OK, so after reading through these posts, it seems like the number one pick was Brawler, so that's what I chose. He's a little weak in the damage department right now, but I'm building him toward using Dragon Style (hence the point in Acrobatics) and will eventually be putting a Monk's Robe and Belt of Physical Might +6 on him. Also Enlarge Person potions are dirt cheap, plus we'll have an alchemist on hand to brew, so I'll be keeping him enlarged as much as possible. By about level 6 I should be doing 2d6+16 with three attacks per round. Here's the initial build, we rolled 4d6 drop low and got 300gp starting wealth:
Arc Wyborn
Male CN Human Fighter (Brawler), Level Lv 1, Init +2, HP 12/12, Speed 20
AC 18, Touch 12, Flat-footed 16, Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +2, Base Attack Bonus 1
Unarmed Strike +5/+5 (1d3+5/1d3+2, x2)
Unarmed Strike (Enlarged) +5/+5 (1d4+6/1d4+3, x2)
Sling (Bullets x 20) +3 (1d4+5, x2)
Breastplate (+6 Armor, +2 Dex)
Abilities Str 20, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Condition None
Feats Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus(UAS), Two-Weapon FightingI am open to any suggestions to improve the build.
HEy if you are going to go monk for one level pick Master of many styles it ignores the prerequisites to a lot of the style feats except for Elemental fist. so by MOMS 2 and unarmed fighter 1 you can have an entire feat chain..
Please. Primary and secondary natural attacks are equivalents to primary/main and off-hand/secondary attacks for two weapon fighting. No differences there. And if taking a weapon or UA relegates Natural attacks to secondary attacks, that would make the UA/Weapon...primary attacks.
Ignoring that is just trying to use English Definition abuse for cheese.
Deadmanwalking, the idea has been around for years. It was panned on the 3.5 Wizard's CO boards, and seeing it raised here, where Paizo has the rules in place to stop it, is just annoying to see.
UA does not make new primary limbs to attack with. It just doesn't. The sheer idea that UA is more powerful if you attack with a limb not meant for a weapon is just plain nuts. UA is just another weapon style, and gets treated like one.
==Aelryinth
Please. Primary and secondary natural attacks are equivalents to primary/main and off-hand/secondary attacks for two weapon fighting. No differences there. And if taking a weapon or UA relegates Natural attacks to secondary attacks, that would make the UA/Weapon...primary attacks.
Ignoring that is just trying to use English Definition abuse for cheese.
Deadmanwalking, the idea has been around for years. It was panned on the 3.5 Wizard's CO boards, and seeing it raised here, where Paizo has the rules in place to stop it, is just annoying to see.
UA does not make new primary limbs to attack with. It just doesn't. The sheer idea that UA is more powerful if you attack with a limb not meant for a weapon is just plain nuts. UA is just another weapon style, and gets treated like one.
==Aelryinth
Sadly none of the rules support you outside of invisible notions pulled from things you apparently read between the lines. Whether or not you consider it cheese, ludicrous, or whatever is irrelevant.
"handedness" has always been a choice of the player. If they decide to flavor their "primary" unarmed attack as a headbutt and their "offhand" attack as their left elbow it does not matter to the rules. The rules purposely do not define what "primary" and "offhand" weapon attacks are as at any given time you may be dealing with numerous different body shapes, weapon selections, and situations where merely dictating "left hand" and "right hand" causes more troubles than it solves.
As to natural attacks they are either "primary" or "secondary" the actual definition of which is defined under their individual entries. When you attack with a manufactured weapon they become "secondary" natural attacks. However you can still use them so long as the limb in question isn't being used to deliver a manufactured attack (i.e. claws on arms being used to swing a sword). They do not count as "offhand attacks" for two weapon fighting. All multiattack does in this case is reduce the penalty for using those attacks with manufactured attacks. For the purposes of two weapon fighting they do not count at all since you cannot make "offhand" natural attacks.
