I am sorry but I have not read the Previous posts. I just jumped in, so in the future I wont do that again.
If the question is TWF with Unarmed Strike, then I think you can do it.
EDIT-If that is not the question right now, then what is?
I would say it would be 2 Unarmed strike. you will get -2 on both attacks, since one is the main hand and the other is the Off hand attack, you would roll seperatly.
then what is the hard part?
|
Yes.
To list:
Being both one and multiple weapons, at the same time, depending on several factors, that are not always clear, despite not being a double weapon.
Historically, and by current FAQ, being limb-agnostic, but in some cases, limb-dependent, depending on the circumstances, or who you ask.
Other than having a corporeal form, the Unarmed Strike has not been form dependent, but now, for certain purposes, it may, or may not be, form dependent.
These are real concerns.
Many will spout "common sense" without actually addressing the issues, and the rules involved.
Ignoring the issues do not make you a better person.
Yes.
To list:
Being both one and multiple weapons, at the same time, depending on several factors, that are not always clear, despite not being a double weapon.
Historically, and by current FAQ, being limb-agnostic, but in some cases, limb-dependent, depending on the circumstances, or who you ask.
Other than having a corporeal form, the Unarmed Strike has not been form dependent, but now, for certain purposes, it may, or may not be, form dependent.
These are real concerns.
Many will spout "common sense" without actually addressing the issues, and the rules involved.
Ignoring the issues do not make you a better person.
As I've asked before what are some real issues with one weapon that functions as two?
Who is claiming form dependence? If you want your creature to use weak unarmed strikes for non lethal instead of its claws and slams it gets 1 unarmed strike. 2 if it uses 2weapon fighting and as many as it normally makes with multiweapon fighting if it uses
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As stated, I am a firm believer that Unarmed Strike should be usable with Two-Weapon Fighting.
That said, BBT makes some valid points that people are just dismissing.
I would rule(1):
Unarmed Strike is available to any creature that can make a physical attack(2).
Any spell or affect, no matter the source, that buffs or de-buffs would affect all Unarmed Strike attacks associated with the target.
All feats, skills, spells and other sources that benefit the use of two-weapons, such as two-weapon defense(3) or two-weapon rend, are usable as long as the character can do lethal damage with his Unarmed Strike.
As to the Inquisitor Bane, I am fine with it working towards Primary Attacks and Off-Hand Attacks when using Unarmed Strike.
A character will have to track Primary attacks and Off-Hand attacks as normal because the damage from both would be different(5).
In summary, I would rule(1) that Unarmed Strike is special and follows a modified rule set. I think this fits with RAI by allowing the ability to strike with multiple forms without having to track each of those forms(6). The only tracking requirement is Primary or Off-Hand which can be declared with each attack as limb doesn't matter.
YMMV. Happy Gaming.
--------------
Footnotes(4)
(1) I would rule means that I don't see a cut and dry RAW/RAI answer. It does not mean houserule or that I am making things up. It means that taking the information available, this is how I would currently rule.
(2) This may be every creature, but if there are some that can only use spells or something of that nature then I would rule they cannot.
(3) I don't care what the source is. If a person has the training, then I believe they are taught how to block weapons. If they don't have the training, then they are just going to get cut up by putting their arm in the way.
(4) Because on these boards if you don't clearly define every single contingency, you get attacked.
(5) Baring Monk's special ability towards Unarmed Strike and any ability that works like it.
(6) This is what I believe is key to all of my arguments. If you disagree with my arguments/rulings, I would be interested in your interpretation of RAI.
|
|
Having natural attacks do not negate the ability to make unarmed strikes.
Half-Orcs with Bites can make Unarmed Strikes.
Using "two fists" as a base for determining a ruling on functionality of the Unarmed Strike is a form-dependent stance, and a fallacy, proven within the rules, and recent FAQ.
With the two-weapon fighting being ruled usable with two unarmed strikes, there is the question of how a non-double weapon does this.
I understand that the recent FAQ is a pleasure for some, but that does not mean further questioning need be dismissed.
You now have a weapon that functions like no other weapon, manufactured or natural, and that brings complications along with it.
Again actually name some complication that actually are complications. You've been shown how the feats and abilities you've already asked about aren't as complicated as you make it. Also TWF does not mean two fisted fighting. A creatures limbs aren't restricting its attack string an ooze could TWF with unarmed strikes with multiple pseudopods. A gorrilon doesn't auto get 4 simply by having 4 arms. The number available is based on how such a creature is trained to do combat.
Just because you choose to dismiss the issue doesn't mean there isn't an issue.
