| 35 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Please hit the FAQ button. I say yes it is implied in several areas Greater Brawler rage power, Flurry ect..
Why wouldn't they?
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.
The rules right there say that they can use unarmed strikes with TWF.
In addition, this post by Sean has this to say:
The rules say you can make one attack per round, or two with TWF, and iterative attacks according to your BAB. The rules don't care if your unarmed strike is a punch, kick, or headbutt, it just cares that you get only one additional attack if you're using TWF.
Why wouldn't they?
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.The rules right there say that they can use unarmed strikes with TWF.
In addition, this post by Sean has this to say:
The rules say you can make one attack per round, or two with TWF, and iterative attacks according to your BAB. The rules don't care if your unarmed strike is a punch, kick, or headbutt, it just cares that you get only one additional attack if you're using TWF.
this thread here
We've been having the argument since yesterday so might as well FAQ it for ending this sake.
I meant in the newest posts. Still my point remains valid.
I meant in the newest posts. Still my point remains valid.
and that is?
This particular argument needs big wig intervention.
This particular argument needs big wig intervention.
No it doesn't. The rules say clearly that you can.
Normal: 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 off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
This particular argument needs big wig intervention.No it doesn't. The rules say clearly that you can.
Normal: 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 off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
I completely agree that it should be obvious but I'm not the one who needs convincing.
|
So, who has more unarmed strikes?
The Girrilon, or the Ooze?
The answer, is neither.
They both have the same amount, which is one.
The Unarmed Strike is Limb-agnostic, and without the Double Property, can only be used to make one attack.
Spells treat it this way, and there is no reason to think other abilities don't do the same.
So, who has more unarmed strikes?
The Girrilon, or the Ooze?
The answer, is neither.
They both have the same amount, which is one.
The Unarmed Strike is Limb-agnostic, and without the Double Property, can only be used to make one attack.
Spells treat it this way, and there is no reason to think other abilities don't do the same.
There is no reason to think that one specific instance where they are treated the same makes every ability treat them same when we have rules that say to use both hands, we need to use TWF rules.
The rules are very clear when they point out that two-weapon fighting can be used via unarmed strikes (as per the examples above).
The rules are also very clear that you may not make more than a single iterative attack with a single weapon, and that to use the two-weapon fighting rules, you must have an offhand weapon.
The rules are also very clear that "Unarmed Strike" does not possess the "Double weapon" property. It is very much treated as a single weapon, just as BBT positions.
So the rules are very clear on three specific points, that when mixed together, makes the rules totally and utterly unclear.
That's why:
This particular argument needs big wig intervention.
|
So, who has more unarmed strikes?
The Girrilon, or the Ooze?
The answer, is neither.
They both have the same amount, which is one.
The Unarmed Strike is Limb-agnostic, and without the Double Property, can only be used to make one attack.
Spells treat it this way, and there is no reason to think other abilities don't do the same.
Yeah, I don't know why you still like to ignore the written rules in trying to make your argument. Humanoids may TWF with unarmed strikes. I know you know where it is written, especially considering the fact that the rule has been quoted numerous times over the last few years.
|
|
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/e-g/glove s-poisoner-s
Gloves can only be used on unarmed strikes and natural attacks.
So why would TWF be mentioned if you can't TWF with unarmed strikes?
No. It can also be used as a melee touch attack, not a requiring an attack with a unarmed strike, or natural attack.
Also, it is a special item, that allows a special action.
Not relevant.
I fail to understand the problem. Two different limbs equals two different unarmed strike weapons. A fist is not a double weapon,two fists are two (light) weapons. If a character decides to use two limbs in a round then they suffer -4 and -8 to hit for the two attacks. If they have multiple attacks then each of these is at -4 to hit except for the additional attack that is at -8 to hit.
Oh and to answer BBT's point on the ooze there's no reason it couldn't form two oozy appendages.
An unarmed strike is not the fist, but rather, the fist is part of the unarmed strike.
A Greataxe may have two blades, but it is only one weapon.
This, this, a thousand-times this.
|
I would like Developer confirmation.
Don't see why it's needed here. The FAQ used for arguing that unarmed strike cannot count at two light weapons found HERE specifically says "For the purpose of magic fang and other spells..." This FAQ is stating that for the purpose of these spells, consider an unarmed strike as a creature's entire body. It's meant to make the spell work NOT nerf unarmed strikes.
If they were trying to alter how unarmed strikes work, the design team would not have said at the end of the FAQ "The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account." They would need to alter the unarmed stike text not the spell text.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like Developer confirmation.Don't see why it's needed here. The FAQ used for arguing that unarmed strike cannot count at two light weapons found HERE specifically says "For the purpose of magic fang and other spells..." This FAQ is stating that for the purpose of these spells, consider an unarmed strike as a creature's entire body. It's meant to make the spell work NOT nerf unarmed strikes.
If they were trying to alter how unarmed strikes work, the design team would not have said at the end of the FAQ "The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account." They would need to alter the unarmed strike text not the spell text.
A FAQ is a Frequently Asked Question.
This qualifies as a Frequently Asked Question.
|
|
A FAQ is a Frequently Asked Question.
lol true, I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of errata. But there's nothing in the FAQ that backs your case. You're using the sentence: "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 section: "Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body..." "is it's entire body" per RAW doesn't hold any mechanical meaning. It's flavor text meant to explain why the designers want magic fang (or similar spells) to affect all unarmed strikes. It's not saying an unarmed strike cannot be used in conjunction with TWF, functions as a slam attack, or is limb-agnostic ect. Unarmed Strikes still follow the rules governening unarmed strikes, i.e. they are considered a light weapon and can be used with TWF.
