Rule question - Twin Takedown says 'You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand' as a requirement.
If I'm an Ancestry that has claws, one set on each hand, could I use claw attacks with Twin Takedown? Common sense would say yes, but I can see some arguing that you're not 'wielding a melee weapon in a hand'...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, by RAW it doesn't work.
A lot of tables houserule it so that it does.
After having to deal with 5E quibbling about "melee weapon attacks" being different from "attacks with a melee weapon" or whatever, it's nice for this system to actually differentiate between unarmed and weapon stuff and mean what it says pretty consistently.
That said, though Ranger combat feats are somewhat restricted in which weapon setups they support, (presumably for flavor/legacy reasons,) it won't really hurt anything to ignore that bit and use unarmed attacks with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that is something that is changed, a lot of class feats don't work with natural weapons which is sad. My Ammurran ranger would love to use their claws but they don't interact with ranger feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rule question - Twin Takedown says 'You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand' as a requirement.
If I'm an Ancestry that has claws, one set on each hand, could I use claw attacks with Twin Takedown? Common sense would say yes, but I can see some arguing that you're not 'wielding a melee weapon in a hand'...
Twin Takedown is a feat meant to shore up a popular style (two-weapon fighting) that is pretty terrible in the system (because you occupy both hands, still only do the damage of a one-handed weapon, and don't get the ability to raise a shield for more AC). It's a great feat to make up for the style's weaknesses, whereas styles that are directly supported by the rules (two-handed d12 weapon) get weaker feats like Power Attack.
Allowing claws to work with Twin Takedown addresses the weak damage of claws, but still leaves both of your hands free- claws lack one of the big downsides of two-weapon fighting. You'd be able to mix in free-hand feats and combat maneuver build options, both things that would normally require dropping a weapon on the ground to use. A "balanced" version would require an action to unsheath the claws on one of your hands and not allow doing anything other than attacking with a hand that has unsheathed claws.
It does mean that natural attacks are often left out in the cold.
Twin Takedown's major restriction is that you need to be attacking with two separate weapons.
Allowing Twin Takedown to work with natural attacks shouldn't be an issue since they will still be restricted to their hunted target, but RAW is clear that unarmed attacks aren't weapons in hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing claws to work with Twin Takedown addresses the weak damage of claws, but still leaves both of your hands free- claws lack one of the big downsides of two-weapon fighting. You'd be able to mix in free-hand feats and combat maneuver build options, both things that would normally require dropping a weapon on the ground to use. A "balanced" version would require an action to unsheath the claws on one of your hands and not allow doing anything other than attacking with a hand that has unsheathed claws.
It does mean that natural attacks are often left out in the cold.
Unarmed attacks are not all about hands. Goblin Jaws and Kashrishi's horns are good examples, so does the Monk stances and Alchemist Bestial Mutagen jaws attack.
The issue with Unarmed attacks is that they deal higher damage than one-handed weapons. Monk Stances can get to d10, Animal Barbarian to d12, Alchemist's Bestial Mutagen to d12 Deadly d10. That'd make the unarmed Ranger far too strong when multiclassed. So I understand Paizo's choice.
I think there should be a Ranger version of an unarmed martial, with animal-inspired unarmed weapons. But that'd mean certainly a specific Edge or something to avoid shenanigans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is largely at the core of it, I think.
1. Two-weapon feats are balanced around the requirement of one-handed weapons, which are less damaging than two-handed weapons.
2. Natural Weapons aren't a category. They are all Unarmed Attacks.
3. Unarmed Attacks don't have any common balance point, relative to one-handed or two-handed weapons, and run the full range from D4 to D12 on damage dice.
So the feats that are balanced around requiring a certain type of weapons (one-handed in this case) are limited to weapons, so that their balance plan applies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would agree with the balance reasons presented here for why Twin Takedown doesn't work with unarmed attacks generally.
But that being the reasoning for it is also why I wouldn't have a problem with allowing certain ones on a case-by-case basis. For example the Amurrun wanting to use their claws. I might houserule that your Amurrun character can use their ancestry-given unarmed attacks with Twin Takedown.
Allowing claws to work with Twin Takedown addresses the weak damage of claws, but still leaves both of your hands free- claws lack one of the big downsides of two-weapon fighting. You'd be able to mix in free-hand feats and combat maneuver build options, both things that would normally require dropping a weapon on the ground to use. A "balanced" version would require an action to unsheath the claws on one of your hands and not allow doing anything other than attacking with a hand that has unsheathed claws.
