The core rules assume that you're a humanoid creature and you only have two "limbs" to attack with each round if you're using the "fighting with two weapons" option. It doesn't matter if you're making a headbutt and a punch, or a kick and a punch, or 2 kicks, or 2 punches, you're just making two attacks per round-skr.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
The 'UAS is entire body' quote is the conclusion of a bunch of stuff saying how whether it is or is not doesn't matter for Monk Flurry. If something is being put forward as it's own independent rule/ruling, there is no reason to give a bunch of justification which amounts to saying that for one specific class feature it doesn't matter one way or the other. If a FAQ wants to over-rule what the Core Rules say a UAS is (i.e be de facto Errata), it needs to explicitly acknowledge that is what it is doing, which isn't the case in this FAQ.
The explicit context of the FAQ is: "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)?" NOT 'Is UAS one single weapon comprising your whole body, or is it several different weapons, with potentially every part of your body a separate weapon?'
|
Well, as "logic" is an issue for some, let us follow some rules logic:
As, it noted in the FAQ, that the unarmed strike is treated as one weapon, then the question goes, "when is it not?"
Is it treated only as one weapon, when it is most beneficial?
What formula is used when determining whether it one, or multiple, weapons?
Is it just when the player, or DM feels like it?
the context of the FAQ answer, given by the FAQ question, is: "for purposes of magic weapon and other spells"
so, UAS is your entire body when resolving spells. that's the magic formula.
(and they say they will be Errata'ing the spell itself, which shows that is where the change is, NOT the general rules for UAS)
@Kazaan: the context of that paragraph is UAS, in contrast to natural weapons. there is no reason to introduce that context to merely restate the same rules that apply to 2wf normally. the sentence is saying that you use 2wf to attack with both hands (UAS) unlike natural weapons.
|
Kazaan, it's clear in that quote about unarmed strikes and two weapon fighting that they are talking about the same thing. There is no reason to mention two weapon fighting rules otherwise. Because if they are fighting with two weapons, they aren't fighting with natural weapons. A clarification is only needed because it's in the natural attack listing and makes it clear when creatures are using an unarmed strike, even though it's a "natural" weapon it doesn't get the same treatment, IE make two at full BAB.
To try and say it's not referring to what it mentions within the same paragraph and sentence is just being dishonest or willfully obtuse.
I'll do you a favor and link and quote SKR explaining two weapon fighting and unarmed attacks. is the link to the full quote so you can read it if you want the source
The core rules assume that you're a humanoid creature and you only have two "limbs" to attack with each round if you're using the "fighting with two weapons" option. It doesn't matter if you're making a headbutt and a punch, or a kick and a punch, or 2 kicks, or 2 punches, you're just making two attacks per round. At no time would you ever be able to justify a BAB +0 creature with no natural weapons making 2 punches AND 2 kicks per round: because the rules are assuming you are using your left hand and right hand, but hand-waves the idea that one of those "hands" could be some other body part such as an elbow, kick, or headbutt. The rules don't care, in the same way that they don't care if you say you're making a high swing or a low swing: it is irrelevant to the game mechanics, which say "make an attack roll to see if you hit." The game says, "pick a hand, even if it's not really a hand, make an attack, then pick another hand, even if it's not really a hand, and make a second attack."
When you throw in natural attacks, it gets more complicated because it starts defining SOME of your specific attack locations, and yet it continues to hand-wave the nature of the rest of your attacks. So you start thinking, "I now have two claws, and it makes sense that I can't make 2 claw attacks AND 2 punches in the same round because I'd be using each arm twice, but before I had these claws I was able to make punches OR kicks, so why is it that now that I have claws, I can't also make kicks in the same round? Did my legs suddenly stop working because I got claws?"The answer is no, your legs didn't stop working, but you're still running up against the game's assumption that you're making up to two attacks per round using TWF. And you are making two attacks per round: 2 claw attacks. And you're doing it at a better attack bonus than you were with two (unarmed strike) punches:
punches: BAB +0, no TWF feat means main at –4, offhand at –8, for a total of main –4, offhand –8
claws: BAB +0, primary attack means no penalty, for a total of +0/+0...
