3.5 Unarmed strike + TWF + Bonus attacks

[Clarkington]

Hello all,

I had some questions regarding unarmed strikes and multiple attacks.

1. If I am not a Monk, can I gain additional offhand unarmed strikes with TWF, imp TWF and gtr TWF, with all attacks at -2?

2. If I am not a Monk and have Frostrager PrC (from Frostburn), do I get the One-Two Punch additional attack in addition to offhand attacks from TWF, imp TWF and gtr TWF (with all attacks at -4: -2 from TWF and -2 from One-Two Punch)?

3. If I am a Monk, can I use Flurry of Blows to gain an additional unarmed strike in addition to offhand attacks from TWF, imp TWF and gtr TWF (with all attacks at -4: -2 from TWF and -2 from Flurry of Blows)?

4. If I am a Monk and have Frostrager PrC and have TWF, imp TWF and gtr TWF, can I use Flurry of Blows and One-Two Punch to gain two additional attacks in addition to the offhand attacks from TWF with all attacks taking a -6?

Thanks much!

[mangosta71]

Don't think you get additional unarmed attacks with the TWF feats.

[Snake-Aes]

Don't think you get additional unarmed attacks with the TWF feats.

Nothing says you can't.
You can also use two weapons and not TWF.


TWF, mechanically speaking, is only the extra attacks. Like punching faster or something.

[Flickerdart]

You can also grab Snap Kick (Tome of Battle) and Whirling Frenzy rage variant (Unearthed Arcana) for two more attacks.

[SurlySeraph]

1. This is often disputed. Here's one ruling. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/88125-wizards-coast-ruling-twf-flurry-blows.html) I feel the sources lean towards yes, particularly since it isn't really broken and since a Monk can certainly flurry + TWF with a quarterstaff or dual kamas he should be able to with his fists.

2. See #1.

3. See #1.

4. If you can qualify for both, see #1.

Really, you're just asking "Can I TWF with unarmed strikes?" repeatedly. If yes, then the answer to all of your questions is yes. If not, then no. This question is sufficiently disputed and houseruled that it's hard to give a definite answer, but it really isn't overpowered to allow.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

As a great halfling once said... "yeah, but you'll be hitting with the same attack bonus as a tree sloth".

[lsfreak]

As a great halfling once said... "yeah, but you'll be hitting with the same attack bonus as a tree sloth".

Though boosting your attack isn't too difficult. Necklace of Natural Attacks with a Discipline enchantment (swordsage dip->Assassin's Stance) and greater magic weapon, throw on Law Devotion, Invisible Fist ACF (invisibility 1/3, so +2hit and targeting flat-footed AC). At level 10-ish (probably earliest you'd want to consider using all those), that's:
- BAB7
- +5 Strength (+2 base, +2 whirling frenzy, +1 item)
- +2 Necklace of Natural Attacks with GMW (could easily be +3 by this point)
- +3 Discipline Weapon
- +1 Weapon Focus
- +5 Law Devotion
- -1 Flurry
- -2 Whirling Frenzy
- -2 Snap Kick
- -2 TWF
For a routine of 16/16/16/16/11 mainhand. It's nothing to write home about, but then again you're also getting more than three times the normal number of attacks in. Get Touch of Golden Ice and make your fists Wounding to compliment your high number of attacks, and of course Assassin's Stance + Craven will make them hurt more. And, of course, like PA, you wouldn't have to use all of them constantly.

[Clarkington]

Thanks for the input guys - I appreciate it!

[ericgrau]

1. No they must be with an offhand weapon. If you want to flurry you may use a monk weapon. This is covered in the FAQ even. Plus by RAW a monk's unarmed strike is never offhand. While not unbalancing to allow offhand unarmed strikes it's not very smart as magic weapons deal more damage, even using monk weapons. So... I suppose it'd be a bad house rule for adding more bait to the trap. Remember kiddos, unarmed strikes are for stunning fist and grappling, weapons are for damage.
3. Yes

Not familiar with 2 & 4 but if it's something that adds additional attacks similar to TWF or flurry and not something that says "as an standard/full-round action you do X" then ya it works.

Oh ya, you forgot rapid shot for an additional attack with a thrown weapon, namely a shuriken b/c that's the only option you can flurry with. But keep in mind that as your penalty goes up even though your number of attacks is increasing your actual number of hits may be decreasing past a certain point. Especially as you get more attacks to apply penalties to.

[Keld Denar]

Plus by RAW a monk's unarmed strike is never offhand.