It does mean that natural attacks are often left out in the cold.
Unarmed attacks are not all about hands. Goblin Jaws and Kashrishi's horns are good examples, so does the Monk stances and Alchemist Bestial Mutagen jaws attack.
The issue with Unarmed attacks is that they deal higher damage than one-handed weapons. Monk Stances can get to d10, Animal Barbarian to d12, Alchemist's Bestial Mutagen to d12 Deadly d10. That'd make the unarmed Ranger far too strong when multiclassed. So I understand Paizo's choice.
I think there should be a Ranger version of an unarmed martial, with animal-inspired unarmed weapons. But that'd mean certainly a specific Edge or something to avoid shenanigans.
I didn't mention non-claw options because those are just more extreme versions of the same issue- they don't even need a hand at all. If you allowed two-weapon fighting with them, you could use a greatsword and a bite attack.
But yeah, the damage dice are definitely an issue. I forgot animal instinct could bump die size one step, and I forgot about Bestial Mutagen.
Yeah, I would agree with the balance reasons presented here for why Twin Takedown doesn't work with unarmed attacks generally.
But that being the reasoning for it is also why I wouldn't have a problem with allowing certain ones on a case-by-case basis. For example the Amurrun wanting to use their claws. I might houserule that your Amurrun character can use their ancestry-given unarmed attacks with Twin Takedown.
Yeah. If we start seeing more unarmed attack support, I'm expecting it to have restrictions for ancestry-granted-only for balance reasons.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly if that's the reason it's a pretty lame one, because the balance issue is entirely self-created too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a self-created balance issue, though. It's a whole category of balance issues prevented in a way some people don't like.
By not having any sort of "unarmed attacks can be treated as weapons" rule, and not allowing weapon feats to work with them, they freed themselves up to have unarmed attacks running the full range of damage potential without worrying about them being used with a feat designed to be limited to smaller weapons.
They could have, instead, limited unarmed attacks in order for them to be able to work with one-handed weapon feats. But either way, you're keeping constraints on something in order to prevent an interaction from getting out of hand.
(Obviously these aren't the only possible solutions. You could also do something like "a one handed melee weapon or an unarmed attack that has a damage die no higher than D8" or other variations, each with their own downsides and things to watch out for, like how mixing unarmed attacks together would allow for thaumaturge shenanigans that still benefit from implement empowerment, which can't be done with two-weapon feats as they stand now.)
And the rule being so simple as "unarmed attacks are not weapons" is pretty good future-proofing against other unintended loopholes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a self-created balance issue, though. It's a whole category of balance issues prevented in a way some people don't
like.
Right, but the issue being prevented (the 'wrong' class using overbudgeted unarmed attacks) is solving an equally manufactured problem (overbudgeted unarmed attacks being used to balance certain classes).
It's entirely circular. Reminiscient of the way small arms work in Starfinder (small arms are weak but operatives have outsized damage bonuses to make them good, which creates a situation where an entire category of weapon is not worth anyone else's time, entirely artificially).
It's simple, and straight forward, but it ends up sabotaging a bunch of conceptual space that other people might have enjoyed playing. Which is a shame.
Yeah, I would agree with the balance reasons presented here for why Twin Takedown doesn't work with unarmed attacks generally.
But that being the reasoning for it is also why I wouldn't have a problem with allowing certain ones on a case-by-case basis. For example the Amurrun wanting to use their claws. I might houserule that your Amurrun character can use their ancestry-given unarmed attacks with Twin Takedown.
This is a good policy. Ancestry unarmed attacks aren't likely to cause balance problems,* but class or item based unarmed attacks might.
*You'll likely still be a little underpowered since you can't do special materials barring Telos feats and a few other random things, but at least you won't suffer from having to spend two actions to draw each weapon.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there should be a Ranger version of an unarmed martial, with animal-inspired unarmed weapons. But that'd mean certainly a specific Edge or something to avoid shenanigans.
Why is there a need for this when we already have the monk? They seem to overlap far too much to me, at least mechanically.
