enhance one part of a TWF routine. If that is one fist, then so be it. Those who are annoyed by the abstract loss of their character no longer striking with knees and head butts can be comforted by the fact that the game mechanics are exactly the same. The monk will perform exactly as well with two Magic Fang spells on hands as with any higher number applied to any other body parts. As has also been pointed out previously, the monk will suffer the same problems as any other character when chained, stuck in stone, grappled, carrying a friend, etc. Except that the monk can then choose to make unarmed strikes with other body parts that do not have a spell enhancing them (or perhaps cast the spell there in the first place). So to answer one of the questions posed earlier, I believe that it takes two Magic Fang spells to allow a monk to fully FoB with the enhancement bonus to all unarmed strikes, since that is exactly the same number of Magic Weapon spells it would take a character using two manufactured weapons to make full use of TWF. I see it as a game balance issue. Regardless of the number of bodyparts a human can strike with, two is sufficient for game purposes.

The sequence of which attacks are primary and which are secondary becomes more relevant when a monk uses a monk weapon in a FoB along with unarmed strikes. In that case, yes, we need to know exactly which attacks are with the weapon and which are unarmed strikes. I do not believe it is fair that a high level monk should be allowed seven attacks with a single weapon while his ranger buddy needs two weapons to do the same. Why isn't it fair? The cost and/or frequency of great weapons. A character who needs only one awesome weapon has a much greater chance of getting it than a character who needs two. The cost is less, or the odds are better, as the case may be. While this applies to all characters, of course, not all characters use TWF - it applies to all TWF characters equally, including the monk. That's the price paid for up to three more attacks per round.

As I said, I think the problem would be (mostly) solved by removing the language in FoB and adding in TWF at 1st level, ITWF at 8th level, and GTWF at 15th level, all with the caveat that they apply to unarmed strikes and monk weapons (perhaps stipulate when unarmored and lightly encumbered, too). I believe most of the issues would be resolved with this change, even if there would be some less than pleased players. I would not be among them. The monk should be a bit behind the fighter in pure combat ability. That's why the monk has such awesome class features. Consider that if you were to count the TWF, ITWF and GTWF feats as I desribed above (since they are already factored in to FoB anyway) the monk ends up with 11 bonus feats at 20th level - exactly the same as a fighter! Then count the fact that since the monk gets to use his class level for BAB when performing a FoB, BAB effectively equals a fighter/ranger/etc. Then add the fact that the monk has the best saves in the game (certainly much better than the fighter), immunity to poison and disease, spell resistance, automatic bypassing of DR, healing and a host of other abilities. After taking all of that into account, only a true munchkin gamer would consider the monk to be underpowered. Just the opposite, in fact: monks rock!

Dark Archive

It's funny how many people come out of the woodwork to say they have been running monks this way the whole time. I guess they just didn't feel like mentioning to the rest of us we were doing it "wrong"(including published adventures) in any of the multiple threads involving one-weapon flurries :)
I am so glad a fix is on the way though and from Jason's quote it really seems like he thinks this ruling is creating more problems than it solves. I also think the biggest point he made is that it will be confusing and make the system harder for noobs to keep track of how many magic fangs, different bonuses for different attacks in a flurry etc.. I think we will see a "simple" solution soon!


I think that I have to seriously disagree with monks FoB being two weapon fighting, and I don't want to see it that way. If I was involved on the playtest I would have ranted against it from day one.

Thematically and historically ( in d&d) the FoB was never about two weapon fighting but a rapid series of attacks. Two weapon fighting was a unique fighting style open to the ranger and once the proficiency options and feat options were available any class that wanted to invest in them. Before FoB, they just simply had more attacks, and could gain more through two weapons.

I think it was a poor decision to implement it the way its been done. I get they're unhappy, the class has been shot full of holes that were missed in the play test and consults with Monte Cook and other designers.I know I'd be irritated. The thing is, we care about this as much as they do, we understand the that things get missed. We want it fixed and have put forward many ideas on how to fix the holes and improve the design so that it fills its role properly with overdoing it. We have put many ideas that range from mild to moderate. It would be nice and I hope they do realize that its about love and not spite. I know I'd like to hear from then in this more than they have.

Hell, I'd like to know where their arbitrary numbers are for classes, because it really doesn't make sense that the fighter is flat out better than a monk in all things except stunning attack and unarmed damage. Every thing a fighter exceeds, and really every other class does. So what's the deal? Knowing where they should be at or expected would honestly help our feedback, though I really think the class needs a huge overhaul due to the unarmed damage, amount of attacks, etc.

Grand Lodge

I really like the idea of having the monk treat unarmed strikes as multiple weapons for the purposes of flurry of blows, as an exception to the rules. With unarmed strikes being treated as one weapon with this one exception, then it all becomes a lot simpler, and the monk has it's little fun advantage. Everything balances out, and there are a lot less headaches.


Talonhawke wrote:
Notice that nothing changes as far as how monks and non-monks function.

