[3.5e] Two weapon fighting and monks [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Curmudgeon

2010-12-07, 06:55 PM

1. No.

The problem with using two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes is that you don't meet the RAW requirement.
Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. While you may use any part of your body to make unarmed attacks, you've only got a single unarmed strike. That is, any adjustments to your unarmed strike affect that single weapon, and cannot result in different properties in your main hand and off hand weapons. If you actually had the second weapon required by the two-weapon fighting rules it would have its own properties.

There's nothing mechanically unfair about taking the required penalties to get a single extra attack; it's just not permitted by the RAW (absent some special class property which provides such an exception). You could ask your DM to create a house rule on this matter.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

Unarmed strikes can be made with most any part of your body. You suffer no penalties to your unarmed strikes if either or both of your hands are occupied.

Stegyre

2010-12-07, 07:07 PM

1. No.

The problem with using two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes is that you don't meet the RAW requirement. While you may use any part of your body to make unarmed attacks, you've only got a single unarmed strike. That is, any adjustments to your unarmed strike affect that single weapon, and cannot result in different properties in your main hand and off hand weapons. If you actually had the second weapon required by the two-weapon fighting rules it would have its own properties.

There's nothing mechanically unfair about taking the required penalties to get a single extra attack; it's just not permitted by the RAW (absent some special class property which provides such an exception). You could ask your DM to create a house rule on this matter.
Where is this in the RAW? By RAW (SRD), an Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon. As long as you don't have something else in your off-hand, I'm not seeing how you are not, de facto wielding an "unarmed strike" in your off-hand at all times. :smallconfused:

Flickerdart

2010-12-07, 07:21 PM

Where is this in the RAW? By RAW (SRD), an Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon. As long as you don't have something else in your off-hand, I'm not seeing how you are not, de facto wielding an "unarmed strike" in your off-hand at all times. :smallconfused:
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." It's in the Unarmed Strike section of the Monk.

However, nothing is stopping you from making your primary attack with your unarmed strike and your off-hand attack with a sai or something.

FMArthur

2010-12-07, 07:43 PM

Or, using the Reshape Mind Blade feat, two "Unarmed Strike" Mind Blades. I mean Fist Blades. No wait, Mind Fists. Er... Mind, uh, Bodies? You can do it but you have to make up what exactly your character is doing yourself, since there are no real provisions for such a scenario. You can also throw them via your Soulknife class features, and combined with the Scorpion's Grasp feat, tele-grapple. Again, the rules don't make provisions for such an unexpected combination so you have to use your imagination for it. I'm going to stop here, since I don't remember what this topic was about anymore. Good luck with your Soulknife, OP.

Curmudgeon

2010-12-07, 07:45 PM

Where is this in the RAW? By RAW (SRD), an Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon. As long as you don't have something else in your off-hand, I'm not seeing how you are not, de facto wielding an "unarmed strike" in your off-hand at all times.
My quote was from the TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING section of the Combat chapter, on page 160 of the Player's Handbook ─ the main rules for this style of fighting. Anyway, as I said, your hands have nothing particular to do with unarmed strikes. The sticking point is that the rules insist you must have a second weapon to use two-weapon fighting, and you've only got the one unarmed strike (which you're wielding in all parts of your body).

Keld Denar

2010-12-07, 07:49 PM

"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." It's in the Unarmed Strike section of the Monk.

There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for ANY class striking, unarmed or otherwise. That is, until you use the TWFing combat option. Then you GIVE any class, monk or otherwise, an off-hand attack. It could very well be read as reminder text of this very fact, given that the FLAVOR text of a monk describes their attacks as strikes with any part of their body.

Its all about what you consider the specific rule. Does the monk text trump the TWFing text? Or does the TWFing text trump the monk text? Who knows? I don't, and neither do you. Unless you do know, either is a valid interpretation.

If it matters, the FAQ ruled that you can combine both manuevers. You simply stack the penalties, and the attack that is designated as the extra attack from TWF only gets +1/2 Str bonus. Simply solved. RAW legal.

EDIT:

My quote was from the TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING section of the Combat chapter, on page 160 of the Player's Handbook ─ the main rules for this style of fighting. Anyway, as I said, your hands have nothing particular to do with unarmed strikes. The sticking point is that the rules insist you must have a second weapon to use two-weapon fighting, and you've only got the one unarmed strike (which you're wielding in all parts of your body).

Where does it explicitly state that you only have one UAS?

EDIT EDIT: OP, you can CLEARLY see that this is an often debated point. Your best bet would be to read up on the arguements here, present them to your DM, and get your own, personal ruling, since nobody here will ever come to a consensus.

ericgrau

2010-12-07, 08:03 PM

Hey all, I just want to ask three short questions about unarmed fighting and TWF:
1. Is it possible to use the two in combination which eachother?
2. Is it possible to stack TWF with flurry of blows?
3. If a PC with both TWF and Unarmed Fighting wields a knife, can he use an unarmed strike and a knife in the same turn?

1-2. Yes, but you must use special monk weapons for the weapons to flurry. You may intermix unarmed strikes. Other ways of adding extra attacks work too, as long as you only use unarmed strikes and special monk weapons in the rounds that you flurry. No, you can't use an unarmed strike as your off-hand weapon in a flurry, but you may combine unarmed strike(s) with an off-hand special monk weapon.
3. A knife is not a special monk weapon, so you can't flurry but you may use unarmed strike and a knife in the same turn.

