So, just to be sure, those who believe that two-weapon fighting is available with unarmed strikes only, believe this is made possible due to "two hands"?
"Two hands" is major benchmark to your position, right?
Eh, not really. I don't see anything in the rules restricting unarmed strikes to being "one weapon". I'm not going to speak for everybody else, though.
|
So, just to be sure, those who believe that two-weapon fighting is available with unarmed strikes only, believe this is made possible due to "two hands"?
"Two hands" is major benchmark to your position, right?
No. A first level character gets one unarmed strike because that is what their BAB allows. They would then get one off-hand attack from TWF. The actual limbs used are irrelevant.
Fine with me. Like I said earlier in the thread (and it might have gotten missed), I think it's relatively simple (conceptually) to think of unarmed strikes as a quasi double (or higher) weapon. So, whether it's technically "one weapon" or not doesn't really matter all that much to me. It could be one weapon with multiple parts or multiple distinct weapons, I honestly don't think it much matters. Admittedly not a "RAW" answer, but I don't think the question of whether unarmed strikes are or are not a single weapon has a RAW answer.
Like I said earlier in the thread (and it might have gotten missed), I think it's relatively simple (conceptually) to think of unarmed strikes as a quasi double (or higher) weapon.
I agree, it's a 'more than one, but not definable as two' sort of option. I don't have a problem with that. I don't really have a problem with FoB being TWF as long as it counts as such in terms of pre-reqs for other feats, either, and lets you give it up for full BAB. I object to it being a nerfed version that gives you the worst of both worlds, though.
So I have one question that probably has been asked and answered and I know I think the answer for other threads, so maybe this is more of a "this makes no sense why the rules say this" than an actual question but...
If I have claws and I want to use those claws, I get two attacks. If I want to attack unarmed, i use normal punch rules and two weapon fighting rules and get as many attacks as my BAB/TWF allows, but I can't use my claws. Period.
Really I don't get why a fighter or monk with claws can't use his claws!
There is a feat that allows them to do so.
WarrenCraftlocke makes a pretty good/interesting point.
Why can't you TWF with armor spikes? The same kind of logic applies as would apply to TWF with unarmed strikes.
Well, it's from the 3.5e FAQ, but it was doable before:
Just how and when can you use armor spikes? If you’re
using two weapons already, can you use armor spikes to
make a second off-hand attack? What if you’re using a
weapon and a shield? Can you use the armor spikes for an
off-hand attack and still get a shield bonus to Armor Class
from the shield? What if you use a two-handed weapon?
Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an
off-hand attack with the spikes? What are your options for
using armor spikes in a grapple? Can you use them when
pinned? If you have another light weapon, can you use that
and your armor spikes when grappling?When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an
extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater
Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra
weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as
the extra weapon.
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn
(or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you
use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack
action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light
weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you’re using a
shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these latter two cases,
you’re assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your
armor spikes.
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon,
you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see
Table 8–10 in the PH). When using armor spikes along with a
two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed
weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the offhand
weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary
weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but
when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light
weapon in your off hand.
You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a
second off-hand attack when you’re already fighting with two
weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes,
you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with
the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and
the armor spikes (see the description of spiked armor in
Chapter 7 of the PH).
When grappling, you can damage your foe with your spikes
by making a regular grapple check (opposed by your foe’s
check). If you succeed, you deal piercing damage to your foe
(see Table 7–5 in the PH) rather than the unarmed strike
damage you’d normally deal when damaging your foe with a
grapple check. Since you can use armor spikes as a light
weapon, you can simply use them to attack your foe. You
suffer a –4 penalty on your attack roll when attacking with a
light weapon in a grapple (see page 156 in the PH), but if your
foe is bigger or stronger than you, this might prove a better
tactic than trying to deal damage through a grapple check
because there is no opposed roll to make—you just have to hit
your opponent’s Armor Class. You can’t attack with two
weapons when grappling, even when one of those weapons is
armor spikes (see the section on grappling in Chapter 8 of the
PH).
You can’t attack and damage your foe if he has you pinned.
