Unarmed Strikes: Single Weapon or Multiple Weapons

[Master Arminas]

Okay, this also comes out of the furor over the change in flurry of blows, but I'm not going to touch that issue in this thread. This thread is for one thing and one thing only: resolving the question on whether or not unarmed strike is a single weapon or multiple weapons.

Apparently, flurry of blows is now exactly the same as two-weapon fighting, just with a few listed exceptions. Just using unarmed in a flurry of blows is legal and intended (Jason Bulmahn says that specifically), but then Sean K Reynolds comes out and says ONLY if all of a monk's unarmed strikes have the same enhancement bonus and special weapon properties. Otherwise, you have to divide your unarmed strikes between primary hand (the one with an enhancement) and off-hand (the rest).

He uses magic fang as an example, citing that since it says fist (singular), that each possible monk attack with an unarmed strike is different, and if they are different you have to split your attacks. So is unarmed strike a single weapon with descriptive text emphasizing fists, knees, elbows, feet, and head-butts, or is it really nine different weapons with which Improved Unarmed Strike gives you proficiency?

I thought this issue was resolved in the change from 3.0 to 3.5? Now is Pathfinder going back to the original 3.0 version? Gentlemen, this is a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. So can we have a final, clear, and concise answer to this simple question:

Does an unarmed strike count as a single weapon, or are the various limbs and points-of-contact of a character using unarmed strike each considered to be a seperate weapon?

If the former, then the spells magic fang and greater magic fang need errata. If the latter, then can we get an official ruling on just how many magic fang or magic weapon spells a monk requires for his entire body to receive an enhancement bonus?

Four? Five? Seven? Eleven? We need to know so that we can determine if all of our unarmed strikes have an equal enhancement, so that our monks aren't forced to split attacks between a +1 right fist and a +0 left buttock.

Master Arminas

[mikau013]

I'm not sure what edition you want an answer in.
Pathfinder is a bunch of mostly bad houserules (with some good ones) on top of 3.5
The way it works is defined by their developers. I believe the order is this:

Errata > FAQ > Rulebooks > anything else.

Everything the designers say on the forum is not intended to be RAW, this so they can talk normally I believe.

[Master Arminas]

What was the rule in 3.5? Unless they specifically changed it, the rule should be the same in Pathfinder, right?

Master Arminas

[Andion Isurand]

I think unarmed strikes fall under a single unit of "Body" as a single weapon.

[Ashtagon]

Four? Five? Seven? Eleven? We need to know so that we can determine if all of our unarmed strikes have an equal enhancement, so that our monks aren't forced to split attacks between a +1 right fist and a +0 left buttock.

My monks always enhance their buttocks before fists, so the hands are still available to use a shield.

[FMArthur]

In 3.5, monks get this bit in their unarmed strike description: "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

This part, "A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet" seems to indicate that unarmed strike is either one weapon or several; no real distinction is given to fists distinguishing them from other types of unarmed strike, so if you can separate two of those you may as well go the Multiattack route and separate out some more of those attacks. I would say that it means unarmed strike is one weapon.

The Hammer Fist feats both reference the fact that you can't make a Flurry of Blows and benefit from its two-handed unarmed strike benefit at the same time, or hold other weapons.


These things put in mind the idea that at least some of the D&D 3.5 designers considered Flurry of Blows to be the equivalent to TWF for unarmed strikes, which are otherwise ineligable for TWFing as if they were multiple weapons. However, the fact that you can Flurry with other Monk weapons wielded singly without even involving unarmed strikes contradicts this idea. So it's an inconsistently applied concept that Flurry is a TWF substitute; it's not a real restriction by the rules and you both damage the existing content and introduce needless complexity by making it one.

Forcing Flurry of Blows to work as TWF makes a lot of attack styles - including a pure unarmed dude since he can't TWF his one unarmed strike - just fall apart, some of which were even supplemented by feats that suddenly don't work anymore. Nothing at all is gained in terms of balance or rules clarity by putting complex restrictions on one option to have it behave like another complex ability with all of its limitations added to the original's own. I imagine PF is much the same. You'll have to come to a decision in your own group when it comes up. If it comes to physical violence, stand back and jot down notes on how it plays out for possible rules insights.