I should also note that once you reach ~5 attacks getting a -2 to all attacks will actually reduce the number of hits you get. So those "broken" builds with 20 attacks are actually very weak unless one also addresses its attack bonus.

JaronK

2010-12-07, 08:25 PM

Yes, you can TWF. It's in either the FAQ or the Errata, but it explicitly says you'd have three attacks at -4 to hit. Feel free to throw in Snap Kick for four attacks at -6. The line about "no offhand attacks" is talking about when doing a normal flurry... you can do TWF offhand attacks in addition.

If you want to do this, you'll have to figure out a way to actually hit your opponent, which can be hard.

JaronK

Tvtyrant

2010-12-07, 08:28 PM

Oddly enough monk is the only class where weapon spec would be useful, and it doesn't get it :(

I still say the best monk build for flurry is Druid1/Monk# using Druid to get Shillelagh and a quarterstaff. 2d6 quarterstaff flurries!

ericgrau

2010-12-07, 08:34 PM

Or shillelagh oil is 50 gp.

JaronK

2010-12-07, 08:38 PM

Monk 1/Druid X would be a lot better though... Wild Shape just wins like that.

Monk 6/Shou Disciple 5 is a solid beginning though. After that, going into Kensai or Unarmed Swordsage works great.

JaronK

Flickerdart

2010-12-07, 09:01 PM

So those "broken" builds with 20 attacks are actually very weak unless one also addresses its attack bonus.
That's why you use natural weapons and Improved Multiattack, and not actually take a penalty on any of them.

Curmudgeon

2010-12-07, 09:07 PM

Where does it explicitly state that you only have one UAS?
Where does it explicitly state that you only have one life? Some things ought to be obvious.

But to give your question a serious answer, the game rules refer to unarmed strike as a natural weapon.
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.) Also, weapon enhancements which affect your unarmed strike are priced for one weapon only. See the Necklace of Natural Weapons (Savage Species, page 58).

If you had a second unarmed strike, it could have different properties (different to hit and damage), but you don't get such different properties for unarmed strikes without special class abilities. If you cast Magic Fang it boosts your unarmed strike (a single weapon); it can't independently boost your left elbow strike higher than your right punch.

ericgrau

2010-12-07, 09:17 PM

That's why you use natural weapons and Improved Multiattack, and not actually take a penalty on any of them.

I assume there's some kind of size boosting for damage then? Custom version of amulet of mighty fists? I mean you can't use magic weapons at this point. Just curious I know this is a bit of a tangent.

Keld Denar

2010-12-07, 09:37 PM

I think your english is a little off there, my dear Curmudgeon. The singular form used there is actually plural, as it refers to an example of a given population. It can't be a single item, otherwise, according to the spells your quoted...

Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)

So...magic weapon can only affect one weapon...ever. Man, I'd like to be the guy with that weapon...everyone else who wants to cast Magic Weapon is screwed.

Or another example:

You can slay any one living creature within range. The target is entitled to a Fortitude saving throw to survive the attack. If the save is successful, the creature instead takes 3d6 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25).

Man, that guy's gotta have a Con of -30 or so by now, since he gets killed every time someone casts that spell within range. I'd hate to be his life insurance broker.

Naturally, if you wanted to gain the benefit of Magic Fang with your offhand UAS, you'd have to cast the spell twice, just the same as Joe Fighter has to have the spell cast twice on both of his short swords. If you had a Necklace of Natural Attacks and you wanted it to affect your mainhand and offhand UASs, you'd have to pay the increased cost, just like the kobold who wanted one to buff his claws AND his bite.

Its really not as complex as you make it out to be. You are reading it in a way that only proves your point. There are other ways to interpret it.

Incanur

2010-12-07, 10:13 PM

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 01:36 AM

My quote was from the TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING section of the Combat chapter, on page 160 of the Player's Handbook ─ the main rules for this style of fighting. Anyway, as I said, your hands have nothing particular to do with unarmed strikes. The sticking point is that the rules insist you must have a second weapon to use two-weapon fighting, and you've only got the one unarmed strike (which you're wielding in all parts of your body).
Thanks for the source. I'm just checking the SRD section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) (which should be the same). It just seems that, if your interpretation is correct, the following provision makes no sense:

•If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
That seems to clearly contemplate that an unarmed strike may be the "off-hand weapon." Otherwise, there's no reason for inclusion of that clarification. :smallconfused:

And if your off-hand weapon is an unarmed strike, what prevents your primary weapon from also being an unarmed strike?

@Flickerdart: the monk reference is (a) explicit to monks, and (b) in context appears intended to specifically modify the sentence that immediately follows it: "A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes." That's a benefit exclusive to monks (full Strength bonus on all unarmed strikes, instead of 1/2 bonus for a "off-hand" UAS) and not a limitation on unarmed strikes, at all.

