Isn't the only reason why this is an issue magical enchantment?
The devs seem adamant that if you have more than iterative attacks, you need to pay more for enchantment. Since everyone seems willing to throw out all simulationism for this reasoning, why not errata all corresponding effects to work like the bodywraps of the mighty strike. Short sword +5, amulet of natural attacks +4, greater magic fang,....
This way, normal people without magic can still unarmed TWF to their hearts content.
Monks are broken, mechanically, because of poor wording and misunderstood rulings.
Monks are bad because of MAD and the "too-expensive magical enhancement" issue.
It's the difference between "doesn't work" and "isn't good."
|
If it's specifically spelled out for the monk, why would you assume that it also applies to everyone else?
As far as the unarmed strike and two-weapon fighting thing: it is exactly how the rules are spelled out on page 302, bottom of the left column, of the Bestiary. Interestingly, the Bestiary 2 changes this paragraph to read: "Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do".
Can you give me a link to the SKR discussion you are referring to? Reading over magic fang, I can see where the confusion comes in regarding casting it on a hand or foot, but I think that the "natural weapons" part in the "slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon" description refers to claw, gore, hoof, tentacle, wing, etc. not foot, head, left hand, right hand.
If this multiweapon thing is as you suppose, we would have had fighters with the improved unarmed strike feat making three extra off-hand attacks since 2000 when 3.0 was first released.
|
|
Monks are broken, mechanically, because of poor wording and misunderstood rulings.
Monks are bad because of MAD and the "too-expensive magical enhancement" issue.
It's the difference between "doesn't work" and "isn't good."
I don't think the monk is broken.
I do think there are people who have realized that the way the monk works in the rules is not the way they imagined it working in their head, and it upsets them. But I don't think that things are as bad as they are made out to be.
It's specifically spelled out for the Monk because it's not specifically spelled out anywhere else. Because the class is focused around that style of attack, it needs further clarification on how it works - clarification that doesn't exist in the description for Unarmed Strike/Combat.
As for SKR/GMF:
/forums/dmtz5drg?Attacking-with-a-weapon#19
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.
Bolded emphasis mine.
|
|
Yeah, it's spelled out for the monk, not anywhere else, and you're jumping to the conclusion that it works that way for the other classes too. So as far as this goes, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see it as a "it doesn't say so you can't", where you see it as a "it doesn't say it so you can". Or maybe it's the other way around. I don't know. I think you know what I'm trying to say though. :)
Thanks for the link. I know SKR was trying to get across the point that FoB operates like TWF. So, if we are talking about multiple body parts, we're still only talking about two, not five because the FoB/TWF attack chain locks us into two weapons. Calling your magic fanged unarmed strike a fist is just semantic flavor. So if you say that you only get magic fang cast on one hand, you have to alternate your magic unarmed attack with your "normal" unarmed attack. The "normal" unarmed attack can be made from the remaining feet, hands, head, elbow, or whatever - it doesn't matter what those are because it's just flavor - the mechanics are the same. Meh, it's not as big a deal as people are making it out to be.
My mind is a bit fuzzy. Hopefully I got the point I was trying to make across. I shall return tomorrow!
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.
Multiweapon fighting is irrelevant to this discussion. You mean disprove your assumption that humanoids can only make unarmed strikes with their hand unless they are monks? Easy, because sure, Grick said this:
"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."
Grick also said this:
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.
As shown with the example of blade boots, TWF means using two forms of attack, but not necessarily a weapon in each hand. As such, there is no assumption implied here that an unarmed strike is hands only, merely that if you use multiple attacks when fighting unarmed you need to use TWF to gain more than the iterative attacks you would normally accrue from a single weapon and your BAB.
As you haven't shown anything that declares unarmed strikes to be hands only...
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.
No argument from me there. That's exactly how unarmed combat and TWF is supposed to work.
But, if both of your hands are occupied, then you may not make any unarmed attacks (monks excluded).
Why? Citation, please? There is nothing, anywhere, that states that unarmed strikes have to be hands-only, merely hands-preferred.
I don't think the monk is broken.
I do think there are people who have realized that the way the monk works in the rules is not the way they imagined it working in their head, and it upsets them. But I don't think that things are as bad as they are made out to be.
Very well, how IS the monk meant to work? If it isn't a combat class what is it?
