City Brawler (Barbarian Variant)

[noparlpf]

So I recently ran into some DM disbelief when I rolled for three attacks at 8th level as an unarmed fighter-type. I explained that I was using Two-Weapon Fighting, which is a pretty basic feat. He and the other relatively experienced player both had issues with the idea of using Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes. They pointed to the line "an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack." (PHB page 121) Apparently they had some trouble imagining using more than one body part at a time. Even though humanoids have two fists and typically won't use only one in a fistfight.
What does the Playground think of this variant (DR 349) and then of Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes in general?

A related question: Can a Necklace of Natural Weapons apply to unarmed strikes? As long as I pay twice to have the bonus apply to both fists, it should be okay, right?

[ILM]

Three unarmed attacks, with a Barbarian 8? That's clearly overpowered, and you're the worst kind of munchkin for trying to bring that to the table. Jerk.

It's really not. You group is probably not very familiar with the higher-end of the power scale; work it out with them or send them here for a look.

[arguskos]

So I recently ran into some DM disbelief when I rolled for three attacks at 8th level as an unarmed fighter-type. I explained that I was using Two-Weapon Fighting, which is a pretty basic feat. He and the other relatively experienced player both had issues with the idea of using Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes. They pointed to the line "an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack." (PHB page 121) Apparently they had some trouble imagining using more than one body part at a time. Even though humanoids have two fists and typically won't use only one in a fistfight.
What does the Playground think of this variant (DR 349) and then of Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes in general?
Unarmed strikes are a weapon. You can use Two Weapons to Fight. Not seeing an issue here. They're being pedantic or purposefully obtuse.


A related question: Can a Necklace of Natural Weapons apply to unarmed strikes? As long as I pay twice to have the bonus apply to both fists, it should be okay, right?
You only pay once. Otherwise, yes, I believe you are fine. If not, then buy a strip of cloth, wrap it around your fists, and enchant it to be magical. Call it your wrappings of badassery or whatever.

[Spiryt]

I don't think there is any ruling, or any kind of reason to forbid using TWF with unarmed attacks..... :smallconfused::smallconfused:

They seem to be troublesome just for the sake of it, to me.

[Big Fau]

A humanoid has one Unarmed Strike, not two.

I'll admit, they should have made the rules more friendly towards Unarmed warriors than they did. There's nothing out there except a FAQ ruling to prevent this, and the topic is heavily debated here.


However, getting 3 attacks at level 8, even while unarmed, is trivial. You were just using the wrong feats.


You only pay once. Otherwise, yes, I believe you are fine. If not, then buy a strip of cloth, wrap it around your fists, and enchant it to be magical. Call it your wrappings of badassery or whatever.

Incorrect. There's a price increase for each natural weapon to be affected. A significant one at that...

[AugustNights]

I do hope ILM is being sarcastic...

Anyhow, the root problem is there is no clear definitive language as to how many "unarmed strikes" any given creature has, and while the monk has a special caveat about being able to use different parts of its body to deliver their unarmed attack, there is no language stipulating whether monks (or non-monks) gain multiple unarmed attack (weapons). So if you only have 1 unarmed attack (weapon), then you cannot two weapon fight with it. This is a common ruling, think on the spell Magic Fang, Greater as opposed to Magic Fang, if you cast Magic Fang on a monk do they select a single limb, or does their (single) unarmed attack get improved regardless of how it is delivered.

Alternatively, think on this.
You have a dagger. You can deliver dagger attacks with your left or right hand. That's 2 ways to deliver the attack, but you still only have 1 dagger and cannot use it (and it alone) for Two Weapon Fighting.

TL:DR
It depends on how many Unarmed Strike natural weapons the DM decides every creature has.

[Spiryt]

Alternatively, think on this.
You have a dagger. You can deliver dagger attacks with your left or right hand. That's 2 ways to deliver the attack, but you still only have 1 dagger and cannot use it (and it alone) for Two Weapon Fighting.


Interesting.

