Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Can a fighter make a fist attack when using double slice?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
no
unarmed is specifically not a "weapon" and double slice needs 2 weapons.
Are you saying that DESE GUNZ don't count as weapons? Darn.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sorta?
A fighter can make an attack with a gauntlet, which is a weapon, even though his naked fist is not. So as long as you are wearing gloves or have brass knuckles on, you are wielding weapons and qualify for feats and effects that need weapons.
This is because of reasons. These reasons don't make any sense, but are the rules.
It gets more interesting in that a Lizardman with claws might not be able to use his claws to double slice even though it's kinda the name of the feat. Unarmed attacks are not weapons after all.
Double slice not allowing for unarmed strikes is silly.
It may not be RAW (Actually I'm unsure on that part) but it seems more like something that should be errata'd.
Edit: If I look on Archives of Nethys under the weapons table the very first line says Fist.
I'm very inclined to say that the game treats unarmed strikes as weapons.
Claxon wrote: Double slice not allowing for unarmed strikes is silly.
It may not be RAW (Actually I'm unsure on that part) but it seems more like something that should be errata'd.
Edit: If I look on Archives of Nethys under the weapons table the very first line says Fist.
I'm very inclined to say that the game treats unarmed strikes as weapons.
The problem with allowing unarmed strikes, is that you give 1-hand + Shield users an automatic Agile offhand weapon, since they can make a 1-handed weapon attack, followed up by an Agile kick.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
I'm very inclined to say that the game treats unarmed strikes as weapons.
The game very explicitly does not.
CRB p.278 wrote: However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so. I agree that it's silly, but the rules are very clear here.
Strill wrote: Claxon wrote: Double slice not allowing for unarmed strikes is silly.
It may not be RAW (Actually I'm unsure on that part) but it seems more like something that should be errata'd.
Edit: If I look on Archives of Nethys under the weapons table the very first line says Fist.
I'm very inclined to say that the game treats unarmed strikes as weapons.
The problem with allowing unarmed strikes, is that you give 1-hand + Shield users an automatic Agile offhand weapon, since they can make a 1-handed weapon attack, followed up by an Agile kick. I mean, unless you're a lizardfolk or have a monk dedication it's a 1d4 nonlethal attack. Nothing unbalancing, a dagger would get you.to the same area just without nonlethal and with a different damage type.
SoulknifeFan420 wrote: Strill wrote: Claxon wrote: Double slice not allowing for unarmed strikes is silly.
It may not be RAW (Actually I'm unsure on that part) but it seems more like something that should be errata'd.
Edit: If I look on Archives of Nethys under the weapons table the very first line says Fist.
I'm very inclined to say that the game treats unarmed strikes as weapons.
The problem with allowing unarmed strikes, is that you give 1-hand + Shield users an automatic Agile offhand weapon, since they can make a 1-handed weapon attack, followed up by an Agile kick. I mean, unless you're a lizardfolk or have a monk dedication it's a 1d4 nonlethal attack. Nothing unbalancing, a dagger would get you.to the same area just without nonlethal and with a different damage type. And if you used a dagger, you'd miss out on the benefits of a d8 mainhand weapon, or a shield. I'm saying that you get the defenses of a shield build, with the increased accuracy of an off-hand agile weapon.
Strill wrote: SoulknifeFan420 wrote: Strill wrote: Claxon wrote: Double slice not allowing for unarmed strikes is silly.
It may not be RAW (Actually I'm unsure on that part) but it seems more like something that should be errata'd.
Edit: If I look on Archives of Nethys under the weapons table the very first line says Fist.
I'm very inclined to say that the game treats unarmed strikes as weapons.
The problem with allowing unarmed strikes, is that you give 1-hand + Shield users an automatic Agile offhand weapon, since they can make a 1-handed weapon attack, followed up by an Agile kick. I mean, unless you're a lizardfolk or have a monk dedication it's a 1d4 nonlethal attack. Nothing unbalancing, a dagger would get you.to the same area just without nonlethal and with a different damage type. And if you used a dagger, you'd miss out on the benefits of a d8 mainhand weapon, or a shield. I'm saying that you get the defenses of a shield build, with the increased accuracy of an off-hand agile weapon. A dagger could be that off handed agile weapon is my point. Hit with the shield, then stab with the dagger.
SoulknifeFan420 wrote: Strill wrote: And if you used a dagger, you'd miss out on the benefits of a d8 mainhand weapon, or a shield. I'm saying that you get the defenses of a shield build, with the increased accuracy of an off-hand agile weapon. A dagger could be that off handed agile weapon is my point. Hit with the shield, then stab with the dagger. You know what, just realized i missed your point
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
