PDA

View Full Version : Can you TWF with just unarmed?



Frosty
2010-06-14, 07:09 PM
You don't have two weapons equipped, but is there really anything that says you can't kick AND headbutt?

Can one use Wolf Fang Strike (a low level Tiger Claw maneuver) with only unarmed?

Keld Denar
2010-06-14, 07:11 PM
This is a huge debate. RAW can go either way. No balance reason why you shouldn't allow it. Ask your DM.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-14, 07:18 PM
When the book says their is no off hand for a monk they simply mean when you flurry it can be with any part of our body its just part of the normal attack routine. More fluff then anything.

But down to the rules, yes you can, the off hand attacks follow all the normal rules. But you could have main hand +15/+10/+5 and off hand +15/+10/+5
[not accounting for any bonuses or penalties on attack rolls for simplicity].
You can even flurry at the same time gaining two additional attacks on your main hand.

The quickest way to look at it is this,
A monk can do TWF with his unarmed strike and a manufactured weapon, simply remove the manufactured and replace with a fist.

lsfreak
2010-06-14, 07:20 PM
You can even flurry at the same time gaining two additional attacks on your main hand.

That's what's really heavily debated. Monk has a single weapon - his unarmed strike is one weapon. Thus he cannot TWF with it. Or maybe he can. Ask your DM.

Frosty
2010-06-14, 07:30 PM
That's what's really heavily debated. Monk has a single weapon - his unarmed strike is one weapon. Thus he cannot TWF with it. Or maybe he can. Ask your DM.

but let's say he wears a gauntlet on one hand. Suddenly he can TWF? That makes no sense whatsoever.

lsfreak
2010-06-14, 07:32 PM
but let's say he wears a gauntlet on one hand. Suddenly he can TWF? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes, but now he can't flurry, since it's not a monk weapon..

Personally, I let anyone TWF with unarmed strikes, and let monks TWF + flurry if they really want to miss that often.

Cog
2010-06-14, 07:36 PM
but let's say he wears a gauntlet on one hand. Suddenly he can TWF? That makes no sense whatsoever.
It's not how gauntlets work, either. All they do is modify your unarmed attack - so, by RAW, the fact that you've got a metal glove on means your headbutts can do lethal damage. Yes, that makes even less sense.

As for using a headbutt and a punch, that's the same as asking whether the point of a sword and the edge of the sword allow you to make additional attacks - i.e., sure, if your BAB is at least 6.

lsfreak
2010-06-14, 07:42 PM
It's not how gauntlets work, either. All they do is modify your unarmed attack - so, by RAW, the fact that you've got a metal glove on means your headbutts can do lethal damage. Yes, that makes even less sense.


Actually, by RAW, it seems possible that only a monk's unarmed strike can be made with any body part. The non-monk unarmed strike, listed with the rest of the weapons, lacks the clause that it can be used with any body part; thus, the wording at least leans towards the non-monk US can only be make with normal hands (mainhand, offhand), though it certainly doesn't come out and say it.

EDIT: Basically what it comes down to is, everything relating to Unarmed Strike - a monk's or anyone else's - is subject to some of the muddiest wording of anything WotC published, and your best bet is to ask your DM, because RAW is ambiguous at best and facepalmingly nonsensical at worst.

UglyPanda
2010-06-14, 07:47 PM
There are two simple interpretations:
-No you can't, a character only has one "unarmed strike" weapon and the body part used is simply fluff.
-Yes you can, but you can only use two hands because the DM says so.

I personally have issues regarding the latter interpretation, but I'm sure someone will think it makes sense.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-14, 07:52 PM
Actually, by RAW, it seems possible that only a monk's unarmed strike can be made with any body part. The non-monk unarmed strike, listed with the rest of the weapons, lacks the clause that it can be used with any body part
You should check again. From the Combat chapter, Standard Actions section, "Attack":
Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following ... That's every unarmed attack, not just Monks'.