Dabbler, I believe most of your answers were answered in posts made since I first responded to you.
No, you asserted certain things and demanded to be proven wrong; I demand that you prove them right.
Sure, the monk gets involved in combat. Why is there an expectation that it should be just as efficient as a fighter?
Note that the question was "Very well, how IS the monk meant to work? If it isn't a combat class what is it?" which you dodged answering, so I can only assume that you do not know.
There is an assertion that the monk should be effective; this does not translate as being as 'efficient' as the fighter. Look at the other combat classes, they do not share the fighter's effciency. However, they meet a baseline for performance.
Fighter - functions at baseline + small bonus vs everything
Paladin - functions at baseline, gets + huge bonus vs smite targets
Ranger - functions at baseline, gets + big bonus vs favoured enemies
barbarian - functions at baseline, gets + good bonus when raging
monk - struggles to get close to baseline, has a few tricks that maybe work against a few foes.
All we want is for the monk to function at baseline - not be as effective as the fighter.
I never use them, so I don't know if it's changed for PF from 3.5, but do you still have to enchant each part of a double weapon independently?
Yes you do.
|
|
And read my responses and you will get your answers. I even had an answer directly commenting on this "hands" thing. I suspect you overlooked it amongst all of the other comments.
What is this "baseline"? And why are you comparing a monk to full BAB classes? The Monk is a 3/4 BAB class with the advantage of speed and maneuverability to help maintain a tactical advantage over the enemy. One of the class features that the monk gets that separates it from other 3/4 BAB classes is the ability to lay out a whole bunch of attacks as if it did have a full BAB progression. The monk is no more a front line combatant than the rogue is. Sure, you can do that, but it isn't as good as some other classes in that role.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The monk is no more a front line combatant than the rogue is.
A better way to word Dabbler's question to you is to quote this line and then ask, "Well then what IS it?"
Edit - Nvm, that's almost exactly how he asked it! :P
What role does the Monk fill in a party if he's not a "Skill-Monkey," not a "Spellcaster," and also not a "Front-Line Fighter?" (There we go, that's worded better.)
|
And why are you comparing a monk to full BAB classes? The Monk is a 3/4 BAB class with the advantage of speed and maneuverability to help maintain a tactical advantage over the enemy. One of the class features that the monk gets that separates it from other 3/4 BAB classes is the ability to lay out a whole bunch of attacks as if it did have a full BAB progression. The monk is no more a front line combatant than the rogue is. Sure, you can do that, but it isn't as good as some other classes in that role.
Because the monk gets even sadder when compared to other 3/4 classes, who not only are more effective in combat in most situations, but also tend to have better skills and/or spellcasting capabilities. The rogue is the only class that even comes close to having as poor a chance to hit as the unarmed combat monk, and he has much better skills and sneak attack to fall back on.
|
|
The monk is no more a front line combatant than the rogue is.A better way to word Dabbler's question to you is to quote this line and then ask, "Well then what IS it?"
Edit - Nvm, that's almost exactly how he asked it! :P
What role does the Monk fill in a party if he's not a "Skill-Monkey," not a "Spellcaster," and also not a "Front-Line Fighter?" (There we go, that's worded better.)
So you quote this line, but ignore the two preceding sentences? I play the monk as someone who helps set up the battlefield so the whole team can defeat the opponent. Fast movement, stunning fist, FoB, opportunities to set up flanking and the quickly reposition to another part of the battlefield to provide support to other teammates.
What role do you see the monk playing?
Let's not turn this into another Monk thread.
.
.
.
.
.
Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk.
Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk.
Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk.
Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk.
.
.
.
.
.
Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk.
Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk.
Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk.
Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk. Monk.
Are you Monking yet?
Gotta say, this was an interesting read.
Agree. TWF is possible with unarmed strikes as the only "weapon".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's quit MONKeying around.
MA
Back to the original topic: fluff aside, are there any legitimate RAW reasons that prevent someone from TWF with unarmed strikes?
Because it complicates the rules unnecessarily. Yay full-circle!
|
|
Back to the original topic: fluff aside, are there any legitimate RAW reasons that prevent someone from TWF with unarmed strikes?Because it complicates the rules unnecessarily. Yay full-circle!
When the rules say...
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not posses 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.
