Spirit Warrior Weapon Wording?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

The Spirit Warrior archetype introduced in the Tian Xia Character Guide has feats that focus on combining attacks from a one-handed melee weapon or a melee weapon with the agile or finesse trait with a fist attack. It's incredibly cool, but I'd like some clarification on the wording:

It doesn't seem to specify that your OTHER hand (the one you make the fist attack with) must be EMPTY to use it, the way it does for say the Laughing Shadow Magus, and because the agile or finesse melee weapon is specified separately from the one-handed melee weapon, it makes me wonder if you can use two-handed agile or finesse weapons (such as the Elven Curve Blade or the Whipstaff) with Spirit Warrior's feats, essentially allowing you to choke up on the handles of these weapons to hold them in one hand so you can punch and then return your hand to the weapon to properly wield it for your next attack?

Furthermore, could a Thaumaturge possibly use Spirit Warrior, or would holding an implement essentially mean you can't make a fist attack?

[HammerJack]

So, basically this comes back to long running arguments about Fist attacks, that often refer to the rules describing unarmed attacks. The Player Core 1 text is below for reference.

Quote:

Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. 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. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 276), and they might have weapon traits (page 276). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.

The Unarmed Attacks table (page 277) 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. For instance, goblins with the razortooth heritage can attack with their sharp jaws. While most unarmed attacks are melee, some, especially those from certain ancestries, might even be ranged, like the leshy’s ability to launch hard seedpods. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them.

People have been arguing about that passage for some time, with two basic readings:

1. Fist on the weapons table is an attack with your actual fist, but you'd use the same stats for a kick, elbow strike, headbutt, etc. Other abilities that affect Fist attacks, like monks and martial artists increasing the damage die to D6 only apply if you are making the Strike with a hand. Monk kicks (without a stance) are still D4.

2. Fist is used generally for all sorts of unarmed Strikes that are available to anyone, whether it is actually a punch, is a kick, is an elbow, etc. Monk kicks deal D6 damage, just like monk punches.

The requirement in Overwhelming Combination reads like it was written by someone who holds with reading 2, not reading 1.

Under reading 2, Overwhelming combination could be done with a two-handed Agile/Finesse weapon as one Strike and a kick, elbow, knee, headbutt, or other general unarmed strike under the Fist umbrella as the other.

Under reading 1, the requirement of Overwhelming Combination has to be wrong, because it would only ever be usable with a 1 handed weapon, regardless of Agile or Finesse traits, and it would never work for a thaumaturge who had an implement in their other hand.

EDIT: It is also important to include the Unarmed trait and the Free-Hand trait here, since it explains why, if reading 1 were correct, the thaumaturge would have an issue, and why punching with a choked up grip and a weapon-bearong hand wouldn't work.

Quote:

Unarmed: An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though has a weapon group and might have weapon traits. 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.

Free-Hand: This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon 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 free-hand weapon on it.

[Blave]

The way I read it, it makes full use of the fact that "fist" represents all manner of unarmed attacks. It seems like you can use it as long as you're wielding one weapon that fits the description. It doesn't say you can't have your other hand occupied. You could wield a shield, hold a scroll or even wield another weapon in your other hand and still use all of its abilities. Or use two-handed weapon as long as it's agile or finesse.

You could likewise have a thaumaturge implement in your other hand and still use everything.

Some mild proof: The Disarming Interception reaction of the Intercepting Hand feat requires you to have your hand positioned to parry and then says you can catch the disarmed weapon "if your hand is free". So you obviously don't need a free hand to use your "fist".

[Squiggit]

HammerJack wrote:

1. Fist on the weapons table is an attack with your actual fist, but you'd use the same stats for a kick, elbow strike, headbutt, etc. Other abilities that affect Fist attacks, like monks and martial artists increasing the damage die to D6 only apply if you are making the Strike with a hand. Monk kicks (without a stance) are still D4.

I don't really follow this. If you use the stats of Fist for any body part, then the modifications would carry over too.

Like even if you're making the argument that a Kick is a separate unarmed attack that only happens to use the Fist's stats, then you're still swinging at d6 because the attack you reference had a die size increase.

