Well, that is vague.
Does it count as multiple weapons for feats and effects?
*%&#@*@#%@
*%&#@*@#%@Well, that is vague.
Does it count as multiple weapons for feats and effects?
rofl
That cracking sound? That was the sound of the Paizo team's collective teeth grinding into dust. ;)
|
So, sometimes, it just an Unarmed Strike, but other times, it's Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B)?
I use the Inquisitor's Bane ability on my Unarmed Strike, and I begin to two-weapon fight. Does it apply to Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B), or to just one?
Do I have to track Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B) separately to determine which one is under an effect, and which one applies for for the extra attack with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting?
How do I determine which effects apply to Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B), or to both?
When is it consider one, and when is it two?
|
|
For the purposes of spell enhancements see Magic Fang... Are you really not applying logic to your thinking? Or are you an agent of covert hostility looking to spread your contrariness? Or do you just like to argue?
I did not say spells.
Don't be needlessly dismissive, and put on an air of pretentiousness by accusing others as being illogical.
Real world logic, and game world logic, do not always coincide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a FAQ posted about it today in the Core Rulebook section.
Thank you!
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Sigh.... When discussing the effects of spells, the rules generally include spell-like effects which the inquisitor's bane would fall under. So logically if spells such as magic fang and bless effect all unarmed strikes, spell-like effects that duplicate similar effects as those spells ie. Attack and dmg enhancements would also effect unarmed strikes in the same manner unless specifically described otherwise.
The inquisitor's bane question you had as well as the feat questions were already answered in this thread as well as the many threads that have been posted on this subject before this one. So if I seem dismissive or pretentious, it is because not only were these answers obvious, but they have already been addressed.
Now if you had asked if the feats or class buffs effected non-humanoid corporeal beings in the same manner as humanoids, I could understand. If you questioned whether prehensile appendages fell under the same rules, I may have understood your confusion.
But you asked about two things which have very clearly been addressed. And when discussing game mechanics there is only real logic, not "game" logic.
|
|
When Polymorphed into a creature without limbs, do you still have the option of two-weapon fighting with Unarmed Strikes?
When a Magus uses his Arcane Pool to improve his Unarmed Strike, does it apply to both Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B)?
Does an Arcane Duelist using Bladethirst, apply it to both Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B)?
Does an Oracle with the Outer Rifts Mystery apply his Rift Weapon ability to both Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B)?
Are there forms taken, using Polymorph, that disallow the use of Unarmed Strikes, or increase the number Unarmed Strikes?
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.
I genuinely hope you don't think I was trying to undermine your (or JB's) authority on the rules, because that wasn't my intent. :)
That said, vague FAQ answer is vague. :(
If Unarmed Strike is one weapon, then HOW do you TWF with only Unarmed Strikes?
It's clear that it is your desire for this to work, but the rules surrounding UaS haven't changed in any way that makes this mesh. (ie: All of BBT's concerns are still valid [edit: especially the polymorph example.]).
There was a FAQ posted about it today in the Core Rulebook section.
Thanks for the other FAQ updates.
The answers to minimum number of skill ranks per level for a human and many shot are greatly appreciated. In fact the whole FAQ is greatly appreciated. :-)
lol, so the question is...HOW do you TWF with only unarmed strikes?
Um, because the rules say you can *falls off chair laughing*
Seriously though, while I realize the importance of understanding the rules, I also think its important for people to just use common sense. To be honest, I've never really encountered a GM (thankfully) who was such a stickler on rules that they would question stuff like this because of some minor ambiguity as to how TWF interacts with unarmed strikes.
As we all know, there are a lot of rules in this game that are practically littered with ambiguity, and while clarification is always nice, I personally don't need a 'detailed' explanation as to why a certain rule behaves the way it does.
Heck, now that I think back on it, I had recently posed a very difficult question to Sean regarding the interaction between TWF with unarmed strikes and combining them with natural attacks. Now, in that thread, I stated that a character could (in theory) have 5 attacks at level one [1 bite attack, 2 claw attacks, and 2 unarmed strikes, one from each foot].
Now, I instantly realized that this interaction was REALLY too cheesy for its own good, and thankfully Sean saw fit to try and clear up the issue with his own thoughts on the matter.
Basically, in nutshell, Sean stated that you could not combine natural attacks and unarmed strikes in the manner that I described, and while his explanation didn't seem all that solid to me, I still believe that as a Dev, Sean had every right to rule against the idea. As such, I have never attempted to create a character that uses those statistics, although I will admit that I am hoping that an official ruling will be released on the matter eventually.
My point is this: if the Devs have ruled a certain way regarding a particular issue, go ahead and use that information and apply to other problems. For example, with Two-Weapon Rend, yes...striking someone with both off-hand and main-hand unarmed strikes will trigger the rend. As for 'double bane', it would seem that unarmed strikes are an exception to the rule (in other words, you don't need double bane, as unarmed strikes appear to count as one weapon alone...so the bane ability should be able to apply to both strikes).