If you break the pin and avoid being pinned again, you can go
back to attacking your foe. If your attack bonus is high enough
to allow multiple attacks, you might break the pin and then use
your remaining attack to damage your foe. To accomplish this,
you must first use an attack to break the pin. You can break a
pin using the Escape Artist skill, but trying to do so is a
standard action for you; once you use the standard action to
attempt escape, you can’t make any more attacks during your
turn.
Nothing I see from Pathfinder rules, and nothing released in FAQ, has indicated anything otherwise.
Fighting with two weapons comes with implications. You are having to coordinate your attacks with multiple weapons, so there's a cost to attack rolls and strength damage on the offhand attack.
There is also a limit. One extra attack for one extra weapon being tossed into the mix. This is the limitation on the combat option, that some feats will allow bypassing.
Multi-weapon fighting, for those that have multiple arms, is in place for those that live their entire lives with fine motor skill arms and hands under their control, giving an exception to the rule. They are used to fighting swinging a wild bunch of limbs around normally, so they get more attacks.
This is why giving extra-attack-making limbs is so limited for the regular PC (vestigial arm and others usually only give minor benefits).
The limit is in place by the combat option, so it doesn't matter "how many unarmed strikes" a person has.
Let the poor human have his one-two punch.
No no, I mean Armor Spike mainhand attack, followed by Armor Spike offhand attack. (ie: Shoulder check, followed by a knee.)
To my knowledge, this is not allowable by the rules, but it's just as logical an argument to make as "Unarmed Strike as both main and off hand."
No no, I mean Armor Spike mainhand attack, followed by Armor Spike offhand attack. (ie: Shoulder check, followed by a knee.)
To my knowledge, this is not allowable by the rules, but it's just as logical an argument to make as "Unarmed Strike as both main and off hand."
What is the plural of armor spikes? On page 64 of the Advanced Race Guide is a picture of a halfling wearing spiked armor. She has spikes on her shin guards, spikes on her scaled-armor skirt, spikes on her solid-metal hip armor, spikes on her shoulder guards, and even spikes on an elbow protector on her left arm (she holds a shield in her right arm). I could count those spikes as at least five different weapons.
I would rule that her spikes could count as separate weapons for a regular attack and an offhand attack, so she could make both with armor spikes.
Someone wearing armor with only one spike, such as s spike atop the helmet, could use the spike as only one weapon.
I would rule that her spikes could count as separate weapons for a regular attack and an offhand attack, so she could make both with armor spikes.
But then you could enchant the spikes as a single weapon, with maximum potential, at the cost of a single weapon, and get up to 7 attacks (8 with haste) all with that one weapon.
Because Armor Spikes count as a single weapon.
I would rule that her spikes could count as separate weapons for a regular attack and an offhand attack, so she could make both with armor spikes.But then you could enchant the spikes as a single weapon, with maximum potential, at the cost of a single weapon, and get up to 7 attacks (8 with haste) all with that one weapon.
Because Armor Spikes count as a single weapon.
If I, the GM, am counting several sets of armor spikes as separate weapons for making attacks, then I am also going to count them as separate weapons for enchanting them. And each set costs 50gp when forged.
I admit, if a fighter had matching armor spikes on each forearm, most rules about items would count them as a single set, yet the rules about Two-Weapon Fighting would count them as separate sets. You might persuade me to give you two enchanted attacks for the price of one using that loophole. As an unfortunate side effect of the two-for-one enchantment, I would rule that the enchantment prevents the character from using the arm slot for wondrous items.
But all of that is Homebrew, not RAW. So how is it relevant?
But then you could enchant the spikes as a single weapon, with maximum potential, at the cost of a single weapon, and get up to 7 attacks (8 with haste) all with that one weapon.
Because Armor Spikes count as a single weapon.
This just gets into the "double weapons are weird" category. It is strange in the same way that it costs twice as much to enchant a chunk of wood that I intend to smack people with both ends of instead of one (quarterstaff vs greatclub), but someone who is non-supernaturally good with spears (Dragoon) can make an enchantment work on both ends at once. The enchantment cost is made as an arbitrary balance concern, rather than for a logical in-universe reason.
