A shortsword also counts as a light weapon. Can you TWF with a shortsword?
No, because you can't TWF with a single weapon.
So is an Unarmed Attack a single weapon, or multiple weapons? If it's a single weapon, then you can't TWF with it for the same reason you can't TWF with a shortsword. If it's multiple weapons, then how many weapons is it? Two? Four? Nine? The RAW doesn't say anywhere how many weapons UaS counts as, so the default assumption should be "it counts as one."
If its just one then why would magic weapon use the language it does actually calling out the fist and not simply unarmed strike?
Also for any practical purpose it could be 100 attacks and still not matter since you have a RAW limit in the number of attacks you can make per round.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
If its just one then why would magic weapon use the language it does actually calling out the fist and not simply unarmed strike?
Also for any practical purpose it could be 100 attacks and still not matter since you have a RAW limit in the number of attacks you can make per round.
And, if you've only got a single 'unarmed strike', and you cast magic fang on your fist, that somehow makes your kicks, knees, elbows, and headbutts better?
How does that work?
Also for any practical purpose it could be 100 attacks and still not matter since you have a RAW limit in the number of attacks you can make per round.
This is precisely the point.
Also for any practical purpose it could be 100 attacks and still not matter since you have a RAW limit in the number of attacks you can make per round.This is precisely the point.
It's a great point. By RAW, you get a single mainhand attack, and one attack for every offhand you have. You take a penalty to mainhand of -6 and a penalty to all offhands of -10. If all the offhand weapons are light weapons or lighter, both penalties are reduced by 2 to -4/-8 respectively.
It's called Multiweapon Fighting. If you happen to have 3 or more hands, you can even get the feat that lowers the penalties even more.So it's VERY important to know exactly how many offhands you have when Unarmed Striking.
Note the word hands you only have 2 as any current player race I can think of. Multi weapon fighting actually counts your physical hands not the number of possible off hand attacks you have other wise any one with two swords and a boulder helmet would qualify.
Show me where it says you need more than 2 hands to opt for the multiweapon fighting style? (ie: NOT THE FEAT)
Your right gotta remember that my fighter should be making 5 attacks at first level for all the extra weapons he can wield.
Maybe it's that fact that covers it. Or even if it's possible no ones gonna eat those penalties for 1-3 more attacks a round. Like I said earlier you only worry with two unarmed strikes for any reasonable purpose.
Big difference once you get to enhanced weapons. As of right now only dragoon fighter can TWF with a single weapon for one cost if enhancements. A character using unarmed strikes pays for 2.5 weapons. So the dagger guy is coming out a weapon and a half above the boxer.
Heck that's what started the whole flurry= TWF thing being clarified was SKR pointing out how unbalanced the monk getting TWF for the cost of one weapon was.
Heck that's what started the whole flurry= TWF thing being clarified was SKR pointing out how unbalanced the monk getting TWF for the cost of one weapon was.
To my knowledge, no one's ever (in seriousness) asked for the AoMF to cost the same as a single weapon. But 2.5x the cost is way too much.
Something else to consider if you're concerned with a cost/benefit ratio: A sword and board TWFer can pay 75,000 for two +5 weapons and a +5 shield, all at the same time (Shield Mastery). So how would a cheaper AoMF be, at all, unfair/unbalanced?
Heck that's what started the whole flurry= TWF thing being clarified was SKR pointing out how unbalanced the monk getting TWF for the cost of one weapon was.
With all respect to SKR, this is an example of somebody taking an ability completely out of context. Monk weapons truly suck, with the exception of the temple sword - and a monk wielding a temple sword will pay for it in AC if they want to hit anything. Hence a monk flurrying with one weapon might be getting more attacks with a single weapon, but if the weapon is so bad that it'll make no difference, then nothing is broken.
Bottom line, though, is the devs have said they are not changing the AoMF or replacing it, so whether you want a cheaper AoMF or not, it isn't going to happen officially.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am so sorry I started this thread..........
Yes, sadly that happens a lot.
Show me where it says you need more than 2 hands to opt for the multiweapon fighting style? (ie: NOT THE FEAT)
It's clear by implication. TWF specifically mentions two weapons. Multiweapon fighting feat requires 3+ hands to gain it. Show me where it says you can use the multiweapon fighting style at all. Mutliweapon Fighting Feat says that it replaces TWF for creatures with 3+ arms. The implication being that MWF replaces TWF for creatures with 3+ arms, meaning MWF is not available for you to use, unless you have 3+ arms. MWF feat also mentions that, normally you take a -10 penalty to all attacks with your other hands. So, once again, there's an implication that without extra hands/arms, you cannot make use of MWF (the style).
|
Let's look at Multiweapon Fighting and it's intent: if you have three or more arms, you may make an additional off-hand attack per arm over two. It's not rocket science. If you're trying to argue anything else, you're cheesing the rules just to try to make a point.