It's very clear that you can TWF with just punches at lvl 1.
|
|
I think the confusion was this: You START OUT with one unarmed attack. You can take TWF to get a second, offhand weapon attack. This light weapon can be anything, including UNARMED STRIKES (which are light weapons). So now you have the ability to do this.
So PRIOR to getting TWF, can you make TWO attacks, with the appropriate negatives for NOT having the skill - As a GM I would say ABSOLUTELY!
As for the spell - I would say that it applies to ONE WEAPON (right or left hand) just like it says in the description. It is pretty clear to me that someone wants to abuse the rules and say "it suddenly enhances every part of my body." which it clearly does not say. It does say ONE, not ALL.
|
|
and see mause, what they are arguing is that you're currently using your "unarmed strike" and can't wield it in an offhand... silly neh?
and the FAQ has declared the spell to just enchant the whole creature now as far as unarmed strikes go.
Nope, it does NOT enhance the entire creature as far as unarmed strike goes. It even points out that it is a single FIST (not plural) as an example. So I don't know why they think it applies to "both fists, head butts, and feet" when it clearly states a singular term in both the benefit and later description.
As for the whole "unable to weild two hands" - Um. If you have them... and they are light weapons... you can weild them. You take a negative, just like normal. It is absurd to say "you can't hit with both fists, but if you put a dagger in your offhand you can hit twice." I mean, really, it is not RAW nor RAI. Of course you can take the negatives for unarmed strikes (and note, that is PLURAL). If someone wants to try to punch, punch, kick, kick, head butt someone else in combat, as a GM, I see no problem with this. Take your negatives and roll... the spaz combat style might even work fairly often (rolling 20s on 5 dice?). But then I would make them PAY on 1's.
(ps. if you attack without skills multiple times and they have combat reflexes - you are SCAAAEEEROOOOD! AoO for each attack... have fun with that spaz attack style)
Maouse check the FAQ in the OP
Gauntlets are the cheapest magic item ever. They give the amazing magic property of allowing an ordainary man to throw two punches or my lords even kick and punch in the same time his lesser peers can simply throw a single punch.
|
|
Maouse check the FAQ in the OP
I did:
"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 "Therefore" part is completely wrong. "A CREATURE'S" is NOT the same as "A MONK'S". When it says "A CREATURE can attack with fist, elbows, knees, and feet." (as opposed to "or feet") then it will mean the same thing. Or is the contention that every creature has Monk abilities? Every creature can attack with its hands full? Is that your contention?
"A CREATURE" = anyone who is not a monk must specify ONE location to enhance. A MONK must ALSO specify ONE location to enhance. HOWEVER, said MONK can attack UMPTEEN TIMES with that same location. A CREATURE cannot.
Each Gauntlet needs to be enchanted alone.
Me thinks you missed some sarcasm in the previous post.
|
|
yes blackblood that's exactly what it is now, an exception.
A monk who has Greater Magic weapon or fang cast on him, get more out of it then a fighter who has greater magic weapon cast on his non unarmed weapons.
Maouse
...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...
This is the most relevant part for a reason, he's stating this is what they're probably going to change the text to. They are stepping back and just treating unarmed attack(s) as one weapon, even if you're attacking from multiple limbs with it.
They clearly weren't wanting to give this ability only to monks, or they would of specified monk rather than "creature"
And Maouse, if you want to let someone try unarmed strikes with the "penalties" beyond an additional offhand attack, that's your prerogative but that's not supported by the rules. Two weapon fighting merely gives an additional attack, the feat reduces the penalty, imp grants an additional attack, and greater another additional. But again whatever house rules you play with, they are just that house rules.
Can a humanoid using UAS clasp their hands together and swing, getting 1.5x str bonus on the damage?
