I chose unarmed fighter over brawler if any body cares. and I also applied the Martial Versatility feat to pick up weapon spec and Weapon focus with brass knuckles also. I am going to go unarmed and grapple. but use magic cold iron or admin brass knuckles to destroy ghosts and demons.
I will not pick up double slice or two weapon defense.
|
I still don't see a problem with the current interpretation of the multi-weapon fighting featMultiweapon 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.
Well, while the feat itself describes the benefit of having it, it also describes how creatures with three or more hands should calculate their attacks if they don't have the feat...so, it's clearly obvious the feat doesn't grant the ability, which is why I'm still confused why there needs to be an FAQ on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, here are my two cents.
First, the link: flurry of changes to flurry of blows
Sean K Reynolds said wrote:
I just double-checked with Jason, and my statement is correct. Flurry works like TWF. You can't pick your best weapon and use it for all of your flurry attacks.
We're really talking about two different situations. Say we have a monk15 doing a flurry of blows. His attack sequence is +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3.
1) If all of his potential attacks are identical (for example, all he's doing are unarmed strikes and none of his unarmed strikes are enhanced by magic fang or any other effect that would give it a different attack bonus or damage value, it doesn't matter if you justify all six of those as punches, all six as headbutts, all six as kicks, or three as kicks and three as punches, or punch kick knee elbow elbow headbutt, because those attacks are identical in terms of attack and damage. That's what the "any combination" text in the flurry rule means--the difference between the attacks is just flavor and has no game effect, so you can use them in any combination because what you call it has no effect on the dice.
(Just like if you have a TWF fighter using two identical +1 short swords with identical attack and damage bonuses, it doesn't really matter for each individual attack if he's using the left shortsword or the right shortsword, declaring it doesn't affect the dice, he can roll all his attack dice at the same time and doesn't have to call them out separately.)2) If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others, such as using a special monk weapon with an attack bonus or damage different than his unarmed strike, or having magic fang on one hand but not any other body part, now the order and identity of each attack matters, and you have to specify what you're attacking with and you have to abide by the TWF rules because your decisions affect the die rolls. In other words that monk15 is actually making attacks with two weapons, one with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3, and another with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3. So if you have a +5 sai in your left hand and a normal sai in your right hand, you can't say you're using the +5 sai for all six of your attacks, you're doing +13/+8/+3 with the left hand (adding the sai's +5 enhancement bonus, of course) and +13/+8/+3 with the right hand.
Jason says that in this situation, the "any combination" text means you can swap in a regular unarmed strike in place of any of those attacks (though that's not clear in the text). (Doing so affects the attack and damage rolls for that attack, of course.) So you could swap out your left-hand +8 attack for an unarmed strike such as a kick or elbow (losing the +5 enhancement bonus to that attack because you're not actually using the +5 sai to make that attack), swap out all of the right-hand sai attacks for unarmed strikes, and so on, but you're still abiding by the TWF setup in that you have a series of attacks with one weapon and a series of attacks with your other weapon.TLDR: (1) Flurry is based on TWF. (2) If all your attacks are identical, declaring which weapon is which is pure flavor and doesn't affect the dice, so go ahead an call them whatever you want. (3) If even one of your attacks is different than the others, you have to follow the TWF rules when flurrying; you can't just declare all of your flurry of blows attacks to be your best weapon because you can't do that with TWF.
The emphasis there is mine. Notice the bolded part . . . "if even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others".
Now, if unarmed strikes are just one weapon (as I think they should be), SRKs point under one remains perfectly valid. Deciding to use a punch, a kick, an elbow, a knee, or a headbutt is merely fluff is describing how the monk is using his unarmed strike (singular) attack.
But, if unarmed strikes are multiple weapons, which his second point seems to indicate, then it is very important to know exactly how many weapons they actually are. Why? Because of the portion I emphasized in his quote and in the above text. "If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others."
You could have a magic fang applies to both fists and both feet, but the monk in question still has a potential attack form in his: (a) head, (b) two elbows, and (c) two knees. He has already had FOUR magic fang spells cast upon him, but if each attack form is indeed a seperate weapon, he would need NINE in order not to carry out an attack with an unenhanced attack form.