Now unarmed strikes are treated as manufactured weapons not natural attacks. This is an important distinction to make as it means an attack with an unarmed strike is always a manufactured weapon attack. This attack always deals the same damage and the actual source or "limb" is unimportant for the purposes of designating an unarmed attack. It can be a head butt, a savage knee to the groin, an axe kick, whatever. It's unimportant.
Now if you wish to always count limbs such as Feet as secondary attacks that is your prerogative. However I would like to point out there are thousands of martial arts practitioners who disagree with the notion of kicks being "secondary" or "offhand".
|
HEy if you are going to go monk for one level pick Master of many styles it ignores the prerequisites to a lot of the style feats except for Elemental fist. so by MOMS 2 and unarmed fighter 1 you can have an entire feat chain..
They way I read the MoMS, the style feats would mean that level 1 I could select a style and level 2 I could select a DIFFERENT style. So it wouldn't let me go Dragon Style-Dragon Ferocity, I'd have to do Dragon Style-Crane Style.
Unfortunately, problem with any traditional monk is that the alignment restriction would work against me, and as well I'm trying to avoid as much of the Oriental theme as possible. Martial Artist is already a bit of a compromise, but I feel like bringing in the traditional Ki-style monk kind of violates what I'm going for.
|
Unfortunately, problem with any traditional monk is that the alignment restriction would work against me, and as well I'm trying to avoid as much of the Oriental theme as possible. Martial Artist is already a bit of a compromise, but I feel like bringing in the traditional Ki-style monk kind of violates what I'm going for.
MoMS and Martial Artist actually stack freely. I believe MoMS is the only other Archetype that stacks with Martial Artist but it does so quite well.
They almost stack, but both replace Perfect Self. You might be able to convince your GM to let it go, since Perfect Self is the level 20 ability.Unfortunately, problem with any traditional monk is that the alignment restriction would work against me, and as well I'm trying to avoid as much of the Oriental theme as possible. Martial Artist is already a bit of a compromise, but I feel like bringing in the traditional Ki-style monk kind of violates what I'm going for.MoMS and Martial Artist actually stack freely. I believe MoMS is the only other Archetype that stacks with Martial Artist but it does so quite well.
They do stack. Martial Artist keeps Perfect Self (but gives up Empty Body at 19).
Ok, I've got to comment.
Situation: 6th level fighter with TWF and a claw/claw/ bite routine awakens unarmored with just a loincloth and no weapons in a dungeon. Someone has left the door open so he exits and is face to face with the guard.
Fighter wins initiative so goes first. Being adjacent, he makes a full attack with TWF. His normal BaB is +6/+1 so it's now +4/-1/+4. He abruptly knees the guard in the groin twice, then follows it up with a kick to the side of the guard's leg. To be sure he takes the guard down, he'll also claw/claw/bite at -1/-1/-1 (TWF BaB - 5).
Am I missing something or is this 100% by the rules?
HEy if you are going to go monk for one level pick Master of many styles it ignores the prerequisites to a lot of the style feats except for Elemental fist. so by MOMS 2 and unarmed fighter 1 you can have an entire feat chain..They way I read the MoMS, the style feats would mean that level 1 I could select a style and level 2 I could select a DIFFERENT style. So it wouldn't let me go Dragon Style-Dragon Ferocity, I'd have to do Dragon Style-Crane Style.
Unfortunately, problem with any traditional monk is that the alignment restriction would work against me, and as well I'm trying to avoid as much of the Oriental theme as possible. Martial Artist is already a bit of a compromise, but I feel like bringing in the traditional Ki-style monk kind of violates what I'm going for.
you can if you pick dragon style then you can take the next feat in the chain. if that doesn't work for you you can pick unarmed fighter you can take bonus style feats.
read here
:At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select a bonus style feat or the Elemental Fist feat. He does not have to meet the prerequisites of that feat, except the Elemental Fist feat. Alternatively,
******** a master of many styles may choose a feat in that style’s feat path (such as Earth Child Topple) as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat (such as Earth Child Style). *******
The master of many styles does not need to meet any other prerequisite of the feat in the style’s feat path.
|
|
HEy if you are going to go monk for one level pick Master of many styles it ignores the prerequisites to a lot of the style feats except for Elemental fist. so by MOMS 2 and unarmed fighter 1 you can have an entire feat chain..They way I read the MoMS, the style feats would mean that level 1 I could select a style and level 2 I could select a DIFFERENT style. So it wouldn't let me go Dragon Style-Dragon Ferocity, I'd have to do Dragon Style-Crane Style.