On the armor spikes, you can't use one set for all mainhand and off-hand attacks because you can't do that with any weapon, just like you couldn't make all your attacks with a punch from your left hand. One could perhaps put multiple sets of spikes on the armor to do this, though it is admittedly very weird (I stab him with every other spike on my arm!). Unfortunately, this is the point we get to when we talk about these super corner cases. If anyone ever asks if one can use a barbezu beard and a headbutt at the same time (the chin is a different limb!) I think I'll have to give up and go weep in the corner.
If you can enchant it as one, then treat it as a single weapon, I suppose. If you have to enchant components or weapons separately, treat it as a multi-weapon.
Combat is however you imagine it to be. "Uppercut, elbow drop, roundhouse kick, and haymaker" can all by a single iterative attack (with only one connecting solidly enough to deal damage.)
There's no room in the RAW to assume realism is used to that degree. It would just make things WAY too complex to try and track with basic d20 rules.
I agree with Neo. I think you have some weapons that are indefinable and inseparable from the combat technique used to deliver them. A sword has a business end, and a staff has two business ends, claws are claws and teeth are teeth, but unarmed strike could be delivered with, well, anything.
@Kazaan - We seem to agree on that point then. The developers disagree, however, but have so far failed to make any sense out of the actual mechanics when presented with awkward situations that arise because of their decision (regardless of how "corner-case" some people want to claim they are). That's the issue. :P
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was tooling around the PRD pondering character builds (a wonderful pastime) and read this variant rage power:
Brawler, Greater: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks. A barbarian must have the brawler rage power to select this rage power.
In my opinion, this is another rather strong indication that a character may TWF with solely unarmed strikes. Otherwise, I imagine they would have used wording such as "when making an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack" or "when making an unarmed strike in addition to a melee attack".
Was tooling around the PRD pondering character builds (a wonderful pastime) and read this variant rage power:
Brawler, Greater: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks. A barbarian must have the brawler rage power to select this rage power.In my opinion, this is another rather strong indication that a character may TWF with solely unarmed strikes. Otherwise, I imagine they would have used wording such as "when making an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack" or "when making an unarmed strike in addition to a melee attack".
Basically, the barbarian gains the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, but only when raging and when using unarmed strikes as his off-hand weapon. Now, since you can kick with unarmed strikes, that means you can use a two-handed great axe for your primary attacks and kick all day long with your unarmed strike as your off-hand. All it really does is give you a bonus feat when raging and limit you to using it when you use unarmed-strikes.
That is my interpretation.
MA
You're begging the question. Arguments have been presented as to why unarmed strikes aren't necessarily treated just like any other weapon. Most notably, different appendages must be enchanted separately for unarmed strikes, akin to double weapons. That is a rather strong indication (though admittedly not determinative) of the intent to not treat unarmed strikes as one global weapon. That clarification by the developers actually is an indication in the rules that unarmed strikes are a "special kind of weapon", to use your wording.
Was tooling around the PRD pondering character builds (a wonderful pastime) and read this variant rage power:
Brawler, Greater: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks. A barbarian must have the brawler rage power to select this rage power.In my opinion, this is another rather strong indication that a character may TWF with solely unarmed strikes. Otherwise, I imagine they would have used wording such as "when making an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack" or "when making an unarmed strike in addition to a melee attack".Basically, the barbarian gains the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, but only when raging and when using unarmed strikes as his off-hand weapon. Now, since you can kick with unarmed strikes, that means you can use a two-handed great axe for your primary attacks and kick all day long with your unarmed strike as your off-hand. All it really does is give you a bonus feat when raging and limit you to using it when you use unarmed-strikes.
That is my interpretation.
MA
I can understand that interpretation. My only disagreement is that it doesn't specify that the unarmed strike must be done as the offhand attack.
Not only that, but the language from the Brutal Pugilist is actually a really strong indication that no such restriction was intended (if for no other reason than a "pugilist" is, quite literally, a "boxer").
Some barbarians focus on using their bare hands to tear their opponents limb from limb. These brutal pugilists also learn a great deal about various combat maneuvers, using them to cripple or crush their foes. A brutal pugilist has the following class features.
***
Rage Powers: The following rage powers complement the brutal pugilist archetype: ... brawler, greater brawler.