Call me crazy, but that is EXACTLY what he is saying.
If this is the case, then going by the spell descriptions, greater magic fang will only provide a monk with a +1 enhancement bonus on ALL of his unarmed strikes, or a higher bonus on ONE unarmed strike, once again needing NINE spells in order to use his unarmed strikes at full enhancement.
For myself, I believe that unarmed strike is a single weapon, with the difference in using fists or feet or elbows or knees or headbutts being just fluff; descriptive text that makes no difference in how the unarmed strike is carried out.
That also fits with how flurry worked in 3.5, where you could use a single weapon to make all of your attacks (unarmed strikes or a monk special weapon). Trying to convert flurry of blows into Two-Weapon Fighting raises all sorts of questions . . . because it is a single weapon. The monk gains more attacks not because of multiple weapons but because he is striking far faster than other character with his chosen weapons.
That is what a flurry of blows is, in my humble opinion.
Well, that's great, Master Arminas, but what has that to do with the price of tea in China, or with the topic of this thread?
Simple. Unarmed strikes are one weapon, that you can use as either the primary or the off-hand weapon when using Two-Weapon Fighting, but not BOTH. That doesn't actually change the Greater Brawling rage power one whit. All that power does is grant the Barbarian the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when raging and making an unarmed strike. It doesn't say the barbarian cannot be wielding another weapon . . . it doesn't HAVE to. The barbarian has the option of using a bastard sword in one-hand and an unarmed strike in the other at a -2 penalty . . . without having to spend a feat on Two-Weapon Fighting or Improved Unarmed Strike.
"Unarmed weapons" should be treated the same way: whether or not you have two gauntlets, two brass knuckles, two cestii, or whatever, you STILL have only one unarmed strike . . . and all of those weapons use unarmed strike. Having two doesn't allow you to use Two-Weapon Fighting, because you don't have two unarmed strikes to use with them . . . just one.
And that makes sense . . . how many films have you ever seen where someone slides a set of brass knuckles onto BOTH their hands? No, they usually wear ONE.
Anyway, that is how I see it, gentlemen.
MA
|
|
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.
Well, Grick already pointed out the quote that states that humanoids (those without natural attacks) must use TWF to get a second unarmed attack.
Beyond that, those who are making arguments that they should then get additional off-hand attacks beyond that (leg, head, whatever) are cheesing the rules.
SchtuffThe rules already state that humanoids that don't have natural attacks may strike with two unarmed attacks, but must TWF to do so.
Yeah, like there have NEVER been problems with the rules before. See Gauntlet. See Brass Knuckles. See flurry of blows. See Stealth. See Hide in Plain Sight. See Lance.
You get the drift.
MA
|
|
SchtuffThe rules already state that humanoids that don't have natural attacks may strike with two unarmed attacks, but must TWF to do so.Yeah, like there have NEVER been problems with the rules before. See Gauntlet. See Brass Knuckles. See flurry of blows. See Stealth. See Hide in Plain Sight. See Lance.
You get the drift.
MA
Yeah, like there have never been correct rules before. See <most of the book content>.
Just because many rules were wrong, doesn't mean others are. Until we hear official word, we have to assume the rule is correct. If you believe it is wrong, FAQ it and hope to get an answer.
Though I will admit, the developers can't seem to get their heads out of their asses with respect to unarmed strike and related rules. It's like they haven't decided how they want it to work so they simply don't say how it works and let people assume, or they let each rule writer make their own decisions then later retcon/rewrite them for dubious reasons. It's no coincidence that unarmed strike features in fully half of the "oops" rules you list.
TL;DR - There is probably no way either side will be silenced unless we get hit with a FAQ entry.
It's like they haven't decided how they want it to work so they simply don't say how it works and let people assume
Based on some developer comments, this is pretty much how they do it. They don't see the ruleset as something that should stand on its own, but rather just as guidelines that a reasonable GM can pick through and basically do whatever they feel like.
As such, having things re-written so that the rules will compile without errors is probably not ever going to happen.
While this is bad news for rule-parsing robots (like me), I'm sure there are plenty who prefer it this way.
