here is my build I went brass knuckle I need to change the name since I no longer grapple and am not a master at it. Talenvor works for me. couldn't find a way in hero lab to allow me to give my self 2 unarmed strikes so it couldn't calculate the TWF it still does it kinda weird.
Grapple master
Male Versatile Human (Mwangi) Fighter (Brawler) 10
CG Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +6; Senses Perception +10
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 25, touch 14, flat-footed 21 (+9 armor, +1 shield, +4 Dex, +1 natural)
hp 86 (10d10+30)
Fort +10, Ref +7, Will +3
Defensive Abilities Bravery +3
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 Conductive, Corrosive Cold Iron Brass Knuckles +16/+11 (1d3+19/19-20/x2) and
+1 Flaming, Frost Adamantine Brass Knuckles +16/+11 (1d3+19/19-20/x2)
Special Attacks Close Combatant +2/+4
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 19/23, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 11, Cha 11
Base Atk +10; CMB +16 (+19 Bull Rushing, +19 Dragging, +19 Repositioning); CMD 30 (33 vs. Bull Rush, 33 vs. Drag, 39 vs. Grapple, 33 vs. Reposition, 39 vs. Trip)
Feats Combat Reflexes (5 AoO/round), Double Slice, Greater Weapon Focus (Brass Knuckles), Improved Critical (Brass Knuckles), Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Power Attack -3/+6, Toughness +10, Two-weapon Defense, Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Brass Knuckles), Weapon Specialization (Brass Knuckles)
Traits Freed Slave (Katapesh), Reactionary
Skills Acrobatics +13, Climb +9, Escape Artist +3, Fly +3, Perception +10, Ride +3, Stealth +3, Survival +12, Swim +9
Languages Common, Kech, Polyglot
SQ Menacing Stance -1/-4, No Escape, Versatile Human
Combat Gear +1 Conductive, Corrosive Cold Iron Brass Knuckles, +1 Flaming, Frost Adamantine Brass Knuckles, +3 Mithral Breastplate; Other Gear Amulet of Natural Armor +1, Belt of Giant Strength, +4, Handy Haversack (empty)
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Bravery +3 (Ex) +3 Will save vs. Fear
Close Combatant +2/+4 (Ex) +2 to hit and +4 damage with close weapons.
Combat Reflexes (5 AoO/round) You may make up to 5 attacks of opportunity per round, and may make them while flat-footed.
Menacing Stance -1/-4 (Ex) Adjacent foes take a -1 penalty to attack rolls and a -4 penalty to concentration checks.
No Escape (Ex) Withdrawing or taking a 5-foot step away from brawler provokes attack of opportunity.
Power Attack -3/+6 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Two-weapon Defense +1 to AC while wielding 2 weapons. +2 when doing so defensively.
Versatile Human While they lack some of the training of other humans, the natural talents of versatile humans more than make up for this lack. Replace the +2 bonus to any ability score, the skilled racial trait, and the bonus feat racial trait with dual talent.
Hero Lab® and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.
My example is in regards to the fact that you can enchant one unarmed strike. If you can enchant one then there must be more than one. nothing I bolded was worrying with flurry other than pointing out that in fact you do have more than one unarmed strike and if any of them have are different then you could only make up to half your attacks on a flurry with it.
The general impression i get, Although i doubt this is explicitly stated anywhere. Is that the only people that do kung fu are Monks (and maybe the unarmed fighter?)
However every game i have played has found it acceptable to have somone use each hand to punch for TWF really Unless your playing PFS its not really hard to figure out.
I think its just only monks can turn punch/punch into punch/kick/headbut/back of the hand/elbow/knee etc.
Well, if you can indeed two weapon fight with only unarmed strikes, then that would be news to me.
Do you have a link to the source of that quote?
The ultimate equipment thread that started the whole flurry debacle.
What is a better alternative to unarmed strike? Brass Knuckles Rope Gauntlets or Tekko kagi? MY new plan is to ditch the TWF and do a vital strike Sunder with Admantium (insert weapon here). I don't like the flavor of Gauntlets.
MY new plan is to ditch the TWF and do a vital strike Sunder with Admantium (insert weapon here).
