|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
From the last group of FAQs:
Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?
As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.
This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account.—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
Unless this row of text in Two weapon fighting "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon." forbid non-monk characters from using two weapon fighting while using Improved Unarmed Strike [and I don't think that that is the intention] this mean that it is possible to get 2+ "weapons" [hands, feet, whatever] enhanced with one casting of the spell and use both of them at the same time in conjunction with two weapon fighting.
Flurry of blow is a specific exception that allow a monk to make his multiple attacks with a single appendage, but other characters that use multiple appendages exist.
To put it another way, it it meant for the FAQ to give this benefit to the Unarmed Fighter or similar archetypes or only to the monk?
|
|
Do you mean two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes only?
You cannot two-weapon fight with one weapon.
As the question is about enhancing multiple appendages with one casting of magic fang magic fang and using them with two weapon fighting it seemed clear, but maybe it need to be better explicated, so:
If you use two weapon fighting with 2 unarmed combat strikes and you aren't a monk using flurry of blows, you benefit from the above cited FAQ?
i.e. you get 2+ enhanced appendages at the cost of 1 casting of the spell?
As an added question:
How it work with greater magic fang?
As I read it I suppose that this ruling work with greater magic fang too [the (or similar spell) clause] but maybe I am wrong in that.
And yet, that's exactly what's being said. :)
Unarmed Strike mechanics are CLUNKY, and it simply makes more sense with all the involved rules for this one thing to not make all the sense in the world.
Rules trump sense when necessary, after all.
"Unarmed Strike" is considered a single weapon because it would be FAR too much unnecessary work to try and specify what limbs can/cannot be used to attack with. And if you tried, you end up starting down a dirty road of "if I have two fist attacks, two kick attacks, two elbow attacks, two knee attacks, a shoulder slam, and a headbutt, then why can't I multiweapon fight?"
It's all MUCH cleaner if you just use iterative attacks to describe your one-two punch instead of trying to force it into TWF, especially when spells start to get involved (such as Magic Fang/Magic Weapon/etc.)
(Edit - Besides, if it's a martial arts type of character you're looking to play, that's what Monks [and all the Monk archetypes] are for, and Flurry of Blows covers that desire to TWF with your fists/feet/etc.)
You and me both BBT. xD
|
|
So you are saying that a unarmed fighter that isn't a monk will not get extra attacks using 2 weapon fighting?
I recall "a few" threads that were offering the opposing point of view.
Or you are saying that you can use unarmed combat together with two weapon combat always using the same limb even if you aren't a monk?
It would be the first.
You cannot TWF with "two fists" because you do not possess two "fist" attacks; you possess a single "unarmed strike" attack, which can be executed with either fist.
It's important to note that Flurry of Blows is not Two-Weapon Fighting - It's an entirely different ability that grants, essentially, the same effects. And because it's an entirely different ability, it interacts with the rules differently than TWF does.
(Of course every GM is entitled to alter his or her game's rules and may decide to allow TWF to work with Unarmed Strikes, but by doing so, they would be robbing the Monk class of something that makes it a unique snowflake, which would be a shame. :) )
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So you are saying that a unarmed fighter that isn't a monk will not get extra attacks using 2 weapon fighting?
I recall "a few" threads that were offering the opposing point of view.Or you are saying that you can use unarmed combat together with two weapon combat always using the same limb even if you aren't a monk?
Well, Brawler rage power Barbarians get to TWF with unarmed strikes. So there are other exceptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not allowing TWF for unarmed specialist of the non monk type whould be not only extremely limiting, but also stupid.
Before the FAQ I had also assumed (and played) that an unarmed strike was one weapon...but unlike the FAQ it had to be with a hand/arm/fist unless you were a monk (or at least one level in monk)
I believed it to be that way because the only mention of unarmed strike being used with feet, knees, elbows, ect. was from the monk specifying they could...leading me to believe others could not
My GM plays it that way as well since it makes the idea of someone wanting to use nothing but fist to fight (with TWF) instead be forced to be a monk (or other class with an archetype that allows it)
As for the brawler...if you go by the FAQ then that power is useless...it doesn't say it allows them more attacks...it's that they are treated as if they had TWF...which based on the FAQ means they get nothing right?
