Monks and TWF

[Letums Gate]

I looked at a build and I saw that it was a monk taking the TWF feat tree but it says.

Unarmed Strike: Monks are highly
trained in fighting unarmed, giving
them considerable advantages when
doing so. 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 means that a monk
may even make unarmed strikes with her
hands full. 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.

Emphises mine so dose this mean a monk can even use TWF?

[Cog]

In the TWF rules, it states that unarmed strikes always count as a light weapon for TWF penalties. That's a more specific statement, and so takes precedence. However, you still only have one unarmed strike, so you can't TWF with only unarmed strikes any more than you can TWF with the blade and the spike of a halberd.

[The Glyphstone]

There's been dozens of threads on this exact topic. It's never been firmly settled, one way or the other. By strict RAW, you cannot TWF your unarmed strike, but you can wield a weapon in one hand and TWF with that plus your unarmed strike.

Personally - it's not like it'll overpower Monks, is it?

[Letums Gate]

I just played a Hellbred Paldin (wich the party killed and looted the first time he was brought in.....GRRRRRR) any ways I am planing on trying a Goliath Monk but am not sure what kind of build to use. I can only have the one race and core so.....ya wich reminds me dose a Goliaths Powerfull Build increase monk damnge for unarmed strikes?

[Cog]

... wich reminds me dose a Goliaths Powerfull Build increase monk damnge for unarmed strikes?
No, but it wouldn't be a terrible house rule - most of goliath's benefits do very little for a Monk anyway.

[MeeposFire]

There's been dozens of threads on this exact topic. It's never been firmly settled, one way or the other. By strict RAW, you cannot TWF your unarmed strike, but you can wield a weapon in one hand and TWF with that plus your unarmed strike.

Personally - it's not like it'll overpower Monks, is it?

By strict RAW only a monk could possibly have problems with TWF with nothing but unarmed strikes since the monk is the only thing that has this restriction. Personally I think this is just a reference to a monk being able to use any part of his body as an unarmed attacks and it will never be any different (without that a DM could say that while fists would be standard a head but would be less accurate since it is not a "normal" unarmed attack to that DM but this rule forbids that idea but that is an interpretation that I have so I would not call it gospel).

[Doc Roc]

By strict RAW only, a monk could possibly have problems.

Truth in the fiction I just made.

[AslanCross]

A Monk TWFing totally won't be overpowered, because it will stack an additional penalty on top of flurry. Congratulations! You now have 3 attacks at Lv 1 that are all guaranteed to miss! (Even if you had 18 Strength, you'd get a +0 attack bonus)

[Curmudgeon]

There's nothing at all either unfair or unclear about how Two-Weapon Fighting would work, for a Monk or anyone else. The only issue is if that's allowed by the rules, which it appears not to be. However, there is at least one option that will give you the Two-Weapon Fighting feats specifically for unarmed strikes: the City Brawler Barbarian ACF (Dragon # 349, page 92) takes you through Greater Two-Weapon Fighting by level 11, except this feat chain applies only when fighting unarmed. So a Barbarian/Chaos Monk would have official blessing for unarmed TWF. :smallbiggrin:

[Optimator]

Why stop at two-weapon fighting? Go for multi-weapon fighting.

[Reynard]

Why stop at two-weapon fighting? Go for multi-weapon fighting.

And Snap Kick.

Let's see how far down we can drive a Monk's attack bonus.

EDIT: By that I mean, let's do something fun, rather than the usual Monk Thread Dance.

Pictured:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/uploaded_images/circle-bike-743206.jpg

[SilverLeaf167]

Or you could just take the Snap Kick feat from Tome of Battle. It does pretty much the same, except that it works on all attacks (not just full) but unfortunately doesn't have an Improved or Greater version, though those versions of TWF aren't really recommended either.

EDIT: Swordsage'd :smallsigh:

[Coidzor]

you still only have one unarmed strike

Is that ever actually explicitly stated or just something that's been inferred by a large number of people though?

[true_shinken]

Is that ever actually explicitly stated or just something that's been inferred by a large number of people though?
By RAW, you can just buy as mine unarmed strikes as you want. They are free. :smalltongue:

[Cog]

Is that ever actually explicitly stated or just something that's been inferred by a large number of people though?
An unarmed strike can be made with any part of your body. If any part of your body is the first weapon you're using, where are you keeping the second weapon?

[Coidzor]

An unarmed strike can be made with any part of your body. If any part of your body is the first weapon you're using, where are you keeping the second weapon?