Can you deliver 1 dagger attack followed by 1 unarmed attack, as full round action as standar TWF routine with the way those rules are written?

[Darrin]

He and the other relatively experienced player both had issues with the idea of using Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes. They pointed to the line "an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack." (PHB page 121) Apparently they had some trouble imagining using more than one body part at a time. Even though humanoids have two fists and typically won't use only one in a fistfight.


Unarmed strikes can be used with TWF by RAW. Show them PHB p. 139, "Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two weapon attack penalties and so on)."

There are several confusing areas of ambiguity with unarmed strikes, however. For TWF, it's not clear if you use an unarmed strike as your primary weapon, then can you also use it as your off-hand weapon? (This may require a DM's call... I say "yes" but other DMs may differ.) From a balance standpoint, you "pay" for the extra attack with a -2 penalty, and it's generally pretty difficult to optimize unarmed strike damage to unreasonable levels.



What does the Playground think of this variant (DR 349) and then of Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes in general?


Variant is awesomesauce, particularly because you can also add Lion Totem Pounce (Complete Champion) and the Whirling Frenzy rage variant (SRD/UA). A 1st level City Brawler Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian can get three attacks: TWF + Whirling Frenzy. Add Travel Devotion, and he can move + charge + full attack 10 rounds in a row.

I'm very Pro-"TWF+Unarmed Strikes", as well as TWF+Flurry and why not throw Snap Kick and Planar Touchstone:Oxyrhynchus on there for even more attacks. I don't see how getting nitpicky about unarmed strikes, TWF, Flurry, off-hand strikes, etc., improves the game in any way (although I apparently will spend an inordinate amount of time arguing it to death in a forum...).



A related question: Can a Necklace of Natural Weapons apply to unarmed strikes? As long as I pay twice to have the bonus apply to both fists, it should be okay, right?

Yes, but you don't pay twice. Unarmed strike is a single natural weapon (I'm conceding to Keld's interpretation as a nod towards more expedient gameplay), which can be performed with a variety of different striking surfaces on your body. From a mechanics standpoint, what part of the body you strike with is deliberately left ambiguous by design. If you want to "fluff" the description of your attacks to say you hit with your right hand as a palm-strike to the throat and then hammerfist to the gut with your left, that's fine, but I don't see any reason why you'd have to pay twice for that.

Edit: Keld, do you have a new home for your mini-guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10994.0), or is it being moved to a new forum on BG?

[noparlpf]

Three unarmed attacks, with a Barbarian 8? That's clearly overpowered, and you're the worst kind of munchkin for trying to bring that to the table. Jerk.

It's really not. You group is probably not very familiar with the higher-end of the power scale; work it out with them or send them here for a look.

I know, I'm a terrible powergamer. (I'm the guy who sticks to Tier 4 on average.) I think the fact that I took down his CR 10 miniboss single-handedly might have something to do with it, although I ended up in the negatives when my rage ended the next round. (It probably would have been worse if I had gotten natural weapons and used Beast Strike too like I was considering.)
Yeah, my group considers a Wizard with Dual Wand Wielder shooting off two Orbs in a round to be "the height of optimization". Or a Scout with silly to initiative and a bunch of magic arrows. (The latter really only works that well in a PvP one-shot where your items get reset in between battles. In a campaign it wouldn't be quite so amazing.) I got called out once for having cross-class ranks in Autohypnosis to make stabilizing easier.


You only pay once. Otherwise, yes, I believe you are fine. If not, then buy a strip of cloth, wrap it around your fists, and enchant it to be magical. Call it your wrappings of badassery or whatever.

I thought you had to pay twice if you wanted it to apply to two different weapons. (Left hand, right hand.) Wrappings of Badassery would be neat, though.

