There are a half dozen deities in Pathfinder that have favored weapon "fist." Of those, two offer alternative options.
Since many of the abilities that reference a deity's favored weapon make the assumption that they are, in fact weapons, this creates a problematic disconnect since fists are NOT weapons at all.
What can be done to emeliorate this problem, so that abilities like an Avenger's Zealous Inevitably or anything using the term "wielding" function as intended?
Shouldn't all such deities be errata to provide alternative weapon options? As written faithful of "the way of the fist" are decidedly weaker than their weapon wielding kin which makes playing what would otherwise have been a cool concept feel really bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fist is a weapon in the unarmed brawling group, not sure what you're on about. Pretty sure you count as wielding it as long you aren't wielding something else in the same hand.
Edit: Just found this post in your other thread
Both Doubling Rings and Blazons of Shared Power specify weapons only. Unarmed attack users are left out.
Even a feat that can apply to a weapon with the agile or finesse trait would not apply to 'fist' because unarmed attacks are explicitly not weapons.
So that's where it's coming from the fist aren't weapons (although that's confusing when putting them on the weapon table).
I'm really trying to think about what the point of having the line about unarmed attacks not being weapons was trying to prevent. I know if PF1 there could have been a lot of shenanigans.
I feel like in PF2, letting unarmed strikes count as weapons (pretend as if that one line didn't exist) probably doesn't result in anything crazy happening.
I'm not sure if fists can be "wielded"* but that ambiguity is rather secondary to the rest of it, which is quite clear: fists are not weapons. Things that refer exclusively to weapons do not apply to fists.
Many abilities and options that refer to deity favored weapons in PF2 assume that they are weapons, which causes many such abilities to fail to operate as (presumably) intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really trying to think about what the point of having the line about unarmed attacks not being weapons was trying to prevent. I know if PF1 there could have been a lot of shenanigans.
Sometimes it does kind of just feel like a pre-emptive reaction to shenanigans that don't actually exist based on PF1.
The main thing that would happen is that certain abilities that specify weapons would work on unarmed attacks too. Like a ranger could twin takedown with unarmed attacks. Maybe they just really didn't want rangers to punch people.
The other thought is that maybe it's a defensive decision against the fact that monk unarmed stances are somewhat high budget compared to weapon and break normal rules (like d8 agile or d10 that's not 2handed). But that feels like a crummy justification for warping the entire rules system and shafting so many builds.
... It's really kind of awkward for Avengers because unarmed attacks can be a deity's favored weapon, but aren't a weapon, and the text for the avenger sometimes uses the latter term as a shortening of the former.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apologies for talking for them, but it's likely in reference to this thread and other posts in which Ravingdork unfortunately can't make a character idea work very well because of the awkwardness of unarmed vs. weapons distinction.
It's less about "wielding" your fists, and more that unarmed attacks do NOT count as "weapons" for the purposes of feats and features. "Unarmed attacks" and "weapons" are treated as separate, which excludes them from feats like Twin Takedown and, famously until the Fall 2024 errata of PC1, the flurry hunter's edge. This also makes doubling rings not work for them, as they only copy runes from a melee weapon to another melee weapon.
Normally, this distinction is fine, since there's a tradeoff between dual-wielding weapons and using unarmed attacks that keeps both of them worth using. Unarmed attack users have permanent free hands to hold things with and use maneuvers, where dual-wielders get the benefits of feats like Twin Parry and Twin Takedown and such.
Unfortunately, Avenger class archetype recently came out for Rogues in War of Immortals and it includes plenty of verbiage with not only its own feats, but includes feats like Twin Takedown and Twin Parry which can imply that followers of gods with only the Fist for its favored weapon just kinda miss out on a lot of the archetype's benefits. This is a realistically unnecessary limitation as Avengers don't really have a flavor limitation other than "being a devout follower of a deity".
Realistically, I think all of Avenger's non-borrowed feats (Zealous Inevitability, Silence the Profane, and Shadow of Death) that mention favored weapons work as-written, because "Favored Weapon" is a separate block of rules than the one that makes the distinction between "weapons" and "unarmed attacks", insofar as they effectively say "as long as you're wielding whatever is in your Deity's "Favored Weapon" section in it's statblock", but it's an extra layer of confusion that could have saved Raving a bunch of trouble.
Notably, there's also another separate issue with "Fist" as a favored weapon: other unarmed attacks that aren't the base Fist don't technically count, so you can't even use stance-based weapons for any of these, despite the fact that Irori would absolutely not care whether or not you were using base Fist or the Wolf Jaw strikes from Wolf Stance.