How would the Monk's unarmed attacks combined with Twin Strike be overpowered anyway? Monk can already Flurry and most of the good unarmed strikes require spending a feat to unlock and an action at the start of each encounter to use. So what, you could archetype into Monk, grab a stance, and then...?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would the Monk's unarmed attacks combined with Twin Strike be overpowered anyway? Monk can already Flurry and most of the good unarmed strikes require spending a feat to unlock and an action at the start of each encounter to use. So what, you could archetype into Monk, grab a stance, and then...?
Monk unarmed attacks break the weapon budgets, especially for finesse/agile weapons. The action cost is part of that, but likely the larger part is they are attached to the monk who otherwises lacks any sort of damage enhancer that literally every other martial has. Stacking those unarmed attacks on a martial with damage enhancers get juicy. Flurry of blows can't be poached until 10th level, and people are already unhappy about that.
Now activating the stance does cost an action, which is tight on a ranger that needs to hunt prey... but you can always just use powerful fist if you don't have the actions to enter the stance on round 1. It is as good as any finesse agile weapon, has a better damage type, doesn't require actions to be drawn ever, and gives you free hand advantages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would the Monk's unarmed attacks combined with Twin Strike be overpowered anyway? Monk can already Flurry and most of the good unarmed strikes require spending a feat to unlock and an action at the start of each encounter to use. So what, you could archetype into Monk, grab a stance, and then...?Monk unarmed attacks break the weapon budgets, especially for finesse/agile weapons. The action cost is part of that, but likely the larger part is they are attached to the monk who otherwises lacks any sort of damage enhancer that literally every other martial has. Stacking those unarmed attacks on a martial with damage enhancers get juicy. Flurry of blows can't be poached until 10th level, and people are already unhappy about that.
Now activating the stance does cost an action, which is tight on a ranger that needs to hunt prey... but you can always just use powerful fist if you don't have the actions to enter the stance on round 1. It is as good as any finesse agile weapon, has a better damage type, doesn't require actions to be drawn ever, and gives you free hand advantages.
Monk damage ends up being bad late game because of this lack of a proper damage booster. You're doing nothing to convince me that this would break anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely circular. Reminiscient of the way small arms work in Starfinder (small arms are weak but operatives have outsized damage bonuses to make them good, which creates a situation where an entire category of weapon is not worth anyone else's time, entirely artificially).
But if you want small arms to be as good as other weapons you can't just give them the same damage dice than Longarms, as it would be illogical and it would also mean that there'd be no more differences between small arms and longarms. So you'd need to find a reason to use small arms, which means a complete new "type" of weapon.
And small arms are important mostly to the operative. The other classes are either using them as backup weapons (casters) or not at all (most weapon users). So that would mean a lot of work for not much, don't you think?So as much as I agree with you that the limitation is necessary only because of choices the design team made, I'm not sure making other choices would have made the game much better at an acceptable cost (time and page count).
Why is there a need for this when we already have the monk? They seem to overlap far too much to me, at least mechanically.
I disagree. Right now, the only ways to play a viable character with animal weapons is either to go Druid, so be a full caster, or Barbarian, so Rage. You can also go Monk but that means reflavoring everything, and you may end up trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
I'm pretty sure a Ranger Edge allowing you to use claws and fangs efficiently would meet its public. It's not the first time I see someone asking for such a character concept (and complaining they can't use Twin Takedown with Claws).|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Right now, the only ways to play a viable character with animal weapons is either to go Druid, so be a full caster, or Barbarian, so Rage.
This is a complete tangent but I really liked the playtest animist for a wild shaper. At least from level 3 to about L13 it is a quite viable character (and hopefully there will be options in the release to bring that up to L20). If anything, it is currently probably a bit too powerful what with Earth's Bile and all the spells :-).
I REALLY hope that they use the much simpler way of applying the status bonus from the playtest animist to the Remastered Druid. It has the downside of making Str even more dumpable but if you're REALLY going to go all in as a wild shaper then you're likely going to want to take the fighter archetype (for opportunity attack) and monk archetype (for flurry) so you at least have to bring your Str up to 14 for that.