[arguskos]

Incorrect. There's a price increase for each natural weapon to be affected. A significant one at that...
I meant this:

Yes, but you don't pay twice. Unarmed strike is a single natural weapon (I'm conceding to Keld's interpretation as a nod towards more expedient gameplay), which can be performed with a variety of different striking surfaces on your body. From a mechanics standpoint, what part of the body you strike with is deliberately left ambiguous by design. If you want to "fluff" the description of your attacks to say you hit with your right hand as a palm-strike to the throat and then hammerfist to the gut with your left, that's fine, but I don't see any reason why you'd have to pay twice for that.

Darrin said it better than I did. :smallbiggrin:

[noparlpf]

Edit:

Unarmed strikes can be used with TWF by RAW. Show them PHB p. 139, "Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two weapon attack penalties and so on)."

Thanks, I forgot about that. That would have helped my argument.


There are several confusing areas of ambiguity with unarmed strikes, however. For TWF, it's not clear if you use an unarmed strike as your primary weapon, then can you also use it as your off-hand weapon? (This may require a DM's call... I say "yes" but other DMs may differ.)

I've seen several things which allow for UaS as the off-hand attack with a weapon in the primary hand. This is one of those ambiguous areas, I guess.


Variant is awesomesauce, particularly because you can also add Lion Totem Pounce (Complete Champion) and the Whirling Frenzy rage variant (SRD/UA). A 1st level City Brawler Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian can get three attacks: TWF + Whirling Frenzy. Add Travel Devotion, and he can move + charge + full attack 10 rounds in a row.

I was actually going for the grapple-type fighter, so I used Bear Totem. The charger in the party used a single-level dip of Barbarian just for the Lion Spirit Totem, and the DM didn't question that one.


I'm very Pro-"TWF+Unarmed Strikes", as well as TWF+Flurry and why not throw Snap Kick and Planar Touchstone: Oxyrhynchus on there for even more attacks. I don't see any advantage to getting nitpicky about unarmed strikes, TWF, Flurry, off-hand strikes, etc.

Especially because when you're Flurrying it means you're a Monk, right? Though in this group Monks aren't actually terrible.
Ah, I forgot about Snap Kick. I should have taken that, I had an open feat slot that I filled with Weapon Focus because I couldn't think of anything and I was in a hurry.
Where's "Oxyrhynchus"?


Yes, but you don't pay twice. Unarmed strike is a single natural weapon (I'm conceding to Keld's interpretation as a nod towards more expedient gameplay), which can be performed with a variety of different striking surfaces on your body. From a mechanics standpoint, what part of the body you strike with is deliberately left ambiguous by design. If you want to "fluff" the description of your attacks to say you hit with your right hand as a palm-strike to the throat and then hammerfist to the gut with your left, that's fine, but I don't see any reason why you'd have to pay twice for that.

I understand the argument that it's one "type" of natural weapon instead of one single weapon. In the case of natural weapons, I would tend to agree because they don't get iterative attacks. However, for manufactured weapons you have to enchant the two weapons separately. In the case of UaS, which is the grey area between manufactured and natural weapons, I do think it's fair to pay twice just because UaS does get iterative attacks.
Edit: Which is not to say that if the DM allowed me to only pay once to apply the bonus to all my UaS attacks I would refuse.

[Cieyrin]

Where's "Oxyrhynchus"?

Planar Handbook.


I understand the argument that it's one "type" of natural weapon instead of one single weapon. In the case of natural weapons, I would tend to agree because they don't get iterative attacks. However, for manufactured weapons you have to enchant the two weapons separately. In the case of UaS, which is the grey area between manufactured and natural weapons, I do think it's fair to pay twice just because UaS does get iterative attacks.
Edit: Which is not to say that if the DM allowed me to only pay once to apply the bonus to all my UaS attacks I would refuse.

But it doesn't matter what you strike with to inflict your unarmed strike, it does the same damage, uses the same attack bonus and has the same effect regardless of whether you head butt, elbow, kick, pelvic thrust or body slam them. It's all the same unarmed attack. An unarmed attack is basically the natural attack everyone has, regardless of whether they have other natural attacks or not. Why would your left fist be any more effective than your right when the Necklace is just enchanting you and your unarmed attacks by extension?