Keld Denar
2010-06-14, 07:53 PM
As I've said in the past, it is worthwhile to TWF with Flurry and UAS if you have full progression flurry (like from Tashalatora) and a means of size scaling your UAS damage, then your flurry penalties are negated by level 9, you get an extra attack at level 11, and each hit is 6d6 or more, then it is generally well placed to gain as many extra attacks between flurry, snap kick, and TWF as possible.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-14, 07:56 PM
Damage reduction is still a complete bastard to any 'death by a thousand cuts' damage dealer.

lsfreak
2010-06-14, 08:01 PM
You should check again.

So I should :smallredface: I hate when they put related materials in vastly different places...

Hague
2010-06-14, 11:02 PM
I'm afraid I have to side with the people saying that it is its own single weapon. The "unarmed strike" is your weapon since humanoids don't have natural slam attacks. Natural weapon means you are "armed" with that weapon. Now, if you had a slam attack naturally, you could use your unarmed strike as your primary weapon and the slam attack as a secondary weapon. You must have a second weapon, be it natural or artificial, in order to use TWF.

dextercorvia
2010-06-14, 11:07 PM
US is a single weapon, but with so many 'ends' perhaps it counts as a double weapon.

Grommen
2010-06-14, 11:09 PM
Yes, but now he can't flurry, since it's not a monk weapon..

Personally, I let anyone TWF with unarmed strikes, and let monks TWF + flurry if they really want to miss that often.

That is where I stand on it.

Pathfinder's Flurry of Blows is TWF (-2 for each hand) but at full BAB. Works for me...

But really if you like rolling dice and hoping for the best. By all means get that TWF with your monk and flail away!

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-14, 11:58 PM
Damage reduction is still a complete bastard to any 'death by a thousand cuts' damage dealer.

Well there's Ki Strike for three of them and Silversheen and Oil of Bless Weapon for two more are cheap items. Cold Iron is a concern but I wouldn't be surprised if there's something out there to give that as a buff and if not I'm not sure where its common and there isn't another method available like most demons also having /good.

Hague
2010-06-14, 11:59 PM
I reaffirm by my belief that Kensai is the natural progression of the Monk class. So many opportunities for item feature abuse... The description of Signature Weapon states that a monk can enchant both of his fists, meaning that both of his fists are a weapon, allowing TWF... man, this IS confusing...

I mean, imagine, using Monk 11/Kensai 9 and picking up a pair of +5 defending, soulstrike, impedence fists. The Soulstrike ability lets you allocate the enhancement bonus from your fists into a +10 untyped bonus to saving throws vs. spells, much like the defending power will let you transfer your enhancement bonus from the fists to an untyped bonus to your AC. The Impedence power makes it so that when you strike an enemy their spells and spell-like abilities become impeded for 1d6 rounds as if they were on a plane opposed to their magic (all of it) They must succeed in a Spellcraft, intelligence or charisma check against 15+the spell's level or it fails. Hee hee.

I could go with Implacable instead, which would make the monk's enemies die Fist of the North-Star style, 5 attacks at 20/20/20/15/10 (Depending on TWF, factoring in the enhancement bonus if used.) that deal 1d10+5 + 2 points per enemy turn for 5 rounds, with the wounds stacking. Meaning, if I hit an enemy 5 times, they take 10 points for the following five rounds. The damage continues to stack, so another 5 hits deals 20 on the following round.

I could add the Metalline power instead, which would give them the ability to change their fists to be silver, cold iron or adamantine.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-15, 12:13 AM
Not confusing to me Two Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) makes mention of it as a light weapon. You have two fists, so if you want to pay the penalty then why the hell not. Seems to me RAI, RAMS, support it and unless we can get something more explicit in RAW it there you go.

I also agree that Kensai makes so much sense for Monks. Try it when the DM is letting you take Vow of Poverty too.

JaronK
2010-06-15, 12:48 AM
IIRC there was actually a rules discussion on the official webpate on this very subject, which stated that you could do it. It's usually not a great idea, but you could.

JaronK

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-06-15, 01:10 AM
I know "The Sage" is often a joke to cite, but his imput could further muddle the waters of this issue as he suggests that it takes the Quick Draw feat to switch a weapon from one hand to the other in between iterative attacks. What this implies, to me, is that a monk could end up using the aforementioned feat in order to switch a properly enchanted gauntlet from hand to hand in order to utilize two weapon fighting with the single equipped "weapon". What a mental image, eh? :smalltongue:

Maerok
2010-06-15, 01:22 AM
There's a Rayman Monk/Kensai build around here somewhere that lets you throw your fists, IIRC.