The cost of having to spend an action per turn to sustain the animist wild shape is pretty much compensated by the incredible flexibility of being able to change shape each round and the reasonable mobility granted by Dancing everywhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monk damage ends up being bad late game because of this lack of a proper damage booster. You're doing nothing to convince me that this would break anything.How would the Monk's unarmed attacks combined with Twin Strike be overpowered anyway? Monk can already Flurry and most of the good unarmed strikes require spending a feat to unlock and an action at the start of each encounter to use. So what, you could archetype into Monk, grab a stance, and then...?Monk unarmed attacks break the weapon budgets, especially for finesse/agile weapons. The action cost is part of that, but likely the larger part is they are attached to the monk who otherwises lacks any sort of damage enhancer that literally every other martial has. Stacking those unarmed attacks on a martial with damage enhancers get juicy. Flurry of blows can't be poached until 10th level, and people are already unhappy about that.
Now activating the stance does cost an action, which is tight on a ranger that needs to hunt prey... but you can always just use powerful fist if you don't have the actions to enter the stance on round 1. It is as good as any finesse agile weapon, has a better damage type, doesn't require actions to be drawn ever, and gives you free hand advantages.
Yes, that is what I said. And this change would make monk damage bad in the early game as well.
Edit: For that matter, it would make a lot of weapons bad too. If you can Double Slice or Twin Takedown with d8 backstabber finesse agile attacks or d10 backswing attacks, why would you ever use the one handed weapons the feats were designed for? And this is without getting into barbarian and alchemist unarmed attacks at d12.
For that matter, it would make a lot of weapons bad too. If you can Double Slice or Twin Takedown with d8 backstabber finesse agile attacks or d10 backswing attacks, why would you ever use the one handed weapons the feats were designed for? And this is without getting into barbarian and alchemist unarmed attacks at d12.
How often do you see that right now, out of curiosity?
Because while twin takedown is limited to weapons only, most other martials don't have any such restriction.
So logically given your assertion, we should expect Rangers (and double slice fighters, thief rogues, and weapon inventors) to be using one handed weapons and everyone else in the game opting for unarmed attacks, right? Does that match your experience in actual play?
Yes, that is what I said. And this change would make monk damage bad in the early game as well.
Edit: For that matter, it would make a lot of weapons bad too. If you can Double Slice or Twin Takedown with d8 backstabber finesse agile attacks or d10 backswing attacks, why would you ever use the one handed weapons the feats were designed for? And this is without getting into barbarian and alchemist unarmed attacks at d12.
The main class that uses this fighting style has a damage booster built into their chassis, if they didn't have that, we might see them gain a stance that boosts their one-handed weapon damage die by a size when it first comes online and then gives another bump some levels later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3-Body, I don't understand what point you are making. Nothing you're saying feels like it contradicts what I am saying.
For that matter, it would make a lot of weapons bad too. If you can Double Slice or Twin Takedown with d8 backstabber finesse agile attacks or d10 backswing attacks, why would you ever use the one handed weapons the feats were designed for? And this is without getting into barbarian and alchemist unarmed attacks at d12.How often do you see that right now, out of curiosity?
Because while twin takedown is limited to weapons only, most other martials don't have any such restriction.
So logically given your assertion, we should expect Rangers (and double slice fighters, thief rogues, and weapon inventors) to be using one handed weapons and everyone else in the game opting for unarmed attacks, right? Does that match your experience in actual play?
I don't think that follows. People don't use one handed weapons, in my experience, without a compelling use for their other hand. They are usually using a damage enhancer like Double Slice or Dual Handed Assault, a shield, a two handed weapon to max their damage or reach, or a support option like snagging strike. The number of character builds where you want to use one handed weapons solo feels relatively small, especially if we are talking about finesse builds. Realistically, the only class besides the ones you named it would matter for would be the Thaumaturge and maaaaybe Swashbuckler, and I think both have more important feats to pick up at 2nd and 4th. Neither would leverage a d8 agile weapon as well as a flurry ranger.
I can tell you that the best free hand fighter I have seen in actual play is an animal instinct barbarian with the fighter archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How often do you see that right now, out of curiosity?
Because while twin takedown is limited to weapons only, most other martials don't have any such restriction.
Most martials can't use them. Finesse users can't use the d10-d12 Unarmed attacks as they are not Finesse. Fighters can't use some of them as they don't belong to any weapon group. Giant Barbarians can't use them. Some of them can only be used while unarmored. To grab them you need to Archetype, when some classes (Magus for example) prefer other Archetypes giving them much more power. And you need an action (Rage, Stance) to activate these Unarmed attacks making them unusable for classes with bad action economy (Thaumaturge, Magus). Etc...