[Darrin]

Where's "Oxyrhynchus"?


Planar Handbook, one of the planar sites. You can link to a site with the Planar Touchstone feat, requires 8 ranks of Knowledge (the Planes) and a 250 GP touchstone item, but there are also planar substitution levels in that book that make it a little easier. You don't actually have to visit the site to get the basic ability.

Oxyrhynchus allows you to get an additional melee attack at a -5 penalty with a chosen weapon whenever your opponent is denied his Dex bonus. So you need some way to render your foe flat-footed (or treat yourself as an invisible/hidden attacker). However, it's worded a really wonky way, so if you can get multiple attacks on a standard action (such as Snap Kick), you also get the Oxyrhynchus attack. With a somewhat liberal interpretation, you can get 3 attacks on a standard action or on any AoO (standard + Snap Kick + Oxyrhynchus).



In the case of UaS, which is the grey area between manufactured and natural weapons, I do think it's fair to pay twice just because UaS does get iterative attacks.
Edit: Which is not to say that if the DM allowed me to only pay once to apply the bonus to all my UaS attacks I would refuse.

Unarmed-strike-based characters get so boned on damage output and weapon enhancements that this is an area where I like to give them a break, and the necklace is a nice way to do that. I don't see that unarmed strikes getting iteratives makes them so powerful that they have to pay double what someone with a manufactured weapon (which also gets iteratives) would have to pay. Your (and your DM's) mileage may vary, of course.

[Optimator]

Take Multi-Weapon Fighting instead. Wield your feet, knees, elbows, fists, and headbutt.

[noparlpf]

Unarmed-strike-based characters get so boned on damage output and weapon enhancements that this is an area where I like to give them a break, and the necklace is a nice way to do that. I don't see that unarmed strikes getting iteratives makes them so powerful that they have to pay double what someone with a manufactured weapon (which also gets iteratives) would have to pay. Your (and your DM's) mileage may vary, of course.

You would only have to pay double if you wanted to make magical off-hand attacks. A manufactured weapon in your primary hand doesn't (usually) magically confer its enhancements on the manufactured weapon in your off hand, right?
Like I said, if my DM ruled the way you are here, I would pounce on the opportunity.

The necklace can be flavorful too. When the character shows up wearing a necklace of bear claws and teeth, a bear pelt, and possibly more bear bits, the party knows you're probably a grappler. (But then nine times out of ten you turn out to be a Druid.)


Edit:

Take Multi-Weapon Fighting instead. Wield your feet, knees, elbows, fists, and headbutt.

I might have a harder time getting that by when PHB pg 139 only specifically calls out TWF, especially if we're also trying to make the point that UaS is a single natural weapon (for the purposes of Necklace of Natural Weapons).
Neat idea, though. How legit do other people think this would be?

Edit 2: Upon reading the feat, I don't think that would work. It specifically requires three or more limbs.

[Cieyrin]

You would only have to pay double if you wanted to make magical off-hand attacks. A manufactured weapon in your primary hand doesn't (usually) magically confer its enhancements on the manufactured weapon in your off hand, right?
Like I said, if my DM ruled the way you are here, I would pounce on the opportunity.

The necklace can be flavorful too. When the character shows up wearing a necklace of bear claws and teeth, a bear pelt, and possibly more bear bits, the party knows you're probably a grappler. (But then nine times out of ten you turn out to be a Druid.)

No, manufactured weapons have to be enchanted separately. The only time unarmed strikes are treated as manufactured weapons is when a monk uses them and only when its advantageous to do so, which it is not in this case. Also, since creatures only have one unarmed strike, regardless of what part of the body you strike with, why would enchanting one part of you not affect a different part? With manufactured weapons, they're individually distinct, so it makes sense that enchantments on one don't affect another but the same isn't true of your body, since it's all interconnected.

Also, for your edification, this article explains well the exact features of Unarmed Strike, as explained by one of the developers: Rules of the Game: Unarmed Strikes (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a) It explains that not just monks can use whatever they feel like using when making strikes. The set of articles talk briefly about two-weapon fighting and unarmed strikes but don't get into details of using both your weapons being unarmed strikes.


