TWF with Unarmed Strike


Rules Questions

151 to 185 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:

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 two-weapon fighting with Unarmed Strikes, do you count as wielding, or attacking, with two weapons, or one?

Perhaps you thought it was unclear before, but now we have the UAS/2WF FAQ.

That says you can 2WF ala UAS/UAS... 2WF uses two separate weapons.
The FAQ isn't giving any rules exception, so the reasonable reading is that you do have and can use multiple UAS 'weapons'.
i.e. 'left fist'/'right kick' ...Anything else is just swimming against the tide of the rules and FAQs.

Quote:

When an ability effects one weapon, it effects both the primary and off-hand weapon, if they are the Unarmed Strike?

The FAQ is for whether UAS counts as a single weapon for SPELLS. Not all effects.

The promised errata is to Magic Fang, not core rules for UAS.

The Magic Fang/UAS FAQ is rather badly written (one way or another) with logical justifications that just aren't pertinent to the broad application of the FAQ, and I hope that gets improved sooner than later. It's been promised that the Magic Fang spell will be Errata'd so the FAQ will at least be updated then, but the sooner the better IMHO.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, other effects treat them separately?

Spells treat them as one, as per FAQ, but this is not true of everything else?

Do other effects treat as the Unarmed Strike as something that is not Limb-Agnostic?


Yes and no. In some cases ( adders strike ) you use a different limb per poison dose. In others (two weapon rend) you simply need two unarmed strikes that are count as different "hands".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That sounds terribly confusing.


Not really I don't perceive to know how to apply certain things like the paladin divine bond or bane. In my games it will be looked over and I'll decide then based on the numbers. But for feats or most class abilities is a pair of weapons if you TWF and its not if you don't. You don't get to two weapon rend if you attack with your dagger twice in one round so a kick and a punch wouldn't trigger unless you took TWF penalties.


Do "spells" treat unarmed strikes as one weapon, or does one spell treat unarmed strikes as one weapon?


fretgod99 wrote:
Do "spells" treat unarmed strikes as one weapon, or does one spell treat unarmed strikes as one weapon?

Spells treat it as one weapon. They're gonna update Magic Fang to say so(and probably other spells like it).


From the looks its Spells not just GMW.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

When you have Holy Sword cast upon your Unarmed Strike, you can have two.

This bypasses the wording of the spell, as it is still only one spell, but effecting it two weapons.


Not sure how relevant it isbut don't most spells require a weapon to be the target. To my knowledge, only monks treat their unarmed attacks as manufactured weapons which would imply normally, most weapon target spells will not affect unarmed strike (other than magic fang which spells out it affects unarmed strike)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

When you have Holy Sword cast upon your Unarmed Strike, you can have two.

This bypasses the wording of the spell, as it is still only one spell, but effecting it two weapons.

That's only an issue if your Paladin has levels in Monk. And even if it works the way you're claiming, it's such a corner case that I can't see it being a reason to invalidate anything you're continuously railing against.

You can just as easily say the "you can only have one such ..." language supersedes the MF FAQ language, so only one unarmed strike each rounds counts. So, just like you have to track unarmed strikes if you're TWF with them, you'd have to track it for Holy Sword. Only one such strike a round benefits the spell.

Which is ultimately my point in all of this - it's not a difficult "problem" to overcome. I understand what you're doing, but this Parade of Horribles of "Now we have to figure out [insert overblown issue]" isn't really a problem. I'm all for finding consistency issues in rules and poking holes in logic - I'm a lawyer for frack's sake. But the insistence with which you're pushing this agenda makes it feel like you're more interested in trying to show everybody how wrong it was that the FAQ came out disagreeing with you rather than actually addressing anything. Particularly because pretty much all of these issues (save maybe one or two that are corner cases that I gave a nod to previously) can be resolved quite simply by tracking attacks and treating multiple unarmed strikes like virtually every other situation of multiple attacks.

Arguing things like MWF means you get unlimited unarmed strikes just makes people roll their eyes at you and ignore the few instances of legitimate questioning you've brought up (e.g., polymorph). Allowing TWF with unarmed strikes makes far more sense than disallowing it, despite a limited number of issues we might now need to address within the rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So what happens when a Paladin applies the Speed property to his Unarmed Strike?

When he two-weapon fights, he suddenly has two Speed weapons.