And also, they are marginally better than 2-handed weapons while being much more complex to get. So many characters go for a Greatsword over these.
But past level 10, Unarmed attacks is the way to go to break the ceiling for most classes thanks to the addition of Flurry of Blows. So they are still a very strong choice, just one that is overlooked because quite high level.
Edit: I realize Morgan said roughly the same thing just before me.
I'm pretty sure a Ranger Edge allowing you to use claws and fangs efficiently would meet its public. It's not the first time I see someone asking for such a character concept (and complaining they can't use Twin Takedown with Claws).
I would be surprised if we don't get this, or something like it, in Edge of the Wild next summer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Catfolk Claws are d6 agile finesse unarmed attacks. For our current campaign I had a player say she wanted to play a catfolk ranger with claws. I houseruled that they are perfectly fine for using with a Ranger's Twin Takedown. I have zero issues with it personally - given the damage die is just a d6 it's entirely fine, they're sacrificing what could be a d8 for their first strike; claws are not the 'min maxed damage option'.
The action economy benefit of not having to draw two weapons appears to be the main benefit, hardly game breaking. It would also make rune costs lower (since both claws are only 'one weapon' for rune purposes via handwraps), but we use Auto Bonus Progression anyway so that's a non-issue. And the character will still need weapons for things like cold iron weakness, it's not an 'always the right choice' thing to use claws, which creates some variety.
But above all, the flavour of a clawed catfolk flurry ranger is 100% tasty, so it must be so. At least for us.
Just saying, but a Thaumaturge could Twin takedown using his weapon implement+unarmed from as early as level 4 if Twin Takedown allowed unarmed attacks...
Seems kinda busted.
He can do so with unarmed at level 10, but then at least it's not only later (that more people have nice things) but also can't use a weapon implement for his Unarmed.
Not really.
Unarmed has a non-lethal issue (so doing lethal damage requires a -2 penalty), and is only D4 base damage, which is basically no better than a dagger at that point, so if twinning unarmed is a problem, then so is twinning with daggers.
There is also the factor that the potency/striking runes will not be present on it, since unarmed requires Handwraps to boost accuracy and damage, and Doubling Rings do not work with unarmed, so if the idea is that Twin Takedown is OP for unarmed, it is likely being used outside of its intended scope, such as using the same limb(s) twice, or requiring specific set-ups which don't take place until significantly later in the game.
Really, the big draw for Twin Takedown on a Thaumaturge (who is already action intensive as-is) is that you can exploit an enemy's weakness (normal or class-based) more frequently, not unlike Flurry of Blows, and the attacks aren't going to show until around the 2nd or 3rd round of combat anyway, since you need actions to both Exploit and Hunt a given target, plus actions to Stride or do other things.
For some, yes, and it's even baked in. For others, not so much. Point is that it will lag behind full proficiency/runes, so it won't be more powerful than another weapon with Doubling Rings, which is where the balance point is.
I forget the extra benefit of the weapon implement, which is either the AoO, or the +2 bonus to hit upon exploit, in either case the unarmed doesn't benefit if used for Twin, and neither does the unarmed, if memory serves. Also, since it specifies full hand use, that means no Claw attacks, and only certain unarmed attacks. Bite/Horn/Hoof attacks, on the other hand, can be fair game.
I just realized that Twin doesn't proc double weakness either, it has the same clause as Flurry, so no, meaning I am wrong from the previous statement. (Though you are still given two chances to trigger a weakness compared to one.)
Twin requires spending an action to Hunt your target, as Twin only works on Hunted targets. Flurry doesn't have this restriction. Yes, it's a one-time action cost, but it is per target, so it can add up with multiple enemies, and the same is true for Exploit.
Just saying, but a Thaumaturge could Twin takedown using his weapon implement+unarmed from as early as level 4 if Twin Takedown allowed unarmed attacks...
Seems kinda busted.
He can do so with unarmed at level 10, but then at least it's not only later (that more people have nice things) but also can't use a weapon implement for his Unarmed.
Not really.
Unarmed has a non-lethal issue (so doing lethal damage requires a -2 penalty), and is only D4 base damage, which is basically no better than a dagger at that point, so if twinning unarmed is a problem, then so is twinning with daggers.