Okay, I think that the developers made another bad decision with the two-weapon fighting FAQ. I see where they were coming from, but I don't think it helped the situation at all, it probably just made it worse.
So now if you have two weapons in your hands you can attack with both at no penalty as long as you only use iterative attacks. So you also take no penalty if you are right handed and fight with your left. Actually, it seems like EVERYONE is ambidextrous... Unless they try to get another hit in, then they aren't ambidextrous any more.
Does anyone else remember the Ambidextrous feat from 3.0? It was rolled into the two-weapon fighting feat in 3.5. And now it is apparently gone altogether.
Why can you attack with four different weapons with iterative attacks, but only two when you attack more often? How does that make any sense?
It seems to me that it would be simpler to just say that everyone has one primary hand (or limb) that never changes. All other hands/limbs/whatever are "off-hand". If you fight with your off-hand, even without two weapons, you take a -4 with a light weapon and a -6 with a one-handed weapon.
If you take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat you are ambidextrous (either naturally or through training) and either hand can be declared primary before you make your attacks. If you have Flurry of Blows you can declare any one attack primary and all others are "off-hand". So Unarmed Strike could be primary, or your kama, or whatever.
Unarmed Strike should be an exception to the standard rules. It is already a natural attack that is not a natural attack, so one more exception would not hurt. Unarmed Strike should be one weapon for all purposes except two-weapon fighting. You can two-weapon fight with one Unarmed Strike (flavored as attacks from any body part) as if it were two weapons even though it isn't. This is the same exception that the Zen Archer has to have in order to two-weapon fight with one bow. No difference.
This is amazingly simple. And, it seems to me, fixes every situation previously mentions.
|
|
SchtuffThe rules already state that humanoids that don't have natural attacks may strike with two unarmed attacks, but must TWF to do so.Yeah, like there have NEVER been problems with the rules before. See Gauntlet. See Brass Knuckles. See flurry of blows. See Stealth. See Hide in Plain Sight. See Lance.
You get the drift.
MA
Wait, so your opposition isn't based on any rule that seems to contradict Grick's quote, but rather based on you hedging your bet that the developers got the rule Grick quoted wrong? Seriously? If that is the case then you have just invalidated the entire reason the rules forum is here in the first place.
/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=442?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#2208 4
I win, at least as far as the first question is concerned :)
Or not.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=443?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Que stions-Here#22113Fixed your link, btw. You put a ] too early.
Formating is: {url=entire link address you want to link to}what you want your link to say{/url} (Replacing the incorrect brackets with the correct ones, obviously.)
|
|
/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=442?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#2208 4
I win, at least as far as the first question is concerned :)
Or not.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=443?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Que stions-Here#22113Fixed your link, btw. You put a ] too early.
Formating is: {url=entire link address you want to link to}what you want your link to say{/url} (Replacing the incorrect brackets with the correct ones, obviously.)
Yeah, too bad you obfusicated the scenario with that question and deliberately set him up so you can get your "sound bite".
SchtuffThe rules already state that humanoids that don't have natural attacks may strike with two unarmed attacks, but must TWF to do so.Yeah, like there have NEVER been problems with the rules before. See Gauntlet. See Brass Knuckles. See flurry of blows. See Stealth. See Hide in Plain Sight. See Lance.
You get the drift.
MA
Your first post on the page is a prime example of what we call "Begging the Question".
It's clear that humanoids can make two unarmed attacks per round, unless you can provide a rule that controverts that. Multiweapon fighting implies a need for more than two hands, however the feat does not state that it restricts those attacks to hands. The most sensible solution to me seems to be that a character/NPC can make as many attacks per round as they have hands, though those attacks can be flavored however they wish (exceptions can, of course, be argued - lost limbs, etc. - overall, it actually seems pretty clean, though). Iteratives aside, of course.
Makes little sense to say that you can't perform two unarmed attacks in the same round, particularly when there is no rule that states you can't and there appears to be a clear statement in the rules that you can (as Grick and Hangar have demonstrated).
Yeah, too bad you obfusicated the scenario with that question and deliberately set him up so you can get your "sound bite"./forums/dmtz2u4o&page=442?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#2208 4
I win, at least as far as the first question is concerned :)
Or not.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=443?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Que stions-Here#22113Fixed your link, btw. You put a ] too early.