Unfortunately, problem with any traditional monk is that the alignment restriction would work against me, and as well I'm trying to avoid as much of the Oriental theme as possible. Martial Artist is already a bit of a compromise, but I feel like bringing in the traditional Ki-style monk kind of violates what I'm going for.
you can if you pick dragon style then you can take the next feat in the chain. if that doesn't work for you you can pick unarmed fighter you can take bonus style feats.
read here
:At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select a bonus style feat or the Elemental Fist feat. He does not have to meet the prerequisites of that feat, except the Elemental Fist feat. Alternatively,******** a master of many styles may choose a feat in that style’s feat path (such as Earth Child Topple) as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat (such as Earth Child Style). *******
The master of many styles does not need to meet any other prerequisite of the feat in the style’s feat path.
It is an interesting thought, and would provide greater benefit than the martial artist. But since I have committed to a chaotic character, and one whose style is definitely not your typical mystic monk, my GM might call Cheese on it. And he would be at least a little right, but damn does it look a lot more attractive now.
|
|
Ok, I've got to comment.
Situation: 6th level fighter with TWF and a claw/claw/ bite routine awakens unarmored with just a loincloth and no weapons in a dungeon. Someone has left the door open so he exits and is face to face with the guard.
Fighter wins initiative so goes first. Being adjacent, he makes a full attack with TWF. His normal BaB is +6/+1 so it's now +4/-1/+4. He abruptly knees the guard in the groin twice, then follows it up with a kick to the side of the guard's leg. To be sure he takes the guard down, he'll also claw/claw/bite at -1/-1/-1 (TWF BaB - 5).
Am I missing something or is this 100% by the rules?
Actually, TWF penalties don't apply to natural attacks, so they're at +1/+1/+1 (for being secondary, since he kicked a guy)...but other than that, yes. That is indeed precisely how that would work (assuming a Fighter could get a claw/claw/bite routine).
It's probably a worse idea than just using the claw/claw/bite routine (unless he has both Improved Unarmed Strike and Multiattack), but it's entirely valid rules-wise.
The only one who disputes this is Aelrynith, whose grounds for doing so are shaky at best.
Almost, but the Martial Artist also gives up Perfect Self. It's buried on the level 5 ability Extreme Endurance.
Damn, you're right. I missed that part.
I'd still allow it, but it is technically disallowed.
|
|
They almost stack, but both replace Perfect Self. You might be able to convince your GM to let it go, since Perfect Self is the level 20 ability.Unfortunately, problem with any traditional monk is that the alignment restriction would work against me, and as well I'm trying to avoid as much of the Oriental theme as possible. Martial Artist is already a bit of a compromise, but I feel like bringing in the traditional Ki-style monk kind of violates what I'm going for.MoMS and Martial Artist actually stack freely. I believe MoMS is the only other Archetype that stacks with Martial Artist but it does so quite well.
Moot point, really. The goal is to have as little monk as possible. Unfortunately, to make a truly effective unarmed build, it seems that some variant is required. (Though I personally would've made the Martial Artist a fighter class---the Unarmed Fighter seriously feels more monk-esque than the MA.)
So ideally, it would be Monk 1/Fighter 9 by the time we cap. But with the MoMS abilities, it seems that a better idea would be Monk 2/Fighter 8. Either way, he should start with the monk's unarmed attacks and combat feats, but by level 10 be an armored brute who uses brute force more than finesse.