Actually, a LOT changes for some players.

Talonhawke wrote:
If its one weapon and no TWF then all monks must now either use a weapon or have an exception that states they can.

And there are a lot of exceptions, which is why it STILL makes no sense. If you can flurry with a two-handed weapon, you can flurry with a single one-handed weapon.

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
If the monk doesn't work as written, the Core Rulebook is where it should be fixed, not Ultimate Equipment (or the APG, or Adventurer's Armory, or anywhere else)

Paizo are not going to release Pathfinder 2.0 just for changes to the monk, and I do not expect them to.

Obirandiath wrote:
I also agree with Weslocke that the rules stipulate the monk Flurry of Blows as Two Weapon Fighting. Adding in the TWF feats in place of the nebulous wording of FoB would clear up many of these issues, though I understand that some players would be upset by that. I do not think the idea is a bad one, as some have suggested, nor would it ruin the monk.

Flavour-wise it would, but at least the monk would have a load of new options available in the other TWF feat-tree. I wouldn't like it, but it would be an improvement on the current worst-of-both-worlds interpretation.


Alright, I'm usually loath to do this but it's time. Ever since this started numerous people have jumped from nowhere and pointed out that they have been playing Monks correctly the whole time. Meanwhile the rest of us just garbled the rules. Unfortunately they then make posts that show a decided lack of experience with the actual monk class.

Weslocke, I'm not picking on you specifically, but I needed an example.

Weslocke wrote:


As for the Temple sword questions. I thought all monk weapons were treated as light for purposes of FoB? Therefore there is no increased penalty. I am unfamiliar with the temple swords and am assuming they are a monk weapon.

The extra attack from a ki attack, it would seem to me, can be made with any "weapon" the monk currently has at his disposal and ready to use. After all, he cannot add more than one of these a round,...

The Temple Sword is the go to, default weapon for monks. It's the ONLY weapon proficiency available to the core monk that does 1d8 dmg. With an expanded threat range, 19-20x2.

Not all monk weapons are light, the quarterstaff isn't and no rules wrangling is going to make it finessable. It's a double weapon, similar but not the same.

No there is only one bonus ki attack, not because of the ability but because of it's swift action expenditure.

Medusa's Wrath is a monk bonus feat available at 10th level.
It's in the Core Rule Book and on the Monk's class description.
It is the single best feat for a Stunning Fist monk. Bonus or not. That you do not know what it is leads the serious, long term monk players to question if monks even get played in your games. Not to be rough but this, very long, debate about balance issues has
been going on among serious monk players for several YEARS.

The reach weapon issue is not "easily" addressed. The question is whether a flurry is even possible or must it become a regular iterative attack.

There is nothing in the rules about "right and left" unarmed strikes.
More importantly Unarmed Strike is always displayed in a singular fashion. One of the things that Monk players hold sacred is that the Monk's Entire Body is a weapon. Not a connected group of weapons but a single weapon. One that counts as both a manufactured and natural weapon with regards to spells and effects. However we have learned that that is not the case with regards to a specific feat. Improved Natural Attack.
This exception coupled with a gimped FoB that is TWF but not, because it can't count as a prerequisite is GROSSLY UNFAIR to monks, who are being gimped because it's unfair to Rangers that they can't use FoB for single weapon flurries.

I am seriously getting irritated of being treated like I'm saying that "the sky is falling" by
people that's only real understanding of the class is in a theoretical sense.
I PLAY monks, and there are some serious yet subtle issues in balance. Those issues become more significant as levels go up.
I am one of the FEW people on these boards that think the base class is well designed, or I did prior to the last 2 weeks, the issues are in the magic item rules and how bonuses
to various things are acquired. This is a belief that I have come to after hundreds of hours of actual play experience. Being lectured on rules minutiae by people without practical experience, piloting the class, is infuriating.

Alright my little rant is over.


Ninja'd by Zagnabbit. ;)

I really really want to reemphasize: Unarmed Strikes having a Left and a Right side is entirely a poster-created idea. NOTHING in the RAW supports this stance, and if you use it in your games, it is a homebrew rule. Suggesting that it's "the way it is" for the purposes of this discussion is wrong and misleading to some of the less-monk-informed readers.