Unless you make it offhand. I've argued this before, so don't say its absolute. You can say that NOBODY ever uses a weapon offhanded, regardless of what hand they hold the weapon in. Monks call it out explicitly, everyone else has it implied because its not something you normally do. If, however, you claim extra attacks from the TWF option, THEN you can gain an offhand and with it, offhand attacks (which are only defined as .5x Str bonus). A monk NORMALLY doesn't suffer the .5x Str, regardless of which hand he uses, just like a fighter doesn't normally suffer the .5x Str regardless of which hand he uses, just like a barbarian doesn't normally suffer the .5x Str regardless of which hand he uses. NOBODY has an offhand, unless you specifically give them one. The only way to give someone an offhand is to use the TWFing option. The note in the monk text could just be a reminder of this fact, rather than a unique and non-rules-uniform mechanic to arbitrarily screw with monks.

Tell me, if my fighter with emtpy hands attacks with his Armor Spikes and his extended Boot Blade, which one of these attacks is offhand? Neither, as long as he doesn't make more attacks than his BAB and other modifiers normally allow. If he DOES attempt to claim extra attacks, THEN the TWF rules apply, and THEN does he gain an "offhand" attack. Same with a monk. If he attacks with his elbow and a headbutt, neither attack of "offhand", so long as he doesn't claim more attacks than his BAB + other modifiers (like Flurry) would normally allow. If he does, THEN the TWF rules apply, and he gains an offhand attack, and that offhand attack only applies .5x Str bonus.

[ericgrau]

There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
And note the word "plus", especially when the preceding statement is related to rules clarification. As in, there's another part to the statement which ought to be addressed and not ignored. The FAQ already answers the matter. You can house rule it, but as I already explained it's a bad idea for the player's sake to trick him with a bad option. You'd have to be tweaking out 5 grapple attempts, but why haven't you landed a grapple long before using all 5? Or if he's stunning fisting (limit 1 / round) there's just no way it could be a benefit. If he's damaging, a weapon is better. If not for flat-out per hit damage then for the +1 masterwork bonus to hit.

[Keld Denar]

Unless say...you are stacking size increases. Having an extra attack or 3 is worth it when you are swinging 8d6 hamfists, for example. Just saying, its not always suboptimal. Also, the Rapid Stunning feat allows you to stun more than once in a full attack, and Touch of Golden Ice forces an extra save. Then there is the chance your have a +1 Wounding Necklace of Natural Attacks. An extra point or 3 of Con damage per round is worth whatever penalty you figure in.

And its all about which passage you consider to be the specific phrase. Your opinion states that the monk description over-rules the combat section. My opinion is that the combat section over-rules the monk description. Am I wrong? Are you wrong? The world may never know. Irregardless, both are valid readings unless you have other proof, so saying that your reading is absolute is invalid.

[olentu]

Tell me, if my fighter with emtpy hands attacks with his Armor Spikes and his extended Boot Blade, which one of these attacks is offhand? Neither, as long as he doesn't make more attacks than his BAB and other modifiers normally allow. If he DOES attempt to claim extra attacks, THEN the TWF rules apply, and THEN does he gain an "offhand" attack. Same with a monk. If he attacks with his elbow and a headbutt, neither attack of "offhand", so long as he doesn't claim more attacks than his BAB + other modifiers (like Flurry) would normally allow. If he does, THEN the TWF rules apply, and he gains an offhand attack, and that offhand attack only applies .5x Str bonus.

Am I remembering these weapons incorrectly or is this just a terrible example. I remember that armor spikes are listed as allowing for a regular attack or an off hand attack with the only restriction of not using another off hand weapon and the spikes ever. Boot blades being treated as a dagger with no other restrictions then the usual attack penalty for using a hidden weapon and saying nothing about the off hand at all.

[thubby]

Unless say...you are stacking size increases. Having an extra attack or 3 is worth it when you are swinging 8d6 hamfists, for example.

weapons scale up too


And its all about which passage you consider to be the specific phrase. Your opinion states that the monk description over-rules the combat section. My opinion is that the combat section over-rules the monk description. Am I wrong? Are you wrong? The world may never know. Irregardless, both are valid readings unless you have other proof, so saying that your reading is absolute is invalid.

specific>general. a lot of mechanics simply would not function but for this simple rule.