Oh...what is this? Do I have rules to back me up? What ho! It appears the Advanced Race Guide spells out the obvious:
Multi-Armed (4 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.
So, this has nothing to do with the precious Multiweapon Fighting Feat that Neo keeps crying that it doesn't allow blah blah blah. The obvious and clear intent is that multiweapon fighting is based on the number of arms/hands you have. The number of feet you have is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, since multiweapon fighting is a direct relation to two-weapon fighting, a very strong argument exists that two-weapon fighting is based solely on the number of arms/hands you have (in this case, two).
EDIT: Ergo, in the end, you can TWF with unarmed strike.
EDIT 2: Pseudo-ninja'd by Fretgod, but I have a rules quote.
well this is how i play and let other people play the monk.
unarmed strikes for monk can be fist, elbows, knees, and feet as RAW. but they can only make as many attacks as there BAB can allow them, even tho he has 4 different attacks. so lvl1 only one attack, +6/+1 can make 2 attacks, and so on. flurry adds more attacks.
for a normal class with unarmed attacks can only be fists, even with the feat. so he can TWF cause he has 2 hands, if there free. if they are worried about low damage or the off hand penalty then they can just dab a little in monk.
and i allow the APG brass knuckles. cause they need the help.
Look, here's the bottom line:
It's crystal clear that you cannot TWF with a single weapon.
There isn't a single line in any Pathfinder book, 3rd party or core, that says Unarmed Strike is more than one weapon. Not a single line.
There is also not a single line anywhere that states that Unarmed Attacks are an exception to the rule of "no TWFing with a single weapon."
If you can link to anything refuting this, then maybe you have a case.
I am not a trained fighter, but I can still punch twice and kick, all with the same movement. Imagine how much better a trained fighter would do it?
The rules do not allow for a character to do that.
I am not a trained fighter, but I could attack you twice and still move a significant distance in 6 seconds. Imagine how much better a trained fighter would do it?
The rules do not allow for a character to do that (with one, very, specific exception in a Fighter-class archetype.)
This idea that, "I can one-two punch in real life, so I have to be able to TWF with UaS in game" is so utterly paper-thin. The game mechanics are not real life.
Or, if you prefer, you have to have two iterative attacks to punch twice because unarmed fighting and armed fighting are two entirely different beasts, and you go about them completely differently in real life. But no one ever stops to consider THAT when they're arguing for "common sense."
The rules do allow you to do that.
Link please.
Heck under natural attacks it says that you can TWF with both hands Neo
Look, here's the bottom line:
It's crystal clear that you cannot TWF with a single weapon.
There isn't a single line in any Pathfinder book, 3rd party or core, that says Unarmed Strike is more than one weapon. Not a single line.
There is also not a single line anywhere that states that Unarmed Attacks are an exception to the rule of "no TWFing with a single weapon."If you can link to anything refuting this, then maybe you have a case.
Since you're so big on rules citations, why don't you provide one that actually says that unarmed strikes are a single weapon? Because there's been ample evidence provided on which to base a non-single weapon argument (not the least of which is the FoB clarification re: individual enchantments). You have thus far presented nothing other than argue that everything will be broken otherwise, despite multiple people demonstrating that your gravest fears simply will not come to pass.
Since you're so big on rules citations, why don't you provide one that actually says that unarmed strikes are a single weapon? Because there's been ample evidence provided on which to base a non-single weapon argument (not the least of which is the FoB clarification re: individual enchantments). You have thus far presented nothing other than argue that everything will be broken otherwise, despite multiple people demonstrating that your gravest fears simply will not come to pass.Look, here's the bottom line:
It's crystal clear that you cannot TWF with a single weapon.
There isn't a single line in any Pathfinder book, 3rd party or core, that says Unarmed Strike is more than one weapon. Not a single line.
There is also not a single line anywhere that states that Unarmed Attacks are an exception to the rule of "no TWFing with a single weapon."If you can link to anything refuting this, then maybe you have a case.
From magic weapon, page 308 Core Rules Document:
You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.
Note the singular use there, not plural.
Also, page 131, under Weapons (Equipment section). Unarmed strike . . . look under special. Does it say double there? Nope, it doesn't. If unarmed strike were in fact able to be used in two-weapon fighting (only with unarmed strike), then it would be listed as a double weapon, would it not?