As for Gorrilons, why doesn't Multiweapon Fighting replace Two-Weapon Fighting? Hell, it even qualifies for the feat since it has more than two arms!
/facepalm
|
|
So, any ability that requires you to hit with both primary and off-hand weapons, need only be done with one weapon, the Unarmed Strike?
When an ability effects one weapon, it effects both the primary and off-hand weapon, if they are the Unarmed Strike?
When two-weapon fighting with Unarmed Strikes, do you count as wielding, or attacking, with two weapons, or one?
Ignoring the issues do not make you a better person.
If the choice is between using common sense and not sweating the letter of the rules and going into near apoplectic fits of rules pedantism, I'm going to go with ignoring the issues makes you a better person. It certainly makes you an easier-going and calmer person and that's better.
Seriously, you're trying to put the rules - designed to facilitate fantasy action/romance stories in which real behavior (and fantasy behavior) can be reasonably adjudicated - through rigor they weren't designed to support.
Can you TWF with unarmed strikes? Of course, just as any boxer can give you a one-two punch, Jet Li can give you an elbow smash and a roundhouse kick, a hockey player can stiff arm you while giving you a body check, and a bar brawler can knee you in the groin followed up by a headbutt. That much has always been manifest in the rules. If unarmed strikes are treated with a certain amount of ad hoc consideration after that, it's no big deal.
Just because you choose to dismiss the issue doesn't mean there isn't an issue.
As for Gorrilons, why doesn't Multiweapon Fighting replace Two-Weapon Fighting? Hell, it even qualifies for the feat since it has more than two arms!/facepalm
It does if they take but they don't or better I should say wont be making 4 unarmed strikes without it. Having the ability to do something and actually doing it are two different things.
@ bbt
It's two weapons when you TWF. So abilities that require you to hit with two weapons are still being hit by two weapons. You have yet to show a single spell or ability where getting two weapons boosted for the price of one is massively detrimental. On the bane example the same number of feats have been invested by the unarmed TWF inquisitor and the double bane TWF inquisitor. The unarmed strike guy is simply trading a less damaging weapon for more rounds per day.
BBT
what are you exact questions you have about TWF and UAS?
nothing has changed except you can now TWF with UAS. ever thing else still works the same. so help me out let me see what your having issues with maybe I can help?
You don't need the Multiweapon Fighting feat to actually do Multiweapon Fighting. It works EXACTLY the same as TWF in that regard (all the feat does is reduce penalties.)
So, exactly how many weapons does UaS count as for the purposes of these fighting styles?
(Imagine a Summoner who picks up an extra limb. Now he qualifies for the MWF feat. How many "off-hand" attacks does he get? As many as his mind can dream up? All at the -2mh/-2oh penalties...)
Can you TWF with unarmed strikes? Of course, just as any boxer can give you a one-two punch, Jet Li can give you an elbow smash and a roundhouse kick, a hockey player can stiff arm you while giving you a body check, and a bar brawler can knee you in the groin followed up by a headbutt. That much has always been manifest in the rules. If unarmed strikes are treated with a certain amount of ad hoc consideration after that, it's no big deal.
You have offered no reason to believe that all of your examples are anything but regular iterative attacks.
Can you TWF with unarmed strikes? Of course, just as any boxer can give you a one-two punch, Jet Li can give you an elbow smash and a roundhouse kick, a hockey player can stiff arm you while giving you a body check, and a bar brawler can knee you in the groin followed up by a headbutt. That much has always been manifest in the rules. If unarmed strikes are treated with a certain amount of ad hoc consideration after that, it's no big deal.You have offered no reason to believe that all of your examples are anything but regular iterative attacks.
Then let's define that character as 3rd level. They can't be iterative attacks. He doesn't have any. All of the choices involve gaining an extra attack above and beyond the one he would normally get. One counts as the primary, the other as the secondary. Penalties applied as appropriate. Done.
You're right - A character of 3rd level would be too unskilled to successfully get off two attacks like that. I guess boxers, hockey players, famous national champion martial artists, etc. are all higher than level 3, eh?
You're right - A character of 3rd level would be too unskilled to successfully get off two attacks like that. I guess boxers, hockey players, famous national champion martial artists, etc. are all higher than level 3, eh?
Or, wait for it, they're using TWO WEAPON FIGHTING. Isn't that the subject of this whole thread?
I'll just come out with it straight then: Your examples are anecdotal at best and carry no real weight in this particular discussion, especially considering real-life doesn't port very well at all to game-rules.