Based on the FAQ, I wouldn't expect the Greater Brawler rage power to last in it's current form for very long.
(But then, on the other hand, if they think there are other more important things to work on, it might just go ignored for several more years ;) ... j/k Paizo! )
Unless the intent was "For the purpose of magic fang and other spells", the whole body is one weapon, but the wording doesn't quite read that way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what happens when you read too hard at raw and not enough at RAI or common sense.
They just can't TWF with only UAS; you know, like a Monk... a class almost entirely devoted to UAS.
In this case you're clearly incorrect, even if you take the unarmed strike is a single weapon regardless stance. As monks can flurry ie twf with a single monk weapon.
Anyone trying to argue that you can make offhand attacks with unarmed strikes only when you're wielding a different weapon in your primary is taking this "one weapon" thing too seriously, and is certainly taking logic beyond where even fantasy will.
To say you can wield a heavy mace in one hand and then two weapon fight with a offhand unarmed strike, but cannot two weapon fight with just two bare knuckles, is absurd to the max.
|
|
see the problem is you're assuming that the intent was that the way they worded it was how they meant it.
The fact that what's being suggested is perhaps the worst offender of being against all logic as any raw suggested ruling has ever been.
The Abstracted view of "it's one weapon" is now for the purpose of enchanting etc, it's not that it isone weapon that can only be wielded by one hand, or two hands.
If you want to take the view of it's one weapon for all purposes, I guess if we tie one hand behind it's back, it's unarmed strike is now unavailable. As that particular "unarmed strike" is restrained.
We can assume that if a person is carrying something in both hands, it's not allowed to kick with an unarmed strike due to the hands not being free.
That a fighter wielding a cestus and a open hand can one two punch, but another fighter without a cestus can not. that a fighter with two brass knuckles can do two attacks, but a fighter with two bare fists cannot...
Once again, you do not get a "fist" attack.
You get a single "unarmed strike" attack option. Just like you can't TWF with a single sword (passing it back and fourth with free actions), you can't use your single UAS to TWF either.
Further, when you put on a pair of brass knuckles, you are not using your UAS when you attack with them - you're attacking with the brass knuckles. This is what allows the TWF to work with UAS and Brass Knuckles.
Rules. Trump. Logic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The singularity of the unarmed strike makes it work, as it should, for all creatures.
All creatures with a physical body are capable of making unarmed strikes.
Their number of limbs is irrelevant.
This means that whether you are using Beast Shape to become an Octopus, or Vermin Shape to become a Giant Leech, you will have the same amount of unarmed strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your body is one weapon. Magic fang magics up the entire thing.
Your fists are two weapons, with the same magic fang working on them.
Whats the problem?
And yet again...
You do not get a fist weapon/attack/etc. You do not have two fist weapons. (And if you did, they would be considered Natural Weapons and work with the rules associated with Natural Weapons.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet again...
You do not get a fist weapon/attack/etc. You do not have two fist weapons.
So that's what a natural 1 looks like on a knowledge: Anatomy check...
I think ya'll are being more than a liiitle over literal on an faq ruling.
Your fists are part of the same weapon.
This.
As a comparable example, you cannot TWF with a longsword by Main-hand slashing and off-hand pommel bashing.Edit - Lol. This isn't a science class. It's a roleplaying game that mimics reality, as best it's able, while maintaining some semblance of balance within it's own rule structure.
|
|
WE get that you're hung up on the "unarmed strike" is a singular weapon for enchanting purposes.
The point you're ignoring is the logic of it in relation to two weapon fighting with two fists for non-monks.
Focusing on the "one weapon" part of it like you are, is ignoring how illogical it is. If it helps view it as a double weapon that's not listed as a double weapon and doesn't require two enchantments to apply to both ends.
Unarmed strike = your body is a weapon.
You may use any part of your body as a weapon, your body is a singular weapon that can be used as several weapons. If you insist that you cannot two weapon fight with unarmed strikes, you're saying "I don't care how logical it is, I do not care that it is alluded to many places, and I do not care that there is no good reason for this view other than the wording of unarmed strike being a weapon rather than listed as plural"
There is no RAI reason to prevent someone from using two weapon fighting only with unarmed strikes. The only RAW reason is due to syntax basically.
