wielding a weapon in the mouth.


Advice


Hi, I've been watching a bunch of anime lately and I've noticed that its quite a common trope to see someone wield a weapon in there mouths. Zolo in one piece uses this 'three sword style' technique and Zabuza in naruto used a knife in his mouth when both his arms were out of commission. So I was wondering. is there any mechanism in pathfinder that would allow a player to use say a light weapon in their mouth?


Someone wrote a home brew class for this last year. The major problem with it was that the person wanted to be able to do it at low level.

There is no existing mechanic.


No.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If your GM wants to run a silly type anime style game the sky's the limit. For anything more serious, or with more verisimilitude than that, the answer is no.


You don't need a mechanic for it.

For me, it's so ridiculously unrealistic that I wouldn't allow a humanoid to do it at all (but I might allow some monsters with huge necks/mouths to pull it off, though their natural bite would probably be better anyway). But that's me. I like realism. Not everybody does.

So, ignoring realism for a moment, why not just do it?

The rules say "A light weapon is used in one hand." They go on to talk about how much STR mod you get with primary or off-hand or two-hand use.

So just ignore the part about "hand". Keep the rest about STR modifier. Now you can use a light weapon without hands (hold it in your mouth, or stick it in your ear, or find other body orifices that you might prefer) and swing it to your heart's content, but since it's not in your hand, there is no STR modifier for damage.

For a bit more realism, you might add additional houserules about weapon size. I find it unrealistic that a man could wield a short sword with his mouth, but a dagger might be plausible, and a needle is downright believable. So just require the weapon to be one size-category smaller if realism is a factor. No "medium" light weapons for a medium humanoid, but "small" light weapons might seem plausible, or even "tiny" one-handed weapons.

You probably should tack on the non-proficiency penalty because nobody trains to fight like this, so anyone doing it is automatically non-proficient with this kind of weapon-use. Then maybe add a feat (Handless Weaponry) that removes that non-proficiency penalty for anyone who actually does want to train this way.

Finally, don't let anyone get extra attacks from this. Using a longsword in your hand and a shortsword in your mouth should use the same rules as any other Two Weapon Fighting. And if you use three weapons (one in each hand and one in your mouth) then treat it like two weapon fighting but allow the guy to pick either non-Primary weapon to make his off-hand attacks (but he still doesn't get extra attacks).

None of it is RAW, but I don't think it would break the game in any way.


LazarX wrote:
If your GM wants to run a silly type anime style game the sky's the limit. For anything more serious, or with more verisimilitude than that, the answer is no.

for starters I find your notion that campaign's that contain characters who can perform anime like feats to be inherently silly, ridiculous. the idea that you can have serious games where people can breath fire but any game where a person dares to wield a dagger in their mouth is somehow less serious. I don't mean to go on a rant but this kind of snobbery really irks me. its right up there with people who claim that comics and cartoons, by there very nature are exclusively for children.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

You don't need a mechanic for it.

For me, it's so ridiculously unrealistic that I wouldn't allow a humanoid to do it at all (but I might allow some monsters with huge necks/mouths to pull it off, though their natural bite would probably be better anyway). But that's me. I like realism. Not everybody does.

So, ignoring realism for a moment, why not just do it?

The rules say "A light weapon is used in one hand." They go on to talk about how much STR mod you get with primary or off-hand or two-hand use.

So just ignore the part about "hand". Keep the rest about STR modifier. Now you can use a light weapon without hands (hold it in your mouth, or stick it in your ear, or find other body orifices that you might prefer) and swing it to your heart's content, but since it's not in your hand, there is no STR modifier for damage.

For a bit more realism, you might add additional houserules about weapon size. I find it unrealistic that a man could wield a short sword with his mouth, but a dagger might be plausible, and a needle is downright believable. So just require the weapon to be one size-category smaller if realism is a factor. No "medium" light weapons for a medium humanoid, but "small" light weapons might seem plausible, or even "tiny" one-handed weapons.

You probably should tack on the non-proficiency penalty because nobody trains to fight like this, so anyone doing it is automatically non-proficient with this kind of weapon-use. Then maybe add a feat (Handless Weaponry) that removes that non-proficiency penalty for anyone who actually does want to train this way.