EDIT:

Also, weapon enhancements which affect your unarmed strike are priced for one weapon only. See the Necklace of Natural Weapons (Savage Species, page 58).
I may be very wrong on one or both of these points, but (a) isn't Savage Species 3.0, and (b) wasn't there another item (possibly in the MIC, but my recollection is very hazy, that has a similar effect for UAS and is, in fact, treated as if it were a double-weapon enchantment (i.e., you pay the cost twice, because it is affecting UAS from both hands)?

Keld Denar

2010-12-08, 02:45 AM

@Flickerdart: the monk reference is (a) explicit to monks, and (b) in context appears intended to specifically modify the sentence that immediately follows it: "A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes." That's a benefit exclusive to monks (full Strength bonus on all unarmed strikes, instead of 1/2 bonus for a "off-hand" UAS) and not a limitation on unarmed strikes, at all.
Or, as I mentioned, that its simple reminder text that no class has an offhand, no mater which "hand" they attack with, unless they gain extra attacks in a round through the use of the TWFing combat option. Seriously, if a fighter has a +6 BAB, and a longsword in one hand and a heavy mace in the other, he can attack with the longsword twice, the heavy mace twice, or one attack with each (at +6/+1 respectively). Even though hes attacking with both hands, neither of them are offhand attacks. He doesn't have an offhand, because he hasn't been explicitly given one by the TWFing combat option. Same thing with a monk. He can, with either a +6 BAB or higher BAB, or the Flurry of Blows special full attack action, punch with his right hand then left hand, or punch then kick, or hip check then head butt, or any combo you can come up with, and no hand is an offhand because he hasn't performed an action to mechanically give the attack offhand penalties, just like the above fighter example. NOBODY has an offhand normally. Nobody. The monk is no exception.

EDIT:

I may be very wrong on one or both of these points, but (a) isn't Savage Species 3.0, and (b) wasn't there another item (possibly in the MIC, but my recollection is very hazy, that has a similar effect for UAS and is, in fact, treated as if it were a double-weapon enchantment (i.e., you pay the cost twice, because it is affecting UAS from both hands)?

You mean...Amulet of Mighty Fists (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#amuletofMightyFists)?

Greenish

2010-12-08, 02:53 AM

(b) wasn't there another item (possibly in the MIC, but my recollection is very hazy, that has a similar effect for UAS and is, in fact, treated as if it were a double-weapon enchantment (i.e., you pay the cost twice, because it is affecting UAS from both hands)?Kensai (CWarr PrC) has to enchant each fist separately. Because WotC thinks fighting without weapons is way strong. :smallamused:

AslanCross

2010-12-08, 06:29 AM

Wow, things have changed. A few years ago I remember folks extolling the greatsword/armor spikes TWF combo. And what about the notion that monks can use unarmed strikes with parts of their body other than the hands? How does that fit into the picture?

The first part is clear enough: Armor Spikes count as a weapon and can be used as an "offhand" weapon with TWF. This has nothing to do with Unarmed strikes. The reason doing so is effective is because you get an additional attack and yet can still hit hard, as opposed to only getting x1 Strength bonus and x1 Power Attack bonus on your main hand and none for your light offhand weapon.

As for the second one, I'm confused myself.

Eloel

2010-12-08, 08:15 AM

Because WotC thinks fighting without weapons is way strong. :smallamused:

They're coming from a bit behind. They first figured out fighting with weapons was weak. They still need to figure out it's not the weapons but the concept of melee fighting.

true_shinken

2010-12-08, 09:35 AM

I can't believe people are still arguing about this. It's been adressed in the official FAQ for years now.
Yes, you can do it. End of story.

Incanur

2010-12-08, 10:07 AM

This has nothing to do with Unarmed strikes.

If the hand requirement applies than armor spikes also fail as an off-hand weapon.

Curmudgeon

2010-12-08, 10:13 AM

That seems to clearly contemplate that an unarmed strike may be the "off-hand weapon." Otherwise, there's no reason for inclusion of that clarification.
An unarmed strike can indeed be used as your "off-hand" weapon (though no hands are actually needed) if you use some other weapon for your main-hand attacks. But just as you can't use the same sword for both main- and off-hand attacks, you can't use your unarmed strike for both main- and off-hand attacks; the rules require that you must have a second weapon to use two-weapon fighting.

Now, I don't think there's anything at all unfair about making a house rule giving unarmed strikes an exception here; it's just that a house rule is necessary.

I can't believe people are still arguing about this. It's been adressed in the official FAQ for years now.
The "Official FAQ" has no authority as a rules source. Example:
You might be confusing Quick Draw with the ability of any character with a base attack bonus of +1 or better to draw or sheathe a weapon as a free action as part of movement (PH 142). Since the FAQ author provided a convenient page number, you can easily open your Player's Handbook to see that the bolded statement in this "official" answer is quite wrong. Sheathing a weapon requires a move action. You can't trust the FAQ. Wizards of the Coast says what the official rules sources are, and which ones take precedent, in all their Errata files, and the FAQ isn't listed there.

true_shinken

2010-12-08, 10:27 AM

The "Official FAQ" has no authority as a rules source.
Yeah, that's why they call it official. :smallamused:

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 10:36 AM

An unarmed strike can indeed be used as your "off-hand" weapon (though no hands are actually needed)
Technically, by RAW, only monks may make unarmed strikes with other parts of their body:

A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full.
Nothing in that applies this to unarmed strikes generally.

