| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, I replaced the phrase "free-hand weapon" with the word "fist," in the free-hand trait description to make the misfit more clear. Then I boldfaced the oddities.
A fist doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A fist can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your fist to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a fist if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one fist on it.
The only sentence in those free-hand weapon rules that is supposed to alter how fists are used is, "You can’t attack with a fist if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand." The rest are either redundant or wrong.
My opinion is that tying unarmed attacks to free-hand rules was a writing mistake. Fortunately, the errata is simple: Replace the line on page 283 that says, "It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon," with the line, "It doesn't take up a hand. You can’t attack with a hand or grasping appendage if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like trying to read so deeply into the latter rule citation to find a way to make it work is really undermined by how explicitly clear the first bit of rules text is.
I feel like trying to read so deeply into the latter rule citation to find a way to make it work is really undermined by how explicitly clear the first bit of rules text is.It's less that I'm trying to find a way to make it work and more that I'm pointing out what appears to be an explicit contradiction in the rules that could very easily lead to confusion or debate.
No contradiction. The Free Hand sentence you bolded falls under the "effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so." That sentence does NOT "specifically say" it works with unarmed attack, so following "unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so", it doesn't affect them. Easy peasy...
Only Free Hand is not really an effect or ability, it's a weapon trait, so it's not unreasonable to suppose that the rules for Free Hand do not fall under "effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so." That list could instead be referring to things like disarm or magic weapon that target weapons. Unarmed attacks cannot be disarmed or targeted with magic weapon.
To clarify my position, I do indeed think that the intent is for unarmed attacks to not be usable with those abilities. I just think that this is a loophole that should be plugged.
"A trait is a keyword that conveys additional information about a rules element, such as a school of magic or rarity. Often, a trait indicates how other rules interact with an ability, creature, item, or another rules element that has that trait." I have a hard time with someone saying that something that "indicates how other rules interact with an ability, creature, item, or another rules element" isn't an effect. If it isn't an effect, then I don't know what is.
Add to that that it says "An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits", hence we can assume that since it's telling us weapon traits can be used that when the trait talks about weapon, that in an unarmed attack with such a trait would be referring to the attack in question which is unarmed.
For instance:
Agile says "The multiple attack penalty you take with this weapon on the second attack on your turn is –4 instead of –5, and –8 instead of –10 on the third and subsequent attacks in the turn." Somehow everyone can figure out that weapon here mean the unarmed attack when it's on an unarmed attack.
Backstabber says "When you hit a flat-footed creature, this weapon deals 1 precision damage in addition to its normal damage."
Backswing says "You can use the momentum from a missed attack with this weapon to lead into your next attack."
Deadly says "On a critical hit, the weapon adds a weapon damage die of the listed size."
Disarm says "You can use this weapon to Disarm with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand."
Finesse says "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon."
ect...
Now look at the monk's unarmed attacks:
Crane Wing Agile, Finesse, Nonlethal, Unarmed
Dragon Tail Backswing, Nonlethal, Unarmed
Falling Stone Forceful, Nonlethal, Unarmed
Fire Talon Agile, Finesse, Fire, Nonlethal, Unarmed
Iron Sweep Nonlethal, Parry, Sweep, Unarmed
Lashing Branch Agile, Finesse, Nonlethal, Unarmed
Tiger Claw Agile, Finesse, Nonlethal, Unarmed
Wind Crash Agile, Nonlethal, Propulsive, Unarmed
Wolf Jaw Agile, Backstabber, Finesse, Nonlethal, Unarmed
If the community as a whole can understand that when Agile, Finesse, Nonlethal, Backswing, Forceful, Parry, Sweep and Backstabber talk about the weapon that means that unarmed attack for these traits I'm not sure why free hand should throw them for a loop...
No contradiction. The Free Hand sentence you bolded falls under the "effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so." That sentence does NOT "specifically say" it works with unarmed attack, so following "unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so", it doesn't affect them. Easy peasy...I feel like trying to read so deeply into the latter rule citation to find a way to make it work is really undermined by how explicitly clear the first bit of rules text is.It's less that I'm trying to find a way to make it work and more that I'm pointing out what appears to be an explicit contradiction in the rules that could very easily lead to confusion or debate.
theservantsllcleanitup did point out a specific rule.
Double Slice has the requirement, "You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand, " and also explicitly states, "Make two Strikes, one with each of your two melee weapons, each using your current multiple attack penalty. Both Strikes must have the same target."
But free-head weapons are not held in a hand, they are worn over a hand. By an overly exact definition of "in," a GM could interpret that Double Slice cannot be performed with a gauntlet, a spiked gauntlet, nor any free-hand weapon released in supplemental books. To prevent this interpretation, Paizo added a specific statement to the definition of the free-hand trait, "When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand." Therefore, a character can use gauntlets with Double Slice, despite them being worn over a hand rather than held in a hand. This is a specific override to the restriction on Double Slice.
The problem is that the override is not limited to free-hand weapon. The sentence, "a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon," makes the override also apply to a fist. It specifically says that a fist gains all rules of a free-hand weapon, including the override for not wielding a weapon in that hand, even though it is not a weapon. We have a specific rule that connects an unarmed attack with a fist to a specific rule that overrides the requirement on Double Slice. That connecting rule essentially says that the unarmed trait on a hand or grasping appendage also grants the free-hand trait.
If a weapon trait will not work with unarmed attacks because the trait's description did not explicitly say it applied to unarmed strikes, then the fist also loses agile, finesse, and nonlethal. The descriptions of those traits don't mention unarmed. -- Wait, graystone just said that him- or herself.
If a weapon trait will not work with unarmed attacks
It does NOT get the trait but "a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon". It gets the effect without being an actual trait. So you can see it 2 ways: either as an effect separate from traits which means the "never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so" kicks in or you treat it just like the trait which means the assumed 'weapon = unarmed attack' kicks in. Either way, I don't see an issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My head hurts
My job here is done then. ;)
If the consensus is that it's no biggie, then so be it. However I still think that, in spite of your long explanation, the simple fact remains that if a new player were to read the unarmed trait, and then read the free hand trait, it would be pretty easy for them to conclude that you can use an unarmed attack for double slice. I watched it happen to my friend, so... it can happen. That's all I'm saying.
in general, specificity trumps general rules. If it specifically says unarmed strikes don't count as melee weapons, it having the free hand property and that property generally being on weapons shouldn't matter. I see where you're coming from though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However I still think that, in spite of your long explanation, the simple fact remains that if a new player were to read the unarmed trait, and then read the free hand trait, it would be pretty easy for them to conclude that you can use an unarmed attack for double slice.
Oh, I think this and several other things could use a reworking of the wording to clean things up and make things work or work better. In this case, when you dig into everything it's not an actual error: it's just a long trip through several rules to get there and I think most would agree that it could be done better. This means that at best, it's an FAQ and so far we don't have those in PF2...
Maybe I am completely wrong, but it really feels like the mistake here was making “unarmed” the unusual trait, rather than just having “weapon” be the trait and then having feats that require you to attack with (or without) a weapon to call that out explicitly.
I know that unarmed is the less common form of attack, but the rules around it got pretty convoluted trying to pretend like it was that unusual situation. A simple symbol or sub trait that could accompany attack actions would have gone a long way in establishing clarity.