Honestly, I still don't see where removing the line about unarmed attacks not counting as weapons would cause harm to the game.
I think certain items might need to call out not working with fists (doubling rings for instance) but I think in general letting things like Twin Takedown or Hunter's Edge would generally be fine.
As a GM, I'd probably just tell RD to generally ignore that line when it comes to feats and class abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, BigHatMarisa. You summarized the issue perfectly.
As a GM, I'd probably just tell RD to generally ignore that line when it comes to feats and class abilities.
Unfortunately that isn't as likely to happen in rules rigid games or in Pathfinder Society organized play games.
I'd like to see the rules cleaned up and clarified, rather than asking for a houserule at every new table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, nothing in the game would BREAK, per se. PF2 is a pretty robust system that letting things like that slide won't cause a world-shattering difference, for sure.
But there is the subtle notion that there are so many different unarmed attacks with Stances that are comparable to "real" weapons and ALSO come with an invisible "free-hand" trait. So to keep dual-wielding "real" weapons competitive with just always having access to at least 2 or 3 unarmed attacks at a time normally, I think it's an okay distinction to have in the base game.
Avenger, though, is taking a class archetype that restricts you to being a follower of a deity already, so I dunno why it shouldn't get a little special treatment to allow them to do so. Something like:
"Special: Avengers may use an unarmed attack for feats that require wielding two melee weapons, as long as their deity's favored weapon is an unarmed attack."
but, then, of course, that's to say nothing of the gods who only have two-handed weapons who lose out on these feats, either.
There is room for them to make some specific carveouts or to at least add "gauntlet" as an option for some of this. Claw is another unarmed attack option that can come up. I do like unarmed being distinct from weapons overall, but at the least they should create some unarmed-specific options that help it feel more balanced.
I think it's an okay distinction to have in the base game.
Unless you happen to want to play an unarmed character and just get f*$%ed by the rules in a bunch of esoteric ways for basically no benefit to anyone.
Unfortunately that isn't as likely to happen in rules rigid games or in Pathfinder Society organized play games.
I'd like to see the rules cleaned up and clarified, rather than asking for a houserule at every new table.
Totally understandable, but I have my doubts it will be cleaned up any time soon.
As the rules work, they're just unnecessarily punitive.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's an okay distinction to have in the base game.Unless you happen to want to play an unarmed character and just get f!&~ed by the rules in a bunch of esoteric ways for basically no benefit to anyone.
I mean, most unarmed characters are NOT being f!+@ed, really. There's so many advantages to having unarmed attacks:
-damage up to and including d10s with agile and finesse options and traits galore and a plethora of damage types.
-Many of them are technically NO-handed; most unarmed attacks can be made with any part of the body unless specified otherwise by whatever grants them, meaning even if both of your hands are full (with potions, scrolls, or the shirt of your enemy) you still have a way to attack.
-you are free-handed, which is arguably the biggest boon. Zero extra action costs to readjust your grip, the ability to use maneuver attacks (Shove, Grapple, Trip, etc) without leaving yourself Strikeless, and you also cannot be disarmed.
-Handwraps of Mighty Blows are the same cost to inscribe with runes as every weapon, but they apply to every unarmed attack you have at NO extra cost all the time with almost no restriction, meaning they are cheaper than even dual-wielding with Doubling Rings, especially at lower levels
-they work at a proficiency that is as universal as Simple weapons, meaning every character starts trained in them.
-they're Bulkless - a small boon, no doubt, but an edge up nonetheless.
Unarmed attacks DO have a reason to be separate from weapons, and be excluded from some things at a baseline, because they can do plenty of things other weapons-users have to get feats or use specific weapons to have due to the intricacies of the system.
It's corner-cases like Raving's where I believe exceptions can be made because there's plenty of restriction with the surrounding character choices already and it seems clear that there's no intention for the designers to WANT Irori and other gods to be soft-excluded from the list of gods that Avengers can be with.
I do think balancing rules around “fist” that is supposed to include a d4 base attack and potentially up to a D8 or D10 attack that includes martial weapon traits is cause enough for not just treating all unarmed strikes as weapons for all purposes.
Monk unarmed stance strikes really don’t need to become the best “weapons for every class that can potentially leverage agile or finesse traits, for example.