But just as you can't use the same sword for both main- and off-hand attacks, you can't use your unarmed strike for both main- and off-hand attacks; the rules require that you must have a second weapon to use two-weapon fighting.
You have yet to provide a citation for the premise that a character has a single unarmed strike, like he might have a single long sword.

What we know, by RAW, on the subject, is that an unarmed strike is a light, simple weapon, and light weapons are used one-handed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightOneHandedandTwoHandedMeleeWeapons ).

What we know of Two-Weapon Fighting (the special attack, not the feat), is that If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) Further, that rules section expressly calls out an unarmed strike as "always considered light" for this purpose.

Where is the RAW reference that a character has only a single unarmed strike?? Your previous argument seems to be that it is not expressly stated but instead is so obvious (like having only one life) as to not require statement. That argument is illogical: while we each recognize we only have one life, we all know we have two fists, and in any fight, the typical person uses both of them. It would be extremely unusual (and very poor fighting) to use only one.

While RAW need not be logical (and often isn't), you cannot credibly argue that logic or common sense didn't require RAW to be so specific when logic and common sense contradict your position.

You mean...Amulet of Mighty Fists?
Could be. The pricing on that item is certainly crazy. However, my recollection is that it was an item that allowed conveying other types of bonuses to unarmed strikes (such as bane, etc.). In other words, it was a way to get enchantments that (by RAW) may be used on weapons for a character's unarmed strikes.

As noted, my memory is very hazy, and I could be completely off base: maybe it's just an item that I hope exists or wish existed. :smallwink:
I'm not asking anyone to take it as gospel until I or someone else can come up with a citation for it.
EDIT: Just quickly reviewed the MIC appendix (excluding tools, as I'm quite certain this wouldn't/couldn't be a tool) and couldn't find it. 'Still cannot rule out the possibility I was hallucinating.

urbanpirate

2010-12-08, 11:09 AM

flurry gives one extra attack in any round you use it
monk unarmed strikes are never off hand
flurry can be used with special monk weapons and/or unarmed strikes interchangeably
special monk weapons can be offhand
TWF tree builds offhand progression

So twf and flurry can be used together but unarmed strikes cannot be the offhand strikes.

Chen

2010-12-08, 11:21 AM

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 11:37 AM

flurry gives one extra attack in any round you use it
Correct and undisputed (by anyone).

monk unarmed strikes are never off hand
Debatable. The relevant text, in context, is, "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes." In other words, a monk's unarmed strikes are never treated as off hand for purposes of strength bonus. Nothing in this text implies that a monk cannot make an unarmed strike with the off hand. In fact, other text specifically contradicts this: "At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet."

This mirrors the flurry of blows language regarding strength bonuses and monk weapons: "When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus × 1½ or ×½) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands."

I submit that the only credible interpretation of these passages is not that monks cannot make an unarmed strike with their off hand (something expressly contradicted by the statement they may attack with either hand interchangeably). It is that, for purposes of strength bonus and (when used in a flurry) for purposes of attack bonus, do not treat these as off-hand attacks. That is all.

flurry can be used with special monk weapons and/or unarmed strikes interchangeably
Correct and undisputed.

special monk weapons can be offhand
Debatable, depending upon what you mean. By RAW (as discussed above), for purposes of a flurry, no monk weapon is treated as off hand for strength bonus or attack bonus purposes. In sum, the monk rules make an exception to the standard Two Weapon Fighting rules and off hand rules. (Note, however, this exception is specific to monks.)

TWF tree builds offhand progression
Incorrect, TWF (the feat) reduces penalties to both the primary and off-hand attacks when engaged in TWF (the attack).

So twf and flurry can be used together but unarmed strikes cannot be the offhand strikes.
According to cust. serv./FAW, TWF and flurry may be used together. The validity of that conclusion depends on how much credence one gives to cust. serv. (Crumudgeon correctly points out that sometimes, cust. serv. seems to have no clue; yet at other times, their rulings seem to make good sense, imo.)

The conclusion that unarmed strikes canno be the offhand strike has already been addressed, above: I maintain that no source has yet been cited, saying that a character cannot make an unarmed strike with the off-hand. The closest any one gets is the rule that a monk's unarmed strikes are not treated as off-hand for purposes of strength bonus to damage. That's it. And that does not carry the argument nearly far enough.

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 11:39 AM

If a monk can two weapon fight unarmed why can't it 4 weapon fight (it has 2 legs too)? Or 9 weapon fight (2 fists, 2 feet, 2 elbows, 2 knees, 1 head)? It specifically says they can use any part of their body as their unarmed strike.
Because of RAW: flurry of blows grants one extra attack, regardless of how many different ways the character might make attacks.

However, that extra attack may be with a monk weapon or with any part of the monk's body as an unarmed strike.

Eloel

2010-12-08, 11:53 AM

Yeah, that's why they call it official. :smallamused:

No, that's why they call it FAQ.
Frequently Asked Questions.

Nothing about correct answers there, sadly.

Keld Denar

2010-12-08, 12:05 PM

Now, I don't think there's anything at all unfair about making a house rule giving unarmed strikes an exception here; it's just that a house rule is necessary.