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/3/175743-rayman_large.jpg

Curmudgeon
2010-06-15, 07:13 AM
Not confusing to me Two Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) makes mention of it as a light weapon. You have two fists, so if you want to pay the penalty then why the hell not.
Why is the number of fists relevant? They're just a part of the unarmed strike "ends" of your single natural weapon. You've also got two feet, one head, two elbows, two knees, two hips, and one butt (if you want to sit on someone to pin them). Unless there's a Boxer class, where only the fists can be used as unarmed weapons, fists are irrelevant. After all, you can fight unarmed when both your hands are occupied.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-15, 07:34 AM
Why is the number of fists relevant? They're just a part of the unarmed strike "ends" of your single natural weapon. You've also got two feet, one head, two elbows, two knees, two hips, and one butt (if you want to sit on someone to pin them). Unless there's a Boxer class, where only the fists can be used as unarmed weapons, fists are irrelevant. After all, you can fight unarmed when both your hands are occupied.

Off hand I can't think of why its relevant to just normal fighting. If someone really wanted to I can't think of reason, at the moment, why you couldn't use a greatsword and get a extra attack by butt-checking some guy. With the appropriate penalties and all

Though it is relevant for some places like Kensai who would need to pay different XP costs for their signature weapon and an example given is they have to pay for both fist as all iterations of a natural weapon must be covered.

Greenish
2010-06-15, 07:49 AM
Pathfinder's Flurry of Blows is TWF (-2 for each hand) but at full BAB. Works for me...Why they didn't just give monks full BAB is beyond me. They go out of their way to give Monks full BAB "only" when flurrying and for the purposes of CMB and CMD…

Unless there's a Boxer class, where only the fists can be used as unarmed weapons, fists are irrelevant.There's fighter variant called "Pugilist". I don't remember it specifying anything, though.

Amphetryon
2010-06-15, 08:27 AM
Off hand I can't think of why its relevant to just normal fighting. If someone really wanted to I can't think of reason, at the moment, why you couldn't use a greatsword and get a extra attack by butt-checking some guy. With the appropriate penalties and all

Though it is relevant for some places like Kensai who would need to pay different XP costs for their signature weapon and an example given is they have to pay for both fist as all iterations of a natural weapon must be covered.
Thanks for making me picture a Kensai whose butt is his signature weapon... :smalleek:

Matthew
2010-06-15, 08:35 AM
The problem is that between D20/3e and D20/3.5 the "off hand" switched from the "left" (or if you are a lefty, the right) hand to something more ambiguous. In the glossary of the PHB the 3.0 version still holds true, and it is pretty obvious what the intent was, you make primary attacks with your primary hand and secondary attacks with your secondary hand. If, for some reason, you decided to make an attack with another body part then life gets confusing because the general case for attacks never really considered the possibility. Can a creature with six arms use multi weapon fighting to make six head butt attacks? Probably not, but it does make one primary attack and five off handed attacks in whatever fashion seems most logical.

Prime32
2010-06-15, 08:36 AM
Thanks for making me picture a Kensai whose butt is his signature weapon... :smalleek:Nah, the "iconic" unarmed kensai applies the sizing, flaming and vorpal properties to his... thing. So that he can cut peoples' heads off with it from 10ft away.

Person_Man
2010-06-15, 08:44 AM
Official FAQ says yes. I do as well, for what it's worth.

Il_Vec
2010-06-15, 08:44 AM
You don't have two weapons equipped, but is there really anything that says you can't kick AND headbutt?

Can one use Wolf Fang Strike (a low level Tiger Claw maneuver) with only unarmed?

Unrelated to the anwser of the first question, the second one is answered Yes, you can use the Wolf Fang Strike. The maneuver explicitly allows you to make an unarmed attack if you are using one weapon. If you can TWF with unarmed, then you are in the first clause, and use your two unarmed atacks. If unarmed is a single weapon, you are wielding One Weapon, and fit in the second clause, being allowed to use unarmed as your second strike. Ugly, but it actually works.