So the issue is just semantics rather than explicit mechanics, then.

[Cog]

Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning.
Yes, my argument is based on the meaning of the words. What else am I supposed to base it on? :smallconfused:

[Greenish]

Yes, my argument is based on the meaning of the words. What else am I supposed to base it on? :smallconfused:English isn't my first language, but I gather the phrase "just semantics" means "something to be ignored/dismissed". :smallamused:

[MeeposFire]

I guess my double axe should not be able to be used with two weapon fighting since it is one weapon, even though it has multiple striking ends. Just like unarmed strike right which is apparently one weapon with many striking ends (fists, legs, head elbows, whatever).

[Greenish]

I guess my double axe should not be able to be used with two weapon fighting since it is one weapon, even though it has multiple striking ends.Double axe is a double weapon, explicitly called such, with mechanics given on how it works with TWF. (How it would work if you really tried to fight with such a contraption is a different matter.)

Unarmed strike is not a double weapon.

[Cog]

English isn't my first language, but I gather the phrase "just semantics" means "something to be ignored/dismissed". :smallamused:
It's used that way, yeah, but if the only argument you can make against a position is that it too carefully follows the meaning of the words used, I think that says something itself.

Re: double axe, consider the difference between it and a halberd. The double axe is specifically listed as a double weapon, made for double fighting; the halberd has multiple striking surfaces as well, but it's not a double weapon.

[MeeposFire]

Yes but unarmed strike is more than a double weapon since it has way more striking areas than just two. It cannot be defined in such a simple manner (granted this edition has made everything to do with unarmed strikes as being not simple to define).

EDIT: And a halberd is unable to take advantage of that since 3.5 seems to assume that two weapon fighting requires a different weapon or a different end to make extra attacks.

[Greenish]

Yes but unarmed strike is more than a double weapon since it has way more striking areas than just two.Number of striking surfaces doesn't have anything to do on whether something is a double weapon or not.

[MeeposFire]

Number of striking surfaces doesn't have anything to do on whether something is a double weapon or not.

Which double weapons do not have multiple striking ends on them?

[HalfDragonCube]

If monk unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, then can you throw your unarmed strike?

Rocket fists!

Since you have potentially infinite amounts from all surfaces of your body, then you could keep throwing them.

Even better, a some one could then pick up your unarmed strike if you miss and attack with it. A high-level monk could arm an army of commoners with their unarmed strike.

[Greenish]

Which double weapons do not have multiple striking ends on them?I never said that double weapons lack multiple striking surfaces, I said that not everything with multiple striking surfaces is a double weapon. :smallamused:

[MeeposFire]

I never said that double weapons lack multiple striking surfaces, I said that not everything with multiple striking surfaces is a double weapon. :smallamused:

How many weapons with multiple striking ends (I should have been more precise before) are not double weapons?


Also unarmed strikes are only like manufactured weapons in few specific ways and like natural weapons in other ways. That is what makes them so confusing especially if they don't spell it out directly since then we have to guess which it is for a rule.

[Greenish]

How many weapons with multiple striking ends (I should have been more precise before) are not double weapons?All of the ones that aren't double weapons. Swords have pommels and crossguards, halberds with the axehead, spike and shaft, for example.

Any weapons that have damage type entry of "X or Y".

[MeeposFire]

All of the ones that aren't double weapons. Swords have pommels and crossguards, halberds with the axehead, spike and shaft, for example.

Any weapons that have damage type entry of "X or Y".

Do you really need me to get so specific with my descriptions or could you please just speak about the actual argument. Using two fists is not similar to using a pommel (which is more of a choice of using instead of a sword strike rather than something you use in addition to one or for unarmed strikes would be like trying to do two different types of punches which would not be two weapon fighting) or a halberd (which has two different weapons on the same end which is like me trying to differentiate an eye gouge with a punch which I would not call two weapon fighting). Using two completely different parts of the body is more like using a double weapon (or at least how the devs see double weapons).

[Greenish]

Using two completely different parts of the body is more like using a double weapon (or at least how the devs see double weapons).No, it's not. Unarmed strikes are all the same, there is only one. It's a single light weapon. No matter how you go on about "striking surfaces" or "different ends/parts" changes that.

A spear has two ends. It's basically a quarterstaff with a sharpened end. It's still not a double weapon. Neither is the character.