[mikau013]

Does an unarmed strike count as a single weapon, or are the various limbs and points-of-contact of a character using unarmed strike each considered to be a seperate weapon?

If the former, then the spells magic fang and greater magic fang need errata. If the latter, then can we get an official ruling on just how many magic fang or magic weapon spells a monk requires for his entire body to receive an enhancement bonus?

Master Arminas

Since these questions were asked for 3.5 I'll only give the 3.5 answer. Pathfinder has changed some of the rules regarding Unarmed attacks and I don't feel like going over them right now.

An unarmed strike counts as a single light weapon.
The spells don't need errata, they point out you can enchant other natural attacks, which would include unarmed strike.
A monk needs either 1 magic fang or 1 magic weapon spell. Other chars need a magic fang spell (unless their unarmed strike can be considered a weapon)

[Master Arminas]

Yes. Sean K Reynolds says that first line no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed refers only to the Strength modifier being applied to damage.

In a similar fashion, he has decided that the phase any combination in flurry of blows means any combination of attacks that share the exact same attack bonus, damage bonus, special weapon properties, damage dice, critical threat range, and critical multiplier. I'm being a bit over the top, but he swears that the any combination is only flavor text and not applicable to the rule itself.

I am of the opinion myself that a character has only a single unarmed strike, and that flurry isn't the same as TWF, although it uses some of the same mechanics. But what do I know? I've only played monks since '86.

Master Arminas

[MukkTB]

I find it incredible that the pathfinder devs decided to throw their own personal monkday.

[Lord_Gareth]

I am of the opinion myself that a character has only a single unarmed strike, and that flurry isn't the same as TWF, although it uses some of the same mechanics. But what do I know? I've only played monks since '86.

Master Arminas

...What cataclysmic personal tragedy caused you to hate yourself that much?

[mikau013]

...What cataclysmic personal tragedy caused you to hate yourself that much?

As long as you don't play monks by 3.5 RAW (and play a homebrewed version) they can be quite cool

[Lord_Gareth]

As long as you don't play monks by 3.5 RAW (and play a homebrewed version) they can be quite cool

Yeah, but he's been playing since '89, man. Monks in 2nd edition were not much better.

[mikau013]

Yeah, but he's been playing since '89, man. Monks in 2nd edition were not much better.

I've never seen anyone play 2e by the rules anyway- :P

But anecdote time. Back when 3.0 wasn't that old, I saw a nice thread about monks.
One side was arguing that monks were terrible and one person was arguing that monks were pretty good.

It turned out after a while that that person got a custom necklace from his dm that let him turn into a tiger at will :smallcool:

So yeah, monks can be quite good, as long as you don't play by the rules (even if you don't know you don't :smalltongue:)

[FMArthur]

Yeah, I don't see why everyone's always ripping on them. Monks are fine as long as you never play a Monk.

[mikau013]

Yeah, I don't see why everyone's always ripping on them. Monks are fine as long as you never play a Monk.

Actually monks are fine if you play monks as well, just don't be limited to what the d&d rulebooks say what monks should be.

[Lord_Gareth]

Actually monks are fine if you play monks as well, just don't be limited to what the d&d rulebooks say what monks should be.

Mr. Oberoni would like to talk to you about this line of reasoning, my friend.

[Doug Lampert]

I find it incredible that the pathfinder devs decided to throw their own personal monkday.

Eh? Why? I gather they banned monks from benefiting from Improved Natural Attack because it made monk's "Too powerful".

What makes you think they understand the problems with a monk or how to fix them?

[Master Arminas]

Yeah, but he's been playing since '89, man. Monks in 2nd edition were not much better.

'86. 1986 to be precise. I started out my first character as a Lawful Evil monk using 1st edition AD&D. Played for a couple of months and then the DM showed me this fantastic article in Dragon magazine, He's Got a Lot to Kick About. He let me rebuild my monk for that semi-official class that got reprinted in one of the issues of Best of Dragon.

