I have a character that's a first level master of many styles(he uses snake sytle and dragon style, it's beastly) and the rest of his build is a two weapon warrior. In our campaigns we agree that not being able to use two limbs to TWF is a very stupid rule. As long as you take the appropriate feats you should be able to do it. And if you do it normally (Outside of the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype.) The babs for two weapon fighting equal the babs of FoB. If you have a GM that's anal about that rule you could argue using brass-knuckles, a gauntlet, or as blackbloodtroll suggested, twin cestus.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always allowed IUS to count for TWF in my games. It'd be completely asinine if you couldn't punch with both fists.
Brawler would be a better choice.
You talking to me?
OP.Brawler would be a better choice.You talking to me?
In that case I'm gonna disagree with you anyway. A two weapon warrior combined with snake style from the ultimate combat book is an extremely effective unarmed fighter due to his ability to make 2 attacks on standard attacks and AoO's. Brawler is definitely a fun class(You can probably tell from the name I make a lot of fighters)but I think since he mentioned it he specifically wants to make the unarmed fighter that dishes out a ton of UA's in rapid succession with being a CM heavy character.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You can't two weapon fight with unarmed strikes only.
The unarmed strike is limb agnostic.
The "two fists" argument doesn't work.
Every creature with a physical body can make an unarmed strike.
Every creature gets the same amount of unarmed strikes.
The Girrilon gets no more unarmed strikes than the Ooze.
If you want to two weapon fight with one fist, be a Monk.
Otherwise, you have just one unarmed strike, and your number of limbs is meaningless.
Like I said. If your GM follows that then get a gauntlet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's because it isn't a matter of just 1 punch = 1 Unarmed Strike. One unarmed strike is a segment of a kata fighting routine (or equivalent for whatever unarmed fighting style you're character uses). It's a series of several different strikes which are lumped under a single attack roll as to whether enough of them were solid enough to deal significant damage or if they were all just love-taps. The same goes for fighting with any other weapon, for that matter; a single attack roll with your longsword isn't a single slash but an attack sequence from your fighting style. If you think about it that way, that making an Unarmed Strike utilizes most of your body, an "off-hand" attack becomes inconceivable. Then, in steps the Monk who has dedicated his life to martial arts and actually does all those inconceivable things from martial arts fiction. He actually is trained to make extra attacks by using flurry of blows; kata within kata, essentially. That's something that a mere dabbler in martial arts such as an unarmed-focus archetype of Fighter or Barbarian can't pull off.Um, not using anything in the main hand I guess.
It's kind of ridiculous that you can't use both hands as two light weapons, or that simply having an improvised club in one hand "unlocks" your ability to use your off hand in a fight.
I like your reasoning, but at the same time it's silly that slipping on a glove with with metal bits on it, or putting on a pair of brass knuckles somehow DRASTICALLY changes how you punch things enough to be considered viable for TWF, when normal punching (even with the ability to do lethal damage) is not.
Wait, I can Two-Weapon fight with a pole-arm and a kick, but not with a punch and a kick?
Yeah, if this is an offical rule, I am absolutely going to house rule it.
That is not my point. My point is that Unarmed Strike is a weapon that can obvioulsy count as more than one distinct part of your body. You can use it when your hands are tied. You can use it when they are empty. You can use it after you used your hands for something completly different.
We have established by the above that there are clearly two different, distinct non-dependent parts of your body that can be used. Two-Weapon fighting gives you a penalty for one extra attack. I don't see anything that takes this away from Unarmed Strike.
To further the argument, a quarterstaff or any other double weapon, gives credance to the fact that some SINGLE WEAPONS have the ability to attack more than once when wielded in that manner.
Flurry of Blows is not TWF for Unarmed Strike. It is so much more. It even states that a monk can use Unarmed Strikes... as if using Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Then it goes on to add to the BAB. The use of Two-Weapon Figihting is the part of Flurry of Blows that gives the monks extra attacks.
Unarmed Strikes count as a light weapon. Weapon Finesse and other weapon feats apply. I see nothing to say that Two Weapon Fighting should not apply.
The many attacks = one roll is a hold over from when the round was a minute long. I haven't seen anything that implies this in a while.
All of this said, I have missed things before. Is there a rulling or rule that states that Unarmed Strikes can't use Two Weapon Fighting?