[Cog]

Another thing to consider: If you decide you have more than one unarmed strike, then how do you decide how many you do have? Two is just as arbitrary as fifteen or five hundred. Remember, the TWF feat doesn't let you make attacks with the extra weapons, it just reduces the penalty for doing so - so however many unarmed strikes you have, that's how many times you can attack in a round.

[true_shinken]

Another thing to consider: If you decide you have more than one unarmed strike, then how do you decide how many you do have? Two is just as arbitrary as fifteen or five hundred. Remember, the TWF feat doesn't let you make attacks with the extra weapons, it just reduces the penalty for doing so - so however many unarmed strikes you have, that's how many times you can attack in a round.

Erm, no. That's Multiweapon Fighting.

[Greenish]

Erm, no. That's Multiweapon Fighting.Well, neither of those allows you to make more attacks, only reduces the penalties.

[MeeposFire]

Indeed that is multiweapon fighting and weapon users can already see this in action.

Any character can have spiked gauntlets, two buckler axes, spiked armor, 2 hidden blades, 2 elbow blades, two boot blades, two weapons in hand, and more and unless he has multiweapon feats can't get more than one extra attack using two weapon fighting. Having all those weapons allows him more choices in what to use but not extra attacks.

[AslanCross]

Well, neither of those allows you to make more attacks, only reduces the penalties.

Correct. It's only ITWF and GTWF that allow additional attacks for the offhand. A character wielding two weapons is allowed to attack with the offhand by default, albeit at a massive penalty. TWF reduces that to -4/-4 or -2/-2.

[true_shinken]

Well, neither of those allows you to make more attacks, only reduces the penalties.
Yeah, but TWF is specifically for one off-hand attack. The name is a good clue on this.



Indeed that is multiweapon fighting and weapon users can already see this in action.

Any character can have spiked gauntlets, two buckler axes, spiked armor, 2 hidden blades, 2 elbow blades, two boot blades, two weapons in hand, and more and unless he has multiweapon feats can't get more than one extra attack using two weapon fighting. Having all those weapons allows him more choices in what to use but not extra attacks.
Thanks for explaining it better than I did.

[MeeposFire]

Well, neither of those allows you to make more attacks, only reduces the penalties.

Improved Multiweapon Fighting [General]
Prerequisites

Dex 15, three or more arms, Multiweapon Fighting, base attack bonus +9.
Benefit

In addition to the single extra attack a creature gets with each extra weapon from Multiweapon Fighting, it gets a second attack with each extra weapon, albeit at a -5 penalty.
Normal

With only Multiweapon Fighting, a creater can only get a single attack with each extra weapon.
Special

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

The feat disagrees with you.

EDIT: Just in case

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.

So multiweapon allows attacks with multiple arms

Two-Weapon Fighting [General]

You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.
Prerequisite

Dex 15.
Benefit

Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.
Normal

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

Two weapon fighting is limited to two hands and only one extra attack. So yes they are different in use as well.

[Greenish]

Two weapon fighting is limited to two hands and only one extra attack. So yes they are different in use as well.I didn't say they were the same, I just pointed out that neither TWF the feat nor MWF the feat gives you extra attacks that you wouldn't already have.

Also, I can read the SRD, and you can assume I have. You can see yourself that what I said is correct.

[MeeposFire]

Fair enough the point still stands as it is not the amount of weapons you wield but the number of arms that you have that changes the number of attacks. The fact that you could have a large number of different weapons on different parts of your body do not entitle you to more attacks.

[Greenish]

The fact that you could have a large number of different weapons on different parts of your body do not entitle you to more attacks.True. And you still only have one unarmed strike, which you can take using your knees, hands, elbows, headbuts or the like.

The "number of attacks = number of arms" is only conjecture, I should point out.

[Gice]

The strange thing IMO is that both the multi weapon fighting feats talk about 'more arms', while the unarmed strike includes possible kicks or head buts or whatever you might come up with (my party has a monk who occasionally wears only his monk's belt but hasn't read that particular sentence yet I guess).

So the multi weapon fighting does not allow you to strike unarmed with one kick and one elbow punch/slap/poke as an unarmed strike AND use weapons in your hands and fight with those in the same round right?

[Greenish]

So the multi weapon fighting does not allow you to strike unarmed with one kick and one elbow punch/slap/poke as an unarmed strike AND use weapons in your hands and fight with those in the same round right?If you have three attacks, you can use Unarmed Strike twice and a weapon once, without using TWF or MWF rules.

