| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
After a brief search, I failed to find an answer.
Is it legally possible to Conceal an unarmed strike, especially for the purposes of the Underhanded rogue talent? After all, it is a light weapon... But something tells me this talent wasn't designed for someone hiding a fist in their pocket. Would suck even more if one had to draw their fist as a Move Action w/ Quick Draw =P
That being said, combined with sap adept, sap master, and various other rogue talents and feats, this'd make a hell of a surprise round.
It could be said that you can use it with a headbutt. I've done it plenty of times in my youth and knocked people unconscious.
Heh. But, the point I was trying to convey was: a concealed weapon tends to have some inherent restrictions upon it, like the time it takes to draw one. It seems a tad bit overly powerful to declare you can use Underhanded with a quick hit from an unarmed strike...
But it doesn't seem to be a subject well covered anyways. I'm at a loss as to whether it's actually legal or not.
I understand your point, but have you ever tried to headbutt someone?
I'll FAQ this.
Even if it were legal, how would one proceed?
Sleight of hand check to hide your foot?
opposed bluff vs. sense motive check, to see if your opponent realizes you can, in fact, use your fist as a weapon? (or intend to?)
Just... outright headbutt, and accept every surprise round attack sneak attack as maximized damage?
Ha. So, disguise, bluff, or just plain ignorance; As long as the enemy doesn't know your body is a weapon, it works out?
....y'know, there's one little problem with that. Even someone without Improved unarmed strike can make a surprise punch. Sure, they risk an AoO if the opponent has combat reflexes or something. And they even count as unarmed. Yet it's still an attack with a bludgeoning light weapon.
Again, sadly, logic seems to work against it; one should know Anyone can potentially be a living weapon.
Ah, ye olde "Monk of the Fuzzy Mitten"...
Sadly, the wording does not denote suspicion or expectation, it denotes Knowledge.
" if she makes a sneak attack during the surprise round using a concealed weapon that her opponent didn't know about"
...that was the point.
In flavor, I would love to see this work. I humbly agree that someone dressed up as a child (actually a Halfling rogue), meek, innocent-looking, should be more than capable of suddenly striking someone's neck with the full force of a maximized sneak attack. A Master Spy dressed as a noble, suddenly killing a baron with a roundhouse kick to the face. A simple thief, peeking from around the corner, suddenly clotheslining a passerby coming around the bend. Or even just... "Hi, my name is-" *HEADBUTT TO THE FACE*
Strictly speaking, though, the wording and rules seem to support this less and less...
Everyone should definitely "know" that a humanoid is capable of delivering a kick, whether they suspect it or not. These rules were clearly written with a hidden weapon, like a dagger, in mind...
Well, then I guess that's good enough for me.
...I just want to mention a few hypothetical examples, for no other reason than to add some perspective and comparison.
What is written below is completely optional reading.
-= .-. =-
I wanted to build a Halfling Rogue that specializes in doing plenty of damage, really early, really fast, to unsuspecting humanoid victims that he's bluffed, deceived and talked his way into befriending. In other words, perfect victims of the Underhanded rogue talent.
Now, using this talent in any typical manner, Rogue#1 would probably opt for an archetype selection along the lines of Knife Master + Bandit, specializing in concealed daggers and other light blades (1d8s instead of 1d6s). Depending on whether he was strength or dexterity based, he'd need Weapon Finesse, or otherwise go straight for Quick Draw. Until 4th level, he'd need some means of either distracting or hiding the fact that he was drawing a dagger Before even initiating the surprise round. He doesn't have much room to deviate in the early levels, if he wants this to work. But, assuming all goes as planned... Stab! At fourth level, Rogue#1 manages to deal 1d3 + 16 damage, plus whatever other damage he can muster by other means. No too bad. next level, it'd be +24 damage, and it'll keep going up. Once the Bandit's Ambush has kicked in, or you have some method to always act during a surprise round, that's reliable, almost Guaranteed damage.
Righto. Now... What if Unarmed Strikes were compatible?