My DM might houserule on the monk alignment (we have before) but it is still a bit out-of-concept. Damn you, fluff! DAAAMNNNN YOOUUUU!
They almost stack, but both replace Perfect Self. You might be able to convince your GM to let it go, since Perfect Self is the level 20 ability.Unfortunately, problem with any traditional monk is that the alignment restriction would work against me, and as well I'm trying to avoid as much of the Oriental theme as possible. Martial Artist is already a bit of a compromise, but I feel like bringing in the traditional Ki-style monk kind of violates what I'm going for.MoMS and Martial Artist actually stack freely. I believe MoMS is the only other Archetype that stacks with Martial Artist but it does so quite well.Moot point, really. The goal is to have as little monk as possible. Unfortunately, to make a truly effective unarmed build, it seems that some variant is required. (Though I personally would've made the Martial Artist a fighter class---the Unarmed Fighter seriously feels more monk-esque than the MA.)
So ideally, it would be Monk 1/Fighter 9 by the time we cap. But with the MoMS abilities, it seems that a better idea would be Monk 2/Fighter 8. Either way, he should start with the monk's unarmed attacks and combat feats, but by level 10 be an armored brute who uses brute force more than finesse.
My DM might houserule on the monk alignment (we have before) but it is still a bit out-of-concept. Damn you, fluff! DAAAMNNNN YOOUUUU!
the unarmed fighter is the closets thing to a monk he gets the style feats and the grapple love just not the unarmed damage. if you want to increase that go monk robe. you absolutly dont have to hit up monk at all. go barbarian and do the 2 rage powers that give you twf and increased unarmed damage. then go unarmed fighter.or brawler
|
|
Moot point, really. The goal is to have as little monk as possible. Unfortunately, to make a truly effective unarmed build, it seems that some variant is required.
Using unarmed attacks only? Yeah, pretty much. It's kinda sad. :(
I still say a Barbarian with the Brawler and Beast Totem Rage powers plus a bite attack, IUS, and TWF can do very well indeed as a straight Barbarian, though.
If the only problem is flavor, perhaps your GM would let you flavor the claw attacks as punches and the bite as a headbutt? I'd definitely allow that as a GM if they were provided with Rage Powers (totally doable). No mechanics would change, but the appearance would.
If you don't want natural attacks, I still say TWF UAS Brawler Fighter would annihilate opponents.
I'm not sure if jumping into this is good, but here are some more cases to judge with respect to unarmed strikes plus natural attacks.
1. Let's say we have a more-or-less humanoid fighter with a bite and two tentacle attacks, and the Two-weapon Fighting, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Multiattack feats. Now do we all agree that he gets five attacks (or more if his BAB is 6+)?
2. Can a first level fighter (Give her TWF and IUS if you want to, but all they do is reduce penalties) attack with a sword in her right hand, a dagger in her left hand, and a kick?
3. Let's say that, just for giggles, a Great Wyrm Red Dragon decides to take Improved Unarmed Strike. He has 29 hit dice, he can afford it. Of course, he has Multiattack too. His natural attack routine is Bite/Claw/Claw/Wing/Wing/Tail Slap. His hind legs are not involved in any of those, so they are free for unarmed strikes, right? Can he make four iterative US attacks in addition to his six natural attacks? Of course, all the natural attacks become secondary, but he likes his 10 attacks per round. Plus, he's got an Unholy Human-Bane +3 Amulet of Mighty Fists.
4. Can a Kraken head-butt four times while making 2 arm and 8 tentacle attacks? Can a Kraken head-butt at all?
My rulings as a GM would be yes, no, no, no. Question 2 was thrown in because we surely all agree on it. edit: I hope we all agree on 1 too.
I'd like the rules to be more clear on this, but questions 3 and 4, along with the recent ruling on Flurry of Blows, suggest to me that, RAI, although unarmed strikes can be made with legs or head, they do count as using a hand. Thus, creatures without "hands" cannot make them, and they cannot be made if the hand in question is already spoken for in the attack routine by a weapon or natural attack. I would still allow a character whose hands are not free, either because they are holding weapons or they are tied, to make unarmed strikes as kicks or head-butts, but not in addition to weapon or natural attacks made by the hands.
edit: updated number of attacks for kraken and dragon; I don't play at high levels much.
edit again for TarkXT's correction; the main question at hand doesn't change.