Make sure your DM doesn't rule that when Sunder replaces the attack you get from the attack action, that vital strike still applies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kept getting interrupted when reading this thread, so I apologize for the late response.
The problem with multiple weapons for Unarmed Strike is when it comes to enchanting them. If you cast one Magic Fang, it only effects one fist. Now only half of your two weapon fighting (or Flurry of Blows) gets the enchantment. Okay, so you cast a second one. Now you can use two weapon fighting with both fists.
Now what if you want to kick? Mechanically there is no difference from a kick and a punch. So now you are losing out on the enchantment just because you want to describe your unarmed strike as a kick for role-playing reasons? Do I have to cast Magic Fang five times so I can throw a descriptive kick or headbutt in even though it gives me no mechanical benefit whatsoever?
And what about the price of the Amulet of Might Fists? Again, there is no difference from a fist, kick, headbutt, elbow or whatever. So yes, you are enchanting two weapons simultaneously, but that would only equal bonus x 4000gp. That amulet is bonus x 5000gp. So you are paying an extra bonus x 1000gp just so you can role-play your unarmed fighter?
Of course the other reason for paying an extra bonus x 1000gp is because it also can effect natural weapons. Which doesn't do your character any good, but oh well.
Well, if you can indeed two weapon fight with only unarmed strikes, then that would be news to me.
Do you have a link to the source of that quote?
It'd be asinine if you couldn't. Humanoids generally have 2 hands. Each hand holds a weapon. TWF allows you to attack with both of those.
Now let's change it a little. Humanoids generally have 2 hands. Each hand makes a fist, which is an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes count as a light weapon. TWF allows you to attack with both of those.
|
It's always the "2 fists" that is the reasoning for most.
Now, that makes sense for some, but the unarmed strike represents more than a clenched fist.
Even in 3.5, there was a Fiendish Gelatinous Cube Monk that was able to perform unarmed strikes, without limbs.
So, a limb based allowance/restriction of unarmed strikes is something that has no real precedence within the game.
bbt Its the fact that so many people like to claim that you can only make one set of attacks with TWF without rules to back it up.
RAW says nothing either way RAI from seans quotes shows multiple weapons and the fact that if I can somehow make more attacks by putting metal gloves on.
Exactly how do you determine which limb is mainhand and which is offhand? Do you have to make it up as you go, every round?
And it really needs to be asked again: I have two legs, two arms, and a forehead, all of which are capable of striking my opponent. Why can't I multi-attack? Sure, we proved that I can't take the Multiweapon Fighting feat because I don't specifically have three hands, but the feat works just like TWF does - it isn't required to make the extra attacks, it just lessens your penalties.
So, as an unarmed human, can I multi-attack taking the full penalties on each attack?
Main-hand (whatever the hell that is - punch? kick? headbutt?) -4 / offhand -8 / OH -8 / OH -8 / OH -8? (Remember, Unarmed Strike is considered a light weapon.)
If your answer to the above is "yes you can" then why would anybody, ever, bother with Iterative attacks? -8 for your 5th attack in a round is WAY better than -15 for your 4th attack, after all.
If your answer to the above is "no, you can't" then you have to admit TWF doesn't work either, for the exact same reason.
It's always the "2 fists" that is the reasoning for most.
Now, that makes sense for some, but the unarmed strike represents more than a clenched fist.
Even in 3.5, there was a Fiendish Gelatinous Cube Monk that was able to perform unarmed strikes, without limbs.
So, a limb based allowance/restriction of unarmed strikes is something that has no real precedence within the game.
So, it's okay to swing two weapons with your hands, but you cannot punch twice. I'm sorry, your argument is beyond silly. I really wish I could take your seriously, but I cannot any more. Especially since you're saying the problem with IUS is the mechanics involved. Your reasons listed earlier are all easily solved by applying rules to each and every situation. Especially with your multiweapon fighting situation. The feat clearly states that it is specifically for creatures with more than two ARMS and has a requirement of 3 or more HANDS. Do yourself a favor and research your argument a little before presenting it.