The section: "and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes" is mechanical.
|
|
Hmm I read through unarmed strikes and it appears the unarmed strike itself is a combination of punches, kicks, ect. So that 1d4 damage is coming from multiple sources in one attack. In that regard, blackbloodtroll's case makes sense that unarmed strikes cannot be used with TWF... I actually like that because it gives more power to the monks but holy smokes does that kill any other unarmed build... Yeah, how has this not been officially addressed yet???
Because, as I pointed out above, the rules make very clear cases for both sides of the argument. The Devs are just in a tight spot about which rule they decide is correct and which one isn't, and those types of decisions always take eternity coming down the pipeline.
meh, I suppose this issue can be settled a number of ways. Personally, I would tend to think that 'unarmed strikes' should be treated as a 'double weapon' in the sense that you can use them as a 'single' weapon or split them up to utilize TWF. Of course, per the rules, the unarmed strikes would still be considered light weapons, but I see nothing to indicate why such a combination isn't possible.
It only says that under Monk, which we all agree gets more than one attack. The point of defining multiple body parts is to show that it won't be stopped by something like having one's hands tied behind their back. It also shows that you can't get a million attacks by using hand, hand, elbow, elbow, foot, foot, head, knee, knee, forearm, forearm, shin, shin, etc.
Base rule: You only get one attack no matter how many parts you can use. This is the same as the argument you only get one attack with 15 longswords, even if you have QuickDraw.
Exception: By adding Two-Weapon Fighting you gain another attack for having a second weapon and taking penalties to the attack. As shown above, and listed under the monk part of Unarmed Strike, there are plenty of striking surfaces from multiple limbs. As shown in other posts, there is a clear rule for humanoids without natural weapons using Two-Weapon Fighting.
There is no reason to believe that the damage is from multiple hits. That is not how I read the monk's description.
The fastest most readily available weapon of any person is their unarmed strike. The idea that it cannot be brought to bare as often as any number of manufactured weapons makes no sense to me. As far as its usefulness, that is handled with its low damage and the fact that it is nonlethal unless you add a feat to it.
I believe the new FAQ ruling for magic fang just puts magic fang in line with the amulet of mighty fists when applied to unarmed strikes. It shows that it doesn't matter which part of the body is used. I see no reason to infer that this particular FAQ had any intent to limit the ability to use TWF and US without clearly stating as much.
So, who has more unarmed strikes?
The Girrilon, or the Ooze?
The answer, is neither.
They both have the same amount, which is one.
Neither a Girallon nor an Ooze can make an unarmed strike.
I would like Developer confirmation.
Is a Designer enough of a Developer to satisfy you?
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.
If that's not good enough, we've got the actual rules themselves.
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."
Yes, the question may be asked somewhat frequently, but the answer is pretty clear.
Ok I keep seeing the "you can't make multiple attacks with both edges of a sword" argument. That's because you have to recoil and then swing again with that weapon. You can two weapon fight with two daggers because while one is recoiling the other is hitting. The same logic applies to two fists. So the "you can't twf with both sides of a great axe" argument is irrelevant.
This whole discussion reminds me of the "You can/can't flurry with a single weapon." (You can btw.)
If one can't TWF with unarmed strikes (which I believe you can as shown above from multiple sources), then a monk can't flurry with different body parts. Which they clearly can.
hrmm hrm
Now, do the devs want Unarmed Strikes to couple with TWF? Who's to say other than them.
Does SKR not count as a developer anymore? I've lost track of who is official enough.
Now, do the devs want Unarmed Strikes to couple with TWF? Who's to say other than them.Does SKR not count as a developer anymore? I've lost track of who is official enough.
SKR is official
pshh nawww
Here's the thing about JB and SKR: This isn't their game.
I mean, it is, but the core of the rules are borrowed from Skip Williams and crew. Pathfinder is an update to an already existing set of rules, so it's entirely possible that the new developers "get things wrong from time to time" and they do, just as Kazaan points out.
I mean, it is, but the core of the rules are borrowed from Skip Williams and crew. Pathfinder is an update to an already existing set of rules, so it's entirely possible that the new developers "get things wrong from time to time" and they do, just as Kazaan points out.
To be fair, I was a player in Monte's first 3E campaign when the rules were still in staff-only playtest. I provided extensive feedback to the 3E designers on spells and magic items. I was the first person other than Monte, Jonathan, and Skip to any design work for the 3E Monster Manual. Does that change whether or not it's "my game"? I dunno.
*shrug*
In any case, I'm sure that Monte, Skip, and Jonathan have disagreements on how some parts of the rules are supposed to work. And even they will get stuff wrong, too--you can't expect perfect accuracy in remembering how all parts of a 600-page ruleset to work together (especially when they and the other people involved in developing 3E also remember discarded pieces of playtest rules in addition to the printed release... like when initiative used a d6).
But just because they may get a rule wrong doesn't mean they aren't an authority on how the 3E rules are supposed to work. And likewise for anyone else on the PF design team--we may get caught making a mistake, but we're still the ones who make the decisions about how the rules are supposed to work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a FAQ posted about it today in the Core Rulebook section.
Woot!