PId6
2010-06-15, 08:45 AM
Nah, the "iconic" unarmed kensai applies the sizing, flaming and vorpal properties to his... thing.
If you'll excuse me, my Kensai and I are going to go start a business now. It may or may not include lots of popup ads.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 08:57 AM
Monks are an exception to TWF and unarmed strike. Strictly speaking, it is a light weapon that has a differentiated number of attacks and just requires you to be able to move instead of free hands.

I recall unarmed strike + weapon TWF referred as something as simple as treating unarmed strike as a light weapon. So you'd have a onehanded weapon on one hand, and your free hand on the other. Pick either as the main hand and go to town. Monks have the bonus of doing so without necessarily a free hand (so it could be a halberd and kicks or something like that).

Curmudgeon
2010-06-15, 09:10 AM
Monks are an exception to TWF and unarmed strike. Strictly speaking, it is a light weapon that has a differentiated number of attacks and just requires you to be able to move instead of free hands. Excepting flurry of blows, they really don't. Anyone with Improved Unarmed Strike can do the same thing. Monks do more damage, but anyone can make the same kinds of feet/head/elbows strikes.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 09:22 AM
Excepting flurry of blows, they really don't. Anyone with Improved Unarmed Strike can do the same thing. Monks do more damage, but anyone can make the same kinds of feet/head/elbows strikes.

That's not in the feat description. I only see that freedom on the monk's description of IUS, along with the strength bonus and the manufacture/natural twist.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-15, 09:43 AM
That's not in the feat description. I only see that freedom on the monk's description of IUS, along with the strength bonus and the manufacture/natural twist.
It doesn't need to be in the Improved Unarmed Strike description, because that just details the benefits of the improved unarmed strike. The basic unarmed strike already has the "whole body" characteristic. From the Combat chapter, Standard Actions section, "Attack":
Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following ... That's every unarmed attack, not just Monks'.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 09:59 AM
It doesn't need to be in the Improved Unarmed Strike description, because that just details the benefits of the improved unarmed strike. The basic unarmed strike already has the "whole body" characteristic. From the Combat chapter, Standard Actions section, "Attack": That's every unarmed attack, not just Monks'.

Well, what a waste of text on the class features, then. I take back :p But it raises back the doubt of whether or not a nonmonk can TWF with two unarmed strikes. I'd just allow it, I guess.

Il_Vec
2010-06-15, 10:01 AM
My interpretation of the Wolf Fang Strike didn't get commented because it was correct or because it was the last post of the previous page and got ninja'd?

Greenish
2010-06-15, 10:05 AM
My interpretation of the Wolf Fang Strike didn't get commented because it was correct or because it was the last post of the previous page and got ninja'd?It works by RAW. Good catch.

[Edit]: Assuming that having unarmed strike counts as "carrying one weapon".

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 10:09 AM
My interpretation of the Wolf Fang Strike didn't get commented because it was correct or because it was the last post of the previous page and got ninja'd?

Some of the Tiger Claw maneuvers specify that if you don't have two weapons, the second attack is an unarmed strike. It's simpler to just assume you can always use an unarmed strike in place of missing weapons.

Frosty
2010-06-15, 04:03 PM
Some of the Tiger Claw maneuvers specify that if you don't have two weapons, the second attack is an unarmed strike. It's simpler to just assume you can always use an unarmed strike in place of missing weapons.

I just wanted to make sure that was RAW.

Zovc
2010-06-15, 04:31 PM
You don't have two weapons equipped, but is there really anything that says you can't kick AND headbutt?

Can one use Wolf Fang Strike (a low level Tiger Claw maneuver) with only unarmed?

I see no reason not to allow this--it's more open-ended than fighting with the same two weapons each time. Instead of just saying "I attack the goblin." and everyone assumes you're using both swords, you say "I'll punch the goblin, then follow up with a kick!"

Coidzor
2010-06-15, 05:22 PM
If you're willing to use Dragon Material, there's at least one variant class (specifically I'm thinking of the City Brawler Barbarian from Dragon 349) that explicitly states its TWF feats are only compatible with TWFing unarmed strikes.

