Is "Fist" a stand in for any form of unarmed attack that is not considered a natural attack?
If you're hands are occupied, such as by wielding a two-handed weapon, can you make a Fist strike? For example, can you kick someone using the same weapon stats as "Fist?"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is "Fist" a stand in for any form of unarmed attack that is not considered a natural attack?
If you're hands are occupied, such as by wielding a two-handed weapon, can you make a Fist strike? For example, can you kick someone using the same weapon stats as "Fist?"
Maybe you should check with this poster: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43bzi?First-is-fist-a-fist-first-or-is-fist-no t#3.
Or this thread from a couple of years ago: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42w04?What-are-the-stats-for-nonfist-attacks#1
|
Is "Fist" a stand in for any form of unarmed attack that is not considered a natural attack?
If you're hands are occupied, such as by wielding a two-handed weapon, can you make a Fist strike? For example, can you kick someone using the same weapon stats as "Fist?"
Maybe you should check with this poster: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43bzi?First-is-fist-a-fist-first-or-is-fist-no t#3.
Or this thread from a couple of years ago: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42w04?What-are-the-stats-for-nonfist-attacks#1
Oof, I even commented on the first one there.
As to the second part of his question, no, your hands need to be free to punch with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon.
An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn't a weapon, though it's categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it's part of your body, an unarmed attack can't be Disarmed. It also doesn't take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage generally works like a free-hand weapon.
You can't attack with a free-hand weapon if you're wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand.
But it seems that other body part unarmed attacks wouldn't be limited to the free-hand trait. So you could kick with a foot that you are standing on.
So yes, a sword and board fighter can make an unarmed attack with their foot. Using the same statistics as the 'fist' attack listed in the equipment table.
While these would use the same statistics, they aren't Fists and therefore are exempt from the damage die increase of Powerful Fist.
Disagree. I see no reason to restrict it to just hands.
The precedent from previous editions is to allow the monk damage increase to all body part attacks.
Most monks don't use weapons anyway. What shenanigans are you trying to prevent? A dual shield carrying monk that kicks instead of using a stance?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is "Fist" a stand in for any form of unarmed attack that is not considered a natural attack?
If you're hands are occupied, such as by wielding a two-handed weapon, can you make a Fist strike? For example, can you kick someone using the same weapon stats as "Fist?"
Maybe you should check with this poster: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43bzi?First-is-fist-a-fist-first-or-is-fist-no t#3.
Or this thread from a couple of years ago: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42w04?What-are-the-stats-for-nonfist-attacks#1
🤣 OMG! LOL. I'm getting SO old...
You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon.An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn't a weapon, though it's categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it's part of your body, an unarmed attack can't be Disarmed. It also doesn't take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage generally works like a free-hand weapon.You can't attack with a free-hand weapon if you're wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand.But it seems that other body part unarmed attacks wouldn't be limited to the free-hand trait. So you could kick with a foot that you are standing on.
So yes, a sword and board fighter can make an unarmed attack with their foot. Using the same statistics as the 'fist' attack listed in the equipment table.
While these would use the same statistics, they aren't Fists and therefore are exempt from the damage die increase of Powerful Fist.Disagree. I see no reason to restrict it to just hands.
The precedent from previous editions is to allow the monk damage increase to all body part attacks.
Most monks don't use weapons anyway. What shenanigans are you trying to prevent? A dual shield carrying monk that kicks instead of using a stance?
Doesn't Powerful Fist or some other monk ability specifically state you can use any part of your body? I knew monks could, but I wasn't sure if that was also true of non-monks.
I think this conversation is largely left in the same place it was last year. This is largely a question for your GM, especially when trying to interpret specific cases. The rules for what uses hands and what doesn’t in PF2 are often very detailed, but there is not universal stylistic conformity on where in the text for various rules that will be written. There is no such thing as flavor text that is separate from rules text in this game. It is also a game written by many different writers so it is not always consistent.
If 2 shield monk attacking with tiger claw elbows feels wrong to your game, don’t allow it. If your player wants to describe an elaborate move involving strikes with knees and a headbutt as a part of a wolf jaws attack, and that sounds cool to you, do it. Maybe there will be an errata for clarity, but quite possibly there won’t be. You probably don’t want to make a two shield monk for PFS though, at least not one using a stance that calls out using a hand, fist or claw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. It is basically in the same place. If the rules say "hand" then you need a hand. If the rules says fist then maybe you can probably interpret that as any body pady that you can reasonably describe as striking with (eg head butt, claw, tail swipe, body slam, kick) because the description of the unarmed attack and fist allows for it. But sometimes the GM interprets fist as an actual fist. Which is fair.
|
|
Disagree. I see no reason to restrict it to just hands.
You know how to wield your fists as deadly weapons. The damage die for your fist increases to 1d6 instead of 1d4. Most people take a –2 circumstance penalty when making a lethal attack with nonlethal unarmed attacks, because they find it hard to use their fists with deadly force. You don't take this penalty when making a lethal attack with your fist or any other unarmed attacks.
It explicitly says your Fist increases in size. Then allows any Unarmed attack to be lethal with no penalty.
The precedent from previous editions is to allow the monk damage increase to all body part attacks.
Don't use 1e as proof of things in 2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The precedent from previous editions is to allow the monk damage increase to all body part attacks.Don't use 1e as proof of things in 2e.
Absolutely, precedent is not proof.
But it is also not nothing.
Yeah. It is basically in the same place. If the rules say "hand" then you need a hand. If the rules says fist then maybe you can probably interpret that as any body pady that you can reasonably describe as striking with (eg head butt, claw, tail swipe, body slam, kick) because the description of the unarmed attack and fist allows for it. But sometimes the GM interprets fist as an actual fist. Which is fair.
Yeah, I can get behind that logic too.