Formating is: {url=entire link address you want to link to}what you want your link to say{/url} (Replacing the incorrect brackets with the correct ones, obviously.)
How exactly did he "obfuscate" the scenario.
Building on this answer, since two fists means you can two-weapon fight, does two fists, two feet, and a headbutt mean you can opt to multiweapon fight?
If not, why does one work but not the other?
That is a very straightforward question that many of us had regarding how to deal with other limbs besides just your arms. Multiweapon fighting was just one question. How to apply Magic Fang is another.
|
|
Yeah, too bad you obfusicated the scenario with that question and deliberately set him up so you can get your "sound bite"./forums/dmtz2u4o&page=442?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#2208 4
I win, at least as far as the first question is concerned :)
Or not.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=443?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Que stions-Here#22113Fixed your link, btw. You put a ] too early.
Formating is: {url=entire link address you want to link to}what you want your link to say{/url} (Replacing the incorrect brackets with the correct ones, obviously.)
Until it makes it into a FAQ, I wouldn't consider a post by James to be binding in any way (in either direction). Most of the time, when he responds, it's to say what he does in *his* games, even if he doesn't say that directly.
I have also more than once seen a pathfinder dev say one thing, then have some internal deliberation happen that leads to a FAQ saying the opposite.
TL;DR - Without a FAQ or actual in-the-book rule (or, at minimum, a PFS ruling), forum posts aren't really evidence at all.
That is a very straightforward question that many of us had regarding how to deal with other limbs besides just your arms. Multiweapon fighting was just one question. How to apply Magic Fang is another.Building on this answer, since two fists means you can two-weapon fight, does two fists, two feet, and a headbutt mean you can opt to multiweapon fight?
If not, why does one work but not the other?
Looking at boot blades, Two Weapon Fighting allows effective multi-weapon fighting using weapons. What matters is the extra attacks, not how they are delivered.
Looking at boot blades, Two Weapon Fighting allows effective multi-weapon fighting using weapons. What matters is the extra attacks, not how they are delivered.That is a very straightforward question that many of us had regarding how to deal with other limbs besides just your arms. Multiweapon fighting was just one question. How to apply Magic Fang is another.Building on this answer, since two fists means you can two-weapon fight, does two fists, two feet, and a headbutt mean you can opt to multiweapon fight?
If not, why does one work but not the other?
Well boot blades do bring up additional questions. If I have a longsword in my primary hand and two-weapon fight with that and count my boot blade as the "off hand" weapon, that works fine.
But what if I have a great sword in both hands instead? Why couldn't I two-weapon fight with a great sword and a boot blade? And I have two hands on the great sword, so it would still do 1 1/2 Str damage right?
But what if I have a great sword in both hands instead? Why couldn't I two-weapon fight with a great sword and a boot blade? And I have two hands on the great sword, so it would still do 1 1/2 Str damage right?This works just fine.
Actually, I agree with you, and would probably allow it at my table, but I'm not sure the rules really support it.
Although I think there is some precedent for using two-weapon fighting with two handed weapons for creatures with more than two arms.
Well boot blades do bring up additional questions. If I have a longsword in my primary hand and two-weapon fight with that and count my boot blade as the "off hand" weapon, that works fine.
But what if I have a great sword in both hands instead? Why couldn't I two-weapon fight with a great sword and a boot blade? And I have two hands on the great sword, so it would still do 1 1/2 Str damage right?
Yes, that's exactly how it works. Which is another reason that 'any combination' phrase in Flurry of Blows makes so little sense, because it boils down that the monk can't use any different combinations than somebody TWFing, assuming that person has weapons on their feet as well as in their hands, if the monk's FoB does work like TWF?
|
|
I didn't obfuscate anything, JJ quite clearly read it properly the first time. Sorry if my post sounded snarky or anything but I just wouldn't play with people who can't use common sense over RAW. I'm not allowed to make personal attacks on this forum but I'm not at all fond of people who look for loopholes like the MWF example and I don't try to hide it.
Anyway, like StabbityDoom said, let's wait for the official FAQ. In the meantime, those of us who don't try to twist the rules in every possible way should keep calm and allow that second unarmed strike.
