Yes you can.
You could even do this:
BAB +11 Character.
Attacks: +11 Greatsword / (Free action, take 1 hand off sword) / +6 Unarmed Strike / (Free action, put both hands on sword again) / +1 Greatsword.
Or
BAB +11 Character (with the Quickdraw feat)
Attacks: +11 Longbow / (Free action, take 1 hand off bow) / +6 Unarmed Strike / (Free action Quick-draw a dagger) / +1 Dagger (thrown or melee, daggers can do either).
Note that you can't swap hands like this in order to get more attacks when using Two-Weapon-Fighting (eg. You can't use a greatsword attack then quickdraw a dagger when using TWF, you'd have to use light or 1-handed weapons for the entire round).
You can make your attacks using any weapons at your disposal as long as you're wielding them or you can wield them as a free action, however each attack uses up one of your iteratives (so you don't get bonus attacks just by using unarmed strikes).
Using spell combat that free hand might be casting a spell and not available to punch, but generally yes.
Hope you have paid the appropriate taxes to the Pathfinder gods, or those unarmed strikes will open you up to AoO...
But yes, you are more than welcome to throw unarmed strikes into your full attack routine when using a sword.
I had a Magus that had levels in Monk, giving him higher unarmed strike damage (even better with monk's robes), and he had TWF as a backup to his normal Magus stuffs so he could fight with a Rapier and unamrmed strikes without using up his magics. TWF wasn't even necessary, but the benefit of more attacks was still made apparent on my particular build. Didn't have Flurry of Blows, couldn't have used my Rapier with it, even if I did, so TWF made sense.
Using spell combat that free hand might be casting a spell and not available to punch, but generally yes.Im pretty sure you can use spell combat with spellstrike, and there are plenty of spells that can end up with hilarious results at the end of a punch.
That works. Casting color spray and punching with the spellcasting hand might not.
So it would be entirely realistic for someone fighting one handed like say a magus to mix unarmed strikes with sword swings?
Sorry my last post got super delayed (just by a bad internet connection) so I hadn't seen this yet.
Magus has a lot of restrictions with what they can do with Spell-Combat.
You make 1 attack with your "Spell-hand" and then make the remaining attacks with your "weapon-hand".
You can't - for example - benefit from Improved/Greater Two-Weapon-Fighting while using Spell-Combat, even if using Unarmed strikes in the Offhand (which would be the "Spell-Hand").
You also don't really benefit from the Two-Weapon-Fighting feat while using Spell-Combat - you're already getting those benefits without having to use the feat, so it'd be a wasted feat.
There are 2 things to remember for the Magus though.
1. Whenever you cast a spell with a range of Touch you get a free touch attack to deliver the spell as long as you use that free attack before the end of the round.
2. With Spellstrike, whenever you deliver a Touch Attack you can instead deliver it as a weapon attack through any weapon you're wielding.
At level 2 a Magus can use spell combat to cast Shocking grasp and make a weapon attack. Because it's a touch spell you get a free action to deliver the spell as a touch Weapon attack. This means from level 2 knward you can make 2 weapon attacks per round as if using TWF, but you don't have to spend money upgrading 2 weapons, you can make all the attacks with your main weapon (or an unarmed strike if you're disarmed).
Note that when you change from a touch attack to a weapon attack you also change from targeting Touch-AC to targeting regular AC.
THIS GUIDE is a great resource for new Magus players.
Statistics
Cost 2 gp Weight 1 lb.
Damage 1d2 (small), 1d3 (medium); Critical x2; Range —; Type B; Special —
Category Light; Proficiency Simple
Weapon Groups Close
Description
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplates) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
I could be wrong but I think anyone can deal unarmed Strikes with any body part (elbows, kicks, etc), not just Monks and Brawlers. Therefore taking Improved Unarmed Strike would let you threaten adjacent creatures while wielding a polearm.
Wearing a gauntlet lets you deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes, but you'd only be able to deal lethal damage with your hands. So while they threaten (as they're weapons) they wouldn't threaten adjacent enemies while you're holding a polearm in your gauntleted-hand.