So, if you allow dragon, then it is more in keeping with the general rules you're using to rule in favor of allowing monks to TWF with unarmed.

If you don't allow dragon or at least, disallow that particular issue or feature, then, see this thread in all its incarnations. And I've likely been ninja'd a thousand times over.

Frosty
2010-06-15, 05:32 PM
Yes, but now he can't flurry, since it's not a monk weapon..

Personally, I let anyone TWF with unarmed strikes, and let monks TWF + flurry if they really want to miss that often.
I still don't understand why a monk loses all knowledge of hitting things really quickly when his fists are encased in steel. Unarmed strike is unarmed attack, right?

What, next you'll tell me that monks take a -4 non-proficiency penalty while fighting with his fists (what he trained for his whole life) encased in gauntlets?

Greenish
2010-06-15, 05:36 PM
What, next you'll tell me that monks take a -4 non-proficiency penalty while fighting with his fists (what he trained for his whole life) encased in gauntlets?He gets that -4 anyway, since monk's aren't proficient with Unarmed Strikes. (Unless you subscribe to the school that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Attacks.)

Frosty
2010-06-15, 05:45 PM
Are there" Natural Weapon" proficiencies? Did WoTC forget to give those to monks too?

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 05:45 PM
He gets that -4 anyway, since monk's aren't proficient with Unarmed Strikes. (Unless you subscribe to the school that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Attacks.)

ouch.......

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-15, 05:46 PM
Official FAQ says yes. I do as well, for what it's worth.

This. Needs feats (so is not an abuse, you paid this an high cost) and is more easy to imagine.

Frosty
2010-06-15, 05:48 PM
ouch.......
Apparently this also goes for Druids and Wizards, who have no idea how to use their limbs to hit people. I just looked up their proficiencies.

Greenish
2010-06-15, 05:50 PM
Are there" Natural Weapon" proficiencies?You're automatically proficient with your Natural Weapons. Whether Unarmed Strike counts as one is a point of contention.

Frosty
2010-06-15, 05:53 PM
You're automatically proficient with your Natural Weapons. Whether Unarmed Strike counts as one is a point of contention.
They can't be natural weapons. NWs don't provoke when attacking. They don't need a special feat just to be able to work. No NW I've read about is like Unarmed Strike at all.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-15, 05:55 PM
They can't be natural weapons. NWs don't provoke when attacking. They don't need a special feat just to be able to work. No NW I've read about is like Unarmed Strike at all.
Also, you can't get iteratives with Natural Attacks, but you can with unarmed strikes.

Coidzor
2010-06-15, 05:55 PM
IIRC non-monstrous humanoids aren't automatically proficient with their natural weapons unless otherwise specified (due to being soft, civilized, and sissified). Or possibly non-reptilian humanoids aren't.

Greenish
2010-06-15, 05:57 PM
They can't be natural weapons. NWs don't provoke when attacking. They don't need a special feat just to be able to work. No NW I've read about is like Unarmed Strike at all.I tend to agree with you, they appear on the simple weapons list, they can be used for iteratives et cetera, but they're often referred to as Natural Weapons by WotC.

Oh, and Curmudgeon is on the opinion that they are Natural Weapons, citing the aforementioned references.

[Edit]:
IIRC non-monstrous humanoids aren't automatically proficient with their natural weapons unless otherwise specified (due to being soft, civilized, and sissified). Or possibly non-reptilian humanoids aren't.I don't recall any references to this, and besides, Darfellan from Stormwrack (for example) are Humanoid (Aquatic) and have a Bite as a Natural Weapon.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-15, 06:59 PM
They can't be natural weapons.
And yet they are, according to the rules. Here are some of the citations.
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang).
Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)
A fanged ring grants its wearer the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and the Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) teat.

No NW I've read about is like Unarmed Strike at all.
Now, that I can't disagree with. Unarmed strikes use iterative attacks like manufactured weapons; they're in a unique category of natural weapon.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 07:07 PM
And yet they are, according to the rules. Here are some of the citations.

Now, that I can't disagree with. Unarmed strikes use iterative attacks like manufactured weapons; they're in a unique category of natural weapon.