LTR, I didn't mean that for you, sorry! It was directed at Neo.
Neo asked a poorly worded question specifically to get an answer so that he can say "See! Look here! JJ say's you're wrong!" He intentionally left out the rules quotation that specifically states that humanoids (among others) may TWF with unarmed strikes.
If his question had been something like: "There are rules that state that humanoids may TWF with unarmed strikes. An argument has been made that because of this, that using hands, feet, and head should allow them to multi-weapon fight, thus getting additional off-hand attacks. How would you rule in such a situation?" then I would give him credit for asking a fair question.
|
|
FWIW, the multi weapon fighting feat specifically mentions hands/arms. Furthermore, the Monk's FoB description calls out strikes with feet, legs, etc. which is an indication that at its core, unarmed strikes are hands only attacks. Sure, there may be some other abilities out there that allow feet and stuff as unarmed attacks, but as far as the "general" rule is concerned, it's hands only.
EDIT: the prereqs for the multi weapon fighting feat are Dex 13 and three or more hands. Sorry Neo, I just sunk your battleship. So, in the end, the argument that there is no TWF with unarmed strikes should not be allowed because then attacks with feet, head, etc is null and void.
To expound on my monk comment: the monk is the only one allowed to make unarmed strikes with his hands full. Mr. Fighter cannot make unarmed strikes if both hands are occupied.
So, in the end, nothing is broken. The rules work as they are. Yes, you can TWF with unarmed strikes. No, this does not allow you to use your feet. No, the Devs don't need to make a FAQ on this issue.
FWIW, the multi weapon fighting feat specifically mentions hands/arms. Furthermore, the Monk's FoB description calls out strikes with feet, legs, etc. which is an indication that at its core, unarmed strikes are hands only attacks. Sure, there may be some other abilities out there that allow feet and stuff as unarmed attacks, but as far as the "general" rule is concerned, it's hands only.
Unarmed strike doesn't say that, though, while the monk's FoB is linked mechanically at least to TWF, so it may not be unrealistic to assume any unarmed strike could be an attack with feet, head, etc.
|
|
Ok Dabbler, ball is in your court. I've pointed out that the monk description provides the exception to the rule. I've also quoted (through Grick) that humanoids, fey, etc. use their hands to make unarmed strikes. Finally, I've noted that the multiweapon fighting feat is predicated on hands. Argue your opposition.
Now, I'm not opposed to saying that one of the unarmed strikes is being made by a kick, headbutt, or whatever for flavor, but you don't get to make any additional unarmed strikes beyond your iterative attacks and the extra TWF attack. But, if both of your hands are occupied, then you may not make any unarmed attacks (monks excluded).
To expound on my monk comment: the monk is the only one allowed to make unarmed strikes with his hands full. Mr. Fighter cannot make unarmed strikes if both hands are occupied.
So, in the end, nothing is broken. The rules work as they are. Yes, you can TWF with unarmed strikes. No, this does not allow you to use your feet. No, the Devs don't need to make a FAQ on this issue.
Wait, are you saying the only monks can kick people? Fighters can't kick? Rogues can kick? Nobody can kick but a monk? I'm sorry, but I am not buying that at all. If the rules really say that, then they are indeed broken.
I'll say again. The easiest solution is that unarmed strike is just one weapon, with an exception that allows you to use two-weapon fighting with it. Simple and it makes everything else work so much better.
|
|
To expound on my monk comment: the monk is the only one allowed to make unarmed strikes with his hands full. Mr. Fighter cannot make unarmed strikes if both hands are occupied.
So, in the end, nothing is broken. The rules work as they are. Yes, you can TWF with unarmed strikes. No, this does not allow you to use your feet. No, the Devs don't need to make a FAQ on this issue.
Wait, are you saying the only monks can kick people? Fighters can't kick? Rogues can kick? Nobody can kick but a monk? I'm sorry, but I am not buying that at all. If the rules really say that, then they are indeed broken.
I'll say again. The easiest solution is that unarmed strike is just one weapon, with an exception that allows you to use two-weapon fighting with it. Simple and it makes everything else work so much better.