[HammerJack]

Squiggit wrote:

HammerJack wrote:

1. Fist on the weapons table is an attack with your actual fist, but you'd use the same stats for a kick, elbow strike, headbutt, etc. Other abilities that affect Fist attacks, like monks and martial artists increasing the damage die to D6 only apply if you are making the Strike with a hand. Monk kicks (without a stance) are still D4.

I don't really follow this. If you use the stats of Fist for any body part, then the modifications would carry over too.

Like even if you're making the argument that a Kick is a separate unarmed attack that only happens to use the Fist's stats, then you're still swinging at d6 because the attack you reference had a die size increase.

I would say the same. I personally hold with reading 2, as the author of Spirit Warrior seems to, but I've seen number 1 enough that I think it wouldn't be a very honest answer of me to not lay it out. I've seen A LOT of people very thoroughly convinced of that reading, from the same rules.

[Errenor]

HammerJack wrote:

Quote:

Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. 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.

Wow, it's really hard for me to read this any differently from how it's written. Yes, you can Strike with another body part. That's what is clearly written. 'You can Strike with ... another body part' I can't dispute this at all. How, even?

And then when you want statistics, they give this:

Quote:

The Unarmed Attacks table (page 277) 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.

Again, very clear. It seems all set.

So yeah, monks are real unarmed combat masters (who would have thought?) and the feats in the OP seem to work without free hand (though I don't have full text).

[Finoan]

Regarding ruling option 1 - that changes to the Fist unarmed attack only apply to unarmed attacks made with 'fist' body part specifically:

I also agree with ruling option 2. Changes to Fist unarmed attack apply to all other unarmed attacks that use Fist stats.

What I have argued for is that a special unarmed attack that uses your hand (a claw attack or stance like Wolf Jaw), doesn't get the same treatment that the Fist attack does. The special unarmed attack that uses your hand does have to be made using your hand or fist body part. You don't get to make a claw attack with a headbutt, or a Wolf Jaw attack with a kick.

Edit: Another thing would be if something adds to Fist unarmed attack, or allows a Fist unarmed attack as part of a subordinate action, then it specifically uses the stats of your Fist attack. Not any claw attack from an ancestry, or Barbarian Animal Instinct claw attack, or stance Unarmed attack made with a fist like Tiger Stance claw attacks.

[HammerJack]

I should probably also note that I referenced monk's Powerful Fist as an example of how the distinction in those two readings has come up before, but it isn't actually part of the question in this thread. This is slightly different, since with Powerful Fist there is a point of crossover (you could say that a kick isn't a Fist Strike but shares the stats of Fist after your Fist is upgraded by the Powerful Fist feature).

For Overwhelming Combination, there is only "all of these ARE Fist Strikes and can be used" or "they share the stats of Fist, but AREN'T a Fist and can't be used".

[Archpaladin Zousha]

So the answer's basically "it could go either way, depending on how lenient your individual GM is with it?"

[HammerJack]

I believe that the correct and intended answer is that "Fist Strike" includes unarmed attacks with many body parts, not only hands. The way this archetype is written suggests that the people involved in writing it thought the same.

But I have seen enough resistance to this understanding of what Fist means that checking what page your GM is on will be a good idea. It isn't really leniency or a lack of leniency. It's more "what is their understanding of the intent of underlying rules?"

[Red Griffyn]

RAW you can't, but I don't think it breaks anything in this instance to let you use a 2H finesse weapon. So as a GM I'd allow it, but I'd expect table variation from other tables. I realize that stance makes me not popular lol, but hopefully someone at Paizo will just tell us the RAI is as we want it without GM hand waiving. Here are the rules:

The unarmed attack rule:

Quote:

The Unarmed Attacks table (page 277) 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.

This means that even though you might use the fist statistics for other unarmed strike that fist is not synonymous with <insert other unarmed strike>. You could use the statistics of a fist for a kick but the kick is not equivalent to the named 'fist'.

The unarmed trait itself states:

Quote:

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.