In most cases, I'd agree with you. If its broke, house rule it. But this isn't a case. I've proven that my interpretation is valid (monks can have an offhand UAS, treated as normal for offhands), and Stegyre has proven that his interpretation is valid (monks can have an offhand UAS, offhand recieves full +str bonus), and you've proven that your interpretation is valid (UAS can't simultaneously be mainhand and offhand). All are equally valid, depending on WHERE you place the emphasis. The rules for primary source don't apply, since all relevant rules text comes from the PHB. Thus, if all are equally valid, all are potential rules interpretations and no individual interpretation is a house rule.

That said, I believe my interpretation is the most correct due to Occam's Razor. All else being relatively equal, my interpretation is the most simple. Why should UAS be treated differently, for monks and non-monks alike, than any other weapon in the PHB, just because of its semi-duel nature as a natural and manufactured weapon. Just think of the UAS as a 1d3 bludgeoning dagger for all purposes OTHER than spells and a couple feats. Simple, streamlined, consistant. You, and everyone else in the multiverse, are free to make their own decisions based on what they feel is important to them, but that doesn't make me or anyone else less right, or their interpretation any more or less of a house rule.

FMArthur

2010-12-08, 12:05 PM

It's been established that a monk's unarmed strike isn't actually associated with his fists and uses any part on his body. If he is able to TWF with unarmed strikes, what prevents him from multiweapon fighting with NI unarmed strikes from all over his body?

Also,

The closest any one gets is the rule that a monk's unarmed strikes are not treated as off-hand for purposes of strength bonus to damage.
That is nowhere even close to what the actual text says. It says

There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
You don't have an off-hand attack when attacking unarmed, period. It doesn't say "only for the purpose of" anywhere there, that's something you made up completely. The following sentence about strength bonuses on damage doesn't alter or clarify the previous one at all, it only states a corollary of it. The rules for Two Weapon Fighting repeatedly and unambiguously refer to the second attack as coming from an offhand weapon. Which you do not have when fighting unarmed.

You don't get to ignore the other results of a clause's effect just because it gave one example of a particular result that wasn't what you were looking for. You do not have an off-hand attack when striking unarmed. Two-Weapon Fighting is littered with "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand," in conditions for its use and the use of its feats, and "the attack with your off hand" in the effects granted to you in them. The only support for unarmed TWF is some FAQ guy put on the spot to answer a question he didn't know enough about.

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 12:28 PM

You don't have an off-hand attack when attacking unarmed, period. It doesn't say "only for the purpose of" anywhere there, that's something you made up completely. The following sentence about strength bonuses on damage doesn't alter or clarify the previous one at all, it only states a corollary of it. The rules for Two Weapon Fighting repeatedly and unambiguously refer to the second attack as coming from an offhand weapon. Which you do not have when fighting unarmed.
I respectfully disagree.

First, the language about not having an off-hand, unarmed strike appears only in reference to monks, so there is no RAW basis to deny any other character to TWF with unarmed strikes "in" both hands.

Second, to say that monks cannot do what any other character can do with an UAS is to interpret the sentence in the monk description as an express nerf. That is contrary to the entire tenor of the passage, which is talking about how a monk's UAS is better than anyone else's: (a) it may be made with any part of the body; (b) it may be made while the hands are full; (c) it gets full strength bonus, not 1/2 bonus for being an off hand attack. While not determinative, in this context, one would expect the author to be unambiguous in making a nerf, such as saying, "Despite all of this, a monk cannot make a UAS with the off-hand."

Third, in context, the sentence, "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" is expressly intended as a prelude to the succeeding sentence, "A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes." That's the whole point of the "thus": it's saying that this statement proceeds from the previous one.

Fourth, your equation that "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" means "Monks cannot make a UAS with the off-hand," is expressly contradicted by examples within both the Monk text (which emphasizes that the monk may strike "with either fist interchangeably") and TWF text (which, while talking about using a light weapon in the off-hand, expressly notes that "An unarmed strike is always considered light").

I'm not relying on FAQ or cust. serv. It exists. It says what it says. That happens to be supportive, but I must concede Crum.'s point that cust.serv. is . . . not reliable.

@ K D: I'm not at all sure how your definition differs from mine. :smallconfused:
Also, I have only a small quibble with your description: by RAW, only monk UASs are treated as both natural and manufactured weapons. Otherwise, the default (expressed in the description for Magic Weapon, appears to be that UAS is a natural weapon (for lesser-mortals-wise-enough-not-to-take-monk-levels).

Curmudgeon

2010-12-08, 12:35 PM

Technically, by RAW, only monks may make unarmed strikes with other parts of their body:

Nothing in that applies this to unarmed strikes generally.
You're confusing an example (in the Monk class description) for an exclusionary rule. Obviously specific rules for Monks shouldn't be applied generally. However, it's bad logic to take an example of what applies to Monks and assume that that somehow limits non-Monks.

The general rules for unarmed attacks are in the Combat chapter of the Player's Handbook (page 139):
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following: and also the Equipment chapter (page 121):
Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack. Every character may use diverse parts of their body for unarmed strikes.