I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that you cannot make additional attacks beyond what you already have just because you have a leg free. So a first level fighter may make a primary attack with a fist, then an off-hand attack with a foot (because, in the end the damage is the same. It's all how you describe it). What you may not do is make a primary attack with a fist, an off-hand attack with a fist, and then a second off-hand attack with a foot.
If the fighter has a sword in one hand, he can make his primary attack with a fist, and an off-hand attack with his foot (this may be stretching it). But, if he's carrying a sword in each hand, then no unarmed strikes are allowed and all his attacks must be made with his weapons. The monk description calls out an exception, which implies that normally, no unarmed strikes are allowed if the hands are occupied.
I'm starting to feel like a broken record, so I'm going to say it one last time, and if you can't understand it after this, then I'll just assume from here on out that you can't bother to read the rules as printed:
You do not need a feat to Two-Weapon Fight. You do not need a feat to Multiweapon Fight. Both of these feats do nothing except reduce the penalties for choosing either fighting style.
So no, HF, you didn't sink my anything. :P
As an additional question, let's say I'm playing a non-Monk class and you're my GM. My hands are full, so I tell you, "I elbow that guy in the face."
How do you resolve this? Am I not allowed to elbow people in the face, since that's not an Unarmed Strike in your opinion?
It's ridiculous for me to say that you can't TWF with Unarmed Strikes, but it's not even more ridiculous to suggest that "people can't kick?"
|
|
It might be the easiest but what about headbutting/kicking using TWF after a great-sword attack or something similar? It's entirely possible to use a bite or hoof attack after swinging a 2h weapon, so it's not exactly a stretch to allow headbutts, or kicks.
Natural attacks are obviously different rules-wise but a bite would if anything take more effort than a headbutt.
I don't like the idea that you have to have a free hand to make unarmed strikes, because a) the rules state they can be kicks or headbutts and b) there is nothing mentioning having to "equip" unarmed strike to a hand.
You can't stretch the rules and say "well, natural attacks would be allowed so therefore it must be ok to make more unarmed strikes". It doesn't work that way. Unarmed strikes operate with the manufactured weapons rules as far as iterative attacks, etc. Natural weapons do not.
A Monk's unarmed strike provides five benefits that are spelled out in the rules:
1) he receives Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.
2) He can make unarmed strikes with his fist, elbows, knees, and feet. Thus, he may make unarmed attacks while his hands are full.
3) He may deal both lethal and non-lethal damage at his discretion, with no penalty.
4) His unarmed strikes are treated as natural and manufactured weapons for the purposes of improving or enhancing those weapons.
5) His unarmed strike deals more damage than normal.
These are things that are spelled out that explain why a Monk's unarmed attack is different than an unarmed attack made by a fighter, rogue, paladin, nymph, goblin, prostitute, or whatever.
So while you may not like it, if a fighter is using a greatsword, he may not make any unarmed attacks because his hands are full.
Page 182 in the core rule book says that unarmed attacks are made using punches, kicks, and headbutts.
"Strike, Unarmed" never details exactly what kind of strike you're performing. It says nothing about needing a free hand to perform either. You're pulling rules out of thin air.
[Edit] In fact, here's the relevant rules from the SRD:
Unarmed Attacks
|
I'm starting to feel like a broken record, so I'm going to say it one last time, and if you can't understand it after this, then I'll just assume from here on out that you can't bother to read the rules as printed:
You do not need a feat to Two-Weapon Fight. You do not need a feat to Multiweapon Fight. Both of these feats do nothing except reduce the penalties for choosing either fighting style.
So no, HF, you didn't sink my anything. :PAs an additional question, let's say I'm playing a non-Monk class and you're my GM. My hands are full, so I tell you, "I elbow that guy in the face."
How do you resolve this? Am I not allowed to elbow people in the face, since that's not an Unarmed Strike in your opinion?It's ridiculous for me to say that you can't TWF with Unarmed Strikes, but it's not even more ridiculous to suggest that "people can't kick?"
Actually, according to the rules, only monks get elbows and knees with their unarmed strikes. Everyone else is limited to punches, kicks, and headbutts.
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.