No
Why not, it makes sense?
Because the rules don't allow it.
Same argument, except apply TWF where appropriate.
|
|
Neo2151, it's not the same argument.
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
|
|
Two weapon fighting merely gives an additional attack, the feat reduces the penalty, imp grants an additional attack, and greater another additional. But again whatever house rules you play with, they are just that house rules.
How can you say there are no rules for it?
p. 182"Unarmed strikes count as light weapons for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on."
There certainly ARE rules for it. It's just TWF with or without the skill, with LIGHT WEAPONS (two unarmed strikes, each being ONE light weapon).
p 136 tells you exactly what penalty to apply if you DON'T have TWF and try to attack with an offhand LIGHT WEAPON (of any sort)
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your offhand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light." (ergo, an UNARMED STRIKE with the OFFHAND, gets you to -4, -8... so your main unarmed strike is -4, your offhand unarmed strike is -8, without the skill. RAW, and yes, they are actually WRITTEN)
Actually Neo it's not the same unless you can find me some Abilities or Powes that suggest you can. Or maybe SKR or JBS saying you can Shatner green lizards. See we have those things for TWF.
And Maouse, if you want to let someone try unarmed strikes with the "penalties" beyond an additional offhand attack, that's your prerogative but that's not supported by the rules.
How can you argue that TWF (regardless of having the feat) is allowed, but this wouldn't be allowed? You do have a foot you can kick with in addition to your two punches. So why don't the rules support multi-weapon fighting (regardless of having the feat)?
Full-circle arguments are great. It feels like last year all over again, lol. /facepalm
|
|
Because the ability "two weapon fighting" only grants an additional attack. It is not relevant how many weapons you are wielding.
Barring natural attacks. (and unarmed strikes do not count for this)
you can have:
BAB +1 attacks for two weapon fighting
BAB +2 attacks for imp two weapon fighting
BAB +3 attacks for Greater two weapon fighting.
This is what the rules give you the ability to do.
If you want to house rule that you can multi-fight with two weapon fighting, that's fine, but it's breaking the paradigm of PC standard attacks. Flurry clearly lays out how many attacks you can get while two weapon fighting using flurry. and it doesn't enable more then the above progression.
-edit- I can say you can twf without the feat, because the rules state you can. The feat merely reduces the penalties associated with two weapon fighting.
Actually Neo it's not the same unless you can find me some Abilities or Powes that suggest you can. Or maybe SKR or JBS saying you can Shatner green lizards. See we have those things for TWF.
Here's the thing:
The FAQ clarifies that a creature has one unarmed strike (otherwise, you could not cast one instance of GMF and enchant all possible UAS options).The rules are very clear that you need to be wielding two weapons to two-weapon fight.
The only argument for allowing UAS to count as both MH and OH weapons is one of "logic," an argument that has been rejected as a sound argument when discussing game mechanics for decades now.
|
|
Because the ability "two weapon fighting" only grants an additional attack. It is not relevant how many weapons you are wielding.
Barring natural attacks. (and unarmed strikes do not count for this)
you can have:
BAB +1 attacks for two weapon fighting
BAB +2 attacks for imp two weapon fighting
BAB +3 attacks for Greater two weapon fighting.This is what the rules give you the ability to do.
If you want to house rule that you can multi-fight with two weapon fighting, that's fine, but it's breaking the paradigm of PC standard attacks. Flurry clearly lays out how many attacks you can get while two weapon fighting using flurry. and it doesn't enable more then the above progression.
As I pointed out: TWF does not give you an additional attack. It modifies the attack made with an offhand light weapon. Page 136 clearly states that ANYONE can fight with a weapon in their offhand and suffer penalties for it WITHOUT the feat. And that YES they get an additional attack per round with this offhand weapon, even WITHOUT the feat. RAW.
Where in "Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Chapter 8." does it mention "you get an extra attack because of this feat"??????????