The FAQ very clearly implies that unarmed strikes can come from multiple parts of the body, and in the event you want to consider what that means, it means that probably you can attack with multiple parts of the body in the same routine, and if so, what's the reason to do that? two weapon fighting.
Of course you can go the "they didn't explicitly state that" route, but again, it's really defying logic in regards to what is already able to be done with two-weapon fighting. It's placing a restriction that's never called out in the game (supported or refuted by the rules) Your position is entirely dependent on narrow reading of the language and a complete disregard for the design of combat in this game.
But there is a very good RAI reason - It gives the Monk class an ability that is actually unique to that class.
I'm not ignoring any logic. I'm admitting that the logic here is incredibly difficult to work into smooth mechanics, and the game simplifies this in the best way it is able.
"Logic" is always going to be the worst possible argument for why a game works the way it does. After all, too much logic and magic can go right out the window. :)
|
|
The logic you're ignoring is you can wear two gauntlets and do two "unarmed strikes".
That you can wear two brass knuckles and do two "unarmed strikes"
That you can wear two Cestus and do two "unarmed strikes"
But somehow, magically you can't figure out how to hit with two bare hands.
The fact that unarmed strike is listed as a single weapon. That you enchant it as a single weapon (now, you used to enchant individually, which should give you a good idea that they can be treated as two weapons)is unrelated to the issue that you can attack with two weapon fighting, using two bare hands.
You're dealing with such a clash in logic vs strict raw reading that it's mind blowing.
Be back in a few with all my rules quotes from the last thread.
By the this whole theory that gloves allow you to punch more times than no gloves is full on RAWyering.
Lets check the above Barb power, metal sub-domain, and suli racial abilities for starter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My bad, here I thought they were listed in the category "Unarmed attacks" in the first books, and then in ultimate equipment they are listed as light weapons...
BRASS KNUCKLES
Price 1 gp
Type simple
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike.
CESTUS
Price 5 gp
Type simple
The cestus is a glove of leather or thick cloth that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm. The close combat weapon is reinforced with metal plates over the fingers and often lined with wicked spikes along the backs of the hands and wrists. While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage.
GAUNTLET
Price 2 gp
Type simple
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack
yeah, they totally are not unarmed strikes, they are unarmed attacks.
UNARMED STRIKE
Price —
Type simple
An unarmed strike is an attack such as a punch or a kick where the attacker is not using a weapon to make the attack. A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
It's odd how these weapons all refer to unarmed attacks and change them, and act as individual weapons and yet all modify and refer to unarmed strikes... I wonder what on earth that could mean for two weapon fighters?
oh and I know the whole SKR thing about them being actual weapons and not unarmed strikes, there's clearly a disconnect here.
Thorns: You should say "creatures striking with manufactured weapons" rather than "creatures striking with melee weapons," because natural attacks and unarmed strikes are melee weapons, and you're actually wanting to exclude manufactured weapon attacks from being affected by this ability.
We can assume that he knows that unarmed strikes can be multiple weapons given his language.
Actually, because the rules say a monk's flurry is as if he's using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can't simply declare that he's using the same fist seven times. So there is something stopping him from hitting someone seven times with his left fist or a +2 flaming kama: the rules for how flurry works.
it's clear in the above quote he's referencing that when you two weapon fighting (prior to the revision of you can flurry with a single monk weapon) that it followed the rules of two weapon fighting, and you had to use a different fist to get your flurry ie two weapon fighting going.
His logic in answering this was that you can two weapon fight with two fists.
Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.
Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.
The Damage Type column refers to the sort of damage that the natural attack typically deals: bludgeoning (B), slashing (S), or piercing (P). Some attacks deal damage of more than one type, depending on the creature. In such cases all the damage is considered to be of all listed types for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
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. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.
Also this
|
|
last one..
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. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.
I'm sure this rulebook entry doesn't suggest you can two weapon fight with unarmed strikes at all.... /sarcasm
Oh, the Tentacle thread. That was full of weird stuff. None of it makes sense.
The Barbarian Power was addressed.
Suli power has nothing stated that changes anything.
Metal Domain seems to be either a misprint, or meant to be an exception to the rules.
Ah yes the ignore rules quotes and devs through dismissal or assuming its wrong argument.
I cut and paste from the last thread about this which went 12 pages.