As posted by Grick in another thread:
Natural Attacks: "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."
pretty sure you have to be able to twf with unarmed attacks as referenced by the below item
Poisoner's Gloves
Price 5,000 gp; Aura faint transmutation; CL 5th; Weight—
These black, rubbery gloves have sharpened digits. Fine channels lead to the tip of each finger, which are often stained with foul chemicals. The gloves are used primarily by assassins to deliver poisons while in combat. Each glove may be filled with a single dose of poison, a potion, alchemist infusion, holy water, or similar liquid as long as the liquid would not harm the gloves (for example, alchemist's fire and acid cannot be used). The wearer can deliver the dose to a target as a melee touch attack or as part of an unarmed strike or natural attack with the hands (such as a claw or slam attack). The wearer can use both gloves in the same round using two-weapon fighting or multiple natural attacks (such as 2 slams or 2 claws). Each glove can be used once per day. Filling a glove is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
Construction Requirements
Cost 2,500 gp
Wait, when was it clarified that you couldn't TWF w/ unarmed strikes?
Context is king, sir.
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.
I only see this as requiring 1 use of magic fang for any number of Unarmed Strikes. I see nothing that limits the amount of unarmed strikes or the ability to apply Two-Weapon Fighting.
I made this thread to get an answer
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pnhr?TWF-with-Unarmed-Strike
Here where they state that Unarmed Strike is considered a single weapon. You can't do TWF with a single weapon unless it's a Double weapon or you're using Flurry of Blows.
I don't think it says that it's intent though:
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.
It's saying that a person's whole body is the weapon for the purposes of spells that enchance an unarmed strike. That just makes whole lot of sense, since Monks didn't give two flips about it anyways with the Flurry changes.
IMO though I think they need another FAQ to clarify that their intent is to make Unarmed Strikes unable to TWF. If it was intended that way, that's a huge boon to monks over other unarmed combatants... Though I suppose Brass Knuckles/Gauntlets would let you get around that easily enough for non-monks(since their damage doesn't scale or anything anyways).
|
You can two weapon fight with unarmed strike. Unarmed strike is limb independent with respect to spells like magic fang. With the archetype you can have main hand unarmed strike and off hand unarmed strike. Black blood troll has been confusing people on this forever since it came up in hero labs as not possible, and people have been taking that to mean you need to house rule it in the game in order to do it.
You're fine with TWF and improved unarmed strike. You're only at 1d3 for humans though, so a level of monk and the feat that lets other classes count as half for unarmed strike damage progression may help.
Well FAQ it and we'll a specific yay or nay.
|
You can't two weapon fight with unarmed strikes only.
The unarmed strike is limb agnostic.
The "two fists" argument doesn't work.
Every creature with a physical body can make an unarmed strike.
Every creature gets the same amount of unarmed strikes.
The Girrilon gets no more unarmed strikes than the Ooze.
If you want to two weapon fight with one fist, be a Monk.
Otherwise, you have just one unarmed strike, and your number of limbs is meaningless.
You're hilarious, BBT. Just the other day, when I was stating that two-weapon fighting required a main hand and an off hand, you started shouting "HAAANNDDDSSS!!!", and now you're switching sides?
Title pretty much says it all.
Two Weapon Fighting definitely allows Unarmed Strikes as it specifies that Unarmed Strikes count as Light Weapons.
I can't seem to find anything in the rules that prohibits Unarmed Strikes from benefiting from the Archetype abilities that the Two-Weapon Warrior gets.
I don't see anything either. In the absence of anything explicit, is there any reason to think a two-weapon warrior using just his fists should derive any different benefit than one with a short sword in each hand? I would submit that there isn't and apply full benefit to a two-weapon warrior whether he's armed with 2 separate weapons, a double-weapon, or just his own body parts.
|
|
You're hilarious, BBT. Just the other day, when I was stating that two-weapon fighting required a main hand and an off hand, you started shouting "HAAANNDDDSSS!!!", and now you're switching sides?You can't two weapon fight with unarmed strikes only.
The unarmed strike is limb agnostic.
The "two fists" argument doesn't work.
Every creature with a physical body can make an unarmed strike.
Every creature gets the same amount of unarmed strikes.
The Girrilon gets no more unarmed strikes than the Ooze.
If you want to two weapon fight with one fist, be a Monk.
Otherwise, you have just one unarmed strike, and your number of limbs is meaningless.
You missed the sarcasm. That "hands" thing is what you occasionally get when discussing two-weapon fighting, and weapons that don't use hands.
Good news everyone SKR has clarified you can TWF with just unarmed strikes so back to the OP.
Yes unarmed strikes when used as TWF ( meaning taking penalties for an extra attack) function as any two light weapons would for the archtype.
|
|
Good news everyone SKR has clarified you can TWF with just unarmed strikes so back to the OP.
Yes unarmed strikes when used as TWF ( meaning taking penalties for an extra attack) function as any two light weapons would for the archtype.
Why do I imagine the Professor from Futurama speaking when reading this?
Lol thanks now I'm picturing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh god I can't unhear it now.