Rogue#2 wants to take full advantage of this. Off the bat, he doesn't need Quick Draw, nor worry about actually concealing a weapon; all he needs a free hand, and to know how to suckerpunch. Rogue #2 doesn't need to take the Bandit archetype to ensure the Move action he needs to draw a concealed weapon (w/ quickdraw) or spend another rogue talent for Deft Hands; He's completely free to be as versatile or specialized in any other aspect. It doesn't matter if his opponent knows of any other weapons on his person, so he doesn't need to conceal those either. He doesn't even need the Improved Unarmed Strike to initiate at all. At fourth level, Rogue#2 delivers a suckerpunch for 1d2 + 12 nonlethal damage. Next round, combat actually begins; he simply draws a weapon, and can continue the fight as normal.
But Rogue #2 has significantly less sacrifice. He can take any archetype without worry, has a feat free where Rogue #1 needed Quick Draw. Rogue #2 is probably also more versatile in combat, thanks to these changes. With a single rogue talent, he's guaranteed the suckerpunch damage that gradually increases, with almost no drawback.
Now, say that Rogue #2 actually tries to Maximize that damage. So far, the best way I see this happening is by using Sap Adept, Sap Master, and later on going down the Snake Style feat tree to keep up with the whole unarmed theme. With Sap adept, at 4th level, he deals 1d2 +16 nonlethal. - Almost the same as the other guy. At fifth level, where the other guy would have had 1d3 +24 damage ... Rogue #2 gets a wopping 1d2 + 48. Even just stopping there... he Still doesn't require the Quick Draw feat to be effective and can spend his rogue talent somewhere else. He still can take other rogue archetypes other than Bandit, and still be effective in a surprise round. And best of all, has no chance of being caught armed, which would completely cancel out the Underhanded talent.
Edit: depending on the wording of Sap Adept and Sap Master, that's either +48 or +42 damage. Sorry folks =P
-= *-* =-
...Anyways, No, I'm not saying the above are ideal paths, and there are probably several factors regarding concealed weapons that I'm missing... But it's there for analysis for anyone thinking of taking an unarmed underhanded rogue.
damn my first message here and it's a necro but better to bump something than to copy-paste it whole right?
does the underhanded+punch+sap tree combo work?
In particular, let's say my rogue is happily walking in a market, huting down his designated bounty target. When the rogue identifies the target, gets near him walking without attracting any attention, can he still be considered in the surprise round since the target does not recognize him as a target? Can I hit him for the above combo?
And to make thing even deadlier, if I get near him (adjacent square) and he moves out of it right after, since to me we're in combat, does that provoke an AoO (with the above combo) leaving me with a full round action to coup-de-grace him, if I can get a weapon out as free/swift action and got him unconscius?
I never played a melee character and this seems just "too good to be true"
edit: I'm considering that, since the target is unaware of my presence/intention does not know I will punch him, does that qualify as "a concealed weapon that her opponent didn’t know about" ?
A part of the body isn't a weapon until you actually attack with it, so you don't need to literally conceal the body part you're about to attack with. All you need to do is conceal the fact that you're about to attack with it; like addressing a rhetorical question up at the sky before bringing your brow down on someone's nose, or suddenly turning half backwards like you just heard something to conceal the wind-up to a brutal jaw-breaker.
A part of the body isn't a weapon until you actually attack with it, so you don't need to literally conceal the body part you're about to attack with. All you need to do is conceal the fact that you're about to attack with it; like addressing a rhetorical question up at the sky before bringing your forehead down on their nose, or suddenly turning half backwards like you just heard something to conceal the wind-up to a brutal jaw-breaker.
so I still need to make a sleight of hand to "conceal it" before attacking, is it correct? or any other skill check? or is it pure flavour?
for the other question, can I qualify for the AoO if he moves from the threatened square even though only I know we're "in combat? (aka surprise round)
so I still need to make a sleight of hand to "conceal it" before attacking, is it correct? or any other skill check? or is it pure flavour?
for the other question, can I qualify for the AoO if he moves from the threatened square even though only I know we're "in combat? (aka surprise round)
You're still 'concealing' something, so it should still be a check against your skill at doing that.
I would think that the AoO would be valid, though I'm feeling too tired to really be parsing all the rules in my head at the moment. After all, the poor bastard is essentially turning his back unawares on a talented bruiser who's preparing to put him on the floor. That should be a very brutal mistake.
thanks a lot :D