...how does this unnecessarily complicate the rules?
Once again, full-circle.
If you want the answer to that question, go to one of the previous pages where it was already discussed.
Without Paizo coming in and saying, "This is exactly how Unarmed Strikes work," this entire topic is just a matter of opinion.
Yes, by RAW, TWF is allowed with Unarmed Strikes. This doesn't work because Greater Magic Fang and/or Multi-weapon Fighting.
Just because it's RAW, doesn't mean it works.
I must of missed how either of those things break TWF while unarmed
"Exactly how many castings of Greater Magic Fang does it take to make all my potential unarmed attacks +5? (Need an answer for a Monk and a Non-Monk, unless there is no relevant difference. Not looking for an educated guess, but for an actual ruled number)."
"Does Unarmed Strike count as a single weapon, or as multiple different weapons? If it's a single weapon, how can I TWF with it? If it's multiple different weapons and I have five "limbs" that are capable of unarmed attacks, why am I two-weapon fighting instead of multiweapon fighting? (Regardless of feats known/available)."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about this:
Let the Monk Class make attacks, using TWF but count each limb as a separate weapon doing the damage each weapon does, with whatever Feat modification given, but treat Punch, Back Fist, Elbow, Knee, Foot, Head butt, Gouge, etc as a separate Weapon. There's "Common Sense" and overkill. Trust that a Monk already is using both hands and later feet, head butt, knees, etc in their attacks as they get better.
After all, do we really want to start differentiating between Hard and Soft styles, a Tae Kwon Do vs Krav Maga vs Kung Fu vs Drunk and stupid styles of Martial Arts? How far down the rabbit hole does one want to go? And why just stop at Monk? Let's look at all the places that can use more "Common Sense" in Pathfinder or any other RP game!
Just because someone says "Common Sense", and I agree that some of the things I've read on here for monks make sense but many forget the "Common Sense" things that actually go against the Monk?
How come Monks don't run the risk of breaking bones in their hands and feet when hitting a person in Plate Armor? What about the risk of serious bleeding after punching a Glass Golem? What are the ill effects of hitting a life sucking Wraith?
Let's bring "Common Sense" into combat some more and have "Body Points" as well as "Hit Points"? Body points are the physical damage one can take while the good ol' HP are more like fighting ability/wind/fatigue points that come back quickly? When you run out of HP, the damage goes direct to Body Points where you die. Also that would make "Crits" far more entertaining as a Crit ignores (but does not reduce) HP and straight to body. That makes combat and the "criticial shot to the Head" far more realistic and conforms to "Common Sense". It also means a 1st level with a lucky Double Crit getting through the protections of a 20 level level Fighter can kill them in 1 shot
That's the problem with "Common Sense" in a free flow game. Trust me, I'd love to give the Monks the ability to do TWF, Improved TWF, etc
However due to game play, I reconcile that the Monk's attack start with a basic punch, moves with experience to the punch followed by the elbow strike, eventually punch to pressure point-elbow-backfist-knee strike-head butt-back kick then "end of attacks" as a well choreographed display of movement with one goal - hurt something
Just as with a fighter with 4 swings at 16th level with 1 blade. There aren't swing/rear back - swing/rear back - swing/rear back - swing/rear back but far more a fluid movement of blade slicing down, using the momentum to come back in a side stroke, followed by a swing low to high and finally the thrust. No "4 separate swings" but a graceful dance of the blade through the air guided by a master of the art
You want common sense, great! I like it too but before you go and unbalance the game, somethings are done for several reasons, Balance and Playability are two of the biggest ones
I think it makes the most sense to me to treat them sort of like double weapons. You have to enchant each "part" of the weapon individually. You typically don't get an extra attack unless you're declaring that you're TWF. Multiweapon fighting seems like a rather blatant attempt to circumvent and cheese. While MWF is only a feat to reduce penalties, the requirement for 3+ hands does seem like a fairly good indication that 3+ hands are required to use the ability in and of itself.
Seems like a pretty workable solution (something like the, "they're one weapon except for TWF" option, I suppose - though more like a special type of weapon than a single weapon). There might be other issues with doing this I haven't considered, but I'm not particularly invested in this. There likely isn't a RAW answer, anyway.