[Edit]: If you're using a monk weapon, you can also do the same with flurry.

[Keld Denar]

The number of limbs capable of wielding weapons = number of MWFing attacks is about as close to RAW as you can get. There is not a single monster in any monstrous manual that violates this rule.

As far as monks go, I've always read that section as "there is normally no such thing as a monk suffering from offhand penalties, since attacks made from Flurry + BAB also never do. A monk doesn't have an offhand unless you give him one."

A normal vanilla fighter can have a longsword in his right hand and a battle axe in his left hand. If he has a BAB of +6, he could make one attack with his sword at +6 and one with his axe at +1, and he would NOT be considered to be TWFing, even though he is using two weapons and both hands. He hasn't gained any extra attacks by using the TWFing combat option, so he doesn't have any of the normal penalties from it. Both attacks get full 1x +Str bonus if they hit, and he suffers no loss of accuracy.

This is no different from a monk. He has a +6 BAB, and makes a kick with his right foot at +6 and an elbow strike with his left elbow at +1. He's not TWFing in this situation, either. The text in the monk passage simply reminds you of this fact. Now, if the monk attacked once with his left hand at +4, once with his right hand at +4, and once with his right knee at -1, then he is attacking more times in a round than his BAB normally allows. This is modeled by the TWFing rules.

The only thing that muddles it a little is the text that you only have one UAS. Now, this could be explained in the way that UAS is different from manufactured weapons in that you can make both main hand and offhand attacks with it, but such rules are never stated anywhere. Another point of balance would be wrt items like a Necklace of Natural Attacks. If you were able to TWF with your UAS, you would probably have to pay the upcharge for an extra natural weapon, unless you use the above house rule.

The passage in the monk's UAS definition, however, has no impact on the argument of whether or not a monk can or can not TWF with his UASs.

[Greenish]

The number of limbs capable of wielding weapons = number of MWFing attacks is about as close to RAW as you can get.You mean "as close to RAW as you can get without actually being RAW"? :smalltongue:

[HalfDragonCube]

You mean "as close to RAW as you can get without actually being RAW"? :smalltongue:

Or RAI. The clue is in the name Multiweapon fighting. You want Multiclobber fighting.

[Cog]

If -weapon doesn't include unarmed strikes, this whole thread is pointless.

[MeeposFire]

I think we can all agree and admit that unarmed strikes are among the worst offenders for unclear rules in 3.5 (even more than most spells that let you do a lot of stuff). Heck ever try remembering what parts of it are natural and what rules are like manufactured weapons in regards to unarmed strike. Yuck.:smalltongue:

[Greenish]

I think we can all agree and admit that unarmed strikes are among the worst offenders for unclear rules in 3.5True, up there with mounted combat.

Also, I'm currently playing an unarmed swordsage in a campaign where the DM has allowed me to TWF with unarmed strikes. :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

Which double weapons do not have multiple striking ends on them?
A quarterstaff is just a long, stout stick, and any part of it can be used for striking or blocking; the ends have no special features. But it's still counted as a double weapon. (It's also not considered a tripping weapon, even though it's actually excellent for sweeping someone's legs out from under them.)

[Human Paragon 3]

To clear up a point above, the phrase "just semantics" doesn't simply mean it should be dismissed (though usually a purely semantic argument should be), nor is it "following the meaning of a word too closely," as one poster suggested.

If an argument is just semantics, it is using the technical meaning of words to argue a false position. For instance, if I shoot you with a gun and you die, I have killed you. A semantic argument against this obvious truth might be "Well, not really, all you did was twitch your finger, really the BULLET killed him."

Sure, yes, the bullet physically killed you, but that's just semantics. See?

[true_shinken]

If -weapon doesn't include unarmed strikes, this whole thread is pointless.

Check the weapon table in the PHB. I'll be waiting here. :smallcool:

[HalfDragonCube]

True, up there with mounted combat.

Also, I'm currently playing an unarmed swordsage in a campaign where the DM has allowed me to TWF with unarmed strikes. :smalltongue:

And drowning.

[Greenish]

By RAW, you can just buy as mine unarmed strikes as you want. They are free. :smalltongue:Reminds me of the story of the guy who showed up in a game with his level 1 character decked up on artifacts, since their price was "-", so they were obviously free. :smallamused:

And drowning.Drowning rules are pretty clear. They might make no sense (the healing part) and be too lethal (start drowning = certain death), but they're clear.