|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am considering giving a character improved unarmed strike and want to know if there is any official ruling on how much variety there is in such attacks apart from just punching someone.
Can it represent all sorts of unarmed attacks that we see in the real world?
Punching, knees, kicks, scratching, gouging, head-butts, elbows, or even bites (a la Luis Suarez or Mike Tyson)?
I am not asking for opinions here... is there anything OFFICIAL out there about how much lee-way there is in how such an attack is delivered?
|
|
There isn't any part of your body specified.
Keep in mind you can't attack with a Greatsword then kick, since you already used your "offhand" to use the Greatsword.
Yeah, most of the posts I see with regard to Unarmed strike involve trying to get more attacks out of it... so I can see you leaping to that. In fact it was the proliferation of questions like those (to the exclusion of all else) that led me to ask. I could not find an appropriate thread here.
I am more concerned with whether an Undead or Sanguine bloodline Sorcerer can use it to represent more characterful bites and scratches... and still remain within the rules. Kung Fu and boxing are not within the character concept.
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
This is from the monk page on unarmed strikes. As long as you do not use an item held in either had for an attack (or as spell completion item), then you can use any body part not occupied, in any order.
|
|
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
This is from the monk page on unarmed strikes. As long as you do not use an item held in either had for an attack (or as spell completion item), then you can use any body part not occupied, in any order.
It's the reference to "fists, elbows, knees, and feet" that worries me. I am uncertain about how exclusive this list is. There are many things NOT on this list. I am also uncertain about how much rules under monks even apply to non-monks with improved unarmed strike.
That's part of the reason I was asking if there was some official clarification.
It's the reference to "fists, elbows, knees, and feet" that worries me. I am uncertain about how exclusive this list is. There are many things NOT on this list. I am also uncertain about how much rules under monks even apply to non-monks with improved unarmed strike.
That's part of the reason I was asking if there was some official clarification.
Well, there is the section on 'Combat' in the CRB which discusses unarmed strikes, which is written under the assumption that you do not have IUS (which means that you are not a monk):
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as shed light (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
Since it also includes headbutts to the list, I think that it is fairly safe to assume that you can use any limb...thing (I am unsure how to deal with belly flops, butt bumps, and shoulder strikes though....because....come on....)
I'm struggling to understand why you care?
There is no mechanical benefit to doing anything but saying "I'm doing an unarmed strike with a valid part of my body" vs "I'm kicking as an unarmed strike".
It might matter if you are holding something fragile in your hands, and cannot make a punch without dropping/breaking said object. Otherwise, yes, there is no real mechanical benefit besides "I use a valid body part and take no risk of dropping my item".
From FAQ:
"Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?
As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.
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."
I bolded the key part
EDIT: I vaguely recall that unarmed strikes did bludgeoning damage, but I can't seem to find that in the rules anywhere...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm struggling to understand why you care?
There is no mechanical benefit to doing anything but saying "I'm doing an unarmed strike with a valid part of my body" vs "I'm kicking as an unarmed strike".
Because saying "The Ustalavian BITES you" has a great deal more connotation with regards to what the players are dealing with as opposed to "For some bizarre reason, this Dracula reject karate chops you..."
It is not mere roleplay (though that is important enough), but the type of unarmed attack may actually convey information that the players need in order to piece things together.
|
|
From FAQ:
"Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?
As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.
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."I bolded the key part
EDIT: I vaguely recall that unarmed strikes did bludgeoning damage, but I can't seem to find that in the rules anywhere...
Perfect! That's what I was looking for. Thank you.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p331&page=6?What-Exactly-Is-a-Tentacle-Att ack#254
This post also gives insight into the design process.
from the combat section of the PRD "Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal)"
Unarmed strikes are bludgeoning, so scratching (Slashing)/biting(B,P&S) might run into trouble. You need feats to change your damage type (such as the style feats).
|
|
from the combat section of the PRD "Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal)"
Unarmed strikes are bludgeoning, so scratching (Slashing)/biting(B,P&S) might run into trouble. You need feats to change your damage type (such as the style feats).
That's fine by me. Just so vampire cultists can legally train to Improved Unarmed Strike with their teeth and fingernails... damage type is not a big deal in this case.
Thanks to you all for the clarifications.