How about this:
Let the Monk Class make attacks, using TWF but count each limb as a separate weapon doing the damage each weapon does, with whatever Feat modification given, but treat Punch, Back Fist, Elbow, Knee, Foot, Head butt, Gouge, etc as a separate Weapon. There's "Common Sense" and overkill. Trust that a Monk already is using both hands and later feet, head butt, knees, etc in their attacks as they get better.
But is an arm a weapon, or the separate hand, elbow, forearm, etc?
As the monk isn't going to get more than the attacks for TWF, I would simply call it a double weapon.
|
|
How about this:
Let the Monk Class make attacks, using TWF but count each limb as a separate weapon doing the damage each weapon does, with whatever Feat modification given, but treat Punch, Back Fist, Elbow, Knee, Foot, Head butt, Gouge, etc as a separate Weapon. There's "Common Sense" and overkill. Trust that a Monk already is using both hands and later feet, head butt, knees, etc in their attacks as they get better.
But is an arm a weapon, or the separate hand, elbow, forearm, etc?
As the monk isn't going to get more than the attacks for TWF, I would simply call it a double weapon.
Good question Grasshopper
That is why I hold that the Attacks by a Monk are "one, some or all" of any the above
Take "Flurry of Blows", FoB. Is it as fists on a speed bag? A punch followed quickly with an elbow? A double snap kick? A double punch? What's the style?
I lave it alone and say that the Monk gets a watered down version of TWF and that is why they can get the FoB and more. How they do it is for the player to decide what the fluff is
"Exactly how many castings of Greater Magic Fang does it take to make all my potential unarmed attacks +5? (Need an answer for a Monk and a Non-Monk, unless there is no relevant difference. Not looking for an educated guess, but for an actual ruled number)."
As many as you feel you need to cover what ever attacks your thinking in a round. Since you can functionally make no more than 1 attack string per hand(see below) then 1 per hand is all you actually need unless you have some how lost a limb or fear losing a limb already so enchanted.
"Does Unarmed Strike count as a single weapon, or as multiple different weapons? If it's a single weapon, how can I TWF with it? If it's multiple different weapons and I have five "limbs" that are capable of unarmed attacks, why am I two-weapon fighting instead of multiweapon fighting? (Regardless of feats known/available)."
2 things here first off MWF functions off of the number of hands you have completly independant of Limbs. Thats the prereq for even causing TWF to become MWF when you take it having 3 or more hands.
Second just like a guy with two swords and a boulder helmet a bootblade spiked armor and a barbezuea beard your attack string is limited by the feats you can take without MWF you get 2 attack strings one primary one off hand. Now you can use whatever attacks you want in those strings as your primary and secondary and even intermix in thos catagories, just like your can make your unarmed attacks with what limbs you choose but you still have 2 attack strings.
As far as the magic fang thing, the most you'll ever cast is two, cast on two unarmed strikes.
And where is that in the rules, perchance? Until this matter is clarified, it isn't. And SKRs language (. . . if even one of these attacks is different . . .) certainly implies more than two.
MA
The point MA is that you'll never need more than 2 to cover your attack string. Functionally the devs have even said it doesn't wven matter which body part you attack with as long as when flurrying and TWF you make sure that if you do have one different they aren't all with the same one.
So, if you get Magic Fang on a fist, and another magic fang on another fist, it all of sudden affects your feet? The point being, that until we know how many weapons unarmed strikes actually are . . . a lot of things remain up in the air.
You say that functionally, if you have two then that's all you ever need. But SKRs post said potential attack forms. Not the attacks you are using for your unarmed strike, all of those you could potentially make. If even one (1) if different, you have to divide up your attacks.
So you get seven Magic Fangs cast you (2 fists, 2 elbows, 2 feet, and 1 knee); unfortunately the druid ran out of spells and cannot enchant that last knee. Well, that one knee is different, so you have to include it in your flurry routine. Because it is a potential attack form. So we need to know.
MA
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MA, I need help finding the damage stats for a fist on the weapon chart. While you're at it can you help me find the damage stats for the elbows, feet, and knees?
Wait...what's that? There are no stats? Oh, that's because the only thing there is is unarmed strike.
So magic fang enchants an unarmed strike. You can flavor it up as whatever body part you want, but you still only get unarmed strike.