I usually buy a gauntlet for any archers on my party, just so they can be a flanking buddy for the melee guys. You need 2 hands to fire a bow, but not to hold it on someone else's turn.
I could be wrong but I think anyone can deal unarmed Strikes with any body part (elbows, kicks, etc), not just Monks and Brawlers.
Correct: "Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon (...)" CRB pg. 182 (that's the unarmed attack rules in the attack action part of the combat rules).
The TWF rules explicitly mention un armed strieks, so TWFing with unarmed strikes (either two of them or combined with a manufactured weapon) is possible.
Per this FAQ, you can use multiple weapons as part of the same full attack without using the TWF rules or suffering the TWF penalties, provided you can make two or more attacks (without TWF).
For magus:
Per this FAQ, when using Spell Combat, you can only use one weapon. Per this FAQ, Spell Combat does work with unarmed strikes, but it has to be with a hand, and you'd still need the other hand to be free. So basically, unarmed Spell Combat requires both hands to be free.
Hope you have paid the appropriate taxes to the Pathfinder gods, or those unarmed strikes will open you up to AoO...You mean like spending 2 gp on a gauntlet?
A gauntlet allows your USs to deal leathal damage, but they still provoke AoOs.
Which is why you get yourself some armor spikes. Because for some reasons, those are fine and don't provoke.
Oh yeah, spiked gauntlet is even worse.
Somehow punching with your fist provokes. And putting on a metal glove still provokes. But adding spikes to that glove makes it no longer provoke.
To me it's logically inconsistent, but whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone in heavy armor using unarmed strikes without the feat still provokes.
Add some little knuckle spikes to the exact same gaunlets, suddenly he is too imposing to provoke an AoO... that doesn't make a lick of sense.
It doesn't make sense that you provoke with unarmed strikes, at all, but that is not the topic of discussion. A feat to throw a punch. GTFOH.
What if two people, both WITHOUT the feat, try to have a fist fight?
Player A throws a punch, provokes AoO from Player B...
Player B tries to punch Player A as an AoO, but his punch provokes an AoO from Player A...
Player A throws a punch as an AoO against Player B's AoO...
It's freaking clownshoes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they're both unarmed (and don't have Improved Unarmed Strike) then neither of them threatens the other, which means they can't take AoOs. If your opponent can't take AoOs it doesn't matter if you provoke one, they can't take advantage of it.
If they're both unarmed (and don't have Improved Unarmed Strike) then neither of them threatens the other, which means they can't take AoOs. If your opponent can't take AoOs it doesn't matter if you provoke one, they can't take advantage of it.
Oh, true...
Still ridiculous that it takes a feat to use your most natural of weapons. But of course it does... this is Pathfinder. Lol.
It does not take a feat to use unarmed strikes. It takes a feat to effectively use unarmed strikes against an armed opponent, or an opponent who is trained in unarmed fighting. It would be absurd if this were not the case. There are plenty of silly feat taxes out there, but not this one.
Yeah you can still punch without IUS.
My 30-STR, 18-CON 16th level Barbarian with Power Attack and Raging Brutality can still deal 1d3+28 damage with an unarmed strike, it's just non-lethal damage.
And yes that attack provokes, but this is something he has no training in. If he picked up a Fauchard he'd still have a better chance of hitting with his untrained unarmed Strike than he would with this masterwork weapon - they're both untrained but he's more used to using his hands than this big unwieldy polearm.
The training represented by IUS is equivalent to martial arts training, and is probably as much about avoiding opening yourself up to enemy attacks as it is about hitting harder.
It makes sense to me.
It would be unrealistic to punch between sword swings because it is literally unrealistic. A shield slam or shoulder tackle might be more in line, but the balance required for using a long blade and throwing punches is different.
Punching between knife swings is much more doable.
That said, it's not against the rules to mix in with the requisite modifiers and/or penalties.
|
It would be unrealistic to punch between sword swings because it is literally unrealistic. A shield slam or shoulder tackle might be more in line, but the balance required for using a long blade and throwing punches is different.
Punching between knife swings is much more doable.
That said, it's not against the rules to mix in with the requisite modifiers and/or penalties.