Note that this wording used to be "a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon" but in the first errata pass they made it 'like' a free-hand weapon because people thought the hand was in fact a weapon (not an unarmed strike). So the intent that the fist is an unarmed strike with the free-hand trait is clearly intended from Paizo's own wording/errata explanation. In that same errata pass they changed handwraps of mighty fists to handwraps of mighty blows (clearly someone thought there was some confusion over the term 'fist'). This rule text is also a very important indicator of why 'fist' is not an umbrella term. If 'fist' was an umbrella term for 'elbow/knee/headbutt/etc.' then you get nonsensical outcomes like you can't headbutt someone if you don't have a free hand due to the free-hand trait being on fist. Thus there is a clear rules distinction between a fist as a grasping appendage and other un-named unarmed strikes which are not grasping appendages. So its clear that not all properties are passed from one to the other (i.e., its a left to right hierarchy not a top/flow down hierarchy that an umbrella term would require).

and the free-hand trait:

Quote:

This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon 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 free-hand weapon on it.

Its clearly denotes in sub-ordinate actions rule text that any subordinate action still carries the same traits as the action if it wasn't part of an activity:

Quote:

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 416—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.

So you go to use OC with a 2H finesse or agile weapon or a wielded object in your fist. You can attack with the weapon but if there is any reason why that free-hand fist is wielding anything else (implement, the hilt of a 2H weapon, etc.) then you can't execute the sub-ordinate action. The sub-ordinate action is what is smuggling in the free-hand requirement so even if OC doesn't state it explicitly it is there implicitly any time you have to make a 'strike with a fist that is treated as a free-hand weapon'. Per the sub-ordinate actions rule above, you don't have any explicit ability to remove, change up your grip, drop, do something else, etc. to otherwise free the hand of the wielded object so you're stuck and can't strike with the fist.

If you have a ANY official statement, designer interview/post, anything that clarifies this then provide it. I'll change my position. I tried to find anything and couldn't but maybe logan or mark did some interview somewhere where they said fist = all non-specified unarmed strikes (not just that it can use the same statistics as fist) and truly calls them out as equivalent.

Personally I think they used the fist term in the archetype because that future proofs it vs. someone trying to use a much better stance based unarmed attack. The entire concept of body part x may usually use the stats of a fist is just there to save printing space, I don't think it carte blanche opens up the term fist to be synonymous with literally every body part. The only reason this is being generally discussed now is because its tied to an archetype with some real mechanical chops. I don't think I've ever seen someone throw a fist in combat past the cliche L1 tavern brawl to meet your party members. The only class that would use it already has 1D8 finesse/agile/backstabber stances that are better in all ways (so why bother refuse someones sub-optimal wish?).

[Errenor]

Red Griffyn wrote:

you can't headbutt someone if you don't have a free hand due to the free-hand trait being on fist.

It's all very interesting how you read all the same things in different way and ignore some of 'generally' reservations, but Fist doesn't have 'free-hand' trait. Probably in part exactly because of what you've wrote here. It means nothing is 'smuggling in the free-hand requirement' anywhere for example.

So you could completely remove all this line of reasoning and try again :)

[Baarogue]

forward added in editing:

Please read to the end before getting mad. My post took a turn while I was double-checking my argument, but I'm not going to delete the whole thing after I've gotten this far. Maybe it'll help future arguments and/or illuminate my thought process? ^_^;;

initial assertion: Flowing Palm Deflection's description, "The simple and precise movements of your hands allow you to deflect blows with the same efficacy as a raised shield.", and Intercepting Hand's name imply that the writers mean the literal fist formed with your hand when they say fist, not another body part

And quoted upthread but I'll do so again, unarmed trait says, "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."

I would still allow Overwhelming Combination to be used with a qualifying 2h weapon, otherwise the second part of "You’re wielding a one-handed melee weapon or a melee weapon with the agile or finesse trait" makes no sense. What else would differentiate a melee weapon with the agile or finesse trait from a 1h melee weapon? I consider that a specific override of the unarmed trait's free-hand behavior, but only in the case of a 2h weapon. Overwhelming Combination does not explicitly say it overrides the unarmed trait's free-hand behavior in all situations. We can only infer that it must do so for 2h weapons because there is no other way for that to work

I would not allow it for a thaumaturge holding an implement in their off-hand (or anyone holding anything), due to the unarmed trait's free-hand behavior because Overwhelming Combination doesn't explicitly say it overrules it in all situations

"generally works" is imprecise phrasing, which I find extremely unsatisfying, so I'm not super invested in my ruling nor do I begrudge anyone (including Errenor, who is oddly aggressive this thread :P) reading the whole fist thing in the way Hammerjack described as type 2. I've been rewatching Demon Slayer recently and I really like the whole imagery and character fantasy of using punches, elbows, kicks, and headbutts with their nichirin blades; wielded in all combinations of 1h, 2h, and dual-wielded. I hope they clarify this in that direction

fake edit: Especially after I noticed the following

My initial assertion has a flaw, exposed by the text of the Intercepting Hand feat, "If the Disarm attempt is a critical success and you have a hand free, you can catch the disarmed weapon in your hand instead of it falling to the ground in the target’s space."