I might have a harder time getting that by when PHB pg 139 only specifically calls out TWF, especially if we're also trying to make the point that UaS is a single natural weapon (for the purposes of Necklace of Natural Weapons).
Neat idea, though. How legit do other people think this would be?

Edit 2: Upon reading the feat, I don't think that would work. It specifically requires three or more limbs.

Yeah, unless you can have 3 arms, MWF isn't applicable. There's ways to get it to go (Silverbrow Human Fighter with Dragon Tail, Prehensile Tail, Multiweapon Fighting!) but that's a lot of effort. Not something I'd strive for on a whim, even if it is really cool.

[Tokuhara]

Hence why I love playing a Diopsid. 4 Arms + City Brawler Barbarian + Multiweapon Fighting = Angry 4 Armed Kung-Fu

[Darrin]

Take Multi-Weapon Fighting instead. Wield your feet, knees, elbows, fists, and headbutt.

Doesn't work that way. Multi-Weapon Fighting is TWF whenever you have more than 2 arms. The two are inter-changeable and essentially the same feat with a different name (and slightly different prereqs, i.e., number of arms). Unfortunately, the designers were a bit sloppy, and there are a few PrCs/abilities that don't parse all that well when you start swapping in Multi-Weapon Fighting.

There are several methods (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10699987&postcount=10) for getting more arms.

If you have at least three natural weapons, you can take Multi-Attack to reduce the secondary attack penalty to -2, and Improved Multi-Attack to drop the penalty to zero. Unarmed strike counts as one type of natural weapon. If you have the dragonblood subtype, you can add two more with a single feat, Shape Soulmeld: Claws of the Wyrm (Magic of Incarnum, Dragon Magic).

[Optimator]

Of course it doesn't work that way. Neither does TWFing unarmed strikes and unarmed strikes. The unarmed strike is one weapon--the body. If you allow TWFing fists you may as well allow multiweapon fighting. The text referenced is for TWFing an unarmed strike and another weapon.

[AugustNights]

Can you deliver 1 dagger attack followed by 1 unarmed attack, as full round action as standar TWF routine with the way those rules are written?

Yes. I think.
Monks would need to wield the dagger in their off-hand (I believe) because their unarmed strikes cannot be off-hand attacks (seems more constrictive than beneficial, but I am uncertain how that works out precisely).

The pre-requisites for two weapon fighting are such "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

The Dagger would be a second weapon in the off hand.
A non-monk may be able to wield an unarmed attack in their off hand. (Where an Unarmed attack is wielded is also poorly defined).

[Ravens_cry]

Does that mean with spiked armour, a weapon in each hand and an unarmed attack, for a grand total of four weapons?

[AugustNights]

Seems unclear.

The "You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa." clause of Armor spikes makes things interesting.

"Wielding" is never really well defined by the Rules.

I suppose such a character would have 4 weapons to draw from.
Can't seem to find the rules for Multiweapon Fighting (The feat reduces the penalties for it, but does not outline how it works... it looks like it works like Two-Weapon fighting, with multiple "off-hands," which seems to require more than 2 hands...The number of "off-hand" attacks a character has seems to be defined by the number of hands that character has -1)

[Spiryt]

Yes. I think.
Monks would need to wield the dagger in their off-hand (I believe) because their unarmed strikes cannot be off-hand attacks (seems more constrictive than beneficial, but I am uncertain how that works out precisely).

The pre-requisites for two weapon fighting are such "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

The Dagger would be a second weapon in the off hand.
A non-monk may be able to wield an unarmed attack in their off hand. (Where an Unarmed attack is wielded is also poorly defined).


Does that mean with spiked armour, a weapon in each hand and an unarmed attack, for a grand total of four weapons?

Damn, 3.5 rules are a mess.... :smalltongue:

Fortunately, I've never really bothered with the way they're written as DM.