Finally, in regards to two-weapon warrior, the unarmed strike count as two weapons when used to make primary and off-hand attacks.
That's how I would rule it anyway.
I guess if I had to describe it another way, I'd say that unarmed strikes are kinda like a 'double weapon' that can actually be 'enchanted' as if they were 'one weapon' alone. Again, its an exception to the rules of course, but it seems to make sense in the grand scheme of things.
See, it's these weird exceptions (necessary, based on the current faq) that make things confusing.
There was a VERY simple solution to the whole problem: Give Unarmed Strikes the "Double weapon" property. Fixes everything mechanically, even if it "feels" a little weird.
That's not the option they went with.
meh, to be fair, i wouldn't be opposed to the idea of making the 'double weapon' stuff go away entirely (in other words, it would be nice to TWF with just a single weapon that could be used as a 'double weapon', but only required enhancement bonuses for the whole thing rather than enchanting each end separately). Generally speaking, TWF isn't really an efficient build type anyway, as it requires a lot of feats and gold investment to even make it work (plus, it takes a LONG time for the damage to actually start adding up).
Furthermore, and as far as I can tell, there are really only two different types of effective two-weapon builds: the crit-building type, and the unarmed striker.
The reason I say this is because it is VERY easy to increase the damage on unarmed strikes as opposed to other weapons (though granted you won't have the crit-chance that most of the Two-weapon fighters will have). Still, I'm very pleased with the ruling in general, as it does help make unarmed striking builds a lot more efficient.
Whether the TWF style of combat is efficient or not is totally irrelevant however. The issue was never, "Is it good?" The issue has always been, "Does it make sense in the rule system?"
The answer, unfortunately, even after the FAQ was answered to rule one way, is still "no."
I find it easiest to consider an unarmed strike like a guantlet. Any weapon enhancing spell/feat/Su/Ex affects only 1 (unless said feat/spell/Su/Ex affects all items on the character or all forms of a specitic weapon such as WF, specalization, ect)
TWF with unarmed is no different than using 2 guantlets
Even if a creature has 100 arms wearing guantlets, they only get 2 attacks (plus high BAB extras) with TWF because unarmer strike are not considered natural attacks
I think people are over thinking it. I really do the only difference is that you can TWF with UAS this is all that has changed. if you cant use double bane you can use normal bane and it will cont for all your UAS during TWF. and double rend is no different. BBT i 100 respect you but I think you are overthinking it.
Wanting working and identifiable cohesion within the rules is hardly "overthinking" anything.
That's all people like Kazaan, BBT, myself, etc. are asking for.
(Edit - For what it's worth, I personally think that people who always expect real-life common sense to apply to a tabletop game's rule system are overthinking things. Fireballs can work in the vacuum of space, but it's unheard of for a person not to be able to TWF with an Unarmed Strike? Pot, meet kettle. xD.)
Wanting working and identifiable cohesion within the rules is hardly "overthinking" anything.
That's all people like Kazaan, BBT, myself, etc. are asking for.(Edit - For what it's worth, I personally think that people who always expect real-life common sense to apply to a tabletop game's rule system are overthinking things. Fireballs can work in the vacuum of space, but it's unheard of for a person not to be able to TWF with an Unarmed Strike? Pot, meet kettle. xD.)
shrugs....meh to each his own I guess it makes perfectin game sense to me.
Well, now we have to figure out:
Two-Weapon Rend.
Double Bane.
Two-Weapon Warrior.
Two-Weapon Rend works just like it does for any other weapons.
Double Bane works just like it does for any other weapons.
Two-Weapon Warrior works just like it does for any other weapons.
The Magus ability to enhance weapons works just like it does for any other weapons.
The Outer Rifts Oracle's Rift Weapons ability works just like it does for any other weapons.
Understandably, the idea that Magic Fang doesn't need to specify a body part, because ordinarily people attack once. I think it'd make more sense to require two Magic Fangs if you're TWF with unarmed strikes. The clarification obviously didn't factor this little corner case in (though I'd argue that the intent of that clarification is pretty clear and being taken well out of context here). In that regard, think of it like you're getting an extra benefit out of Magic Fang if you're TWF with unarmed strikes.
Polymorph raises an interesting question, but one that would exist outside of this particular issue anyway.
Bottom line is that it seems rather workable to simply treat unarmed strikes just like you would any other weapon for just about any reason outside of the specific Magic Fang FAQ (which I still think can be argued) and, potentially, this polymorph corner case (though potentially could be resolved easily as well).
My own take is that the previous FAQ on Magic Fang should have stated "Unarmed attacks are treated as a single weapon for the purposes of this spell" and we'd be done with it and they wouldn't have needed this FAQ(though thanks to SKR for making it anyways).
I think we all have accept that Unarmed Strikes are just different from every other type of weapon, just like Natural attacks are different from other types of weapons. Unarmed strikes can't ever be taken away, can do non-lethal at no penalty, they're multi-faceted in that you can TWF with them, and they're enhanced like a single weapon.