Finally, don't let anyone get extra attacks from this. Using a longsword in your hand and a shortsword in your mouth should use the same rules as any other Two Weapon Fighting. And if you use three weapons (one in each hand and one in your mouth) then treat it like two weapon fighting but allow the guy to pick either non-Primary weapon to make his off-hand attacks (but he still doesn't get extra attacks).

None of it is RAW, but I...

first of all, thank you for ideas about how you would implement such a thing. but in all fairness, a game where you have wizards firing lightning bolts at dragons. I don't think its such a stretch to have a humanoid character be able to wield a sword within his teeth. I understand that one is magical, but if you have magic in a world I don't think its much of a stretch to believe that humans in said would be able to achieve extrodinary physical feats.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Someone wrote a home brew class for this last year. The major problem with it was that the person wanted to be able to do it at low level.

There is no existing mechanic.

you wouldn't happen to know what the person named that class or where I would find it would you? and thank you for responding.


BlackJack Weasel wrote:
first of all, thank you for ideas about how you would implement such a thing.

You're welcome.

BlackJack Weasel wrote:
but in all fairness, a game where you have wizards firing lightning bolts at dragons. I don't think its such a stretch to have a humanoid character be able to wield a sword within his teeth. I understand that one is magical, but if you have magic in a world I don't think its much of a stretch to believe that humans in said would be able to achieve extrodinary physical feats.

Wait a minute. What's this all about?

Nothing I said other than my second paragraph had anything to do with magic vs. reality, and in that paragraph I conceded the point that not everyone plays the way I do. I gave you what I believe to be fair, balanced, and thorough advice on how to implement what you want in such a way that it meshes with the rest of the game and doesn't clash with other rules.

Instead of evaluating and/or discussing the (hopefully) balanced rules advice I gave, you just complain that humans should be able to perform extraordinary physical feats (which, by the way, the rules I suggested would totally let them do).

I guess what you wanted was:

What I should have said wrote:

Sure! Yeah! Do it!

Hey, in a world where you have wizards firing lightning bolts at dragons, you should not only have people wielding greatswords with their tongues, you should also be able to spit greatswords at dragons, too! Say, 5 ranged touch spit attacks per round, with such deadly accuracy that they crit on a 15-20 for x4 damage.

Hey, with wizards/lightning/dragons in the game, we don't need any game balance at all, so just make up whatever you like!

Give me a moment and I'll make up a character class that can wield a greatsword in each hand, one in his mouth, two more in his ears, two more in his nostrils, and one in his belly button, for a total 8 greatsword attacks each round. At level 1. And he'll have that ranged greatsword spit attack too, but probably not until level two.

After all, that's still not as cool as wizards firing lightning bolts at dragons.

Would that have made you feel better?


Well that escalated quickly.

I'd keep it simple. Non-proficiency penalty with a feat to remove it. Works with two weapon fighting, but not for more attacks than you'd get with the feat already.


Also, Ponyfinder lets you wield swords in mouths. :P


DM_Blake wrote:
BlackJack Weasel wrote:
first of all, thank you for ideas about how you would implement such a thing.

You're welcome.

BlackJack Weasel wrote:
but in all fairness, a game where you have wizards firing lightning bolts at dragons. I don't think its such a stretch to have a humanoid character be able to wield a sword within his teeth. I understand that one is magical, but if you have magic in a world I don't think its much of a stretch to believe that humans in said would be able to achieve extrodinary physical feats.

Wait a minute. Watt's this all about?

Nothing I said other than my second paragraph had anything to do with magic vs. reality, and in that paragraph I conceded the point that not everyone plays the way I do. I gave you what I believe to be fair, balanced, and thorough advice on how to implement what you want in such a way that it meshes with the rest of the game and doesn't clash with other rules.

Instead of evaluating and/or discussing the (hopefully) balanced rules advice I gave, you just complain that humans should be able to perform extraordinary physical feats (which, by the way, the rules I suggested would totally let them do).

I guess what you wanted was:

What I should have said wrote:

Sure! Yeah! Do it!