@Ssalarn - I didn't ask if an elbow was an unarmed strike. I asked how, as a GM, it would be ruled if a non-Monk said "I want to elbow that person in the face."
And if the GM replies, "You can't elbow people if you're not a monk" then I'm going to reply, "Hey Jim, hand me those things so I can show our GM that I can, in fact, elbow him in the face even with my hands full."
|
|
@Ssalarn - I didn't ask if an elbow was an unarmed strike. I asked how, as a GM, it would be ruled if a non-Monk said "I want to elbow that person in the face."
And if the GM replies, "You can't elbow people if you're not a monk" then I'm going to reply, "Hey Jim, hand me those things so I can show our GM that I can, in fact, elbow him in the face even with my hands full."
To which the GM replies "Jim, hand me that bastard sword while he tries it so I can show him why people without martial arts training shouldn't be elbowing armed attackers with their hands full."
Of course I'd be open to an attack of opportunity... but I can still get that elbow off (assuming that attack of op didn't drop me).
If they were going to clarify Unarmed Strikes, officially, they would have done it long ago. Or maybe they're waiting for the Monk clarification.
But sticking up a thread to FAQ about it will assuredly not get you the results you're looking for.
The Devs know there is a clarity problem.
|
|
I'm starting to feel like a broken record, so I'm going to say it one last time, and if you can't understand it after this, then I'll just assume from here on out that you can't bother to read the rules as printed:
You do not need a feat to Two-Weapon Fight. You do not need a feat to Multiweapon Fight. Both of these feats do nothing except reduce the penalties for choosing either fighting style.
So no, HF, you didn't sink my anything. :PAs an additional question, let's say I'm playing a non-Monk class and you're my GM. My hands are full, so I tell you, "I elbow that guy in the face."
How do you resolve this? Am I not allowed to elbow people in the face, since that's not an Unarmed Strike in your opinion?It's ridiculous for me to say that you can't TWF with Unarmed Strikes, but it's not even more ridiculous to suggest that "people can't kick?"
Yeah, I know they only reduce the penalties. But the precedence is set that unarmed strikes are made with hands. Now, like I said above, there is no reason why one of your attacks can't be made with a foot, but it's flavor only. If your trying to get more attacks beyond what your iterative attacks and/or TWF attacks, you're cheesing the system.
If you were in my game and that scenario came up? I would ask you why you chose to be something other than a monk if you wanted to carry stuff in your hands and also kick or elbow the guy, because being able to make unarmed attacks while his hands are tied behind his back is one of the cool things that a monk can do that fighters cannot. So, this may go against your desires of how you imagine the battles to play out in your mind, but that's the way things are in the rules.
Your argument against unarmed TWF doesn't stem from any legitimate opposition in the rules, but rather from a position of "if I can't use my feet, then it shouldn't be allowed period". While I may not be able to find a rule that specifically states what my position is, I can at least be confident that the weight of the rules are leaning in my direction: precedence favors my position. You're just complaining because you can't get your way.
So, again: the rules aren't broken, you CAN TWF with unarmed strikes; no, you can't make extra attacks with your feet; no, the Devs don't need to fix something that's not broken.
(T)he precedence is set that unarmed strikes are made with hands.
Where?
Nothing in the Unarmed Strike text does it say you have to use a hand.In fact, it doesn't say anywhere in the Monk's version of the description that elbows/knees are above and beyond what anyone can do. It's very likely it's more descriptive in the Monk version because the entire class is practically based around the feat, while all the other classes aren't. (In fact, the Monk description specifically says, "A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet." Are you also suggesting that a Monk cannot headbutt?)
You're stating things as facts when there is no actual text to back you up.
If you want to play your own home games the way you're describing, go right ahead. But don't come to the Rules forum and say, "My way is right, even though I can't find it in the rules for you."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, for starters the Universal Monster Rule for Natural Weapons tells us that humanoids without a natural attack (I.e. standard PC races) must use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Yes, I do realize there is text in the combat section that states that unarmed strikes are "striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts..." (CRB, page 182). I have no problem with iterative attacks being described as using a foot or hand or head butt. It is important to understand that there is only one type of unarmed strike: unarmed strike. There isn't a foot unarmed strike or hand unarmed strike or head unarmed strike; just, unarmed strike. Now, when making an attack with an unarmed strike, you can flavor it up all you want and say you're kicking the guy or punching him in the face. That doesn't change the fact that you are using the weapon "unarmed strike".