You can say, "I don't like that is just says so". But that's just how it works, it's like asking why can't you TWF with natural attacks? Why don't they get iterative attacks with more BAB? Cause they follow different rules, and that's just the way it is. I think that Unarmed Strikes are falling into a similar, special little snowflake category of the rules and I'm okay with that.
Thanks for the update guys.
My own take is that the previous FAQ on Magic Fang should have stated "Unarmed attacks are treated as a single weapon for the purposes of this spell" and we'd be done with it and they wouldn't have needed this FAQ(though thanks to SKR for making it anyways).
I think we all have accept that Unarmed Strikes are just different from every other type of weapon, just like Natural attacks are different from other types of weapons. Unarmed strikes can't ever be taken away, can do non-lethal at no penalty, they're multi-faceted in that you can TWF with them, and they're enhanced like a single weapon.
You can say, "I don't like that is just says so". But that's just how it works, it's like asking why can't you TWF with natural attacks? Why don't they get iterative attacks with more BAB? Cause they follow different rules, and that's just the way it is. I think that Unarmed Strikes are falling into a similar, special little snowflake category of the rules and I'm okay with that.
I completely agree. Technically the unarmed strike counts as one weapon (the body) But it can be used to make multiple attacks because it has multiple parts that can all move separately. The reason unarmed strikes shouldn't work like normal weapons is because it IS completely UNLIKE normal weapons.
|
|
Okay, so let me see if I can understand the results of these two FAQs.
1) In the case of spell effects(only), the Unarmed Strike is one weapon.
2) In the case of effects that are not spells, you treat it as Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B).
So, why is for some, that supernatural abilities(not spells) are treating the Unarmed Strike as one weapon?
What if a Magus uses his Arcane Pool to give his Unarmed Strike the Speed Property? Does it effect Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B), gaining an extra attack with each?
For feats like Two-Weapon Rend, do you have to hit with Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B), or does any combination work, as they are both the same weapon?
Okay, so let me see if I can understand the results of these two FAQs.
1) In the case of spell effects(only), the Unarmed Strike is one weapon.
2) In the case of effects that are not spells, you treat it as Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B).
So, why is for some, that supernatural abilities(not spells) are treating the Unarmed Strike as one weapon?
What if a Magus uses his Arcane Pool to give his Unarmed Strike the Speed Property? Does it effect Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B), gaining an extra attack with each?
For feats like Two-Weapon Rend, do you have to hit with Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B), or does any combination work, as they are both the same weapon?
I believe in you're ability to figure those out for yourself. Or just give the job to your GM. Either way. Real world logic does in fact apply in many situations. Such as. My understanding of the two weapon rend is it says you have to hit with 2 weapons simultaneously. So yeah. Unarmed Strike A,B,C, or H could be used in any combination as long as both of them hit at the same time. Basically what I'm saying is the physical aspects of TWF with Unarmed Strikes should be pretty easy to figure out. Two limbs=Two weapons. If you are not flurrying you cannot his twice in a row with the same limb. Luckily if your character knows Jiu Jitsu then he has 7 more limbs to harass an enemy with beyond the standard right hook.
I suppose you're right. My Unarmed Fighter/Brutal Pugilist loves to make unarmed strikes by grabbing other people and swinging them at their fellows.
But it's limb-agnostic. I'm just using a body. Not mine but still.
Semantics.
By the RAW? Absolutely the Fighter can do that. Same way a gelatinous cube can make an unarmed strike even though it has no appendages.
|
|
Yes. There was in the WotC article "Elite Opponents" that had a Fiendish Gelatinous Cube Monk.
See here.
This still holds true, that any corporeal creature can make an Unarmed Strike.
Lets go back to the fundamentals. TWF feat gives you less penalties, and since Unarmed Strike is considered a light weapon, then the total penalties is -2,-2.
At that point if you are just doing Unarmed Strike you will need to roll the dice sepparate for your main hand and off hand. So for Two weapon Rend will work, you will just have to see if your main hand and off hand wounds to get that bonus.
The more limbs you have does not give you more attacks. It just depends on your BAB and some feats. If a guy has 9 limbs at lvl 6, then he can only make 2 Unarmed Strikes. Natural attacks are different.
As for bonuses for Unarmed Strike, I consider it being 1 weapon. If you have a AoMF that gives you flaming, it should effect all your unarmed strikes.
Making Unarmed Strikes a Double weapon does not make since to me. They don't need it. Since their off hand attack is still considered a light weapon. And for the purpus of enchanting, you can't just enchant Unarmed Strikes. The only what to enchant Unarmed Strikes is by a AoMF and put the enchantments on that.
Why do people keep bring up the fact that UaS is considered a light weapon? That has literally nothing to do with any complaint/confusion being addressed.
|
|
See, that is where people stick that "limb" thing into unarmed strike, where it doesn't belong.
The functionality of the unarmed strike is not dependent on limbs.
You have to throw out "fist" and "foot" as attacks idea, as those are meaningless to it's function.
Unarmed Strike(A), and Unarmed Strike(B) can be any limb, and in fact, the same limb.