So, it's okay to swing two weapons with your hands, but you cannot punch twice. I'm sorry, your argument is beyond silly. I really wish I could take your seriously, but I cannot any more. Especially since you're saying the problem with IUS is the mechanics involved. Your reasons listed earlier are all easily solved by applying rules to each and every situation. Especially with your multiweapon fighting situation. The feat clearly states that it is specifically for creatures with more than two ARMS and has a requirement of 3 or more HANDS. Do yourself a favor and research your argument a little before presenting it.
So there's two huge flaws with your argument here:
1 - You're trying to apply pure logic to a role playing game system. When has this ever worked, ever? (Plate vs Chain and their respective "ease of movement": go!)2 - You do NOT need the Multiweapon Fighting feat to multi-weapon fight. Let me say it again:
YOU DO NOT NEED THE MULTIWEAPON FIGHTING FEAT TO MULTI-WEAPON FIGHT. The ONLY thing the feat does is reduce penalties. If you can, within the rules, TWF with unarmed strikes, then, because you have two legs, two arms, and a head, you can also MWF with unarmed strikes.
Except you can't.
Exactly how do you determine which limb is mainhand and which is offhand? Do you have to make it up as you go, every round?
Just like when TWFing with any two weapons: You choose once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn). TWF FAQ
Look, I know the idea of a single unarmed strike upsets some people's suspension of disbelieve, but mechanically, it creates less problems.
Do your problems go away if you don't actually get multiple off-hand attacks due to extra weapons? What if the multi-armed monsters simply have a special ability that lets them break the rules, but everyone else can get at most one off-hand, regardless of how many other weapons and limbs they have available?
The multiple off-hands FAQ request is woefully neglected, and (IMO) would solve a lot of these problems.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
dual wielding short swords and having a boot blade equipped, same problem comes up as being able to multi weapon fight.
EDIT: for the sake of argument lets drop unarmed attacks and use real weapons. a fighter equipped with two short swords, boot blade, barbazu beard, and a boulder helmet. he has full TWF line at level 20, how many attacks does he get?
he would get 7 which can be used with any mix of the above weapons correct? why would it be any different then being able to hit with two punches, a kick, a head butt, and a knee?
A distinction needs to me made with this example:
If this character is only making his iterative attacks from a high BAB, he may use any weapon in any combination.
If, instead the character wishes to get additional attacks granted due to TWF feats, he is restricted to making attacks only with the weapon declared as the primary and the weapon declared as the off-hand, no other options may be used.
|
|
The multiple off-hands FAQ request is woefully neglected, and (IMO) would solve a lot of these problems.
FWIW, your FAQ question is moot because relief to this issue is provided by the multi-weapon fighting feat.
Then there are things like using Beast Shape to change into a Girallon, and making 7 attacks. Fist/Fist/Fist/Fist/Foot/Foot/Head.
Look, I know the idea of a single unarmed strike upsets some people's suspension of disbelieve, but mechanically, it creates less problems.
You keep saying this, yet adamantly refuse to address the fact that, if this was the case, you could already do it with a boot blade/boot blade/armor spike/barbezu beard/longsword/shortsword attack set.
You have a main hand attack. You have an off-hand attack. Per SKR you can mix and match those as you please, meaning you could actually pull off the attack set you propose, it would just have to be at +16 Fist/+16 Fist/+11 Fist/+11 Fist/+6 Foot/+6 Foot/+1 Head. Having extra weapons does not magically give you extra attacks, whether they be unarmed strikes or boot blades. The idea that somehow it does (when there is no indication of it, and could also be done with weapons), and thus prevents TWF with unarmed strikes (despite evidence they are allowed like Greater Brawler, the Metal Domain, and SKR's statements) is absolutely incomprehensible to me.
FWIW, your FAQ question is moot because relief to this issue is provided by the multi-weapon fighting feat.
The Multiweapon Fighting feat, much like the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, does not grant attacks, nor the ability to make extra attacks. All they do is reduce penalties.
The Vrolikai does not have Multiweapon fighting, it only has Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) which removes penalties, but still doesn't grant extra attacks. It still attacks with all four arms, each wielding a weapon, using TWF-like rules (four full iterative attacks with one 'main' dagger, and one attack each with the rest).