So, the Monk's FoB primary attack iterations get a magic fanged unarmed strike and the FoB extra attack iterations get another magic fanged unarmed strike. Yay, the Druid only has to cast the spell twice. Or, if the Druid could only cast it once, then the primary attack iterations are with the magic fanged unarmed strike and the extra attack iterations are with the non-magic fanged unarmed strike. Phew, that wasn't so hard after all.
We're talking about what SKR directly said about unarmed strikes being enchanted separately from one another.
Myself and MA and others, we're not the ones making the rules around Unarmed Strikes convoluted and confusing (and even JJ agrees that they are, with his answer to your question). You can thank the development team for that. We're just trying to piece all the rules together.
|
|
Well I guess I can't really disagree with you on that point.
I mean, when I just read the book, not trying to dig - just read through it - I really wonder why people are saying things are convoluted and over complicated. I mean, having to magic fang every appendage and joint? I might as well magic fang my codpiece too.
Out of curiosity, the actual debate of whether it is RAW or not aside, if unarmed strikes/FOB is played as I've described it, does anything (feat, ability, etc) that I may not be aware of right now brake because of this interpretation? Would it possibly clarify some things?
Honestly, the majority of the issue is in magical enhancement (that G. Magic Fang issue).
If I GMF both fists and try to TWF, I have to use "enhanced UAS" as primary and "unenhanced UAS" as offhand. Enchanting two fists doesn't let you TWF with two magical fists - it just means you've made it so you're required to kick/headbutt/knee/etc as your offhand attack. (According to SKR's interpretation anyway.)
If you couldn't TWF with Unarmed Strikes, that wouldn't necessarily make sense to some people, but there are plenty of rules that don't make sense because of balance/mechanical issues. This should just be another one of those.
|
|
What if, instead of enhancing a limb (fist, foot, etc), you instead enhance "unarmed strike"? I realize that's not what SKR is saying, but if I did it that way would it brake things or unbalance things? (My motivation being, if this ends up needing to be a house rule, what unforeseen consequences might pop up).
EDIT: I may not be clear in my question. Taking GMF: instead of saying you're going to cast GMF on both fists, you say you're going to cast GMF on your unarmed strike and cast a second on your extra unarmed strike.
|
|
Then you have races with no feet, like the Merfolk, or extra limbs, like the Tiefling's tail, or the Aasimar's wings.
Then you have the PCs with access to polymorph spells, who can transform into creatures without limbs, like the Giant Slug.
How do these PCs handle unarmed strikes?
Do they get more or less?
How do they handle spells that enchant the unarmed strikes?
Show me where he says you must use the weakest options you have. He says you can't use your best weapon (singular) for all your attacks. Nothing about using your best weapons (plural) for them all.
Sorry talking to MA and nicos on their assertion that the devs say you must use you weaker options even if you two equal unarmed strikes.
It's because "Unarmed Strike" is not defined as "fist." You haven't enchanted your "fist," you've enchanted your "unarmed strike." So now you have an enchanted unarmed strike, and an unenchanted unarmed strike.
If you were enchanting your two "fist attacks" that would be different, but there's no such thing as a "fist attack."
Which is why there is such a problem with officially declaring that a person/monk has multiple Unarmed Strikes but then not describing exactly how many Unarmed Strikes a person/monk has.
Once again it's only a. Problem when taken into extreme corner cases. Heck the magic fang spells even say fist. Not simply unarmed strike.
|
|
This whole thing comes down to "What enhancements can I use on my Monk Character?"
Unless you want to assign damage and Bonus/Penalty to:
Forget it, I stopped at 33 different strikes and combos - there are a lot
How about the KISS principle:
To get MF or GMF, cast it on the normal attack first and then on the FoB. Therefore it makes everyone upset which is the best type of compromise. Of course, that would only be on the Monk's unarmed attacks - no weapons of any sort allowed.
Same goes to all other natural attack enhancing spells.
As for TWF, ITWF, GTWF, etc Monks using their weapons and various body parts, as it says on the left hand lower side of Page 57 under "Flurry of Blows", When doing so he may make 1 additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon(insert laundry list) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)
By keeping it simple, a monk character uses whatever part of their body they can strike a blow with, and making them use separate enhancements for the basic and unarmed FoB, it keeps it simple
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until you get to that one particular little line of text:
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."