You've never seen eastern martial artists then
I think it would be quite fluid and natural to combine unarmed strikes with sword swings... use the reach of the sword to strike first, carry your momentum towards the target, apply said momentum to your fist, apply your fist to their face.
Slash with a sword, use your momentum to spin in place carrying the blade all the way across your target, halfway through your spin you turn your head and reacquire the target, extend your free hand in a fist, and backhand/hammerfist your target in the face.
And that's just two easy examples using punches... haven't even touched knees or kicks or headbutts.
Pathfinder makes it seem harder than it actually is in real life. You get all hitched up wondering if you have the required feat or class ability to pull something off... when in reality, you just do it because you can.
Pathfinder makes it seem harder than it actually is in real life. You get all hitched up wondering if you have the required feat or class ability to pull something off... when in reality, you just do it because you can
...because you have the right feat or class ability.
Choreographing fighting techniques like you're choreographing new moves to The Cha Cha Slide may *seem* straightforward and easy, but I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not.
Feats occupy the same weird, nebulous space as Merits, Edges, Talents or whatever a given system calls them. Basically, they're not just a straightforward application of a skill and they're not something everyone can do.
Not everyone can put their hands up and be just as dangerous as if they'd picked up a knife. You want your character to do that, you need a feat. Don't like it? Houserule it out. But the "why can't martials have nice things?" argument doesn't fly here. Feats help distinguish martials from each other. Lvl9 casters don't care about feats. Want to address that? Houserule the crap out of the system or find a new system, I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fair.
And I love the system quite a bit. Useless feat taxes and all. Some feats still don't make sense to me, but it all adds to the satifaction of finding the correct formula...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some feats still don't make sense to me, but it all adds to the satifaction...
I hear that. My list of houserules gets longer and longer.
I think free Power Attack and Combat Expertise, or auto-upgrades like Cleave to Great Cleave, or combining benefits like Point Blank and Precise Shot can all help quite a bit.This particular instance, though? Fine with it. Unarmed Combat is a rather different animal, and I think the feat and the AoO are a decent way to represent that. A monk is worth more than pretty much any other character in a barroom brawl. Until the barbarian takes Improved Unarmed Strike, anyway. IUS, Endurance and similar feats are all great alternatives to certain racial abilities, too. If you don't plan on using any goofy weapons, maybe you're skilled at fighting with none at all.
You also didn't specify eastern sword swinging, genius. f'n d***.
I mean...no one specified *not* Eastern sword swinging, either.
I think it's safe to say that close combat is far more complicated than any game system could ever reay hope to duplicate. While it would be awesome to have rules to let my fighter parry with his main gauche, jump onto a table, lunge with his rapier, tumble to the landing and gladiator-kick someone down the stairs, it's easier to just say "TWF gives you an extra attack and your rapier does better damage than your boot so just use it."
Indeed, one can.
The issue with the rules here is due to categorisation whereas existence as we experience it is continuous. Someone genuinely trained in the use of a close-quarters combat weapon will also be able to apply the general ideas governing it, such as reach and guard, to her limbs should she find herself in a situation where to use them.
What makes unarmed combat different is that we have inherent expertise on our bodies. This isn't the same as handing a rapier to someone trained with a cutlass, especially in a context where fighting is done not for sports, with a referee, but for survival or at least protection and minimisation of harm withstood.
How can one be trained to face battle using any of a dagger and a staff and a sword and an axe an a bladed scarf and reload and shoot a crossbow in melee but not efficiently know how to kick at the opportune time?
Yay, TriOmegaZero is around!^^
Post a link and I'll test your knowledge on swordsmanship. You also didn't specify eastern sword swinging, genius. f'n d***.I'll be flagging this and also taking the time to ask you to avoid being inflammatory. Nothing stated should have gotten you so defensive, and it would be better to avoid making these kinds of remarks in the future. Thank you.
I think that's a joke account (the joke is that (s)he is a grumpy old grognard who says grumpy things), so I don't think any offence was meant.
Of course being a joke doesn't mean you can ignore the forum rules, so flag away.