So a first level fighter may make one attack based on BAB, and does so using his unarmed strike. He has the ability to make two unarmed strikes per turn, the first as his BAB attack, and a second off-hand attack. This fighter, though, does not have the ability to multiweapon fight with one primary attack and four off-hand attacks (your assertion of 2 arms, 2 legs, and a head).
Why? Because multiweapon fighting is predicated on creatures with three or more arms so those types of creatures have a legal way to use all of those arms in combat. How did I come about this? I correlated the knowledge I learned regarding the Multiweapon Fighting Feat to the types of creatures the feat is intended for. This type of fighting is intended for creatures with three or more arms, not humans with two arms and two legs, and a head. Humans have Two-Weapon Fighting because in this case they are limited to using two weapons and they only get one extra attack with the second weapon.
Phew. Hopefully this whole "getting extra off-hand attacks with your feet" thing can finally be put to rest.
Now, the monk, and how he plays into this. Recall, there is only one type of unarmed strike. There isn't a feet unarmed strike nor a hand unarmed strike. The monk clearly has something going for him than the ordinary scrapper: "...a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full". The opposite is just as valid: the non-monk may not make unarmed strikes with his hands full. Remember, there is no distinction as to which appendage is actually making the unarmed strike, as there is only one type of unarmed strike.
Neo, I totally get where you're coming from: brave fighter with his sword and shield in hand, growling at the bad guy, threatening him with his accoutrements, only to deliver a swift kick to the jimmy (or whatever the scenario may be). Maybe the Devs didn't consider this scenario when they were making the rules. Maybe they figured that all the kicking stuff would be left to the monk, I don't know.
So there is only one type of unarmed strike; it does 1d3 of non lethal damage for a medium sized creature. If a human wants to get a second unarmed strike, he may do so, but must follow the Two-Weapon Fighting rules when getting that extra attack.
Now, the monk, and how he plays into this. Recall, there is only one type of unarmed strike. There isn't a feet unarmed strike nor a hand unarmed strike. The monk clearly has something going for him than the ordinary scrapper: "...a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full". The opposite is just as valid: the non-monk may not make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
The problem here is that you're assuming.
Just because the monk's description specifically spells out that he/she can make unarmed attacks while their hands are full does not specifically translate into, "everyone else can't."Hard rules are what is actually written; not what isn't written.
(And it's worth pointing out that the Monk's Unarmed Attack description is partially what's wrong with Flurry, so I'd take a huge grain of salt if you're basing your "facts" off of Monk technique text.)
So there is only one type of unarmed strike; it does 1d3 of non lethal damage for a medium sized creature. If a human wants to get a second unarmed strike, he may do so, but must follow the Two-Weapon Fighting rules when getting that extra attack.
And I, and others as well I imagine, would be fine with the rules working this way. Unarmed Strike as one weapon with an addendum that allows you to treat it as two weapons for the purposes of Two-Weapon Fighting.
Except that's not how the rules are spelled out. The abilities and/or descriptions were not written that way.
In addition, SKR's description of how Greater Magic Fang works with Unarmed Strikes says that if you want to give a +5 bonus to your Unarmed Strike, you have to choose a specific unarmed strike to apply it to (ie: a fist) and that all your other unarmed strikes do not gain the bonus as well, so while two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, only half your attacks are made with the benefits of Greater Magic Fang. And then he failed to provide exactly how many castings of GMF it would take to cover all the "possible" (his word) Unarmed Strikes.
So the "official" rule is that you do, in fact, have multiple Unarmed Strikes (according to SKR). And if you have 3 or more Unarmed Strikes, this is where you would have to use the Multiweapon Fighting mechanics instead of the Two-Weapon Fighting mechanics.
Which is why myself (and plenty of others) think the whole thing is broken.
(Not to mention - The biggest contention about this whole issue is "what makes sense." There is nothing sensical about not being allowed to kick something if you're holding something in each hand and don't happen to be a Monk.)