Which isn’t to say avengers shouldn’t be able to use deity’s favored weapons, but probably fist needs to not include such a broad range of options, or else it is like getting an entire weapon group instead of a favored weapon.
Aside from a couple statements that it would be unlikely to break the game as a house rule, I don't believe anyone here is actually arguing that unarmed attacks should be treated as weapons. I wouldn't recommend wasting time and energy arguing against something nobody said.
Totally understandable, but I have my doubts it will be cleaned up any time soon.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
-damage up to and including d10s with agile and finesse options and traits galore and a plethora of damage types.
So I want to single this out as I think it's a key problem with the debate.
What you're describing are not unarmed attacks broadly, but a specific monk feat.
Tiger Stance, Dragon Stance, Whatever. Those are very strong attacks.
But most unarmed attacks are not those.
The default unarmed attack is d4 agile finesse unarmed, which puts it a parity/slightly worse than your average simple weapon. Lots of other unarmed attack fit in this same basic profile.
The problem you and Paizo are both making is generalizing the benefits of a specific feat (that you have to spend actions to activate every combat, are mutually exclusive with other stances, and require multiple feats for most characters to take) and generalizing them to a whole category of attack, in such a way that renders a bunch of mechanics needlessly unintuitive and cripples a bunch of character ideas for no benefit.
It's frankly kind of silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought OP's problem would be with the growing number of ancestries with no Fist attacks.
In my games I've been running with a "don't cheese it" stance and letting unnarmed attacks qualify as weapons in most cases. Pretty much if it's a 1d8 dmg or less attack, it works fine with everything, and if it's higher it only works if other high damage weapons would work.
Having free hands is nice, but unnarmed attacks are generally lower damage, have fewer cool bells and whistles, and are often a flavor choice that ends up running into an unfair feeling number of blockers.
|
I thought OP's problem would be with the growing number of ancestries with no Fist attacks.
In my games I've been running with a "don't cheese it" stance and letting unnarmed attacks qualify as weapons in most cases. Pretty much if it's a 1d8 dmg or less attack, it works fine with everything, and if it's higher it only works if other high damage weapons would work.
Having free hands is nice, but unnarmed attacks are generally lower damage, have fewer cool bells and whistles, and are often a flavor choice that ends up running into an unfair feeling number of blockers.
Actually, WatersLethe, I think Ravingdork's issue is how "Fist" not being considered a weapon means it doesn't play well with Avenger's Zealous Inevitability and Silence the Profane if your chosen Deity's Favored Weapon is "Fist", since the feats mention "you are wielding your deity's favored weapon".
The default unarmed attack is d4 agile finesse NONLETHAL unarmed...
Fixed that for you. Can't overlook the -2 to hit if you're needing to kill something.
I thought OP's problem would be with the growing number of ancestries with no Fist attacks.
In Pathfinder everyone has a "fist" attack.
I think Ravingdork's issue is how "Fist" not being considered a weapon means it doesn't play well with Avenger's Zealous Inevitability and Silence the Profane if your chosen Deity's Favored Weapon is "Fist", since the feats mention "you are wielding your deity's favored weapon".
Yes, that's the immediate issue, but I'm also concerned about other areas in the rules where abilities might reference a deity's favored weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if fists can be "wielded"* but that ambiguity is rather secondary to the rest of it, which is quite clear: fists are not weapons. Things that refer exclusively to weapons do not apply to fists.
Many abilities and options that refer to deity favored weapons in PF2 assume that they are weapons, which causes many such abilities to fail to operate as (presumably) intended.
** spoiler omitted **
Wielding isn't any issue. What you're looking for with a fist is this line in wielding; "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." How many hands do you have to hold your fist in? 0. Seems easy enough. If you can manage to use/wield a Freehand weapon, you can use a Fist. You're holding your fist in as many hands as you do with your gauntlet.
When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it.
Then there is this. ANYTIME you are able to/capable of attacking with your Fist, you are wielding it by definition. The ability to use the fist IS wielding it. It seems pretty straight forward that you're always wielding your unarmed attacks when you're up and able to take actions.
The default unarmed attack is d4 agile finesse NONLETHAL unarmed...Fixed that for you. Can't overlook the -2 to hit if you're needing to kill something.
If you think this will be a big deal, play an Orc or 1/2 orc. Take the feat Iron Fists. Your problem is over. Or a Talos with Ferrousoul. Dwarves can do it for 2 round with Spark Fist. there's also quite a few Dedications that do it.