Am I remembering these weapons incorrectly or is this just a terrible example. I remember that armor spikes are listed as allowing for a regular attack or an off hand attack with the only restriction of not using another off hand weapon and the spikes ever. Boot blades being treated as a dagger with no other restrictions then the usual attack penalty for using a hidden weapon and saying nothing about the off hand at all.
i never understood why you couldn't use spikes with 2 other weapons. i mean, with all the attacks monsters get (i think the most unique attacks something gets are with like 6 limbs?)

[Greenish]

Am I remembering these weapons incorrectly or is this just a terrible example. I remember that armor spikes are listed as allowing for a regular attack or an off hand attack with the only restriction of not using another off hand weapon and the spikes ever. Boot blades being treated as a dagger with no other restrictions then the usual attack penalty for using a hidden weapon and saying nothing about the off hand at all.You might be reading his post incorrectly. The weapons don't matter for the argument, and were probably picked because neither is actually held in hand.

[olentu]

specific>general. a lot of mechanics simply would not function but for this simple rule.

For an example I believe that the diehard feat breaks the dying rules.

Edit: The weapons do matter quite a bit since we are dealing with a version weapon that is argued to deny the existence of an off hand version of itself. Any discussion depends greatly on the weapon in question and how it is phrased with regards to the off hand.

[Keld Denar]

Just saying...neither uses a hand. Thats the point of the clause in the monk description. Regardless of what body part is used, its not offhand (just the same as it is for every other character, they just felt the need to explicitly point it out for monks).

Now enter the TWFing rules. Now you have the option to add an offhand attack to anyone, monks and non-monks alike. IMO, this over-rides the statement in the monk's description, because it reference a specific type of attack mode that isn't covered in any base class' description. Its implied that a fighter doesn't have a offhand unless you give him one. Its implied that a ranger doesn't have an offhand, unless you give him one. Its implied that a wizard doesn't hand an offhand, unless you give him one. Its explicit that a monk doesn't have an offhand, unless you give him one.

That is what I was trying to convey with that statement. No character has an offhand normally. There is no such thing as a monk making offhand attacks, unless he is TWFing, just the same as there is no such thing as a fighter making offhand attacks, unless he is TWFing.


specific>general

Ah, but according to who? Which is specific? Which is general? I can't tell, can you? What makes your proof superior to mine?

[Greenish]

i never understood why you couldn't use spikes with 2 other weapons.You can. You just can't claim TWF bonus attacks from more than one offhand weapon.
i mean, with all the attacks monsters get (i think the most unique attacks something gets are with like 6 limbs?)6? Hah, 12-headed hydra tops that (with a standard action, too), and I don't think that's even the highest.

And players can get a handful of natural attacks too, for example with warshaper or totemist.

[Edit]:
The weapons do matter quite a bit since we are dealing with a version weapon that is argued to deny the existence of an off hand version of itself.No, we aren't.

[Keld Denar]

Lemme be clear here. I'm not saying that according to RAW, I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just saying that we both have an equal chance of being right, and in the lack of clear evidence in either direction, you have to acknowledge both sides as valid. Your arguement is just as valid as mine, so don't be so dismissive.

[olentu]

Just saying...neither uses a hand. Thats the point of the clause in the monk description. Regardless of what body part is used, its not offhand (just the same as it is for every other character, they just felt the need to explicitly point it out for monks).

Now enter the TWFing rules. Now you have the option to add an offhand attack to anyone, monks and non-monks alike. IMO, this over-rides the statement in the monk's description, because it reference a specific type of attack mode that isn't covered in any base class' description. Its implied that a fighter doesn't have a offhand unless you give him one. Its implied that a ranger doesn't have an offhand, unless you give him one. Its implied that a wizard doesn't hand an offhand, unless you give him one. Its explicit that a monk doesn't have an offhand, unless you give him one.

That is what I was trying to convey with that statement. No character has an offhand normally. There is no such thing as a monk making offhand attacks, unless he is TWFing, just the same as there is no such thing as a fighter making offhand attacks, unless he is TWFing.

Er but the difference is that one weapon describes a relation between itself and the offhand while the other uses the default. One can not in my opinion reasonably say that because normal weapons use the default rules weapons that contradict the default rules use the default rules rather then what they say unless the position is that everything always uses the default regardless of even a direct contradiction in a weapon, feat, ability and so forth. So is the argument that there can be no element of the rules of D&D that can ever make something deviate from the strict provisions of the default rules. The only wiggle room is in the ill defined areas where the rules do not actually cover.