These creatures set a precedent that off-hands are limited only by limbs or available weapons, which is what causes issues like BBT is describing.
If, instead, the intent is that some multi-limbed creatures get a special ability that allows them multiple off-hands, then that fixes everything.
Okay, I believe we need to first establish what is needed to be able to Multiweapon Fight.
There are (apparently) only 8 people interested in the answer to this.
How many attacks are you limited to in this form?
Four, one for each hand. You could choose for those attacks to be a headbutt, elbow, and two kicks, but you would still only have one off-hand attack per physical off-hand (also see: you again not addressing boot blade/barbezu beard/armor spikes).
Now to answer your question about undead anatomy, you would have either the 4 claw attacks at full BAB or the 4 weapons at -6 for the primary hand and -10 to the other 3. You can attack with all of the swords but lacking MWF you take massive penalties.
You are mostly right. However, bizarrely, you actually don't have the option of 4 claws in this case. The Undead Anatomy chain has really weird rules (in many ways), and specifies that you only ever get two claws/slams and a bite. You could still use those arms for manufactured weapons or unarmed attacks, as they are fully functional arms, but don't get all the natural attacks of the listed form.
I don't really think MWF is relevant to this discussion but from looking at the Mudra Skeleton it is clear that MWF does allow you to make attacks with all held weapons as if you were TWF.
Your reasoning for this is that since some creatures can attack with multiple offhands, and some of those creatures have multiweapon fighting, that somehow multiweapon fighting lets you have multiple offhands, despite the text of the feat only reducing penalties?
Does TWF work the same way? Meaning, is the TWF feat the thing that lets you get an extra attack with your off-hand? If not, what's the difference?
|
|
FWIW, your FAQ question is moot because relief to this issue is provided by the multi-weapon fighting feat.The Multiweapon Fighting feat, much like the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, does not grant attacks, nor the ability to make extra attacks. All they do is reduce penalties.
The Vrolikai does not have Multiweapon fighting, it only has Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) which removes penalties, but still doesn't grant extra attacks. It still attacks with all four arms, each wielding a weapon, using TWF-like rules (four full iterative attacks with one 'main' dagger, and one attack each with the rest).
These creatures set a precedent that off-hands are limited only by limbs or available weapons, which is what causes issues like BBT is describing.
If, instead, the intent is that some multi-limbed creatures get a special ability that allows them multiple off-hands, then that fixes everything.
I still don't see a problem with the current interpretation of the multi-weapon fighting feat (specifically, the part of the feat that says one hand is primary and the rest are off-hand, in addition to your correct statement that the primary hand gets iterative attacks and the off-hands get one attack each). if you're looking for more off-hand attacks beyond what is already allowed, it would require new feats to be created (improved multi-weapon fighting or greater multi-weapon fighting), not an FAQ entry to something that doesn't need clarifying. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how this multi-weapon fighting thing is being used in this thread.
As far as unarmed strikes and two-weapon fighting is concerned, last time I checked, an unarmed strike is considered a light weapon. As far as I'm aware, you can use two light weapons to two-weapon fight.
Now, for those trying to say that they should get additional off-hand unarmed strikes because of feet and head (i.e. multi-weapon fighting): really? The 3.x rules have been out for 12 years now. Don't you think someone would have already tried to game the system by building a fighter, rogue, or whatever with a longsword, shortsword, improved unarmed strike, just to get that extra three off-hand attacks? No, it hasn't happened because people who actually try to fairly interpret the rules know that something like this is a deliberate misinterpretation of the intent of the rules.
As an aside, I've always had an issue with how Paizo displayed NPCs who used TWF as a primary attack. Looking at the Vrolikai, it is displayed correctly. Why can't they do this with everyone else? ARGHHHH!
As far as unarmed strikes and two-weapon fighting is concerned, last time I checked, an unarmed strike is considered a light weapon. As far as I'm aware, you can use two light weapons to two-weapon fight.
Now, for those trying to say that they should get additional off-hand unarmed strikes because of feet and head (i.e. multi-weapon fighting): really?
Yes, unarmed strike is counted as a light weapon. And yes, you can TWF with two light weapons. In fact, it's the smart way to do it to avoid higher penalties.