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 12:44 PM

I've never really addressed the OP:

Hey all, I just want to ask three short questions about unarmed fighting and TWF:
1. Is it possible to use the two in combination which each other?
Yes. I've yet to see a RAW reason why not. A UAS is a light weapon that, by RAW, may be used in either hand, and the TWF (attack) expressly makes mention of UAS.

2. Is it possible to stack TWF with flurry of blows?
Notwithstanding cust. serv., I consider this doubtful. By RAW, any means of getting extra attacks requires the Full Attack action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack), so both flurry and TWF need to do this, but I would see them as overlapping, not adding: a flurry is a sort of TWF -- a special, monk-only, twf. However, the rules are not at all clear. IMO, someone could credibly houserule/clarify it in either direction.

3. If a PC with both TWF and Unarmed Fighting wields a knife, can he use an unarmed strike and a knife in the same turn?Yes, if he takes the full attack action. The full strength bonus will apply to whichever one is the primary weapon, and half the strength bonus for whichever one is the off-hand weapon.

By my read, if the character is a monk, the UAS gets the full strength bonus, regardless of which hand it is "in." The point may be debated, but I think I have the better side of that argument. YMMV.

Keld Denar

2010-12-08, 12:59 PM

@ K D: I'm not at all sure how your definition differs from mine. :smallconfused:
While similar, I believe that a monk's offhand UASs only receive 1/2 +Str to damage. I believe that the statement cited refers only to a monk making UASs normally alloted to him by his BAB + Flurry of Blows ability. Compare this to a fighter with a +6 BAB making a single attack each with a longsword in one hand and a flail in the other. Both attacks are "mainhand" attacks, even though they are made with alternating hands. Both would recieve full +str bonus. If the +6 BAB character tried to make 3 attacks (+6/+1 and +6 before penalties), one of his weapons would become his offhand, and if it hit, would only recieve 1/2 +str bonus. Similarly with a monk. As long as he's only making attacks allotted to him by his BAB + Flurry of Blows (since Flurry is explicitly full +str), he would get full +str on his damage. Once he tries to make MORE attacks than he's allow, he falls into TWFing territory just like the fighter, and just like the fighter, his extra attacks would only get 1/2 +str.

Also, I have only a small quibble with your description: by RAW, only monk UASs are treated as both natural and manufactured weapons. Otherwise, the default (expressed in the description for Magic Weapon, appears to be that UAS is a natural weapon (for lesser-mortals-wise-enough-not-to-take-monk-levels).
I never aluded to anything different. I was just generalizing that the rules for UASs are different from all manufactured weapons WRT spells, enchantments, and feats. I didn't indicate which rules were different, or what those differences were or who was exempt or not exempt from those rules. Simply that alternate rules exist.

Also:

It's been established that a monk's unarmed strike isn't actually associated with his fists and uses any part on his body. If he is able to TWF with unarmed strikes, what prevents him from multiweapon fighting with NI unarmed strikes from all over his body?

Well, the feat Multiweapon Fighting (and its Greater and Superior versions) do require that you have 3+ arms. Also, extrapolating from monster stat blocks from things like the Xill and the Marilith that DO have multiple arms, you can infer that a creature can have up to X-1 offhand weapon attacks (among which UASs are counted), where X is the number of arms the creature has capable of wielding weapons, to a minimum of 1 offhand (for normal TWFing). Again, this isn't explicitly stated in any rule I've ever seen printed, but looking for paterns among monsters, its not hard to figure out.

It should also be noted that a character can equip and wield a large number of weapons, but he can't MWF either without extra arms. You could have a weapon in each hand, a pair of boot blades (CScoundrel), a pair of knee blades (CScoundrel), a braid blade, a weighted cloak, armor spikes, a mouthpick weapon, and his UAS all able to attack on any given round. Regardless of how many weapons he has, he can't MWF because he only has 2 arms and MWFing explicitly requires multiple arms.

Extrapolating this to a monk, a monk can strike with his head, elbows, fists, knife edge of his hands, shins, 10ish different parts of his foot, and his package, but he still can't make NI attacks because he only has 2 arms and thus can't MWF. Even if one did gain the MWF, as I mentioned, you can easily extrapolate the normal number of attacks a creature would gain by looking at other monster's statblocks. There IS a clear pattern there if you look.

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 01:04 PM

You're confusing an example (in the Monk class description) for an exclusionary rule. Obviously specific rules for Monks shouldn't be applied generally. However, it's bad logic to take an example of what applies to Monks and assume that that somehow limits non-Monks.

The general rules for unarmed attacks are in the Combat chapter of the Player's Handbook (page 131): and also the Equipment chapter (page 121): Every character may use diverse parts of their body for unarmed strikes.
You appear to be right: looks like the combat text made its way into the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack), although the equipment language did not (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#unarmedStrike). (But that ommision only demonstrates that WotC's editing skills leave something to be desired.) I defer. :smallbiggrin:

(Side note: your page numbers, however, do not match up. First printing, 2003 PHB, the combat text is on 139, not 131. Different editions, maybe?)

Curmudgeon

2010-12-08, 01:15 PM

(Side note: your page numbers, however, do not match up. First printing, 2003 PHB, the combat text is on 139, not 131. Different editions, maybe?)
No, an editing goof on my part. (I did some copy and paste work, but the page 121 reference turned into 131 instead of 139 for the other citation.) I'll edit the original.