There is also the factor that the potency/striking runes will not be present on it, since unarmed requires Handwraps to boost accuracy and damage, and Doubling Rings do not work with unarmed, so if the idea is that Twin Takedown is OP for unarmed, it is likely being used outside of its intended scope, such as using the same limb(s) twice, or requiring specific set-ups which don't take place until significantly later in the game.
Really, the big draw for Twin Takedown on a Thaumaturge (who is already action intensive as-is) is that you can exploit an enemy's weakness (normal or class-based) more frequently, not unlike Flurry of Blows, and the attacks aren't going to show until around the 2nd or 3rd round of combat anyway, since you need actions to both Exploit and Hunt a given target, plus actions to Stride or do other things.
A quick point here: non-lethal is only an issue fighting constructs or trying to break objects. It's not a downside much more often than keeping someone alive is an upside.
Also, Twin Takedown and Flurry of Blows don't help exploit a weakness multiple times.
For some, yes, and it's even baked in. For others, not so much. Point is that it will lag behind full proficiency/runes, so it won't be more powerful than another weapon with Doubling Rings, which is where the balance point is.
You can't have 2 weapons out as Thaum.
You are capped at "one weapon+open hand".
Which was my whole point.
The change would make something impossible, possible.
The closest a Thaumaturge can get to 2 attacks for 1 action is Flurry at level 10.
An unarmed attack isn't a weapon either, so the complaint doesn't even track since you aren't breaking the rules for Thaumaturge. A Thaumaturge with a Bite attack is still "one weapon+open hand," meaning the option doesn't change just because you introduce a feat, since the feat doesn't turn the Bite into a weapon, it just lets you take 2 attacks for 1 action on a previously Hunted target, with the restriction of requiring weapons being relatively arbitrary, since the intent is more "2 attacks, 1 action, target must be hunted, damage combines before factoring in weaknesses/resistances," and not "this has a fundamental reason why only weapons work."
Just as well, Flurry only works with Unarmed attacks (or Monk weapons, if you took the feat), meaning unless the Thaumaturge is walking around with a Temple Sword, you're already breaking the "one weapon+open hand" rule anyway by saying Thaumaturge with Flurry works out. One is just doing it 6 levels earlier and has an action tax associated with it on top of it all.
After all, the thread is asking if allowing Twin Takedown to be used with natural weapons is both allowed and/or broken. While RAW is clear, I probably wouldn't allow it with two Bite attacks unless they have two such limbs available, but two Claw attacks is certainly more reasonable and not overpowered, and the big costs are already factored in (Hunt action tax, 2 feats spent, etc), and aren't that much more than Flurry of Blows.
For some, yes, and it's even baked in. For others, not so much. Point is that it will lag behind full proficiency/runes, so it won't be more powerful than another weapon with Doubling Rings, which is where the balance point is.
You can't have 2 weapons out as Thaum.
You are capped at "one weapon+open hand".
Which was my whole point.
The change would make something impossible, possible.
The closest a Thaumaturge can get to 2 attacks for 1 action is Flurry at level 10.
The one weapon and implement in the other right? Don't they get class benefits for having that second hand open to use an implement?
So allowing them to twin takedown with their main hand and tail or bite sounds like it removes the balance entirely. They would have the benefit of their implements and get to fight like they had two weapons right?Ive never played this class though so I dont know how strong they are without being able to do that.
For some, yes, and it's even baked in. For others, not so much. Point is that it will lag behind full proficiency/runes, so it won't be more powerful than another weapon with Doubling Rings, which is where the balance point is.
You can't have 2 weapons out as Thaum.
You are capped at "one weapon+open hand".
Which was my whole point.
The change would make something impossible, possible.
The closest a Thaumaturge can get to 2 attacks for 1 action is Flurry at level 10.
The one weapon and implement in the other right? Don't they get class benefits for having that second hand open to use an implement?
So allowing them to twin takedown with their main hand and tail or bite sounds like it removes the balance entirely. They would have the benefit of their implements and get to fight like they had two weapons right?
Ive never played this class though so I dont know how strong they are without being able to do that.
To put it into perspective:
Twin Takedown/Flurry of Blows still has MAP take place normally, the big benefit is two attacks for one action. Being able to make another attack at a hefty penalty while requiring two action taxes (Exploit Vulnerability + Hunt Target) means you are either starting combat next to an enemy (very rare), or aren't going to be making any attacks until Round 2, which means you spent an entire round setting up instead of, say, Exploit, Stride, Strike. An entire round of doing essentially nothing so you can do the equivalent in a following round and maybe get more by the 3rd round onward isn't exactly gameplay that breaks the system.