Hey, in a world where you have wizards firing lightning bolts at dragons, you should not only have people wielding greatswords with their tongues, you should also be able to spit greatswords at dragons, too! Say, 5 ranged touch spit attacks per round, with such deadly accuracy that they crit on a 15-20 for x4 damage.

Hey, with wizards/lightning/dragons in the game, we don't need any game balance at all, so just make up whatever you like!

Give me a moment and I'll make up a character class that can wield a greatsword in each hand, one in his mouth, two more in his ears, two more in his nostrils, and one in his belly button, for a total 8 greatsword attacks each round. At level 1. And he'll have that ranged greatsword spit attack too,

...

I'm confused... I didn't take exception to anything you said. I'm not complaining at all. I was just expressing my feelings that in a game with magic I don't think wielding a sword in a mouth is too unrealistic. I didn't say I think the way you do things or what you think is wrong so I don't understand the hostility. I'm not asking you to think like me or else your stupid, thats actually the kind of thing that really winds me up.


"You can ask an audience to believe the impossible, but not the improbable."

That aside, from a balance point, attacking with 3 weapons isn't really a problem (natural weapons users do it all the time).

Custom Feat: Santoryu
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +4

Benefit: You can wield a one-handed melee weapon in your mouth. This allows you to either wield that weapon as your primary weapon (in which case you can't make any off-hand attacks) or get an extra attack with it in addition to your normal attacks, albeit at a –5 penalty. When not used as the primary weapon, this counts as an off hand.

Normal: You can only wield weapons in your hands.

Special: This feat qualifies you for the Multiweapon Fighting feat.

Basically, that's just a modified version of improved TWF.
One ould even imagine a special weapon crafted for mouth-use type that lowers the attack malus.


Fair enough.

Your response made it appear that you were objecting to my post. "But" is a negative conjugation. It literally means that everything following the but is in contrast to what came before. Before your "but" you seemed to approve of my post, therefore, after the "but" must contrast, disapprove. And your reasons for disapproving were that magic exists so people should be able to do extraordinary things.

So you see, your post actually, literally, did "take exception" to what I said. Since you took exception to the balanced suggestion, I gave you an unbalanced one instead.

If you didn't mean to take exception and perhaps misused "but" in error, then I totally rescind my second suggestion and apologize for taking exception to your (inadvertent) taking exception.


Wait, so 5 ranged touch spit attacks per round, with such deadly accuracy that they crit on a 15-20 for x4 damage is an example of poor game balance?

You realize that at mid to higher levels, damage is certainly not the most unbalancing factor to game balance, right? It's options. The ability to do something that has an appreciable outcome on the story, so to speak.

Martials don't need higher damage numbers, and even if your little scenario were allowed, it wouldn't shift the caster martial disparity one iota. Realism should never come into play as a reason for denying something in a fantasy game. Besides, an optimized wizard can take out a dragon with a single Save or Suck, a lot easier than even Mr. 8 Greatsword spitting guy can hope to accomplish.

As for the mouth wielding, @OP, know that you can fluff your character the way you want to. There's no mechanical difference between attacking with a weapon in your teeth as opposed to attacking with a weapon in your hand. If you have 3 attacks, you can attack with a weapon held in each if you wish. Remember that if nothing else, you control your character's description.

The only thing is, holding a weapon in your mouth won't give you any extra attacks beyond the generic Two Weapon Fighting. However, since even gaining extra hands doesn't give you extra attacks, it wouldn't really matter either way. Pathfinder is weird like that.

Alternatively though, you could use Two Weapon fighting to simulate Zoro's two hands, and then obtain a third bite/gore attack which you can use after you've made your attacks. This too, can be fluffed to be a weapon attack (but mechanically, you'll have to treat it as a natural attack).


here is a weapon that doesn't use any hands. and here is a weapon that is a beard, which is basically what you'd be doing with a weapon in your mouth.

So some kind of weapon that works like these two would be fine.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Reflavor a Barbazu beard as a dagger held in the mouth. MAYBE slap the improvised weapon penalty on it, unless you somehow modify the grip especially for being held in the teeth.