3. Let's say that, just for giggles, a Great Wyrm Red Dragon decides to take Improved Unarmed Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting. He likes it, so let's say he takes Improved and Greater TWF too. He has 29 hit dice, he can afford it. Of course, he has Multiattack too. His natural attack routine is Bite/Claw/Claw/Wing/Wing/Tail Slap. His hind legs are not involved in any of those, so they are free for unarmed strikes, right? Can he make six iterative US attacks (three with each leg) in addition to his six natural attacks? Of course, all the natural attacks become secondary, but he likes his 12 attacks per round. Plus, he's got an Unholy Human-Bane +3 Amulet of Mighty Fists.4. Can a Kraken head-butt three times while making 2 arm and 8 tentacle attacks? Can a Kraken head-butt at all?
My rulings as a GM would be yes, no, no, no. Question 2 was thrown in because we surely all agree on it. edit: I hope we all agree on 1 too.
I'd like the rules to be more clear on this, but questions 3 and 4, along with the recent ruling on Flurry of Blows, suggest to me that, RAI, although unarmed strikes can be made with legs or head, they do count as using a hand. Thus, creatures without "hands" cannot make them, and they cannot be made if the hand in question is already spoken for in the attack routine by a weapon or natural attack. I would still allow a character whose hands are not free, either because they are holding weapons or they are tied, to...
First. Your third example needs work. 29 hit dice or not Mr. Ancient Dragon cannot afford TWF. Primarily because he has a Dex of 6. Beyond that nothing stops him from doing it. Not a thing. Unarmed strikes do not require hands. They never did. They never mention hands in any of the definitions of unarmed strike anywhere. It is an abstraction along with the idea that longswords do nothing but slashing damage (while anyone who knows anything about medieval swordsmanship can tell you that there's a lot more you can do with a good arming sword than merely slash). It's an abstraction based on the idea that humanoid forms are not the only forms in existence or even playable. A monk that turns into a bear suddenly doesn't lose his unarmed strike ability, a wolf that is suddenly anthropomorphized doesn't suddenly gain an unarmed strike attack. You have them.
|
|
You do not even need limbs to make unarmed strikes. Nagas and oozes can make unarmed strikes. This was true even in 3.5, as an example in the elite opponents article shows here.
Fixed the dragon issue above.
I am not sure that I agree that a wolf or a bear should have unarmed strikes. I don't think a wolf is built in such a way that it can effectively do even nonlethal damage except by biting or clawing. I certainly don't think a monk's knowledge of martial arts techniques would translate to a bear's body, at least without a lot of practice. Imagining a bear trying to perform a devastating kick with one of its back legs is pretty humorous. Of course, that's my opinion based on the real world, not the rules, and depending on how "cinematic" you want your game to be, kung-fu bears may be fine.
Does anyone know of an example of a non-humanoid creature using unarmed strikes in any published material? That's not a guarantee of the rules, to be sure, but I'm curious.
Can't really get less humanoid than a gelatinous cube.
While there is text that creatures without natural attacks can make unarmed strikes,
Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do.
it does not necessarily imply that having natural attacks precludes making unarmed strikes. In fact, the existence of PCs with natural attacks (e.g., Aspect of the Beast) seems to indicate that having natural attacks is no impediment to having unarmed strike.
In short, GM call.
It is worth noting that the stat-block for the (absurdly funny) gelatinous cube monk lists it as having a slam attack -or- unarmed strikes, but not both in the same full-attack, despite having no real limbs to "use up."
I assume that quote is from the bestiary, blahpers?
Again, looking for confirmation by example, does anyone know of a published non-humanoid creature without natural attacks?