If you think this will be a big deal, play an Orc or 1/2 orc. Take the feat Iron Fists. Your problem is over. Or a Talos with Ferrousoul. Dwarves can do it for 2 round with Spark Fist. there's also quite a few Dedications that do it.
Kind of had my eye on the conrasu of Monad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think this will be a big deal, play an Orc or 1/2 orc. Take the feat Iron Fists. Your problem is over. Or a Talos with Ferrousoul. Dwarves can do it for 2 round with Spark Fist. there's also quite a few Dedications that do it.Kind of had my eye on the conrasu of Monad.
Well, you can still be a Conrasu with a Dromaar heritage.
Well, you can still be a Conrasu with a Dromaar heritage.If you think this will be a big deal, play an Orc or 1/2 orc. Take the feat Iron Fists. Your problem is over. Or a Talos with Ferrousoul. Dwarves can do it for 2 round with Spark Fist. there's also quite a few Dedications that do it.Kind of had my eye on the conrasu of Monad.
That doesn't really fit the backstory I had in mind. Not even sure how such a being could even come about short of "a wizard did it."
Conrasu aren't even humanoids.
|
|
Well, you can still be a Conrasu with a Dromaar heritage.If you think this will be a big deal, play an Orc or 1/2 orc. Take the feat Iron Fists. Your problem is over. Or a Talos with Ferrousoul. Dwarves can do it for 2 round with Spark Fist. there's also quite a few Dedications that do it.Kind of had my eye on the conrasu of Monad.That doesn't really fit the backstory I had in mind. Not even sure how such a being could even come about short of "a wizard did it."
Conrasu aren't even humanoids.
A YouTuber I watch used the Conrasu as the heritage for the Githyanki character from BG3.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not even sure how such a being could even come about short of "a wizard did it."
I mean... One of the possible origins for them is exactly that: "Some historians think them a failed experiment of a wizardly cabal". The true form of a conrasu is an abstract chunk of spiritual essence, so it's not hard to imagine some other kind of essence could get caught up in there as opposed to the more traditional biological reason for a heritage.
I'll be honest, with as far out there that their 'normal' existence is, adding 1/2 orc seems like the least problematic part for my role playing them or figuring out their background with how alien they are.
Secondly, Talos is an option too. How hard is it to imagine some elemental metal essence is in a conrasu, either in the core or the plant. They have Rites to enhance the plant parts with magic, a connection to Axis, Light and plants. Would a rite for a connection to the plane of metal be so odd?
-damage up to and including d10s with agile and finesse options and traits galore and a plethora of damage types.So I want to single this out as I think it's a key problem with the debate.
What you're describing are not unarmed attacks broadly, but a specific monk feat.
And most issues that people are describing are with the fact that unarmed attacks don't count as weapons for the purposes of other specific feats, namely things like Twin Takedown.
That's where lots of people get lost, I think. The POINT is that you take feats to make your unarmed attacks really good, or you take weapon feats to make your weapons really good. Hell, it's not even "specific monk feats" as you can just grab many of the good stances via Martial Artist - which you probably are going down usually if your character's fantasy is about being a weapon with your own body. Many ancestries also have access to decent unarmed alternatives straight out at level 1, too - though none are as good as the stances for obvious reasons.
If I want my unarmed attacks to be great, I take the feats to get great unarmed attacks. If I want my dual-wielding to be great, I take the feats that make my dual-wielding great. If I want my two-hander to be great, or my sword-and-board, or even my board-and-board I take those feats.
While I do agree there can be plenty of loosening here and there by just adding "or unarmed attacks" to plenty of things, like the wonderful (but definitely belated) flurry hunter's edge errata and this Avenger thing that seems silly, I do stand that the current paradigm is pretty fine as-is. Also, as stated, the game doesn't exactly shatter into pieces when this restriction is lifted at home games, and even if it did, if it's more fun for your game then I won't judge.
Even if you just want your fists to be a little better, you can take Martial Artist Dedi for just the die bump and lethality - a single feat. A single feat that still gives you a good option that you can STILL buff with Handwraps, STILL use free-handed, and STILL be a competitive option compared to someone who's dual-wielding two swords.
I think the change that would make sense is instead of treating unarmed attack as weapon in general, but treat specific ones (your deity' favored weapon) as weapon for ranger feats that asks you to od weapon Strikes if your deity's favored weapon is an unarmed attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aye, like there is really no reason why you shouldn't be able to use Emblazon Armament or Divine Weapon or Sanctify Armament on, say, Handwraps of Mighty Blows. As previously noted, there are PLENTY of gods who would be absolutely overjoyed to bless your unarmed weapons, considering it's supposedly their "favored weapon".
