| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Considering the GMF UAS faq, can we expect this rage power to be altered/updated any time soon? Now that Unarmed Strikes are officially regarded as a single weapon (and rightly so) then the rage power does nothing.
FAQed
True, Kazaan. Always seem to forget that option when this topic comes up. xD
What FAQ?
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
This faq: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qd3
(Bolded for emphasis.)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Well, the issue of whether non-Flurry 2WF with UAS is possible still remains, whether or not there is some other use of this Power.
The conclusion of the FAQ here, that because Monk Flurry works a certain way and there is no mechanical benefit of distinguishing between different body parts (FOR THE MONK), therefore Magic Fang cast on a creature 'might as well' affect all UAS attacks they may make as a single unitary UAS weapon (precluding normal 2WF with UAS/UAS)... just doesn't seem sustainable for non-Monks (using UAS or Natural Weapons). It points out that it doesn't really mechanically matter for the Monk, but if it doesn't mechanically matter for them, then they don't provide any reason to change how the rules work. I mean, there are options for Monks to Flurry with one Natural Weapon, so that would mean it makes no difference if all Natural Weapons are treated as one weapon? [/sarcasm] All the monsters with multiple natural weapons would be a signifigant difference, e.g. with Magic Fang/ Greater Magic Fang. Honestly, since the reasoning here:
- Isn't given any valid justification
- Isn't explicitly saying this mooted change ("Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body") means UAS is just one unitary weapon (incompatable with 2x UAS 2WF)
- Isn't explicitly over-riding the RAW of UAS (described as attacks with discrete body parts) with the 'a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body' ruling
...I personally don't see why to apply those conclusions which the FAQ never really justified (other than it DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE for Monks) and doesn't even really explicitly state (that it is a unitary weapon, there are no multiple UAS weapons). The explicit context of the FAQ is: "For the purpose of magic fang...", so I don't think pulling one line of it out of that context and applying it to other things is justified here, especially when they are promising future Errata to address the specific issue (which would make this FAQ superfluous so it would be removed). That isn't to say that I think it's strange or unreasonable for people to try to apply the conclusions of one FAQ to a related subject. Paizo needs to write their FAQs in recognition of that, and not let slip phrases that MAY correspond to the end result of the desired functionality for the given topic, but may have broader ramifications.
When the Errata for Magic Fang comes out we'll see what it says and what else they change.
They could just decide to equalize Flurry and 2WF for UAS by making Magic Fang enhance ALL UAS attacks to the same level. Or something else.
That the intended flavor/usage of the Brawler Power probably does include 2x UAS 2WF'ing is just one more thing for them to consider what is really justified to change here.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.
Of course, that line also runs into conflict with the not-explicitly-in-the-rules-but-now-verified-as-intent that you CAN mix multiple weapons into a full attack, you only need to use 2WF rules for ADDITIONAL attacks, but as far as this issue goes, it's pretty clear that the rules consider that you COULD use 2WF with both hands (UAS).
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 this 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?'
|
You were posting in a thread where this came up and decided you didn't like the way it was going and started another thread with the same incorrect idea?
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.Here
You can two weapon fight with unarmed strikes. All the FAQ did was make it where you don't have to have magic fang or magic weapon (or their greater versions) cast more than once to affect both punches.
Here SKR painfully explains how two weapon fighting looks with unarmed strikes.
It's so clear without his explanations, it's amazing it was required to begin with.
Lol, no. If you look at the time stamps, I started this thread before the other one devolved. I quit posting in the other one because neither side is willing to give any ground, and both sides have valid arguments. Only the Devs stepping in would actually change anything and that simply won't happen.
(Oh, and the problem with your link to SKR's explanation is that he blatantly overlaps Natural Weapon rules with Iterative Attack rules in a way that actually doesn't work in the system. You never TWF with natural attacks, they have their own separate progression, yet he explains that's exactly how you use them (via his claw vs kick example). Not to mention it was posted back in a time where the developers (SKR in particular actually) were stating that GMF would need to target individual limbs. Clearly that position has changed, so clearly previous arguments won't apply the same way. But enough of beating my forehead into a wall. :) )