But you don't have two unarmed strikes to TWF with. You have one unarmed strike.
And the logic behind TWF with unarmed strikes is, "But I have two fists, which means I have two Unarmed Strikes I can TWF with!"
Well, the problem is you don't have just two fists that you can Unarmed Strike with: You have two fists, two feet, and a forehead, all of which can be used for an Unarmed Strike. (Or how far does it really go? Two fists, two elbows, two feet, two shins, two knees, and a forehead? Where is the line drawn?!)
So, either you have one unarmed strike, or you have five unarmed strikes. In either scenario, you can't TWF, because you're either limited to iterative attacks, or you replace TWF with MWF because you have five possible attacks.
Which is why everything, mechanically speaking, starts to fall apart if you count Unarmed Strike as more than one attack.
I still don't see a problem with the current interpretation of the multi-weapon fighting feat
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat): "Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms."
The only thing the feat does is reduce penalties. Exactly like how the only thing the Two-Weapon Fighting feat does is reduce penalties.
Either Multiweapon fighting has a special ability which grants the ability to make off-hand attacks with multiple hands, or it does what it says and is irrelevant to the discussion.
Since there are creatures using TWF-like multi-handed attacks that do not have multiweapon fighting, it's likely that the ability to make those attacks it not granted by a feat they don't have.
And the logic behind TWF with unarmed strikes is, "But I have two fists, which means I have two Unarmed Strikes I can TWF with!"
Well, the problem is you don't have just two fists that you can Unarmed Strike with: You have two fists, two feet, and a forehead, all of which can be used for an Unarmed Strike. (Or how far does it really go? Two fists, two elbows, two feet, two shins, two knees, and a forehead? Where is the line drawn?!)
"Well, the problem is you don't have just two weapon that you can attack with: You have two swords, two boot blades, and a barbezu beard, all of which can be used for an attack."
You are making an issue out of nothing. Unless you believe someone can also get a pile of extra attacks with other weapons too, of course. And again: Greater Brawler. Metal Domain. Directly talk about TWF with unarmed strikes. You can't just ignore the things you don't like, take a ridiculously extreme interpretation, and then pretend it is the only thing that addresses all issues.
yes, you can TWF with two light weapons. In fact, it's the smart way to do it to avoid higher penalties.
There's no higher penalty for using a one-handed (or even two-handed) weapon as your main-hand.
But you don't have two unarmed strikes to TWF with. You have one unarmed strike.
You may have missed this earlier in the thread:
"Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands."
And the logic behind TWF with unarmed strikes is, "But I have two fists, which means I have two Unarmed Strikes I can TWF with!"
Well, the problem is you don't have just two fists that you can Unarmed Strike with: You have two fists, two feet, and a forehead, all of which can be used for an Unarmed Strike.
So what's the problem? You could also have two swords, armor spikes, boot blades, and a beard, all of which can be used for a melee attack.
The only way the number of unarmed strikes available is a problem is if extra weapons grant extra attacks. (Hence, yet again, the FAQ request)
(Or how far does it really go? Two fists, two elbows, two feet, two shins, two knees, and a forehead? Where is the line drawn?!)
Monks have the ability to make unarmed strikes with elbows and knees, in addition to the standard ability all humanoid creatures have of using fists, feet, and headbutts.
So, either you have one unarmed strike, or you have five unarmed strikes. In either scenario, you can't TWF, because you're either limited to iterative attacks, or you replace TWF with MWF because you have five possible attacks.
The number of possible attacks is irrelevant. I can wield five regular melee weapons, but my options are still A) iterative attacks with whatever weapons I choose, or B) Two-Weapon fighting to gain an extra attack but being locked into the TWF format of one main hand and one off-hand. This is explained in the TWF FAQ.
The number of possible attacks is irrelevant. I can wield five regular melee weapons, but my options are still A) iterative attacks with whatever weapons I choose, or B) Two-Weapon fighting to gain an extra attack but being locked into the TWF format of one main hand and one off-hand. This is explained in the TWF FAQ.