SlimGauge wrote:
Reflavor a Barbazu beard as a dagger held in the mouth. MAYBE slap the improvised weapon penalty on it, unless you somehow modify the grip especially for being held in the teeth.

actually that does seem to be pretty awesome. thanks :)


If a weapon was designed for this purpose it might work. A barbazu beard is a great example. A helmet with a boar-inspired mouth piece could work.

Certainly not a regular weapon meant to be wielded in a hand.

The thing about this is that it makes the game sillier. If your group likes silly, or you're playing a campaign like Castle Greyhawk or something, go for it. If you have some players wanting to play a classic, somewhat grounded and realistic swords and sorcery campaign and another player swinging swords in their teeth, someone is going to end up pissed off.

It is all about determining your creative agenda beforehand so everyone is on the same page. In this case, that page is going to be pretty ridiculous, which can be a lot of fun if everyone is in the mood to be ridiculous together.

If you decide to do this don't be surprised if you end up with other characters based around other absurd things, like a wizard who's spells are all based on sneezing, or a monk who fights by tickling people.


You want ridiculous? :P


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Don't ask the wizard to cast Mad Monkeys because they might come from here.


Paulicus wrote:
You want ridiculous? :P

He's a Hunter bonded to an Octopus-Chimera who somehow acquired 8 tentacle attacks and traded them in for the ability to swing 8 swords in a natural attack routine.

SlimGauge wrote:
Don't ask the wizard to cast Mad Monkeys because they might come from here.

Like So


LazarX wrote:
If your GM wants to run a silly type anime style game the sky's the limit. For anything more serious, or with more verisimilitude than that, the answer is no.

Yeah, but if you want a serious game you better stick to fire ball shooting robe-wearing geezers battling come-back-from-dead monstruosities and earning the trust of the God-Princess of the Moon (who actually has something going with the main character).

Gaming is serious business, y'all.

TO THE OP

I would imagine re-skinning any extra attack would be easily done to fit with this theme. Say, if your Ninja takes a swift action (ki) to make an extra attack, this could be from a sword in his mouth (Roronoa). Or if you have a Bite attack, ask your DM if it could be a weapon instead.
I agree with DM_Blake that you dont need a mechanic for it - the mouth-knife/sword is generally an extra attack of some sort, so the mechanics are already there.


I'd say a weapon wielded in the mouth would be an improvised weapon.


Why bother with mouth-swords when you could grapple a dude with your ass and kill his friends with him?

How deep does this rabbit hole go, really?


Melkiador wrote:
I'd say a weapon wielded in the mouth would be an improvised weapon.

No, not improvised. An improvised weapon is when you have something that is NOT a weapon and yet you try to use it like you would use a weapon. Or you have an actual weapon but you do something with it that is not intended, like clubbing someone with the flat side of a sword, thumping someone with the haft of a polearm.

In the case of holding a sword with your, you really are still slashing with the sharp edge of the blade, therefore, you're using a real weapon to do what it's supposed to do - you're just holding it wrong.

Holding weapons badly is already covered by a different rule: Non-Proficiency.


^ this is how I'd rule it.


DM_Blake wrote:
you have an actual weapon but you do something with it that is not intended

I'd say wielding a sword with your mouth is not the "intended" design of the weapon.


There certainly could be a sword designed to be wielded in the mouth. There is already a helmet made for bashing and a boot made for stabbing, so a weapon doesn't have to be wielded in a literal hand to be a weapon.

Edit: Although now I wonder what happens if you try to wield a blade boot in your hand. It's a blade, so it should clearly be some sort of weapon. Would you consider it to be an improvised weapon in that situation?

Sczarni

DM_Blake wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I'd say a weapon wielded in the mouth would be an improvised weapon.

No, not improvised. An improvised weapon is when you have something that is NOT a weapon and yet you try to use it like you would use a weapon. Or you have an actual weapon but you do something with it that is not intended, like clubbing someone with the flat side of a sword, thumping someone with the haft of a polearm.

In the case of holding a sword with your, you really are still slashing with the sharp edge of the blade, therefore, you're using a real weapon to do what it's supposed to do - you're just holding it wrong.

Holding weapons badly is already covered by a different rule: Non-Proficiency.