Even though a Thaumaturge has a one-handed weapon and an implement, them having unarmed attacks besides these options has always been a thing, well before this combination was discovered. You could always make a Punch/Kick/Headbutt/Elbow/Knee attack, you could always make a Bite/Tail/Hoof/Horn attack if you had this as an attack option. You just would not get the Esoteric Implement benefit (since it's neither a weapon held in a hand, nor is it considered something that could be implemented; maybe Paizo should reconsider it, having it be a prosthetic option, perhaps). And Twin Takedown nor Flurry of Blows (which also has its own issues besides this) does not change this.
The one weapon and implement in the other right? Don't they get class benefits for having that second hand open to use an implement?
The weapon can be the Thaumaturge implement. Which means that they could use Implement's Empowerment on their unarmed fist strikes with their remaining open hand. Or any other unarmed attacks that they have.
I am not seeing any restrictions on Implement's Empowerment that cause it to not work with unarmed attacks. Just that you have to be holding at least one implement, and that you can't be holding anything other than implements, esoterica, and at most one 1-hand weapon. An empty hand that has been Morph adjusted to be a d12 unarmed attack still seems to qualify.
I think it also works on ranged attacks by default. So things like Leshy Seedpod and Kitsune Foxfire become more attractive.
maybe Paizo should reconsider it, having it be a prosthetic option, perhaps
If a prosthetic is a weapon (I think there are some things like that) then I see no reason why it shouldn't be a valid Weapon Implement or qualify for other Thaumaturge weapon things (as long as they meet the 1-hand requirement if applicable).
Prosthetics aren't weapons, they are replacement limbs. Unless you are wielding the prosthetic arm as an improvised club, it's not happening, even if it could reasonably be done from a story perspective.
The Sterling Dynamo archetype is built entirely around using your prosthetic to punch people.
It is. And it does that as an Unarmed Attack, not a Weapon, and doesn't interact with feats that are only for Weapons.
I don't fail to see the point, I just don't think the point has any merit to warrant it falling under the OP spectrum like you say it does. The feat enables you to make two attacks for one action, requiring two different attacks, and an action to designate a valid target. Compared to Flurry of Blows (which only works with a Temple Sword or similar weapon, by the way), it's more action intensive to start, and that is per enemy. Meaning, against multiple enemies, you are wasting even more actions, and against singular enemies you are still struggling with to-hit like everyone else.
So if Hypothetical the Thaumaturge enters combat, he has to Exploit and Hunt before he can utilize Twin Takedown with the weakness exploitation (which still only triggers once), and even then he doesn't have an action to move into position, meaning unless Haste is in play, this isn't working on the first round of combat. Really, the best course of action is "Exploit -> Move -> Strike" followed by "Hunt -> Move -> Twin Takedown." And this is per enemy.
Even if we give them a favorable D8 Bite attack, they are still not as accurate (due to lacking Agile), still suffering MAP, still having different forms of potency bonuses to upkeep/track, and still burning additional actions for this, for a class that is already action-invested as it is. As for downsides, how about class feats or other dedications? It might be lessened with Free Archetype, but that isn't the standard to compare it to. Opportunity cost is definitely a downside.
Having played with a Rogue who uses this same tactic via Sneak Attack, it isn't that powerful by comparison, and Rogues are a better combination since they don't need much in the way of actions. It might punch better against certain enemies, but that is just how the Thaumaturge works, and against enemies who don't have those weaknesses (which is a fair amount), the class isn't going to outpace the Core Rulebook standard.
The Sterling Dynamo archetype is built entirely around using your prosthetic to punch people.
I had to go look up what I was vaguely remembering.
The Shifter Prosthesis. The prosthetic item itself transforms into a weapon that has the stats of one of the two Weapon items that it has absorbed.
I feel like Thaumaturge is the worst possible example here, tbh, because having two actions of setup on every enemy and then not even getting to trigger your martial mechanic twice when you make your two attacks sounds really lame. Barely even functional even.
There are much better picks if you want to highlight how strong poaching Flurry-like mechanics can be.