Hi Zagnabbit,

I personally understand your point. I do not play monks. I do not play period. I am only a gamemaster. I posted on several other similar threads, but they were locked down. I did not come out of nowhere any more than you did. Master Arminas can vouch for this, he probably remembers me from the other thread.
I have been gamemastering Pathfinder for a year. During that time I have had two monk PC's. Neither carried a temple sword or ever acquired the Medusa's wrath bonus monk feat. For that matter, they rarely used their FoB as they felt it seriously altered their chance to hit and preferred to utilise it versus lower powered enemies only.
I was fairly certain they could only activate one extra ki attack per round. It has been more than a month since my most recent monk player could attend and I could not remember the type of action used to activate the ability off the top of my brain.
Ok, I am sorry, I forgot that the quarterstaff was a monk weapon. My bad. I thought I did fairly well by only forgetting one of the traditional monk weapons off the top of my head, not being a player of monks and all.
The reach weapon is not a conundrum at all. I illustrated a perfectly fine and simply executed way to handle a reach weapon flurry in two sentences. If you prefer a different method, table-rule your preference as I suggested in my previous post (or post it here). This is not the first time a reach weapon has played havoc with a ruling. It will not be the last.
I never said that I thought that the Monk was not well designed. I happen to think nearly everything about Pathfinder is well designed. The monk class is one of those things I think adds a wonderful aspect to the game. I view them as a staple of the game that dates back to the Gygax era of my youth, and I have fond memories of the class.
The reason I have not run into these PF play details is because my monk players get along just fine utilizing the rules in the manner described in my previous posts. My players do not optimize their builds. They know that if they do I will do the same to the bad guys. Considering the bad guys (read monsters) often have better attributes than theirs, they know this is not something they want.
I understand the stance that you have assumed concerning what you see as a retcon. I understand that you are frustrated by conflicting rules interpretations that have been compounded by the staff making similar mistakes (no offense intended, I love you all, we all make mistakes!) which only reinforced your interpretation (notice I did not say misinterpretation). I understand that you are rallying for support from other players and GM's who share your interpretation. All this activity on the subject makes it appear that the "monk movement" side of the argument is attempting to force a favorable rules revision. I am not accusing anyone of actually doing this, I am simply pointing out that is how it looks. Be careful what you wish for though. It wouldnt surprise me if the final revision replaces FoB completely with a TWF bonus feat ala the ranger (just to simplify things so that there can be no other interpretation) complete with all its bonuses and penalties and no special dispensation or circumstances for monk weapons and off-handed damage. In most developers minds simpler is better, and this confusion only reinforces that perception.
Now, in your mind, I may have no practical experience at running monks, but I have been running games of every imaginable type for more than thirty years now. I can run more than fifty different systems including most of the really rules-sticky ones like rolemaster, spacemaster, traveller, cyborg commando, twilight2000, TimeMaster, Doctor Who, Ringworld, Champions,Rifts, any masterbook system, even the old Space Opera rules (where starship range is measured in light seconds, but maneuverability only in accelleration /second/second). And I can run them smoothly without hiccups or delays. Put simply, I know game systems and mechanics. 37,000+ hours of gamemastering (8 hours, 3x/ week, 50 weeks/ year, for 31 years) has that effect. This d20 system is nowhere near as complicated (by comparison!) as most seem to make it out to be. Pathfinder even less so, because of the clarity of the rules and the diligent work that the developers have put into it. Thats why I love Pathfinder so much. As far as I am concerned these gentlemen and ladies deserve our thanks for saving the best parts of all the editions of the game from certain extinction at the hands of WoTC. So, my hats off to all of you for working so diligently to preserve nearly fourty years of sub-culture so that we may pass this most wonderful and engaging of pass-times off to the next generation.
Once again, if I have offended anyone I apologise. That was never my intention at all. I am simply trying to make sure that the Dev's realise that just as large a cross-section of their player base got their intention for the monk FoB as didnt. I never meant to imply there was any wrong way to run the game.
Please remember the goal is to have fun! I certainly will!


I apologize Neo2151. Would referring to them as Primary side and off-handed side as TWF does help? The last thing I want is to perpetuate a misunderstanding. I siezed on that terminology because Lab Rats explanation was so simplified and clear.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My table has always ran it as one weapon, and we even had this discussion, and decided to stick with it being one weapon. We simply assumed that the monk's FoB was like two-weapon fighting, but not actually two-weapon fighting, as it could be used with one weapon. Two-weapon fighting itself is best seen for what it is, an extra attack, with penalties. When you you look at it this way, flurry is easier to wrap one's head around. I say if you attempting to simplify something by complicating it, then you are probably doing it wrong.


I seriously hope they do NOT rule the flurry is actually two weapon fighting and they get the feats. That just kills the Kung Fu aspect.

Keep them separate. And fix the bab for crying out loud. It simply makes no sense that a monk has a lower chance to hit on a single attack then a multiple attack.

For the quick fix make flurry as its been used, does not work with two weapon and can use one or more weapons. And the have the monk have the same bab for a standard attack with the monk weapons be the same as the first attack of the flurry. Tip it off with requiring a proficiency feat to use temple sword so that there is more investment required in to work and therefore not an instant go to weapon choice.


Dabbler wrote:


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
If the monk doesn't work as written, the Core Rulebook is where it should be fixed, not Ultimate Equipment (or the APG, or Adventurer's Armory, or anywhere else)
Paizo are not going to release Pathfinder 2.0 just for changes to the monk, and I do not expect them to.

Actually, if they update or clarify this enough that just an FAQ entry will not cover it, then they will make it official errata, which WILL appear in the 6th, or maybe 7th, printing of the Core Book.

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Unarmed Strikes: One Weapon or Multiple Weapons? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.