I feel obliged to point out that nonproficiency and improvised weapons both have the same penalty (-4), so it doesn't really matter a whole lot which one applies.

I would also suggest that perhaps, if a character has a bite attack (alternate Half-Orc, Tiefling, or Tengu racial trait) then they could take a feat to wield a weapon in their jaws.


Silent Saturn wrote:
I feel obliged to point out that nonproficiency and improvised weapons both have the same penalty (-4), so it doesn't really matter a whole lot which one applies.

You've forgotten that BOTH may be applicable.

Woe be unto the gripply Sword-Mouth who is wielding his sword incorrectly (in his mouth) and therefore suffering a non-proficiency penalty, and then he decides to hold it by the blade (with his teeth) and club his enemies with the hilt, making it an improvised club. Now he is -8 for being non-proficient with his improvised weapon.

(which sounds like nonsense, but hey, "When in Rome...")


How I would do it is to make it for Warrior and fighter only. Here is a feat I just made up.

Sword-Mouth Style(Combat, Style)

You forgo the traditional way of swordmanship and wield a sword with your mouth. Many consider it is impossible, but you accepted the challenge.

Prerequisites: Str 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Warrior level 5/ Fighter level 5.

Benefit: While using this style, you may use your mouth to wield a weapon in hand. Such weapon must be light or one handed weapon with no reach property, also it must be a weapon usable with the Weapon Finesse feat. This weapon consider off hand weapon, however, no strength bonus may apply to its damage roll. When fighting in this way you suffer a –4 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –8 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If that weapon in your mouth is a light weapon, the penalty reduce by 2 for each weapon. This penalty stacks with the penalty from two weapon fighting. If you entered this style with a weapon in your mouth while have a weapon in each hand, you may make one extra attack with the weapon in your mouth per round that stack with your other off hand weapon.

Special: The penalty from this feat remains as long as you are maintain in this style.

Normal: You cannot wield weapon in your mouth as off hand weapon. You may not make three attacks with Base Attack Bonus of 5 using weapons.


DoubleBubble wrote:

How I would do it is to make it for Warrior and fighter only. Here is a feat I just made up.

Sword-Mouth Style(Combat, Style)

You forgo the traditional way of swordmanship and wield a sword with your mouth. Many consider it is impossible, but you accepted the challenge.

Prerequisites: Str 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Warrior level 5/ Fighter level 5.

Benefit: While using this style, you may use your mouth to wield a weapon in hand. Such weapon must be light or one handed weapon with no reach property, also it must be a weapon usable with the Weapon Finesse feat. This weapon consider off hand weapon, however, no strength bonus may apply to its damage roll. When fighting in this way you suffer a –4 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –8 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If that weapon in your mouth is a light weapon, the penalty reduce by 2 for each weapon. This penalty stacks with the penalty from two weapon fighting. If you entered this style with a weapon in your mouth while have a weapon in each hand, you may make one extra attack with the weapon in your mouth per round that stack with your other off hand weapon.

Special: The penalty from this feat remains as long as you are maintain in this style.

Normal: You cannot wield weapon in your mouth as off hand weapon. You may not make three attacks with Base Attack Bonus of 5 using weapons.

I don't really like the warrior/fighter only part. (Why should the NPC-class warrior get something like this when a barbarian or monk can't?)

As far as mouth-wielding? I would agree to limit to light or finesse one-handers, no STR bonus, TWF-style penalties, and need a feat to avoid improv issues. That -4 for improv and nonproficiency also applies to another way to wield a weapon 'wrong' -- use it to switch from lethal to subdual. Setting your warhammer to stun is a -4, so trying to mouthswing it would probably be the same. (And have fun trying to subdue someone with it.)


Nah, normal one-handers should be allowed as well. This whole theme is frequently used with Katanas for example.


Qaianna wrote:
DoubleBubble wrote:

How I would do it is to make it for Warrior and fighter only. Here is a feat I just made up.

Sword-Mouth Style(Combat, Style)

You forgo the traditional way of swordmanship and wield a sword with your mouth. Many consider it is impossible, but you accepted the challenge.

Prerequisites: Str 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Warrior level 5/ Fighter level 5.