Is this treated different than a PC wielding two Speed Daggers?

These "corner cases" may not effect everyone, but they are everywhere.

If seeking clarity vilifies me, then no Bond, I expect you to die.


I thought you could only ever get one extra attack using speed weapons or haste or anything similar?

Sczarni

I can't believe you're back to arguing this point of view blackbloodtroll.

Back in countless other arguments you've been shown many examples as to why you're wrong.

In this case SKR has said "no you can TWF, go read the FAQ we finally put up for you" because by and large you and maybe a few other people genuinely seemed to think you couldn't.

Your points about enchantments are totally just arguing for the sake of arguing. When a FAQ says "for the purpose of magic weapon and similar spells it counts as one" is clear as an azure sky. In all other cases it's as many weapons as you need.

These issues aren't "corner" cases. It's an effective spell or similar effect

Quote:

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

The paladin bond ability is a spell like power, so it certainly qualifies as "similar spell"

Quote:
Speed: When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)

The "not cumulative with similar effects" also include ANOTHER SPEED weapon, so your question is again irrelevant.

You've been shown time and time again to be incorrect on this issue, and now there's an official statement, and you're still arguing your point just in a different manner.

Why?


that's exactly how it works Drakkiel, so that's a pretty pointless example.

it seems like bbt is just trolling hoping that SOME 'problematic' issue will pop up, even though he's not really aware of one.
i mean, they could FAQ magic weapon to apply to all daggers on your person as if one weapon for the purpose of the spell,
would that create some other unplayable interaction elsewhere, or otherwise affect anything besides how single-weapon-buff spells work?
not really, even if applying to multiple daggers seems strange.

do you just not LIKE the ruling, or it's implicit shutting down of your pet theory of unitary singular UAS weapon?
it's not an issue of conflicting with other RAW, at most the issue was undecided before,
and now we have the FAQ allowing 2WF UAS/UAS which is in conformance with multiple distinct UAS weapons (punch/punch/kick/kick/headbutt for non-monks.)
if you think that going on never-ending fishing trips HOPING to point out some problem will make paizo change their ruling, i think you're mistaken.
if you don't like the rule/FAQ, then man up, and just say you won't follow that crappy rule of paizo's cuz you can house-rule it!
seriously, i 100% disagree with the direction they took to clarify the action of spring attack,
but that doesn't mean i try to drag the issue out in rules question threads,
it means when i'm not obligated to follow RAW (PFS), i use home-rule allowing an attack action interspliced within a move action.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No, I don't like it.

I suppose without a glaring issue caused by this current ruling, I should let it be.

I am very displeased with being called a troll, simply because some of ramifications of this ruling confuse me.

Simply denying that possible issues do not, and will not exist though, is disingenuous, and false.

Sczarni

It's easy to deny things that have been clearly FAQ'd

I'm glad you've finally admitted that for some reason you just have a personal issue and dislike with unarmed strike being a multiple weapon. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

I'm sure you're looking hard for potential problems, and that critique is a good thing. Just don't go making mountains out of mole hills.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It is still a vague FAQ.

Sczarni

What specific issues are you having between

"yes you can TWF with it" and "it counts as a single weapon for spells like magic weapon etc"


Disingenuous. Sure.

BTW, you're also dead wrong about this:

Quote:

Even Oozes can make unarmed strikes.

They have no "left fist/right fist", but they still have no more, or less, unarmed strikes, than say, the Octopus.
Even the Monk Octopus.

Unless an Ooze has Monk levels, they don't have any UAS attack(s).

Only 'fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders' are stated to be able to make UAS attacks.
Undead are Simple Weapon proficient and plausibly should (if still humanoid in form), although if UAS isn't in their stat-block that isn't quite RAW. Other creatures aren't even proficient in UAS outside of specific cases (Dragons while in Humanoid form, etc). If a non-humanoid/fey/etc creature does not have UAS attacks listed in their stat-block, there is nothing in the rules suggesting that they have them AFAIK. (and many creatures would still have Weapon Proficiency issues even if they did uniquely have UAS in their stat-block since it's not a Nat Wpn)

For most characters with UAS, the following weapons are their UAS attacks: (usually 2x) punches, (usually 2x) kicks, (usually 1) headbutt.
A monk expands that to elbows and knees. (which may mean that even Ooze Monks may be out of luck) ...Of course, having more wielded weapons doesn't give you more attacks, so it doesn't really matter if every molecule of the monk is a distinct weapon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No, all creatures can make unarmed strikes.