If we're assuming fist mean hand, and we're following the unarmed trait's free-hand behavior which would require the fist hand to be free to make use of its parry trait, in what situation are you going to parry with your fist but not have a hand free?

So does this make me a type 2 convert? Man, I dunno. My problem mostly lies with the parry trait. Its presence on a weapon is supposed to be a trade-off. "While wielding this weapon" you use an action to gain its AC bonus. Now, if parry is on a literal "fist or other grasping appendage" we can impose the free-hand requirement to use parry because of free-hand trait's "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." But what about if we're using the type 2 "anything goes as a fist" definition? Parry's wield requirement becomes meaningless. You can use any part of your body to parry

real edit: btw I'm getting the text for the feats from pathfinder nexus

[Red Griffyn]

Errenor wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

you can't headbutt someone if you don't have a free hand due to the free-hand trait being on fist.

It's all very interesting how you read all the same things in different way and ignore some of 'generally' reservations, but Fist doesn't have 'free-hand' trait. Probably in part exactly because of what you've wrote here. It means nothing is 'smuggling in the free-hand requirement' anywhere for example.

So you could completely remove all this line of reasoning and try again :)

I don't understand your attempt to dismiss the very logical flowpath of the rules stated above. Lets try to restate this all in a more structured manner:

1.) Fist is a named unarmed strike

-> Yes

2.) Fist as a grasping appendage has the free-hand trait and we can't somehow use the word 'generally' to ignore that it has the free-hand trait because we know exactly the RAW/RAI intent of this statement from the first player core rulebook errata. Here is Paizo's literal change note text:

Quote:

In the definition for the unarmed weapon trait, the sentence "a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon" was worded in such a way it confused a few people, who thought that meant those unarmed attacks were weapons, despite statements to the contrary on page 278. To make it clear, change that section to read "a fist or other grasping appendage generally works like a free-hand weapon

-> So Yes a fist has the free-hand trait and 'generally' was only used to clearly denote that the unarmed strike is NOT a weapon for the purpose of feats/features/items that require weapons or unarmed strikes. It was not intended to open up a new line of 'weasel word ambiguities' to divorce 'fist' from the free-hand trait.

Now lets test my interpretation (A) that fist is not equivalent to all un-named unarmed strikes and your interpretation (B) that fist is equivalent to all un-named unarmed strikes to see which leads us to the more logical conclusion. The scenario is that I want to strike an enemy with any un-named unarmed strike (but lets just say its a headbutt) but my hands are full.

A.1) Headbutt is defined as a unique/distinct unarmed strike that you'll usually use the same statistics for attacks as a fist.

A.2) Some interpretation is required by the GM to clarify what usually means an what traits do or do not commute from fist to headbutt.

A.3) GM Rules: Well there is no definition of headbutt so normally you wouldn't be able to use it to strike, but in this instance because of the rules text that it is usually uses the statistic of a fist I'll rule it for this attack your headbutt uses the statistics of a fist BUT as a non-grasping appendage it won't have the free-hand trait.

A.4) I strike with my headbutt and can do so because it doesn't have the free-hand trait and it will be a 1D4/Finesse/Agile weapon equivalent.

-> The conclusion is consistent with how we want the game to play (i.e., you can attack with non-grasping appendages while your hands are occupied).

OR

B.1) Headbutt is defined as equivalent in all ways as 'fist' because 'fist' is simply an umbrella term for all un-named unarmed strikes.

B.2) No interpretation is required by the GM to clarify what "usually" is because we have defined it to be equivalent.

B.3) Because they are equivalent and fist has the free-hand trait then headbutt has the free-hand trait.