[Greenish]

Er but the difference is that one weapon describes a relation between itself and the offhand while the other uses the default. One can not in my opinion reasonably say that because normal weapons use the default rules weapons that contradict the default rules use the default rules rather then what they say unless the position is that everything always uses the default regardless of even a direct contradiction in a weapon, feat, ability and so forth. So is the argument that there can be no element of the rules of D&D that can ever make something deviate from the strict provisions of the default rules. The only wiggle room is in the ill defined areas where the rules do not actually cover.Hey! Imagine that he used two daggers in his example, for it makes no difference for his argument, but saves you from going on incoherent rambles about a topic that is, at best, tangential to the one discussed. :smallwink:

[Keld Denar]

I don't see anything in the weapon description of Unarmed Strike that leads me to believe that you can't use it as an offhand. In fact, it makes it clear that your definitely can.

That leads me to believe that the phrase in the monk description is simply a reminder to players that regardless of how they describe their monk's UAS combinations (jab jab hook, punch kick elbow, headbutt uppercut pelvic thrust, etc), their monk shouldn't be penalized with offhand penalties WHEN MAKING NORMAL ITERATIVE ATTACKS. There are lots of examples of reminder text throughout the PHB, which are countered by other, more specific rules.

This case is no different. When making a normal allotment of unarmed attacks, no attack you make is considered offhand. Its the same as any other character of any other class. Simple reminder text given a monk's proclivity toward making attacks with non-traditional parts of his body. A right jab is the same as a left hook in most cases. The exception to this is when the monk makes more attacks than his normal allotment due to his use of the TWF combat option as dictated by the rules in the combat chapter of the PHB.


Hey! Imagine that he used two daggers in his example, for it makes no difference for his argument, but saves you from going on incoherent rambles about a topic that is, at best, tangential to the one discussed. :smallwink:

Yea, lets say you have a +11 BAB and are holding 2 daggers. If you attack with right right right, or left left left, or left right left, or right left right, or right left left, or left left right, or whatever, it doesn't matter. None of your attacks are offhand. They all get +1x Str bonus, because you aren't using the TWF rule option. Same as a monk with +11 BAB. If he attacks left left right, or right right left, all attacks get +1x Str. The text is there to remind you of that. Its present for monks because they are the most likely class to mix and match attacks. A fighter generally doesn't hold two swords unless he plans on TWFing with them. He generally just wields the one sword, either because its two handed or because he has something in his offhand. If he is wielding two swords, he is generally utilizing the TWFing rules. A monk, on the other "hand", is wielding like, 300 swords at one time. He can swing with any of them, so long as he doesn't take more attacks than he has BAB (or attacks from haste/flurry/snap kick/etc). If he uses the TWFing combat option, he can make one(or more with feats) extra attack(s), but he takes the appropriate penalties (-2 on all attacks, .5x Str bonus on any extra attacks gained by virtue of the TWFing combat rules). He doesn't have an offhand attack UNLESS YOU GIVE HIM ONE. And in that regard, he's just the same as every other class in the book.

[thubby]

You can. You just can't claim TWF bonus attacks from more than one offhand weapon.
:smallsigh: my point was that such a restriction is silly


6? Hah, 12-headed hydra tops that (with a standard action, too), and I don't think that's even the highest.

And players can get a handful of natural attacks too, for example with warshaper or totemist.

well that's why i mentioned unique. the hydra's heads, or more conventionally an animals claws, count as 1 weapon. (animals treat them as primary weapons, usually, and bites as secondary)
actually, to play devil's advocate, i could see that as an argument against TWF unarmed. "unarmed" is only 1 weapon that accounts for your entire body.



Ah, but according to who? Which is specific? Which is general? I can't tell, can you? What makes your proof superior to mine?
wrong question.
the general rule, being general, applies more broadly. the specific one only applies to the monk, it has a smaller scope.

[olentu]

Hey! Imagine that he used two daggers in his example, for it makes no difference for his argument, but saves you from going on incoherent rambles about a topic that is, at best, tangential to the one discussed. :smallwink:

So he uses two daggers there is no problem since being normal weapons with no special exceptions are not at odds with the general rules. On the other hand are weapons with specific language that he himself has seemed to say ("And its all about which passage you consider to be the specific phrase. Your opinion states that the monk description over-rules the combat section. My opinion is that the combat section over-rules the monk description.") is at odds with the general combat rues given the statement that the question becomes if the combat rules or the monk description overrules the other. The situations are not similar since one has a rules disagreement and the other does not. I find it improper to equate the two situations because of this disagreement since the disagreement is the whole discussion.