Both of these certainly imply that an unarmed strike is a single weapon, would you not agree?
MA
Notice the indefinite article? It says an unarmed strike. Doesn't clarify anything. And The double weapon thing might be a little more convincing if there wasn't a rules clarification explicitly describing unarmed strikes as being independently enchantable. Plus, the argument was never that unarmed strikes are double weapons, just to think of them that way. It's why I always used the word "quasi". Each strike is a separate enchantable strike. Makes sense with the rules and clarifications. Plus, it doesn't create any problems to treat them that way, unlike calling them all a single weapon.
MA what about rules text straight from the bestiary ( which came out later thus superseding core) that explicitly says you may make attacks with both fist using TWF.
It's been quoted already and if I could copy and paste from the prd I would quote it again. Also as far the double weapon thing that still assumes that it's one weapon not multiple. You only need a weapon to be double if it's one weapon.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I don't understand what this potential balance problem with allowing people to TWF with unarmed strikes is.
What's so unbalanced about a pair of d3 weapons?
Absolutely nothing.
The thing is, if you can TWF with unarmed strikes, then the amulet of mighty fists is (more or less) fairly priced. The people who disagree with the latter thus feel the need to disprove the former, to lend credence to their opinion.
That, and some people want TWFing with unarmed strikes to be a monk-only thing, to make monk's special.
At least that's my theory. I can't prove it obviously, since my latent telepathic abilities have yet to activate.
MA what about rules text straight from the bestiary ( which came out later thus superseding core) that explicitly says you may make attacks with both fist using TWF.
It's been quoted already and if I could copy and paste from the prd I would quote it again. Also as far the double weapon thing that still assumes that it's one weapon not multiple. You only need a weapon to be double if it's one weapon.
That is the single biggest argument in favor of being able to use Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes. However, even there it does not state that unarmed strikes are MORE than a single weapon. Which brings us around full circle: how many weapons is it, if it is not one?
MA
I agree that point is nebulous right now. However others and myself have pointed out that for any practical purpose regardless of the actual number, should it be more than one, treating it as 2 weapons or understanding that one only needs 2 of them at the most covers any issue that arises.
It would, except for Sean's wording of any potential attacks being different. That opens this whole thing up into a can of worms I thought 3.5 sealed shut.
MA
MA I have to wonder if your willfully ignoring the real meaning of what he meant. You and I both know Sean was talking about not being able to make all your attacks with a single weapon if you have inferior options. Not that you couldn't take your attacks with 2 weapons that have a higher bonus than all the rest.
The way you want to make it read if the monk had a shuriken in one hand a +5 AoMF and a +2 Kama he has to throw the shuriken even though he has at least 3 better attacks and even though he might provoke.
Look, here's the bottom line:
It's crystal clear that you cannot TWF with a single weapon.
There isn't a single line in any Pathfinder book, 3rd party or core, that says Unarmed Strike is more than one weapon. Not a single line.
There is also not a single line anywhere that states that Unarmed Attacks are an exception to the rule of "no TWFing with a single weapon."If you can link to anything refuting this, then maybe you have a case.
It is also crystal clear that you can TWF with a pair of weapons, such as a pair of shortswords.
Now, ignoring TWF for a moment, imagine a fighter with BAB +6/+1 attacking twice barehanded. What did he just attack with in rules terminology? A pair of unarmed strikes. He did not attack with one unarmed strike, because that would have been only one attack. On the other hand, if that same fighter attacks twice with one shortsword in his primary hand, he has attacked with one shortsword, not a pair of shortswords.
I claim that if a character performs Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strike alone, then he is attacking with a pair of unarmed strikes.
I think the problem is they used 'Unarmed Strike,' a verb, in a list of weapons, which are nouns. Unarmed strike is an action you are allowed to take. The statement 'an unarmed strike is one weapon' is nonsensical. In the unarmed section of the rules it explicitly states a character can make an unarmed strike with kicks, punches, or headbutts, and that these attacks are treated 'like attacking with a melee weapon,' except as noted. Nowhere in the listed exception does it state that you cannot execute two unarmed attacks in a turn.
That is close to my viewpoint. An unarmed strike is not a kind of weapon. Instead, it is a kind of melee attack, like a touch attack with a touch spell or a trip combat maneuver attack. Melee attacks are classified as either spell attack or weapon attack or combat maneuver, and though unarmed strike involves no weapon, weapon attack comes closest to what it is, so if falls in that category. And weapon attacks are defined by their weapon, so we pretend that unarmed strike is a weapon attack with a light weapon that deals 1d3 bludgeoning damage and that involves touching the target with a body part, perhaps even a clothed body part such as a booted foot. Except that the body part is not a weapon, not a natural weapon, and not an improvised boot weapon.