B.4) I try to strike with my headbutt but cannot do so because my hands are full and the headbutt has the free-hand trait.

-> The conclusion is non-sensical because of course we could headbutt with our hands full. It generates a contradiction because we know that there is a difference between grasping and non-grasping appendages from the rules. The headbutt as a non-grasping appendage can't simultaneously be equivalent to a free-hand fist AND not be a grasping appendage. Unless you're ruling that I can now grasp things with my entire body (teeth, butt cheeks, unstrapped to my back like a balloon with static charge). But now we're down the track of special pleading. We know that you can't just grasp to wield objects because because 'held items' include entries for 1 or 2 hands (implying only hands can hold objects'. But there are instances of wielded/held objects that don't have that entry that we would then have to let be wielded/held by literally any part of your body. That includes nearly all thaumaturge implements, tengu feather fans (in PFS based on the clarification), the Ganjay Book, etc.).

So in the end which interpretation leads to a more nonsensical conclusion. I think it is obviously A. Interpretation B, is willfully ignoring the required GM interpretation of 'usually' in A.2 to A.3 stipulated in the rules to proclaim that 'fist' is equivalent in all ways to all other un-named unarmed strikes. But you can't get there with 'defining' them to be equivalent and that commits the fallacy of 'begging the question' by having your conclusion as your main premise. Interpretation B generates contradictions and larger non-sensical conclusions and only avoids 'contradictions generated by it' by committing a "special pleading fallacy" for why the fist headbutt can be done with your hands full.

[Errenor]

Red Griffyn wrote:

I don't understand your attempt to dismiss the very logical flowpath of the rules stated above. Lets try to restate this all in a more structured manner:

Yes, let's just try (for the last time). No, Fist doesn't have 'free-hand' trait. Why? Well, let's see the weapons table!

Fist — 1d4 B — 1 Brawling Agile, finesse, nonlethal, unarmed
Well? See? Do you now see it? Or, well, not see it? Exactly! There's no 'free-hand' trait! It's a miracle!

What's even more exasperating is that you've even found why it must NOT have the trait (at the very least):
"B.3) Because they are equivalent and fist has the free-hand trait then headbutt has the free-hand trait.
B.4) I try to strike with my headbutt but cannot do so because my hands are full and the headbutt has the free-hand trait."
Exactly! This breakes non-fist Fist Strikes! Only the answer is: "there's no free-hand trait so there's no problem."

And no, again, "a fist or other grasping appendage generally works like a free-hand weapon" does not mean the Fist has free-hand trait. At all. Because "generally works like" and because "a fist or other grasping appendage" and because Fist is hands plus all other body parts. And because weapons table says so.

[Ascalaphus]

I think the free-hand thing should be understood differently.

* You can strike with many parts of your body, like punches, kicks and headbutts.
* For this you'll usually use the same stats as for Fist.
* When that unarmed strike is done with your hands or another grasping appendage, it'll generally have the free-hand trait. So you can't make an actual fist-Fist strike when your hand is occupied.
* If the unarmed strike is done with something else, then the free-hand trait is not relevant. Your kicks don't have the free-hand trait and you're also not holding anything in your feet.

So the free-hand thing isn't something that applies to all possible unarmed strikes that use the Fist stats, but only when that strike is being done with a hand or other grasping appendage that could be occupied by holding stuff.

The generic Fist attack therefore doesn't have the free-hand trait because those stats are being borrowed for all kinds of body attacks. But the specifically with-your-hands Fist attack does have it (because that's what the book says).

[Ascalaphus]

It would have been really helpful if they had used "body attack" in the weapons table. The at first seemingly really specific "Fist" which then turns out not to always be actual fists is just making things more complicated.

[Red Griffyn]

Errenor wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

I don't understand your attempt to dismiss the very logical flowpath of the rules stated above. Lets try to restate this all in a more structured manner:

Yes, let's just try (for the last time). No, Fist doesn't have 'free-hand' trait. Why? Well, let's see the weapons table!

Fist — 1d4 B — 1 Brawling Agile, finesse, nonlethal, unarmed
Well? See? Do you now see it? Or, well, not see it? Exactly! There's no 'free-hand' trait! It's a miracle!