Honestly, if they wanna keep the distinction between unarmed attacks and weapons, they REALLY should consider changing "Favored Weapon" to something less confusing. "Favored Armament" or "Favored Implement", perhaps. It's the "when is an "attack" an "attack roll"?" thing all over again.
I concur that the term is a problem. I think there are scenarios where even a cleric ability could be weapon, fist, or any other unarmed attack exclusively, but these should be unambiguous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an issue with more then just Avenger, it's just especially pronounced with Avenger.
The troubles in playing an Apsu Warcleric. (It's not a fist attack but Jaws, still same unarmed attack woes.)
-No Emblazon Armament line feats (requires weapon or shield)
-No Divine Weapon (requires, again, a weapon)
-No Sanctify Armament (again, weapon)Or Spiritual Weapon, a spell I previously loved using, being pretty hard to use for an unarmed spellcaster. It changed from a club, a dagger, or deity's favoured weapon to "a weapon you're wielding or wearing"
So really, this issue is one I can commiserate on as well, 'tis certainly frustating to run up against.I guess, to play Devil's Advocate here myself, the concern might be Fighter? Because of Fighter's many many many weapon feats can apply to unarmed attacks, then monk loses it's niche?
But on the other hand, Dueling Parry using unarmed Fighter sounds baller as hell. (Or would that be Twin Parry instead because 2 fists? Hm. Rules oddities to consider there.)
Apsu has Jaws or Staff for favored weapon.
I thought OP's problem would be with the growing number of ancestries with no Fist attacks.In Pathfinder everyone has a "fist" attack.
Awakened Animal:
Your heritage gives you a special unarmed attack instead of the fist unarmed attack humanoids typically gain.
So unless you pick an animal that happens to also have a Fist attack, you don't have a Fist attack.
I also thought Barathu didn't have Fist, which is why I thought it was a growing list, but I guess they do have fists. I wouldn't be surprised if more Fistsless ancestries come out of the woodwork in Starfinder though.
I mean, technically not every ancestry has a fist, they usually have access to some sort of physical attack with an appendage that uses the same stats.
When does that matter? I guess for deity weapons in might. Monk stances that require a fist/punch probably don't work if you don't have fists to punch with.
In general it matters very little, until you try to make a character that wants to specialize in that thing where it then matters a lot.
Awakened Animal:
Your heritage gives you a special unarmed attack instead of the fist unarmed attack humanoids typically gain.
So unless you pick an animal that happens to also have a Fist attack, you don't have a Fist attack.
Oh dear. It seems I've been playing my awakened giant spider incorrectly then, smashing skeletons and what not.
Oh dear. It seems I've been playing my awakened giant spider incorrectly then, smashing skeletons and what not.Awakened Animal:
Your heritage gives you a special unarmed attack instead of the fist unarmed attack humanoids typically gain.
So unless you pick an animal that happens to also have a Fist attack, you don't have a Fist attack.
You're doing it right.
"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."
Just because Fist got replaced doesn't mean that you don't use it's "statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body". The Fist replacement is covered in "Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks." A bear awakened animal can still kick you with an unarmed attack using the 'fist' stats.
Why they put that it's a replacement is beyond me though as it complicates things for no gain that I can see. For instance, that awakened bear? I see no reason they can't use a punch attack using the 'fist' statistics which makes the replacement text meaningless IMO. The only way to look at it is that somehow awakened animals somehow lose the ability to attack with other parts of their bodies, which doesn't seem RAI.
PS: I guess you could try to argue that you could use the Animal Attacks in place of fists for other body attacks, but being able to 1d6 P beak kick seems even less likely RAI.
|
|
I think what really does not help this situation is how weapon ends up still being used to describe fists in a non-mechanical sense.
Exhibit A
Powerful Fist
Your fists are deadly weapons. The damage die for your fist increases to 1d6 instead of 1d4. You don’t take the normal –2 circumstance penalty when making a lethal attack with your fist or any other unarmed attacks.
Why call it a "deadly weapon" if your fists still aren't treated like weapons!?
I think this falls under the category of a rule that doesn't work as intended.
Generally yes you can't use unarmed attacks for a feat or ability that requires a weapon, but since your favored weapon is an unarmed attack, it would be fine for your GM to allow you to treat that unarmed attack as a weapon for feats and abilities that require you to be wielding or holding your deity's favored weapon.