My current understanding on the natural weapon and unarmed strike is the following:

Natural Weapons don't require proficiencies, but don't iterate. Creatures with multiple natural weapons can use them all once each as a full attack.
Unarmed strikes are natural "quasiweapons", as they are done with parts of your body not designed specifically to hurt. These require training to be properly used to hurt.

Not allowing iterative attacks with natural weapons is iffy, but at least with unarmed strike it can be attributed to training just like normal armed attacks.

Keld Denar
2010-06-15, 07:42 PM
The easiest way to look at it is thus:

Unarmed Strikes are natural attacks, except when they aren't.

There, was that so hard?

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 07:46 PM
The easiest way to look at it is thus:

Unarmed Strikes are natural attacks, except when they aren't.

There, was that so hard?
What are the current factors that "de-naturalize" them? I know of monk and gauntlets. The first is a nifty "go as it pleases you the most" and the other is more that the gauntlet is the weapon.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-15, 07:47 PM
The easiest way to look at it is thus:

Unarmed Strikes are natural attacks, except when they aren't.

There, was that so hard?
That's it, they are an exception. D&D 3.X is based on layered exceptions.

Keld Denar
2010-06-15, 08:05 PM
The biggest things that make them not a natural weapon is the fact that you can make iteratives with them, they aren't listed in the SRD with all of the other natural weapons (slam, bite, tenticle, claw, etc), and attacking with them provokes AoOs without an important feat.

In pretty much all other ways, including augementing them, they are natural weapons.

Frosty
2010-06-15, 08:07 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier for WoTC to give Monks Unarmed Strike proficiency explicitly?

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 08:08 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier for WoTC to give Monks Unarmed Strike proficiency explicitly?

They do. They have the feat improved unarmed strike and the damage and typing modifiers afterwards.

Frosty
2010-06-15, 08:10 PM
They do. They have the feat improved unarmed strike and the damage and typing modifiers afterwards.

IUS does nothing to give proficiency. It merely negates the provoking of AoOs. It doesn't get rid of the -4 penalty for not being trained in a weapon.

For example, if a Druid took Improved Unarmed Strike, he'd still have a -4 penalty to his unarmed attack rolls despite the fact he now no longer provokes for attempting to punch someone.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-15, 08:14 PM
This is the first time i ever heard of such interpretation for the unarmed strike combat, and I can't really understand the motivation behind it as anything other than "asinine".

Coidzor
2010-06-15, 08:21 PM
^: Yes, it's very asinine, but it is one of those fun, big examples of something WOTC did wrong and NEVER got around to errataing, even.
Wouldn't it just be easier for WoTC to give Monks Unarmed Strike proficiency explicitly?

Would've been, but they forgot. Either that or RAI is that monk is a trap class designed to hurt anyone who takes it.

Greenish
2010-06-16, 04:28 PM
they aren't listed in the SRD with all of the other natural weapons (slam, bite, tenticle, claw, etc)That list explicitly denies being complete. The actual wording: "Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below."

Now, one would think that Unarmed Strikes would be pretty common if they indeed were a natural weapon, but you can't argue that they're not natural weapons because they aren't on the list.

This is the first time i ever heard of such interpretation for the unarmed strike combat, and I can't really understand the motivation behind it as anything other than "asinine".It's an amusing thing to notice about the rules, much like the facts that drowning heals, being dead has no drawbacks aside from being unable to heal and wood can't burn.

Now, enforcing such silliness in an actual game would be rather asinine, but remarking that that's how the rules work is not, and I for one would appreciate not being labeled as being asinine just for being amused by the holes in the rules.

Frosty
2010-06-16, 04:31 PM
True, because when I play, Monks certainly don't follow RAW. For example, normal Monks don't get access to Desert Wind, amomgst other upgrades.

Greenish
2010-06-16, 04:44 PM
For example, normal Monks don't get access to Desert Wind, amomgst other upgrades.Yes they do, they get access to most schools out of all martial adepts. :smallcool:

Il_Vec
2010-06-16, 06:53 PM
Yes they do, they get access to most schools out of all martial adepts. :smallcool:

I see what you did there.