What's even more exasperating is that you've even found why it must NOT have the trait (at the very least):
"B.3) Because they are equivalent and fist has the free-hand trait then headbutt has the free-hand trait.
B.4) I try to strike with my headbutt but cannot do so because my hands are full and the headbutt has the free-hand trait."
Exactly! This breakes non-fist Fist Strikes! Only the answer is: "there's no free-hand trait so there's no problem."

And no, again, "a fist or other grasping appendage generally works like a free-hand weapon" does not mean the Fist has free-hand trait. At all. Because "generally works like" and because "a fist or other grasping appendage" and because Fist is hands plus all other body parts. And because weapons table says so.

Clearly you're willfully ignoring rules if you think it doesn't have the free-hand trait. The part that gives fist a free-hand trait is the UNARMED TRAIT which you're literally quoting from the fist table as it having. Its a nested trait and not great design but your just flat out wrong. If you don't like nested traits then go complain to Paizo.

The point of B.3) and B.4) is to show the literal contradiction that your interpretation leads to AND is WHY your interpretation is worse than mine (mine doesn't lead to any contradictions, but yours does). This isn't some UNO reversal going on here. Your statements are logically inconsistent and you're trying to debate the point by gaslighting me into thinking the exact opposite of what is happening. Its not going to work lol.

If you literally can't ready the point made above on why 'generally' isn't some cause for ambiguity for you to exploit then you're just being willfully ignorant of the rules AGAIN. Paizo themselves state EXACTLY what that sentence means and provides extremely obvious clarification for why they changed the wording. Just because you don't like that they actually explained themselves in the FAQ on this one doesn't make you right.

At this point you're just trying to use your incredulity to manifest the reality you want and that isn't how any of this works. A good argument will cite rules, cite designer clarifications/FAQ (even if it is informal), or use induction. A good argument is not your personal rhetoric.

[ElementalofCuteness]

Also something to point out. If it was restricted to only one handed weapons then there would be absolutely no need for Spirit Warrior to mention in Combination Strike that the Requirement would be the following

Requirements
You’re wielding a one-handed melee weapon or a melee
weapon with the agile or finesse trait;

Which means that why melee weapon qualifies for Combination Strikes if it has the Agile or Finesse trait opening it up to several two-handed weapons and if that was not suppose to be allowed then why add that as a second/alternative Requirement? (It should read like this then)

Requirements
You’re wielding a one-handed melee weapon.;

Now if it read like this we could 100% agree to the fact Fist strikes are suppose to use your free-hand but since it does not read as simple as this you need to go back up to the fact it allows you to use a two-handed Agile or Finesse weapon since it is a rule that over-writes the previous rule it just created.

If this is not how it is suppose to work then it needs to be Errata'd ASAP. Since we know hand-wraps work on non-fist fist attacks which is why I believe able to make a d6 body attack instead of fist is 100% allows in conjunction with a two-handed Agile or Finesse weapon.

[Errenor]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Clearly you're willfully ignoring rules if you think it doesn't have the free-hand trait. The part that gives fist a free-hand trait is the UNARMED TRAIT which you're literally quoting from the fist table as it having. Its a nested trait and not great design but your just flat out wrong. If you don't like nested traits then go complain to Paizo.

It's a complete and utter rubbish. No, it's not a nested trait. It's not even an actual conditional trait, as rules just kind of work like that only in case of using hands. Maybe.

Also my position is absolutely working, logically consistent and works even for this topic. Your empty statements don't change that.
Ok, as I said it was the last time, so bye.

[Red Griffyn]

Errenor wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Clearly you're willfully ignoring rules if you think it doesn't have the free-hand trait. The part that gives fist a free-hand trait is the UNARMED TRAIT which you're literally quoting from the fist table as it having. Its a nested trait and not great design but your just flat out wrong. If you don't like nested traits then go complain to Paizo.

It's a complete and utter rubbish. No, it's not a nested trait. It's not even an actual conditional trait, as rules just kind of work like that only in case of using hands. Maybe.

Also my position is absolutely working, logically consistent and works even for this topic. Your empty statements don't change that.
Ok, as I said it was the last time, so bye.

It isn't my job to make people online discuss topics in good faith, possess/utilize average level reading comprehension skills, or know how to structure a logically consistent argument or test its soundness. Bye.