[Greenish]

:smallsigh: my point was that such a restriction is sillySo someone with the whole TWF chain could gain a stacking three attacks for every -2 they take to hit?
well that's why i mentioned unique. the hydra's heads, or more conventionally an animals claws, count as 1 weapon. (animals treat them as primary weapons, usually, and bites as secondary)They count as a set. Natural weapons also work differently from manufactured weapons.

[Edit]:
So he uses two daggers there is no problem since being normal weapons with no special exceptions are not at odds with the general rules.Great! So for his example on how TWF works, it doesn't matter whether the combination of weapons used is spiked armour & boot blade, or two daggers. None of the weapons is an offhand one unless the character wants to claim the extra attacks from TWF.

[Keld Denar]

wrong question.
the general rule, being general, applies more broadly. the specific one only applies to the monk, it has a smaller scope.
Unless its simply reminder text and not a blanket rule as I speculated in the quote below.

That leads me to believe that the phrase in the monk description is simply a reminder to players that regardless of how they describe their monk's UAS combinations (jab jab hook, punch kick elbow, headbutt uppercut pelvic thrust, etc), their monk shouldn't be penalized with offhand penalties WHEN MAKING NORMAL ITERATIVE ATTACKS. There are lots of examples of reminder text throughout the PHB, which are countered by other, more specific rules.

In which case, the general rule is that NO classes, not even monks, have an offhand, and the passage cited is a simple reminder of that fact. The specific rule is that if, and only if, a character gains an additional attack with the TWFing combat option, that character gains an attack with their offhand, and that offhand is described as stated in the combat section of the PHB. The combat section is specific to combat maneuvers, and the monk description is a simple reminder of the implied general rule that affects all characters of all classes.

[thubby]

So someone with the whole TWF chain could gain a stacking three attacks for every -2 they take to hit?

i don't see why you need a stacking -2.
the weapons someone could pile on suck after you run out of hands. you have...
boot dagger, armor spikes, unarmed(?), spit dart, and if we're getting silly a dancing weapon.

@keld: thats different from the general>the specific. you're arguing the specific doesn't exist. in which case, im inclined to agree if for no other reason than the monk needs whatever it can get :P

[Keld Denar]

Not to mention Mouthpick weapons (LoM), Knee Blades and Elbow Blades (CScoundrel), Braid Blades and Weighted Cloaks (A&EG IIRC).

If you had 20 attacks a round, and were wielding 20 weapons, you could make a single attack with each one and never ever have an "offhand" attack. Just like a monk, who has his head, elbows, hands, knees, feet, shoulders, and hips, and thats not even counting the fact that there are dozens of ways to strike someone with each of those parts. As long as you don't utilize the rules for TWFing in the combat chapter, you aren't TWFing, and you don't have an offhand, monk or otherwise.


@keld: thats different from the general>the specific. you're arguing the specific doesn't exist. in which case, im inclined to agree if for no other reason than the monk needs whatever it can get :P

Nope. I'm not. You misunderstood. I'm not aruging that the specific doesn't exist. I'm arguing that the general is that NOBODY has an offhand attack, normally. I'm arguing that the specific is that EVERYBODY has an offhand attack when and only when they are TWFing.

[Greenish]

i don't see why you need a stacking -2.
the weapons someone could pile on suck after you run out of hands. you have...
boot dagger, armor spikes, unarmed(?), spit dart, and if we're getting silly a dancing weapon.A weapon in each hand, a mouthpick, two boot blades, spiked armour, NI amount of braid blades…

Full iteratives with one, then three attacks with each of the rest. Great idea!

So at 20 BAB, the attack sequence would look like this (before other to-hit bonuses): +18/+13/+8/+3/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18

With just one braid blade. Don't you think resolving all those attacks would take a bit long?

[Edit]: With knee and elbow blades: +18/+13/+8/+3/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/
+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18

[thubby]

A weapon in each hand, a mouthpick, two boot blades, spiked armour, NI amount of braid blades…

Full iteratives with one, then three attacks with each of the rest. Great idea!

So at 20 BAB, the attack sequence would look like this (before other to-hit bonuses):
+18/+13/+8/+3/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/
+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18

With just one braid blade. Don't you think resolving all those attacks would take a bit long?

[Edit]: With knee and elbow blades:
+18/+13/+8/+3/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8
/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8
/+18/+13/+8/+18

considering the shenanigans you can already do to get crazy numbers of attacks, that's not unreasonable.
in the interest of thoroughness, though, you couldnt get more than one spit dart, you would not only have no free hands, every other limb and appendage is apparently taken as well

edit: on an even more disturbing note, a whirling dervish could double that number

[Greenish]

considering the shenanigans you can already do to get crazy numbers of attacks, that's not unreasonable.Not unreasonable? :smallamused: That'll take the whole night to roll for!

in the interest of thoroughness, though, you couldnt get more than one spit dart,None, actually, since you've got the mouthpick.

you would not only have no free hands, every other limb and appendage is apparently taken as wellPretty much.