My apologies for this error. :smallfrown:

Chen

2010-12-08, 02:22 PM

Because of RAW: flurry of blows grants one extra attack, regardless of how many different ways the character might make attacks.

However, that extra attack may be with a monk weapon or with any part of the monk's body as an unarmed strike.

I didn't say anything about flurry I was talking about the extra attacks gained via two weapon fighting (or in the cases mentioned, multiweapon fighting).

Why is it you can use your unarmed strike (which is a single weapon using any part of your body) as an "off-hand" attack but not as a second or third or fourth "off-hand attack".

Can a thri-kreen monk use multiweapon fighting and attack with 4 unarmed strikes?

Keld Denar

2010-12-08, 02:37 PM

Can a thri-kreen monk use multiweapon fighting and attack with 4 unarmed strikes?

Yes. In my post, I mentioned how you can extrapolate from several monster's statblocks that you can make X-1 sets of offhand weapon attacks, where X is the number of limbs the creature has that can wield a weapon (among which UASs count).

So a Thri-Kreen monk with a +6 BAB, Flurry of Strikes, and Improved Multiweapon Fighting could make 3 attacks with his "mainhand" UAS, and 2 attacks each with offhand UASs (total of 3 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 9 attacks). The first 3 attacks would all be made at full +str bonus, and the last 6 attacks would get 1/2 +str bonus, assuming you subscribe to my interpretation of the rules. Fluff-wise, you could describe each hit as you see fit, but mechanics wise, thats how it would break down.

Also, since none of his claws are technically "occupied" by a weapon, he could then make 4 claws and a bite attack on top of those attacks, all as secondary natural attacks.

Optimator

2010-12-08, 02:41 PM

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 02:52 PM

My apologies for this error. :smallfrown:See? Now, we can't believe anything you post. :smallwink:

My bad for not finding the other unarmed strike references. That was always logical that the strikes may be made with other body parts, but logic is seldom sufficient where RAW is at issue. I have enjoyed the spirited debate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html). That seems such a much better motivation than someone is wrong on the internet (http://xkcd.com/386/).

Chen

2010-12-08, 03:00 PM

absolmorph

2010-12-08, 03:08 PM

An unarmed strike can indeed be used as your "off-hand" weapon (though no hands are actually needed) if you use some other weapon for your main-hand attacks. But just as you can't use the same sword for both main- and off-hand attacks, you can't use your unarmed strike for both main- and off-hand attacks; the rules require that you must have a second weapon to use two-weapon fighting.

Now, I don't think there's anything at all unfair about making a house rule giving unarmed strikes an exception here; it's just that a house rule is necessary.

The "Official FAQ" has no authority as a rules source. Example: Since the FAQ author provided a convenient page number, you can easily open your Player's Handbook to see that the bolded statement in this "official" answer is quite wrong. Sheathing a weapon requires a move action. You can't trust the FAQ. Wizards of the Coast says what the official rules sources are, and which ones take precedent, in all their Errata files, and the FAQ isn't listed there.
Er, really?
I looked on the right side of the bottom half of page 142 (under "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon").
It has almost identical wording to the section of the FAQ you claimed was false. If you have a BAB of +1 or higher, you can draw or sheathe a weapon as a free action during a move action.

Curmudgeon

2010-12-08, 03:12 PM

Er, really?
I looked on the right side of the bottom half of page 142 (under "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon").
It has almost identical wording to the section of the FAQ you claimed was false. If you have a BAB of +1 or higher, you can draw or sheathe a weapon as a free action during a move action.
RIF (Reading Is Fundamental).
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. You still need a move action to sheathe a weapon.

Lycar

2010-12-08, 03:13 PM

If you allow... I think the question isn't that much what RAW makes of TWF + Flurry, but what you want/need it to be in your game.

After all, Monks are usually being accused of doing too little damage to be a credible melee threat (let's not go into 'but melee never is a credible threat..' please).

So maybe these old tables will help you decide how extra attacks are needed.

Thanks again to 'Amazing Keld' for the help. :smallwink:

Level|Monk attacks (flurry) |Rogue attacks (TWF) |Ranger Attacks (TWF)
1| -2-2|-2-2|+1
2| -1-1|-1-1|+0+0
5| +2+2|+1+1|+3+3
6| +3+3|+2+2|+4+4-1-1
8| +5+5+0|+4+4-1|+6+6+1+1
9| +6+6+1|+4+4-1-1|+7+7+2+2
11| +8+8+3|+6+6+1+1|+9+9+4+4-1-1
15| +11+11+11+6+1|+9+9+4+4-1-1|+13+13+8+8+3+3
16| +12+12+12+7+2|+10+10+5+5+0+0|14+14+9+9+4+4-1
20| +15+15+15+10+5|+13+13+8+8+3+3|+18+18+13+13+8+8+3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level|Monk attacks w. flurry|Rogue attacks |TWF Monk + flurry Attacks
1| -2-2|-2-2|-4-4-4
2| -1-1|-1-1|-3-3-3
5| +2+2|+1+1|+0+0+0
6| +3+3|+2+2|+1+1+1
8| +5+5+0|+4+4-1-1|+3+3+3-2-2
9| +6+6+1|+4+4-1-1|+4+4+4-1-1
11| +8+8+8+3|+6+6+1+1|+6+6+6+6+1+1
15| +11+11+11+6+1|+9+9+4+4-1-1|+9+9+9+9+4+4-1-1
16| +12+12+12+7+2|+10+10+5+5+0+0|+10+10+10+10+5+5+0+0
20| +15+15+15+10+5|+13+13+8+8+3+3|+13+13+13+13+8+8+3+3