:)
i like questions, but these questions don't seem to have much point. you can two weapon fight with unarmed attacks. there is no off hand with unardmed attacks. two weapon fighting just allows you to get extra attacks, just like it states in the two weapon fighting faq. unarmed strike is an exception to the rule.
you don't use or need two weapon rend (that's what tiger style is for). you dont need double slice(there is no offhand with an unarmed strike).
bane would apply to all your attacks. As I tell my jurors, just because you are now in a court of law, does not mean your common sense goes out the window. I think the same applies here.
I'll just come out with it straight then: Your examples are anecdotal at best and carry no real weight in this particular discussion, especially considering real-life doesn't port very well at all to game-rules.
:)
Of course they carry weight. If someone can do something in real life, shouldn't the rules serve to enable it? Shouldn't a trained fantasy character be able to do the kinds of things normal people can do? Focusing on the rules as the be all, end all of what a PC can do is pretty myopic.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree with Kazaan in that the Monk got the S**tend of the stick in this deal. The whole point of the Monk is that he is the "martial artist" specialist of the classes. By "martial artist" I mean unarmed and armed attacks with monk weapons, special AC rules, special multiple attack rules, etc.... it is pretty sad that the term "martial artist" has to be explained. I know I am going to get a response in this thread that Fighters, Barbarians, and heck ANY class can and should be able to be a "martial artist". And see that is the problem. No OTHER class should be able to be a "martial artist" that is better than the monk or a monk archtype/prestige class.
I am not exactly sure how you would correct this- maybe give the Monk a couple more combat feats that are style specific at earlier or more often levels? Adjust the penalities for FoB lower so TWF specced fighters are still not as adept at mutliple UaS?
But as it stands now with the current FAQ a Fighter is just as good as a monk when it comes to unarmed combat and he still gets to wear his armor, still has a much better BAB and he certainly isn't as MAD as the monk, making him a better choice when it comes to building a "martial artist".
Makes me sad because from a flavor standpoint, Monks are one of my favorite classes to play.
People really think that the fighter being able to use two-weapon fighting with Unarmed Strikes is greater than the Monk being able to do it with a higher damage dice, no strength penalty for off hand and the ability to do it all with only one weapon? All of which the Monk gets at level 1, and progresses higher through the levels, just for being a Monk, which the Fighter gets none of?
As shown above, the Monk gets 3 distinct advantages when it comes to 'martial arts' fighting over the fighter. 2 of which are weapon free.
Having natural attacks do not negate the ability to make unarmed strikes.
Half-Orcs with Bites can make Unarmed Strikes.
Agreed. I see no problem with this or using it within the rules.
Using "two fists" as a base for determining a ruling on functionality of the Unarmed Strike is a form-dependent stance, and a fallacy, proven within the rules, and recent FAQ.
Agreed. I still see no problem with applying the new FAQ. Just assume any creature with a physical attack can do it.
With the two-weapon fighting being ruled usable with two unarmed strikes, there is the question of how a non-double weapon does this.
Agreed. My Answer: It only applies to Unarmed Strikes as they are clearly a distinct form of attack in which all types and combinations cannot be accounted for. Therefore a very slight rules exception must be made when working with Unarmed Strike.
This follows the normal Pathfinder procedure of an Exception overriding the Base rule. If accepted, everything makes sense.
I understand that the recent FAQ is a pleasure for some, but that does not mean further questioning need be dismissed.
Agreed. But the opposite is also true. Just because it is not a pleasure for some, does not mean that it is impossible to answer these questions. I do agree that people should work to help you find the answers if they wish to post on this forum rather than attack you.
I also understand the position that it may APPEAR that you don't care what the answers are, you are just going to keep throwing every nuance of a question until people are forced to ignore you because they feel they have answered you many times but you refuse to apply it to other, related questions.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and am working to answer your questions and discuss with you to the best of my ability. I am all about the constructive debate. I hope you are too.
You now have a weapon that functions like no other weapon, manufactured or natural, and that brings complications along with it.
Agreed. So what? That takes place in this game all the time. Flurry of Blows, where only the monk can use one weapon and gain extra (non-iterative) attacks is another place where all the weapon rules are broken. There is precedence for this. It doesn't break the game.
Is there any of my questions that will not be dismissed at this point?
Yes. Answered and moved on is not the same as dismissed.
there is no off hand with unardmed attacks
Did I miss something? That is only the case if you are a Monk, correct?
|
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.
sorry, what does double weapon property have to do with two weapon fighting? by your logic, you can't attack with ANY weapon in the off hand unless it has the "double weapon" property.
Chernobyl, they are talking about the fact that Unarmed Strike is one weapon and one weapon only when discussing Magic Fang. The idea that you can make extra attacks with one weapon using Two-Weapon Fighting is a product previously limited to double weapons.