Oh, and you should break that longer string in the quote, it's stretching my screen.

[thubby]

Not unreasonable? :smallamused: That'll take the whole night to roll for!None, actually, since you've got the mouthpick.
Pretty much.

Oh, and you should break that longer string in the quote, it's stretching my screen.

where is the mouthpick from? i thought you were just calling the dart a different name :smalltongue:

you could cut down on the math by figuring out the minimum roll to hit then breaking the dice down into groups that share common hit numbers.
i don't disagree that it gets impractical, but its not like you can't cause similar problems already with infinite summon loops and what-have-you
the system is broken and we all know it, may as well make it uniformly broken :smallwink:

[Greenish]

where is the mouthpick from? i thought you were just calling the dart a different name :smalltongue:Lords of Madness. It's a melee weapon you hold in your mouth. :smallcool:

[Clarkington]

Thanks for the very interesting discussion guys!

I'm looking to build a character that is less powerful than the traditional 2h high dmg barbarian/fighter, and the Frostrager with a bunch of raging unarmed attacks sounded fun (after 5 levels of Prc, get 1d8 +1d6 cold for UAS, 2d8 + 1.5 Str +1d6 cold rend on any target hit with 2+ UAS).

While this class would definitely lack the versatility and high damage of a lot of other builds (not to mention craptitude against cold immune monsters), having the option to take successive -2's to my attack roll to add additional attacks would be fun - the more d20s the merrier.

Thanks again for a very illuminating discussion!

[mikethepoor]

A weapon in each hand, a mouthpick, two boot blades, spiked armour, NI amount of braid blades…

Full iteratives with one, then three attacks with each of the rest. Great idea!

So at 20 BAB, the attack sequence would look like this (before other to-hit bonuses): +18/+13/+8/+3/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18

With just one braid blade. Don't you think resolving all those attacks would take a bit long?

[Edit]: With knee and elbow blades: +18/+13/+8/+3/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/
+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18/+13/+8/+18

At that point we're getting into needing the Multiweapon Fighting feat, which specifically requires at least three hands and subs for TWF for creatures with more than two arms.

[Shenanigans]

Thanks for the very interesting discussion guys!

I'm looking to build a character that is less powerful than the traditional 2h high dmg barbarian/fighter, and the Frostrager with a bunch of raging unarmed attacks sounded fun (after 5 levels of Prc, get 1d8 +1d6 cold for UAS, 2d8 + 1.5 Str +1d6 cold rend on any target hit with 2+ UAS).

While this class would definitely lack the versatility and high damage of a lot of other builds (not to mention craptitude against cold immune monsters), having the option to take successive -2's to my attack roll to add additional attacks would be fun - the more d20s the merrier.

Thanks again for a very illuminating discussion!
I like this idea too; different from your stereotypical barbarian.

Have you considered being a Goliath? If you take the level 1 racial substitution, you will become actually large whenever you rage, which will increase your damage dice on your strike. Stack that with Improved Natural Attack, and you'll be striking with Huge fists for 3d6 base damage. The increased number of attacks (whirling frenzy/TWF) will also make you more likely to rend an opponent. You might also want to look into getting pounce, so you can full attack more often.

Here's a question: would he be able to take Improved Natural Attack for his rend and stage that up?

[Keld Denar]

A Rend is not a natural weapon by itself. A Rend is based off the weapon that triggers it. If you have 2x 1d6 Claws, your Rend will generally be 2d6. If you have 2x 2d6 Claws, your Rend will generally be 4d6.

So yea, INA for whatever weapon triggers the Rend will result in higher Rend damage.

[WinWin]

Multiweapon fighting is best served with a critical hit focussed build IMO. The penalties are offset by the sheer number of attacks per round and the increased opportunity of a successful critical hit.

Flurry, Frenzy, Natural Attacks, multiple limbs, Armour/Shield Spikes and Surprise Weapons are all methods of gaining additional attacks.

Any means of adding static modifiers to damage or bonus dice (eg. sneak attack) can really ramp up the damage potential. Probably not as effective as a supercharger, but could potentially exceed their damage late game (assuming the majority of their attack spam connects).