The original poster, Lobolusk, asked, "Is it possible to do TWF with UAS?" A closely related question is, "Is it possible to do Two-Weapon Fighting with trip combat maneuvers?" Can my character trip one person with a regular attack and another person with an off-hand attack while Two-Weapon Fighting? For simplicity, assume my character holds a shortsword in each hand, but he is not using the shortswords because they are not trip weapons.
Let's presume that the answer is yes, the character can perform two separate trip maneuvers with TWF. Next, I ask, if he holds one +2 sickle, a light simple melee weapon with the trip property, in one hand and a masterwork shortsword in the other, can he perform both trips with the sickle? At that point, I think the answer becomes no. The trip can be performed with both regular attack and off-hand attack, but the sickle cannot jump from one attack to the other.
And I believe that Magic Fang works the same way as the sickle. If a character with Magic Fang cast on his right fist makes two unarmed strikes with Two-Weapon Fighting, then that fist can be involved in either the regular attack or the off-hand attack but not both. The fist is not a natural weapon, but it is involved in the unarmed strike so the Magic Fang effect becomes involved.
If you can link to anything refuting this, then maybe you have a case.
The phrasing on the Two-Weapon Fighting rule is so messed up that taken literally:
(1) You cannot make your off-hand attack if you are not holding a weapon in your off hand, because is says, "weapon in your off hand";(2) You cannot make your off-hand attack if you were not holding another weapon in your primary hand, because is says, "second weapon in your off hand";
(3) If you have Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, you cannot throw two daggers with your off-hand. The Two-Weapon Fighting rule says, "you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon," and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting says, "In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it," so you cannot swap that second weapon with another.
(4) If you have Quick Draw, you can make your regular attack with a greatsword in both hands, drop the greatsword and draw a second greatsword, and make your off-hand attack with the second greatsword in both hands, because that is a second weapon in your off hand.
The Two-Weapon Fighting rules mistakenly places the emphasis on wielding a second weapon when the emphasis should have been on not wielding the same indivisible resource in both regular and off-hand attacks. Therefore, sorry but I cannot link to any literal rule that refutes your ideas, because we are already re-interpreting the rule to make it work. (Please excuse the author who wrote it that way, because it is a pain to phrase that concept carefully. For example, weapons cannot be shared between hands, but a Bless spell can be shared between hands.)
It would, except for Sean's wording of any potential attacks being different. That opens this whole thing up into a can of worms I thought 3.5 sealed shut.
MA
That doesn't open any can of worms at all. It's not particularly complicated, I don't think. Having a potential attack being different just means you can't make all attacks as one, like Talon mentioned. It doesn't mean you have to make an attack with whatever options are available. That'd be silly. They're not natural weapons. You only get as many attacks as your BAB allows (or the extra ones if you're using the TWF feat chain). That's it. Are there any other cans of worms you're referring to that I'm not familiar with? Because this one doesn't seem like too big of a deal.
The rules of the game may try to keep realism in mind, but realism still takes second seat to establishing a game system because the balance of the game system is paramount. Yes, in real life someone can flurry even without monk training and it will probably injure someone more than just a single straight punch. But, ultimately, Pathfinder =/= Real Life. In pathfinder, you're wielding 'unarmed strike' as your weapon. If the fighter with +6/+1 bab uses US/US, he may be attacking with two unarmed strikes, as the verb, but he's attacking with one unarmed strike as the weapon and "swinging" it twice the same way that he'd swing twice with a single shortsword.
And if this were true, why would you need to enchant each limb separately for the purposes of unarmed strikes?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
"Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject..."
People seem to be reading that as 'one (natural weapon or unarmed strike') when it should be read as '(one natural weapon) or unarmed strike'.
Which is why the next sentence in the spell's description lists "fist" as a possible target?
Because there's no 'fist' natural attack. An attack with a fist is an unarmed strike.
Which brings us back to weirdness. If I cast magic fang on my fist, and unarmed strike is a singular object, suddenly my kicks and headbutts get more powerful. A spell on my hand is affecting my leg. Weird.
|
|
Not claiming to be a specialist in this area, I know there has been a lot of debate regarding unarmed strikes, monks etc.
However, I was under the impression you could TWF with unarmed strike. One thing that appears to support this is the Barbarian rage power Greater Brawler.
"Brawler, Greater: While raging the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks..." APG p74