Coidzor
2010-06-16, 07:31 PM
I see what you did there.

Well, you've certainly got the eyes for it. :smallamused:

Optimator
2010-06-16, 09:08 PM
Why stop at TWF with unarmed strikes? Go for Multiweapon Fighting and make attacks with every conceivable body part that could perform an attack. That makes the same amount of sense.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-16, 09:32 PM
Why stop at TWF with unarmed strikes? Go for Multiweapon Fighting and make attacks with every conceivable body part that could perform an attack. That makes the same amount of sense.
We've already got Snap Kick. Now we need Knuckle Noogie!

Frosty
2010-06-16, 11:20 PM
Why stop at TWF with unarmed strikes? Go for Multiweapon Fighting and make attacks with every conceivable body part that could perform an attack. That makes the same amount of sense.
Your choice if you want to nerf an already weak fighting style. No reason to not allow TWF with your body. I think Multiweapon fighting itself is a dumb idea.

JaronK
2010-06-18, 01:51 PM
Page 68 of the 3.5 FAQ states that you can TWF with multiple unarmed attacks.

JaronK

Ravens_cry
2010-06-18, 01:57 PM
Page 68 of the 3.5 FAQ states that you can TWF with multiple unarmed attacks.

JaronK
FAQ, while not RAW per se, they are pretty close and give a good idea of the RAI.
I say go for it.

Frosty
2010-06-18, 01:58 PM
Page 68 of the 3.5 FAQ states that you can TWF with multiple unarmed attacks.

JaronK
Wait, we value the FAQ and Sage advice now? :smallwink:

Aren't they the same people that told us that Iron Heart Surge ends AMFs?

Curmudgeon
2010-06-18, 01:59 PM
Page 68 of the 3.5 FAQ states that you can TWF with multiple unarmed attacks.
Please note that this answer starts as follows:
In the Sage’s opinion, yes. The answer isn't based on the rules.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 02:12 PM
There. This implies (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a) the only situation where you can't think of unarmed attacks as separate weapons is when you are a monk, where TWF is absorbed by flurry. I don't see why TWF with 2 unarmed strikes would be forbidden.

Faleldir
2010-06-18, 02:31 PM
Why stop at TWF with unarmed strikes? Go for Multiweapon Fighting and make attacks with every conceivable body part that could perform an attack. That makes the same amount of sense.

Four terms fallacy. Unless stated otherwise, you have two "hands": a primary hand and an off hand. This term has a specific, non-literal meaning in the game. When you wield a two-handed weapon, you can make unarmed off-hand attacks and describe them however you wish, but when you wield two weapons, you can't. Your argument switches between gameplay abstraction and real-world logic arbitrarily, like the Commoner railgun.



Multiweapon Fighting [General]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by 2 with the primary hand and reduced by 6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Special

This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

Frosty
2010-06-18, 02:48 PM
Four terms fallacy. Unless stated otherwise, you have two "hands": a primary hand and an off hand. This term has a specific, non-literal meaning in the game. When you wield a two-handed weapon, you can make unarmed off-hand attacks and describe them however you wish, but when you wield two weapons, you can't. Your argument switches between gameplay abstraction and real-world logic arbitrarily, like the Commoner railgun.

Oh yeah. I gotta remember that people regularly two-hand a Guisarme and use Armor Spikes as well. But a better example is a Great Sword as primary and a kick as a secondary.

Keld Denar
2010-06-18, 02:55 PM
The problem with D&D is that they use offhand and "offhand" arbitrarily. One is a defined term with game mechanics tied to it (1/2 +str bonus, can only be used in a full attack, and use of it imposes TWF penalities shown on the TWF table), and one of which is purely descriptive...your other hand.

Your "offhand" can be used to make attacks that don't qualify mechanically as offhand attacks, and offhand attacks aren't always made with your off "hand", in the case of armor spikes or boot blades.

The problem is telling the 2 apart. I'm not a mind reader (yet!), and neither is anyone I know, which leaves us all grasping at intent with room to squabble either way.

Frosty
2010-06-18, 03:04 PM
which leaves us all grasping at intent with room to squabble either way.
Please don't bring grappling into this...we all know how clear THOSE rules are.