Talk to your GM. If they agree with the above, great! If they don't, pick a different deity.
I think this falls under the category of a rule that doesn't work as intended.
Generally yes you can't use unarmed attacks for a feat or ability that requires a weapon, but since your favored weapon is an unarmed attack, it would be fine for your GM to allow you to treat that unarmed attack as a weapon for feats and abilities that require you to be wielding or holding your deity's favored weapon.
Talk to your GM. If they agree with the above, great! If they don't, pick a different deity.
Whole character falls apart with a different deity, sadly.
Why call it a "deadly weapon" if your fists still aren't treated like weapons!?
Kinda the same reason Double Slice is Double Slice even when you can do piercing or bludgeoning damage with it. It sounds more evocative.
If they opened up 'fist' to always count as a weapon for all of these various issues no one would ever want to use any weapon but fist.
It's already a very powerful option for many builds as you always get to have a 'hand free'. It is essentially a "pseudo weapon" that has nearly ALL the traits except versatile.
And you can't be disarmed. You don't drop it when you get knocked out. And with 'handwraps' you can get runes.
Which does beg a question. Could things like the blazons mentioned in the third post work with handwraps?
Even if not, it's still a great option.
I play in a game with a Champion of Irori that uses fist and a shield with a shield boss. I've got the ability to spam out all kinds of manuevers.
My only mistake was going boss instead of spikes for 'cooler art' reasons.
Handwraps themselves aren't a weapon, they're a magical item that can be inscribed with weapon runes - an important distinction - so no, Blazons can't share Handwrap runes RAW, since they transfer runes from and to a weapon specifically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the many weird features of PF-2E. Like, why are fists not weapons, does a shield take up a true hand, how does resistance truly function if you deal multiple damage types, so forth. So many odd questions and rulings that happen.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My theory is that the designers chose not to classify unarmed strikes as weapons because they have some natural advantages that weapons do not, such as the fact that they cannot be disarmed (both in the Disarm action situation and in thematic situations where the PCs cannot be carrying their weapons) and the fact that this allows them to keep both hands free for various uses. But since the monk exists, a way to make unarmed strikes competitive with weapons was also needed, so the choice was made to be able to improve attacks at the cost of a feat and a stance, making them more expensive while at the same time not treating them as weapons would stop them from interacting with several other mechanics that require weapons.
The problem is that sometimes it seems like designers forget that unarmed attacks are not weapons and that this causes strange interactions that lead to dubious interpretations and force GMs to have to choose how they will deal with it, varying from GM to GM, which ends up making us ask for some errata to better adjust the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My theory is that the designers chose not to classify unarmed strikes as weapons because they have some natural advantages that weapons do not, such as the fact that they cannot be disarmed (both in the Disarm action situation and in thematic situations where the PCs cannot be carrying their weapons) and the fact that this allows them to keep both hands free for various uses. But since the monk exists, a way to make unarmed strikes competitive with weapons was also needed, so the choice was made to be able to improve attacks at the cost of a feat and a stance, making them more expensive while at the same time not treating them as weapons would stop them from interacting with several other mechanics that require weapons.
The problem is that sometimes it seems like designers forget that unarmed attacks are not weapons and that this causes strange interactions that lead to dubious interpretations and force GMs to have to choose how they will deal with it, varying from GM to GM, which ends up making us ask for some errata to better adjust the situation.
That seems like a pretty accurate summary overall.
Designers have a lot of information to juggle and good designers - especially those who design for multiple systems - may not have as much memorized as GMs and players. I do hope there's an internal FAQ or checklist being built to identify things that can be easily forgotten (See: Kineticist blasts) but the speed, scale, cost, and complexity of production will lead to misses that seem obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say, compared to some of the more esoteric issues that cropped up in the rules (when is "an attack roll" different from "an attack" from Pre-Remaster, for example), at least this one is mostly cut-and-dry, which allows GMs way easier motion to say whether or not they'll allow something.
If I know something isn't within RAW, but I don't think it's that big a stretch, it's easy for me to say "Yeah, I can give that one to you, but if it becomes a problem we'll talk about it later". The only issues that crop up from THESE types of corner-cases are typically PFS games (or GMs who typically rule things as close to PFS as possible).
Would still definitely like more clarification, and am glad that Favoured Weapon: Fist got brought up in the Errata thread. PFS is still a part of the community, after all.