Benefit: While using this style, you may use your mouth to wield a weapon in hand. Such weapon must be light or one handed weapon with no reach property, also it must be a weapon usable with the Weapon Finesse feat. This weapon consider off hand weapon, however, no strength bonus may apply to its damage roll. When fighting in this way you suffer a –4 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –8 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If that weapon in your mouth is a light weapon, the penalty reduce by 2 for each weapon. This penalty stacks with the penalty from two weapon fighting. If you entered this style with a weapon in your mouth while have a weapon in each hand, you may make one extra attack with the weapon in your mouth per round that stack with your other off hand weapon.

Special: The penalty from this feat remains as long as you are maintain in this style.

Normal: You cannot wield weapon in your mouth as off hand weapon. You may not make three attacks with Base Attack Bonus of 5 using weapons.

I don't really like the warrior/fighter only part. (Why should the NPC-class warrior get something like this when a barbarian or monk can't?)

As far as mouth-wielding? I would agree to limit to light or finesse one-handers, no STR bonus, TWF-style penalties, and need a feat to avoid improv issues. That -4 for improv and nonproficiency also applies to another way to wield a weapon 'wrong' -- use it to switch from lethal to subdual. Setting your warhammer to stun is a -4, so trying to mouthswing it would probably be the same. (And have fun trying to subdue someone...

The reason for the warrior and fighter only because only those classes would have a dedication to train with a sword in his mouth. Monk would no do that because it is not part of any teaching that has been pass down to us. I'm not an expert in martial art, but I do train in almost all the martial art I know existing in my city from either club or self taught through book. Not one would teach you to hold weapon in your mouth. Barbarian would not hold weapon with their mouth, as even if they lost both arms, the first thing they would think of would be kicking. If all limbs are lost, they would rather bite.

Of course mouth swing would have to take that -4 penalty as well. It's just to show how impossible it is to do it, but when you do, it's awesome.


Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I love that this thread exists, thank you one and all:-)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Nah, normal one-handers should be allowed as well. This whole theme is frequently used with Katanas for example.

Of course the whole theme is to use katanas. However, as game designer, each feat has to be balance as well as maintain a story telling element. All style feats comes in trees. So here I present the second feat.

Sword-Mouth Expert(Combat, Style)

While many consider wielding weapon with mouth is impossible to be effective in combat, you are the living proof that they are wrong.

Prerequisites: Str 19, Sword-Mouth Style, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improve Weapon Finesse, Warrior level 9/ Fighter level 9.

Benefit: While using Sword-Mouth Style, you may use your mouth to wield any light or one handed weapon with no reach property, also it not longer has be a weapon usable with the Weapon Finesse feat. In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with from this feat, you get a second attack that stacks with your other off hand weapon if you are holding any, albeit at a –5 penalty.

Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an that weapon in your mouth. The would would had to be usable with the Weapon Finesse feat.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.

And those who spent time to come up with such style would be either fighter or warrior because they spend the time to engineer the techniques through actual combat. Also game design-wise, it's to stop it from combining flurry of blows. If you really want a monk to have so many attacks, perhaps ask your GM to house rule it. But then again, not sure if he would be happy about it.


DoubleBubble wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.

And those who spent time to come up with such style would be either fighter or warrior because they spend the time to engineer the techniques through actual combat. Also game design-wise, it's to stop it from combining flurry of blows. If you really want a monk to have so many attacks, perhaps ask your GM to house rule it. But then again, not sure if he would be happy about it.

Usually I am the GM, and I'd be totally fine with something like this. Perhaps adding an additional -1 penalty to all attack rolls for having the third weapon.

EDIT: also I take issue with the thematic claim that Monk schools are founded by Fighters. Fighters and Monks are so far divorced thematically [somewhat less so with certain archetypes] that this is freaking ridiculous.

A monk is a warrior philosopher seeking enlightenment and the mastery of his body and soul. This does not preclude experimentation and development of new arts.


DoubleBubble wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.

And those who spent time to come up with such style would be either fighter or warrior because they spend the time to engineer the techniques through actual combat. Also game design-wise, it's to stop it from combining flurry of blows. If you really want a monk to have so many attacks, perhaps ask your GM to house rule it. But then again, not sure if he would be happy about it.