Without the feat you get -6, -10 for using two MEDIUM weapons. 2 Attacks per round. OR you can use a LIGHT weapon offhanded and get -4, -8. OR you can get the FEAT and get to -4. -4 with two MEDIUM weapons, or -2,-2 with an offhand LIGHT weapon. RAW.
No the FAQ clarifies that "for the purpose of spells" it's one weapon.
Here's the thing:
The FAQ clarifies that a creature has one unarmed strike...
... "For purposes of Magic Fang and other spells"... They have said they will errata Magic Fang, NOT the general UAS rules.
A bunch of people have posted this exact same clarication, if you questions it's application, why don't you actually do so instead of ignoring this information?|
|
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. ...
Seems clear TWF=one extra attack
You can fight with two weapons in your hand and alternate which weapon you are attacking with due to a high BAB, so say at BAB 7, you can do one +1 flaming mace at +8 and then strike with your other weapon a +1 whip of sickening at +3... and there's no penalty because you're not using the "two weapon fighting" rule provided in the combat rules.
There is no "multi-weapon combat" rule available for PCs. (there's an argument for multi-limbed PCs wielding multiple weapons, but that's not really relevant hereyou can read all about the last discussion about it here)
|
|
Here's the thing:
The FAQ clarifies that a creature has one unarmed strike...... "For purposes of Magic Fang and other spells"... They have said they will errata Magic Fang, NOT the general UAS rules.
A bunch of people have posted this exact same clarication, if you questions it's application, why don't you actually do so instead of ignoring this information?
Guess I am waiting for RAW eratta instead of just wondering why it all doesn't make any sense when it is already pretty clear.
You can attack with an offhand LIGHT weapon, so since Unarmed Strikes count as a light weapon, there you go... -4, -8. No big whoop. p 136.
The spell affects ONE natural weapon or unarmed strike (note, most scholars would read this as "One natural weapon or ONE unarmed strike). Since normal creatures cannot make multiple attacks with ONE FIST (as described in the spell), and must use the LIGHT WEAPON (their OTHER fist) in the other hand, it does NOT affect BOTH. Since a MONK can strike several times with the SAME unarmed strike (fist, foot, etc...) they need only enhance ONE to get the benefit for every attack. Normal Non-monks don't see this advantage.
I don't see why that is so hard to follow/why everyone wants to claim that a RIGHT FIST is the same as a LEFT FIST, when clearly they all have a right and left hand and can tell the two apart. (monsters with right and left claw attacks have no problem understanding that this spell only affects one claw... and they are only monsters!)
|
|
Does this apply to Versatile Weapon?
Normally, when used on a Natural Weapon, or Double Weapon, you would target each individual end or Natural Weapon.
This provides multiple weapons with a bonus, and ability to count as a special material, with one casting.
More and more exceptions?
What about the Two-Weapon Warrior? Can all of his abilities be used with one weapon, which is both one, and multiple weapons?
|
|
What about the Two-Weapon Warrior? Can all of his abilities be used with one weapon, which is both one, and multiple weapons?
"make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons" again, I don't see the confusion... The versatile weapon thing - again, it is ONE weapon, and I don't see the confusion here either.
|
|
What about the Two-Weapon Warrior? Can all of his abilities be used with one weapon, which is both one, and multiple weapons?"make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons" again, I don't see the confusion... The versatile weapon thing - again, it is ONE weapon, and I don't see the confusion here either.
They are the same weapon, but two weapons, at the same time.
|
|
Versatile weapon spell falls under the similar spell category...
and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
VERSATILE WEAPON
School transmutation; Level bard 2, ranger 2, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (iron filings)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one weapon or 50 projectiles, all of which must be together at the time of casting
Duration 1 minute/level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless, object)
You transform the physical makeup of a weapon as you desire. This spell functions like greater magic weapon, except that it subtly alters the physical properties of a weapon,
As for the two-weapon fighter, he's affected just as a two weapon unarmed ranger.... or anyone using unarmed strikes and two weapon fighting together. His class abilities apply to them just the same as if they were normal weapons.