They don't need Monk levels.

Also, you are bringing the limbs back into the limb-agnostic weapon.

Sczarni

I'm still waiting on your explanation as to why it's still "vague"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

"Yes", is not "How".


You should have asked how many UAS weapon(s) characters have, not whether you can 2WF with it, then.

Sczarni

So it's vague because it doesn't tell you how an unarmed strike is physically made using two weapon fighting?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
lantzkev wrote:

So it's vague because it doesn't tell you how an unarmed strike is physically made using two weapon fighting?

Mechanically.

Sczarni

no... it's not. Give me one scenario where it makes one issue at all that it needs more of an explanation than "you can"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

At this point is it worth going through any of my examples, again?

Let's just go with "it works" and forget about how, or why.

Asking those kinds of questions makes me a troll, remember?

I need to slam my hands over my ears, and just answer any question with "It works! It works! It works! It works! It works! It works!"

I mean, any thing else just proves how wrong I am, at even asking.

Why question the FAQ?

Now, about that Racial Heritage thing.....

Sczarni

Well your questions are more like the kid that asks you a question, you give him a reply and then he says "why" and it spirals down until it gets to a point there's no explanation that can or should be given.

I don't see you asking how you can make an attack with a double weapon, or two weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodTROLL wrote:
I am very displeased with being called a troll...

I hate being accused of breaking stone.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
lantzkev wrote:

Well your questions are more like the kid that asks you a question, you give him a reply and then he says "why" and it spirals down until it gets to a point there's no explanation that can or should be given.

I don't see you asking how you can make an attack with a double weapon, or two weapons.

Neither of those are simultaneously one weapon.

Sczarni

It does not invalidate the question.

-edit-

Quote:
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

it is one weapon, or two....

you already have clear explanation of where unarmed strikes come from, clearly you can visualize how it works.

Your entire viewpoint and obstinence on this seems to originate that it's listed as a singular "unarmed strike"

You can't make the leap you do with someone wielding two "rapier" as them being two discreet seperate objects with identical rules and assume the same is happening here?

Before you had a semantic argument at the sketchiest, now that you've been told "no you can twf with it" you want them to break it down and say "because you have multiple unarmed strikes" you can do, and it's an explanation that's just not necessary for 99.9999% of the people that can read well enough to play this game.

You're either willfully ignoring how this can work because you don't like it, or you're just unable to comprehend. Either way like the prior conversations up until this FAQ where every possible explanation was given and you wouldn't accept it, I should just resign myself to the fact you won't ever accept this. There will always be a "why" followed by any explanation given.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
blackbloodTROLL wrote:
I am very displeased with being called a troll...
I hate being accused of breaking stone.

Not that kind of troll.

I got that from a period of time when I was homeless, in Seattle, and slept under a bridge. Thus, akin to the Fremont Troll.

It was in time long ago, before the internet.(I know, scary!)


how does it work? punches, kicks, headbutts, and (if monk) elbows and knees are UAS 'weapons'.
when you 2WF you can choose any weapon you are threatening with to make the attacks.
the main-hand needs to be a different weapon than the off-hand.
nothing else needed other than the 2WF modifiers and normal attack roll rules.
if you are holding two daggers, you can 2WF with two daggers, punches/kick/etc are just alot of UAS weapons you can choose to use.

as i wrote, it doesn't seem like you really have a question about UAS 2WF'ing, you may have another question about how many UAS weapon(s) creatures have, i.e. whether the rules really mean what they say when they describe punches, kicks, etc as being UAS attacks. if you ever thought UAS was just a single unitary limb-agnostic weapon, the 2WF shows that the other reading is correct, so i think we can use the punch/kick/etc definition just fine for what UAS 'weapons' you have available. apparently you have another question of whether UAS is secretly a capability of all creatures regardless of type, even though the rules specifically grant it to only certain types... but those are different questions, not a problem with a vague answer to the stated question (if you can 2WF with UAS, which you can, and there's no special rules for doing that).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I will bring this up in a separate thread.

151 to 185 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / TWF with Unarmed Strike All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.