Are we certain about this bit? I interpret the examples as just illuminating the ways it could work with a longsword/mace combo, not necessarily everything possible. The way I read it, you could use (Mainhand) Longsword/Kick and then (off-hand) Mace/Headbutt, if for some bizarre reason you wanted to. You are still limited (you couldn't Longsword/Kick then Mace/Kick with the same foot), but it doesn't invalidate the ability to combine different weapons for a "hand's" attacks. The examples just stick to sane situations, on the grounds that it is simpler, clearer, and the idea that anyone would care about the ability to combine four different weapons in an attack routine is the sort of thing that sends designers to the loony bin.
EDIT:
You know, without any way to truly prove one way or another, I am fighting a losing battle.
I will end it, with the note that it is my preference that the unarmed strike count as one weapon only.
Seriously, you could avoid these little dust-ups if the next time it comes up you say "I interpret it as one unarmed strike only, but a lot of people disagree" and then link to these threads. It is what I do with my non-mainstream opinions. It lets people know that while the majority is of one opinion, there are multiple ways of seeing things, and one should choose the one that works best for their situation.
I mean, you've danced this dance... what... three or four times now? I don't think anything is going to be said that hasn't already been said on the subject, and it is too "corner case" to ever get a FAQ.
"Well, the problem is you don't have just two weapon that you can attack with: You have two swords, two boot blades, and a barbezu beard, all of which can be used for an attack."
You are making an issue out of nothing. Unless you believe someone can also get a pile of extra attacks with other weapons too, of course. And again: Greater Brawler. Metal Domain. Directly talk about TWF with unarmed strikes. You can't just ignore the things you don't like, take a ridiculously extreme interpretation, and then pretend it is the only thing that addresses all issues.
It's amazing to me that you're making the points that support my argument and don't even realize it.
With Unarmed Strike counting as a single attack, that scenario with multiple weapons never becomes an issue. Iterative attacks or TWF with a single, predetermined offhand (as has been argued for and linked to in a TWF FAQ).
If you can have multiple unarmed strikes and qualify for things like TWF with them, THEN that scenario you describe with boot blades and barbezu beards suddenly becomes an issue.
As for Greater Brawler and Metal domain... yeah, they've never put out official rules that aren't clear, have they?
And it's worth pointing out that this has been an issue on the forums for quite a long time, and they've never clarified it. Which is why discussions like these can even still exist.
With Unarmed Strike counting as a single attack, that scenario with multiple weapons never becomes an issue. Iterative attacks or bust.
If you can have multiple unarmed strikes and qualify for things like TWF with them, THEN that scenario you describe with boot blades and barbezu beards suddenly becomes an issue.
I'm sorry, you are going to need to expand on this. If having multiple weapons (be they manufactured or unarmed) gives you attacks equal to the number of weapons, then this is a problem. If you are always limited to mainhand/off-hand (+1 per extra, physical hand to be used), then it is not.
As for Greater Brawler and Metal domain... yeah, they've never put out official rules that don't make any sense, have they?
So basically, you are saying that evidence counter to your point should be dismissed as simple rules errors? In that case, you would need to provide actual, specific evidence that supports your point. Unfortunately, there isn't any except the bizarre weapons = number of attacks thing.
And it's worth pointing out that this has been an issue on the forums for quite a long time, and they've never clarified it. Which is why discussions like these can even still exist.
I know it has been an issue with you and blackbloodtroll, but that doesn't make it an issue "on the forums" in general. Discussions can exist as long as someone is willing to argue a point, but that doesn't mean their position has any merit. See also: one sneak attack per round, spells = iterative attacks, and The Flat Earth Society
If you can have multiple unarmed strikes and qualify for things like TWF with them, THEN that scenario you describe with boot blades and barbezu beards suddenly becomes an issue.
How is multiple off-hands even remotely determined by number of unarmed strikes?
Removing unarmed strikes completely from the discussion has no impact on how multiple off-hands work.
How about this:
If the number of available weapons is what determines how many off-hand attacks you get, everything breaks except a few multi-armed monsters.
If, however, you are always limited to either iterative attacks, or to Two-Weapon Fighting (with a Single off-hand), then nothing breaks, except a few multi-armed monsters, which can fairly easily be declared a special case.