Again, having an NPC-class (remember, they're meant to NOT be awesome) eligible for this seems wrong.

I used barbarians and monks as an example because I like the classes' core ideas (RAEG and punch the dragon) but can anyone imagine a pirate-like class (say, ranger or rogue or swashbuckler or barbarian or bard) NOT trying to do this? A warrior-class is someone who basically goes 'pick up sword, swing'; in contrast with the fighter, the Warrior class gets no bonus feats or anything like that.


If I were to rule on this, I would 100% just reflavor the barbazu beard.

Exotic proficiency, worse-than-dagger stats, provokes on attack, counts as touching creatures. All of these things 'balance' it just fine. It already works within the rules, since you can't swing more than two weapons (see: spiked armor with another weapon), and it requires no changes to the system beyond the name and appearance of the (already ridiculous sounding) weapon.

If you want to make it more usable, you could always make them spend a trait on negating the 'provokes on use' part of the counts-as dagger-in-mouth-face-beard-rules-weapon.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
DoubleBubble wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.

And those who spent time to come up with such style would be either fighter or warrior because they spend the time to engineer the techniques through actual combat. Also game design-wise, it's to stop it from combining flurry of blows. If you really want a monk to have so many attacks, perhaps ask your GM to house rule it. But then again, not sure if he would be happy about it.

Usually I am the GM, and I'd be totally fine with something like this. Perhaps adding an additional -1 penalty to all attack rolls for having the third weapon.

EDIT: also I take issue with the thematic claim that Monk schools are founded by Fighters. Fighters and Monks are so far divorced thematically [somewhat less so with certain archetypes] that this is freaking ridiculous.

A monk is a warrior philosopher seeking enlightenment and the mastery of his body and soul. This does not preclude experimentation and development of new arts.

Well, I'm not sure about western monks because I came from asia and so far I only found and challenged 1 western monk which turns out was fake and just a show fighter. In Asia, we children from the Yip family consider ourselves as fighters, martial artists, but not monks. All monks I challenged so far have very strict teaching and follow them very strictly, however, artist like Bruce and others students that learnt from my family tended to experience more and fight a lot to make their style practical. So yea. With my experience, no monk would do that.


Qaianna wrote:
DoubleBubble wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Monks aren't ONLY members of orders passing down wisdom of the past Bubble, there are ALSO Monks who dabble in the unknown and end up founding new orders based on principles previously unknown or underappreciated in the martial arts world.

This is how unique schools find their origins.

And those who spent time to come up with such style would be either fighter or warrior because they spend the time to engineer the techniques through actual combat. Also game design-wise, it's to stop it from combining flurry of blows. If you really want a monk to have so many attacks, perhaps ask your GM to house rule it. But then again, not sure if he would be happy about it.

Again, having an NPC-class (remember, they're meant to NOT be awesome) eligible for this seems wrong.

I used barbarians and monks as an example because I like the classes' core ideas (RAEG and punch the dragon) but can anyone imagine a pirate-like class (say, ranger or rogue or swashbuckler or barbarian or bard) NOT trying to do this? A warrior-class is someone who basically goes 'pick up sword, swing'; in contrast with the fighter, the Warrior class gets no bonus feats or anything like that.

Have you ever played NPC classes against your old characters with no magical items while your old characters kept their? And then beat them with pure tactics and skills? I did. Warrior is pretty much fighter with less skill in terms of tactical fighting, doesn't mean they don't practice in order to improve their swordmanship. As a game designer, I believe this should be fun for players with NPC classes. Compare to Barbarian, Warrior failed to tap into the primal power that makes Barbarian strong. With fighter, Warrior lag the mindset and skill as a Fighter. However, when I design the feat, I decided that warrior too practice with their swordsmanship in the very same fashion as fighters, so why can't they too have this feat? Not that it's good for them as they don't get weapon training or enough feats to pull it off, but they should be able to do sword-mouth if they pull their minds into it.

Then again, it's just a made up feat, you can change whatever you want. It's just a version that I see it would work.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / wielding a weapon in the mouth. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.