Brawler: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Improved Unarmed Strike. If she already has the feat, her unarmed strikes deal 1d6 points of damage (1d4 if she is Small).
Brawler, Greater: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks. A barbarian must have the brawler rage power to select this rage power.
To be honest, it seems rather silly, and in fact completely contradictory, to have a class archetype designed around boxing and grappling, create a rage power that specifically mentions using TWF with unarmed strikes (while not clarifying that unarmed strikes can only be used as an off-hand attack while TWF for an archetype designed to mimic a boxer). That's far too much of a stretch to me.
Wait MA are you saying Unarmed strikes are a single weapon and you cant dual wield UAS so you cant TWf with them successively because you can't TWf with only one weapon?
even thought the Greater brawler rage power say you can?
Wait MA are you saying Unarmed strikes are a single weapon and you cant dual wield UAS so you cant TWf with them successively because you can't TWf with only one weapon?
even thought the brutal puaglist and Greater brawler say you can?
That's been the primary argument of most of the people saying you can't TWF with just unarmed strikes - that unarmed strike is a single weapon.
If you can fight that way with boot-blades (and they specifically state that you can with TWF and two-handed weapon), you can fight that way with kicks.
If you can fight that way with boot-blades (and they specifically state that you can with TWF and two-handed weapon), you can fight that way with kicks.I'm having a heck of a time finding the boot-blade description, where is it at?
Blade Boot
Blade boots come with a spring-mounted knife that pops out when triggered with the right combination of toe presses.Benefit: You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.
Action: Releasing the knife is a swift action; rearming it is a full-round action.
Drawback: When the blade is extended, you treat normal terrain as difficult and difficult terrain as impassable.
Honestly, I don't think it changes much. It just gives you the ability to make an attack with your foot as an offhand, in lieu of a fist or what have you.
Exactly. So if you can make an attack with a blade boot, why can you not make an attack with a kick? And if you have both hands free while doing so, you can use a two-handed weapon in them too.
|
|
The problem with the Boot-Blade with regards to the argument that unarmed strikes could be made with feet, etc. is that the Boot-Blade is considered a weapon (light martial weapon, to be precise) in an of itself, not an unarmed strike that does lethal damage (the way that a gauntlet does). The Boot-Blade allows you to TWF and make an off-hand attack in situations that you would normally not get one: using a greatsword, or if you're a sword-n-board fighter (assuming you don't use the shield as a weapon), for example.
I do not believe that the Boot-Blade sets a precedence that anyone may make an unarmed strike if their hands are full just because the Boot-Blade is an attack that uses the foot. It is clearly an exception to the norm: "if your hands are full, this weapon allows you to make an off-hand attack".
The problem is that it allows you to make an strike with your feet in the same way that you make one with your hands - it sticks a weapon on the limb in question.
It's not to great a stretch to figure that if you can punch with a hand not holding a weapon, you can kick with a foot while it doesn't have a weapon stuck on it in just the same way.
Dabbler that is as big a stretch to some as the stretch to assume that if I can punch with two hand with bras knuckles on I can do it barehanded.
Brass Knuckles always attack with the knuckles. Unarmed Strikes do not always attack with the fists. Therein lies the difference.
But they can your hung up on the thought of being able to use other body parts. Yes I can kick or elbow or headbutt or knee but I can also throw two punches. But for some reason I either have to have mystic martial arts training or be sixth level to do it twice in 6 seconds if I don't wear something over my hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dabbler that is as big a stretch to some as the stretch to assume that if I can punch with two hand with bras knuckles on I can do it barehanded.
Yep, it's a stretch that big, because using brass knuckles is just as different from punching as using blade-boots is from kicking.
When the monk rework is finished I'm sure it will cover the unarmed FAQ.
Exactly I don't think anyone here is trying to game the system for 5 attacks at level one. Just 2 same as anyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's been said before, but...
I don't think this is as complicated as some are making it out to be.
HangarFlying pretty much summed it up for me earlier in the post
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,...
Still the best explanation I've seen.
It's just all limited by how many attacks available to you in each round. I mean, the freaking book says that an Unarmed Strike counts as a light-weapon for crying out loud! You can have two light-weapons while TWFing, you can use Unarmed Strike TWFing.What's there to debate?