So, in a way, Unarmed Strike is treated like a double weapon.
People really think that the fighter being able to use two-weapon fighting with Unarmed Strikes is greater than the Monk being able to do it with a higher damage dice, no strength penalty for off hand and the ability to do it all with only one weapon? All of which the Monk gets at level 1, and progresses higher through the levels, just for being a Monk, which the Fighter gets none of?
Yes.
It's already been proven that an Unarmed Fighter is superior to a Monk at Unarmed Combat (the flat bonuses a Fighter can get easily outdo the higher damage die of the Monk's UaS, and the fact that they don't lose out on armor means they have a much easier time keeping a high AC value).The only area in which a Monk truly out-performs a Fighter is mobility, but the two issues with that are (1) mobility and combat combine horribly in this game, and (2) the fighter is one spell away from keeping up with the Monk.
A fighter that takes the dragon style and dragon ferocity feats destroys the monk when it comes to combat. Not to mention a one level dip in Mater of Many Styles will eliminate a lot of the problems an unarmed fighter has and allow him to use two styles at once, which a fighter has enough feats to easily support. So when it comes to strict combat. The monk doesn't come close to the fighter.
Feel free to crunch the numbers yourself, but it's absolutely true.
(And why do you think there are sooo many threads complaining about Monks? We ARE fighting that side of the battle!)
Yes.
It's already been proven that an Unarmed Fighter is superior to a Monk at Unarmed Combat (the flat bonuses a Fighter can get easily outdo the higher damage die of the Monk's UaS, and the fact that they don't lose out on armor means they have a much easier time keeping a high AC value).
The only area in which a Monk truly out-performs a Fighter is mobility, but the two issues with that are (1) mobility and combat combine horribly in this game, and (2) the fighter is one spell away from keeping up with the Monk.For fighters unarmed strikes is the worst style of combat, it is Behind TWF wit kukris, behind THW with a falchion (or other martial two handed weapon) and certainly behind archery.
If the fighter outperfor the monk at unarmed strikes is a monk fault. Instead of complaining about the fighter/barbarian/ranger can do with unarmed strikes the complain should be about why monks do so little.
And I doubt a fighter really outeperfom with unarmed strikes a monk.
With Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity it is far from the worst fighter style.
Meh, in one of my previous characters (a tiefling Lore Warden no less) I was able to obtain 7 attacks (8 when hasted) with unarmed strikes that would deal 1d4 + 40 damage with a +40/+35/+30/+20 to hit.
Can a monk do this?
Well, not really (at least not with the type of consistent damage the fighter could put out). However, the monk does have much better saving throws, almost as many feats as a fighter, and can basically TWF with unarmed strikes without needing to take ANY TWF feats, and also caps out at higher damage dice for their unarmed strikes.
Granted, their accuracy wouldn't be as high (unless they were a martial artist I imagine) but again, it all depends on taste.
Take dragon style and dragon ferocit then TWF and then attack with a falchion with both hands and kick (or headbutt or whatever) your enemy. Much better than fight with only unarmed strikes.With Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity it is far from the worst fighter style.
Yes.
It's already been proven that an Unarmed Fighter is superior to a Monk at Unarmed Combat (the flat bonuses a Fighter can get easily outdo the higher damage die of the Monk's UaS, and the fact that they don't lose out on armor means they have a much easier time keeping a high AC value).
The only area in which a Monk truly out-performs a Fighter is mobility, but the two issues with that are (1) mobility and combat combine horribly in this game, and (2) the fighter is one spell away from keeping up with the Monk.For fighters unarmed strikes is the worst style of combat, it is Behind TWF wit kukris, behind THW with a falchion (or other martial two handed weapon) and certainly behind archery.
If the fighter outperfor the monk at unarmed strikes is a monk fault. Instead of complaining about the fighter/barbarian/ranger can do with unarmed strikes the complain should be about why monks do so little.
And I doubt a fighter really outeperfom with unarmed strikes a monk.
You know what. I won't disagree. But. I'm saying that the fighter definitely outperforms the monk in the realm of unarmed Strikes.
It's not. But it was brought up so I had to defend one of my favorite builds.
I am not going to walk the "who outperforms who" here.
I don't think that's truly relevant.
But needing to know the exact number of unarmed strikes a creature that won't be making them is relevant?
I think knowing how this might affect balance from a standpoint of what might happen in a game vs. knowing how it affects things that are highly unlikely to show up in cameos pretty relevant.
I suppose you are right.
Then Brawler Fighter beats Monk.
Brawler, Unarmed Fighter, and Two-Weapon Warrior beat monk.