-edit-For things like two weapon rend you would still need to keep track of the "offhand" unarmed strike and the "mainhand" unarmed strike
|
|
Oh no.
We walk down that path now.
Two Weapon Rend now only needs one weapon, the Unarmed Strike.
Two-Weapon Warrior needs only full attack with the Unarmed Strike to get the bonus from Defensive Flurry.
It's a special two, but one, but two weapons, right?
Two Weapon Rend would require TWO weapons, as it states... which CAN BE a right and left hand (grab the weapon and bend it)... or if a monk, a foot and a hand (grab it and kick it)... or any other sort of thing that makes perfect sense RAW as well as visually/RAI. TWW need to do full attack with US to get the bonus. Absolutely.
I mean, seriously... the argument that a monk's hands are lethal weapons, but HEY HEY HEY NOW!!! ONLY ONE AT A TIME!!!! is beyond silly!
The idea that he can PAIR absolutely ANY OTHER weapons in the game, but hey hey hey now!!! Not his FISTS!!! is likewise beyond silly! (especially when this includes cesti and gauntlets!)
we know they said they are planning on errata'ing MAGIC FANG specifically, not UAS at large, not the rules for spells at large. if the rules at large or the rules for spells at large changed, then magic fang wouldn't really need errata (some of it's wording may be superlfluous but not in need of functional errata, and paizo doesn't really announce non-functional errata). maybe they will change a few other spells as well, but based on what we know, the errata is magic fang specific. they could go in some entirely different direction, but that is based on what the FAQ says. if somebody wants to apply the FAQ conclusion within the literal scope of all spells, be my guest, although i wouldn't bet on that being held up in the errata implementation that supersedes the FAQ.
It's one weapon for spells it's one weapon for a monk (unless he is using adder style then it's two), but it's two weapons if your choosing to gain an extra attack over the number granted by BaB. Sure you might now be getting GMF on all your attacks for one spell , but that's also only one spell that needs dispelling. Your AoMF is priced for 2 weapons so no issue with you saving money on enchantments. And really are you worried the Two Weapon Fighter might wreak havoc with his d3 weapons?
Bbt if you can actually find a spell that having it cast on two weapons for one cost is uber overpowered lets see it otherwise its still a subpar choice even if its +5 for one spell and not 2
|
|
Blackbloodtroll for some reason has a personal crusade to make sure paizo and all it's pathfinder players treat unarmed strikes as a single weapon and prevent them from two weapon fighting with it. It's irrational, and he's constantly vigilant to promote this idea.
He's not correct either. His arguments, even when shown incorrect will revolve around circular logic to bring it back to his concept he's unwilling to change. Ignore it and focus on any new questions that dont' somehow revert back to the issue that's already been addressed and answered with rule quotes, FAQ quotes, and paizo staff quotes.
it might cause undefined issues for undefined spells. if we go with the all spells reading. even though only magic fang is announced for errata.
and ignore that the actual errata is under no compulsion to recreate any specific wording in the faq it supersedes.
big deal. i don't see the rules question here.
When your primary and secondary weapon, is the same weapon, it causes issues.
Even Oozes can make unarmed strikes.
They have no "left fist/right fist", but they still have no more, or less, unarmed strikes, than say, the Octopus.
Even the Monk Octopus.
By all means list the issues.
|
|
Nothing has moved it towards that idea blackbloodtroll. This is actually the first, and all it does is treat it as a singular weapon for the purpose of spells that impact unarmed strikes.
FAQ asked in relation to monks since they can flurry now, answer came back "it functionally makes no difference for a monk, so we're going to just have it enchant the whole thing now rather than piece meal"
and this statement of course now gives much rejoicing to unarmed fighters who don't get to use twf with a single weapon, they do not have to have it cast twice to get "lefty and righty" to become a +5 fists from Greater Magic Weapon or Greater Magic Fang, and its ilk