So the monk gets lots of attacks at low attack bonus. But BAB is pretty easy to raise and if you stack size modifiers, Monks actually do some pretty sick amounts of damage. Just ask Keld about that. :smallamused:

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 04:02 PM

If any part of the body is usable as an unarmed strike, why does number of arms somehow determine how many off-hand attacks you can make?
Because it's RAW?

Not in so many words, admittedly, but here's the problem with your (and Optimator's) argument:

First, TWF (the feat) only grants one extra attack with the off-hand weapon. So by RAW, it doesn't matter how many possible "off-hand attacks" you have. You have to get iTWF to get a second attack from an off-hand weapon, etc.

Second, Multiweapon Fighting requires "three or more hands," and expressly " replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." If you meet the prerequisite, then as Keld Denar notes, you can indeed take this feat and get the extra attacks. That's RAW.
Thought exercise: if a totemist binds girallon arms, does he qualify?
Third, multiattack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#multiattack) requires three or more "natural attacks." Its benefit applies to "the creature’s secondary attacks with natural weapons." PC-type characters typically do not have "secondary attacks," so they will gain no benefit.
Secondary attacks are generally unique to monsters, which do not receive iterative attacks from BAB. Read a bit more about it here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) (under "Attack" and "Full Attack").

The distinction between creatures (usually PCs and other humanoids) who have iterative attacks, off-hand weapons, etc., and "monsters" who have primary and secondary attacks, is (IMO) arbitrary and illogical, but it's also RAW.

FWIW, a centaur has two secondary attacks in its two hooves, while its primary attack is a weapon. It cannot take multiweapon attack (fails to meet the prerequisite), but it may take multi-attack and reduce its penalty on its hoof attacks in a full attack from -5 each to -2 each. But now, I'm getting more and more pedantic.

Keld Denar

2010-12-08, 04:08 PM

If one allows TWF for unarmed strikes, why not allow Multi-Weapon Fighting with many body parts? Two feet, two knees, two elbows, two fists, and a headbutt. TWFing with an unarmed strike and an unarmed strike follows the very same logic. You only have one weapon with unarmed strikes: your body. Would you allow a player to TWF with a greatsword and the very same greatsword?

Yeah thats pretty much the exact same point I was trying to make. If any part of the body is usable as an unarmed strike, why does number of arms somehow determine how many off-hand attacks you can make?

Can a centaur make more off-hand attacks? It has 6 limbs but only 2 are arms. What about a human monk with only 1 arm? Can he two weapon fight at all?
See quoted text below. An armed human individual (with real, physical weapons) could be wielding ~12-13 weapons at any given time, give or take. He can't multiweapon fight with them any more than a monk can multiweapon fight with his elbows, kicks, headbutts, or pelvic thrusts.

Yes. In my post, I mentioned how you can extrapolate from several monster's statblocks that you can make X-1 sets of offhand weapon attacks, where X is the number of limbs the creature has that can wield a weapon (among which UASs count).

So a Thri-Kreen monk with a +6 BAB, Flurry of Strikes, and Improved Multiweapon Fighting could make 3 attacks with his "mainhand" UAS, and 2 attacks each with offhand UASs (total of 3 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 9 attacks). The first 3 attacks would all be made at full +str bonus, and the last 6 attacks would get 1/2 +str bonus, assuming you subscribe to my interpretation of the rules. Fluff-wise, you could describe each hit as you see fit, but mechanics wise, thats how it would break down.

EDIT:

Thought exercise: if a totemist binds girallon arms, does he qualify?
No. The extra arms granted by Girallon Arms aren't prehensile. They can't wield weapons. They can only make claw attacks, thus they don't count for qualifying for MWF.

Stegyre

2010-12-08, 05:43 PM

No. The extra arms granted by Girallon Arms aren't prehensile. They can't wield weapons. They can only make claw attacks, thus they don't count for qualifying for MWF.
I agree. However, by RAW, they would allow you to benefit from multiattack: a totem bind grants four claw attacks, one primary and three secondary.

Go wild, people!:smallbiggrin:

Keld Denar

2010-12-08, 06:45 PM

Multiattack yes. Multiweapon Fighting no.

Its not hard to qualify for Multiattack. Kobolds using the web enhancement qualify on their own. Anyone with the Deepspawn feat is pretty close to qualifying as well. Person_Man has a really good guide around here on how to add natural attacks to your melee attack routine, and combining any two of those will get you in with Multiattack. Multiattack on its own doesn't get you any more attacks though...it just lessens the penalties on your existing secondary natural weapons.

Outside of being a Thri-Kreen or a Kobold with the Dragon Tail (RotD) and Prehensile Tail (SavSpec) feats, there isn't a really good way for most PCs to qualify for MWFing.