It is worth noting that the stat-block for the (absurdly funny) gelatinous cube monk lists it as having a slam attack -or- unarmed strikes, but not both in the same full-attack, despite having no real limbs to "use up."
I assume that quote is from the bestiary, blahpers?
Again, looking for confirmation by example, does anyone know of a published non-humanoid creature without natural attacks?
Bestiary 2 section of the PRD, under Natural Attacks. This did not appear in the Bestiary 1 section, so B2 is a place to start, I suppose.
Non-humaniod type, or shape?
Shape. Specifically, non-humanoid meaning "lacking prehensile hands."
What I am looking for is a creature that unambiguously, in Pathfinder, has unarmed strikes despite being unable to wield a weapon. My gut feeling is that an unarmed strike must always be made at the expense of a potential armed strike. I don't think that's actually written anywhere in the rules, but I think it is the intention. But seeing creature lacking both hands and natural attacks, given the line quoted by blahpers, would certainly confirm that unarmed attacks can be made by creatures incapable of wielding weapons. But my initial reaction is that the "creatures without natural attacks" in question are orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, giants of all types, etc., which usually wield weapons, but if they are without one can do an unarmed strike anyway.
There are no creatures in B2 or B3 listed as using unarmed strikes that do not also have hands and, presumably, the ability to wield manufactured weapons.
Here we go. From the equipment chapter of the CRB:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
An unarmed strike is a light weapon. A light weapon is wielded in one hand. Thus you need a hand to wield it.
Since this is not actually the rule forum, I'd say I would not allow two weapon fighting for kicks, headbutts or the like. To me it all comes down into the area of cheesing the RAW.
- Monks can flurry and with the right feat they can flurry with natural attacks as well but this does not increase the number of attacks they make. This seems a more reasonable way to deal with unarmed strikes/natural weapons combination, since thematically they are quite similar, pulling 4 additional attacks out off your ass by the rules just seems silly. In this feat at least the RAI seems to favor not stacking unarmed and natural attacks.
- In the natural attack section of the bestiary (I think) it states that creatures without natural attacks can make unarmed strikes. By RAI this implies to me that creatures with natural attacks shouldn't really make unarmed strikes.
- The original intent of TWF is quite cleary meant for humanoids with two arms/hands.
I don't want to play a game where cheese takes over from fantasy, even if it is fantastic cheese, personal preference I suppose.
|
|
I don't want to play a game where cheese takes over from fantasy, even if it is fantastic cheese, personal preference I suppose.
I personally deeply dislike actually broken rules combinations. This one is Feat intensive, only available to classes other than Fighter, and winds up adding only half Str to about half your attacks. It's viable, but damage-wise you'd be better off using a greatsword in two hands. I really don't see how making an alternate fighting style viable (as opposed to overpowered or broken), in a thematically appropriate manner, is 'cheese'.
One part of the criteria for cheese is ignoring the intent of the rule for increased power. Probably the easiest part to give criteria for, really.
To clarify: I have no problem with kicking or headbutting as an unarmed strike in place of a normally available iterative attack, with or without TWF.
What I disagree with are:
1. Kicking as an unarmed strike, in addition to using the hand that the kick is replacing in the same attack sequence. If you make a claw attack, you can't use that hand any more in your attack sequence. To me, that means that you also can't substitute a kick for an unarmed strike with that hand, because you can't make an unarmed strike with that hand.
2. Creatures that don't have hands or the ability to wield weapons making unarmed strikes.
As I said above, my example #2 was meant to be a gimme. Let me add some more examples:
I don't understand what is being argued here?
Are people saying if you have claws and unarmed strike and a bab of 6/1 and twf you cant kick kick, claw claw? to avoid the secondary attack from kicking in with the -5 penalty?. you 100 percent can. You cant use a natural attack from a limb that you have previously used ie you couldn't punch punch claw claw that would be the same limb but you can kick headbut ect... claw claw all; at only -2
am I way off base? pretend I am not a rules lawyer but a simple southern country robo chicken.