TWF with Unarmed Strike


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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:

Sean The Designer Man wrote:
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.


Cheapy wrote:

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:

Sean The Designer Man wrote:
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.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It goes back farther than that. Google/search the forums.


If by "yesterday", you mean over two years ago, then yes... we've been arguing since "yesterday".


I meant in the newest posts. Still my point remains valid.


Chaotic Fighter wrote:
I meant in the newest posts. Still my point remains valid.

and that is?


This particular argument needs big wig intervention.


Chaotic Fighter wrote:
This particular argument needs big wig intervention.

No it doesn't. The rules say clearly that you can.

Two weapon fighing feat wrote:
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.


wombatkidd wrote:
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
This particular argument needs big wig intervention.

No it doesn't. The rules say clearly that you can.

Two weapon fighing feat wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


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:

Chaotic Fighter wrote:
This particular argument needs big wig intervention.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rathyr wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Rathyr wrote:

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.

No yourself? Of course it's relevant.

"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)."

Explain how is the user going to use TWF with melee touch attacks? In order to use two doses, you have to either be TWFing (with unarmed strikes, no other options given) or have two natural attacks (from your hands, slam/claws). There is no way to deliver two poisons with melee touch attacks, thus you must be able to TWF with unarmed strikes.

There are many other examples, posted many times. The one thing that SHOULD be agreed upon is that it is not clear as it could be, and should be clarified.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I admit that there are examples that confuse the issue.

I would like Developer confirmation.

It is still my firm believe that unarmed strike is one weapon.

Lantern Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
kaisc006 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
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.

Lantern Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
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.

Lantern Lodge

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.


I could live with the following:

1) Firm clarification that Unarmed Strike is a single weapon for all purposes. It is a single target for enhancement spells/effects, it's a single weapon for TWF, and it's entirely limb-abstract so it doesn't interfere with any other actions (the argument that if US is "whole-body", it interferes with all Natural Attacks).

2) An addition to the Brawler, Greater rage ability that, in addition to granting TWF, also lets you use IUS as a 'double' weapon and ignore the 2-h requirement thereof. While Unarmed Fighter tends to focus more on the 'Monk' weapon category and they're already infringing quite a bit on the Monk's schtick, I see Brawler Barbarians focusing more on the Unarmed aspect and they aren't as commonly referenced so I wouldn't mind that they are able to double-fight with unarmed strikes limited by their rounds of rage.

I think these two changes would solve all applicable problems in terms of clarification of the rules and balance between classes.


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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avianfoo wrote:

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.

You can't TWF with a single weapon, but you can Flurry with a single weapon. So using Unarmed Strike x2 for TWF has no bearing whatsoever on your ability to Flurry with straight Unarmed Strike; your argument is invalid.

You know what this discussion reminds me of? When I told people that you can't get the bonus attack from Haste or fight defensively while doing Spell Combat because it's a full-round Use Special Ability action rather than a Full-Attack action. A good number of people were against me on that... It turns out I was right. It also reminds me of the situation with using Sunder with the Attack action. I told people that, as written, you can only Sunder with Attack; not Full-Attack, not at the end of a Charge, not as an AoO. Many people said that it was fine the way it was written. Well, guess what... it turns out I was right in my reading; the way it was written, it would work the way I described and it was just written wrong and required an errata. That isn't to say that I can never be wrong; but I read and analyse the rules with the eye of an architect and designer. I see the connections and balance in the abstract system where others simply see the surface of the game. I read the implications while others read the traditions. I'm quite often correct in my readings because of hard logical interpretation. As such, I'm often right and, when I'm wrong, it points to an error in the writing far more often than an error in my reading. Now, do the devs want Unarmed Strikes to couple with TWF? Who's to say other than them. But I've not only provided logical readings of the rules as they exist now, but also logical options for them to change those rules should their intent differ from what can be derived from RAW. So, just like those other issues, at this point we're just rehashing and pointing out technicalities and inconsistencies and the best we can probably do at this point is FAQ the appropriate threads and wait for the devs to hammer out the details, decide what their original intent was, whether they want to stick with that original intent or change it, and publish their conclusions.


Kazaan wrote:
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.


Grick wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
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

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. Do not call other posters trolls, please.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Like I said, everyone else sees reason, bkackblood troll is the only one confusing people who ask this question anew.


JB and SKR have both made errors in the past; answering rule question X and using an incidental or tangential example that doesn't actually work. Moreover, even when they make official responses, those responses can be redacted like when they did a complete 180 regarding single-weapon Flurry. But, regarding this issue, no official FAQ/Errata has been released. Posts by one dev or another on the forums don't quite match up to something posted on the official FAQ page or a direct response to the question at hand. Now, granted, there are some situations where there is correlation between two related subjects. For example, there's a FAQ stating that you can use Dex on CMB calculation if you're performing a combat maneuver that utilizes your weapon and you are using Weapon Finesse. By extension, that also means that if you're using a Guided weapon, those same maneuvers can trade out Str for Wis. It's not explicitly stated in the Finesse + Maneuver FAQ, but it's an analogous situation with clear correlation. But the comment regarding making main+off-hand attacks with only Unarmed Strikes was A) Discussing a completely different and unrelated subject, B) Not corroborated with an official FAQ release, and C) Made at a time when the devs were still considering each separate limb a separate target for Magic Fang and that a single casting would only enhance one striking surface at a time (a stance that was later redacted and reversed). But the most important point is that the subject is in contest. There are strong positions on both sides, frankly. The proper response isn't, "There isn't a problem, just do it the way we've always accepted and don't question popular opinion." The proper response is, "This is a question that needs a firm and official answer one way or the other." The topic isn't a trolling matter and it's really a poor position in a debate to resort to Argumentum ad Hominem to prove a point.


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.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Neo2151 wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I have no desire to bash Paizo(seriously, why are you here then?) and it contributes nothing.

So, as there seems to be Developer attention now, let's propose the question:

Can you two-weapon fight with the Unarmed Strike as both the Primary, and Off-hand?


Judging from your response, SKR, I presume that this is an issue that you don't want to commit to one way or the other at this time and it's either slated to be discussed or is in the process of being discussed to decide which way you guys want to swing on it? If that's the case, the official chime-in is much appreciated as we know that the issue has gotten some official attention; can't ask for much more than that. All we ask is that the matter is carefully deliberated with regards to the way the rules are currently written, tradition, and character balance, much of which has been brought to the table already on the various threads debating the subject and that the final judgement give meaningful parity to the system.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a FAQ posted about it today in the Core Rulebook section.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright, it's official:

FAQ wrote:

Unarmed Strike: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make two unarmed strikes in one round?

Yes.

Such a simple answer seems a bit lackluster next to the debate that surrounded it, but it clears the ambiguity. Unarmed Strike is an exceptional case and you can TWF with it and it alone.


Woot!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, that is vague.

Does it count as multiple weapons for feats and effects?

1 to 50 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.