And kept on playing him for nearly 5 years before that campaign ended. Throughout 2nd edition, we just chugged along with the 1st edition/BoD monk, only with skills and powers! :smallcool:

And I have played monks in both 3.0 and 3.5; I have only run Pathfinder games, however, and haven't had a chance to play a Pathfinder monk.

Master Arminas

[Lord_Gareth]

And I have played monks in both 3.0 and 3.5; I have only run Pathfinder games, however, and haven't had a chance to play a Pathfinder monk.

Master Arminas

Let me save you a lot of trouble: it's just like the 3.5 monk, except they banned Improved Natural Attack and added an archetype that improves them...by turning them into ghetto-assed spellcasters.

In short, still tier six, unless you want to pretend to be a wizard.

[ericgrau]

The wording in the monk class description seems to say that a monk can attack with any of his limbs, and they explain this to let you know that a monk can use unarmed strikes with his hands full (and one of many good reasons to always carry a weapon). So I think a monk may attack with the same limb several times without switching.

Another reason I think this is because it looks like the monk was designed to be very easy to buff; both magic weapon and magic fang work so no matter what kind of core caster is in the party he can buff the monk. Even the 3 partial casters can. To require one spell per attack is a huge nerf compared to that since that instead heavily discourages buffing. Why would they bother making it so very easy and then suddenly so extremely hard?

I do think that based on the spell wording that you must pick a specific limb, but the only time that should be a drawback is if that particular limb is impaired somehow. OTOH "unarmed strike" is a valid target for weapon focus, so I can see the argument for treating it as a single weapon.

Pathfinder is a different animal due to the TWF wording. I dunno there. 3.5 does not do this and in fact the FAQ says you can combine TWF with flurry.

[deuxhero]

Let me save you a lot of trouble: it's just like the 3.5 monk, except they banned Improved Natural Attack and added an archetype that improves them...by turning them into ghetto-assed spellcasters.

In short, still tier six, unless you want to pretend to be a wizard.

Zen Archer is half decent with PF's archery support due to abilities that make it SAD (very impressive for a monk), though it completely falls apart with the recently retconed flurry.

[mikau013]

Mr. Oberoni would like to talk to you about this line of reasoning, my friend.

Mr. Strawmen would like to talk to you about your reasoning, my friend. Seeing as what I said is in no way oberoni.

[Keld Denar]

I've always read it as the fact that it is NORMALLY only one weapon, but it can be more than one if you choose. If you want to benefit from it being more than one, you have to pay the piper and get an extra GMW or GMF cast on you. This conforms with pretty much all of the rules, including the rule that a monk doesn't have an offhand (normally), and the rules that GMW affects a single UAS (but multiple castings can affect multiple UASs).

As far as fluff, that is irrelevant. If you only attack with your "mainhand" UAS, it can be a right hook, a left cross, and a right kick. If you attack with your "offhand" UAS, it could also be any of those, and the only difference is how much bonus damage from Str you apply to each of these attacks. That means you can fluff your numerous attacks any way you want, and the only difference is mechanically how they are resolved. That saves you from having you enchant your right butt cheek differently from your left foot and your forehead. You simply enchant your primary UAS and your offhand UAS with GMW or GMF, and attack however you feel like it.

Its balanced, all inclusive, internally consistent, and fair. If you invest more abilities (class levels, feats, spells, etc) into your character, you should get proportionally more benefit. You can already stack Flurry, TWFing, and Rapid Shot together with shurikens, so obviously there is no issue with that.

[ericgrau]

Looking more closely at the monk description, it says "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." The wording treats it as a single thing, rather than "unarmed strikes". Weapon focus and magic weapon have similar wording treating "unarmed strike" as if it were a single weapon. I'd go with that.

[Keld Denar]

I dunno. I think people get too Hung up on singular articles. Collective nouns also use singular articles, even though they are inherantly dealing with multiple pieces of a group.

Likewise, if something references a single item, that doesn't mean it discounts multiples. If a feat said "while wielding a shortsword", if you treated it as singular, then wielding 2 shortswords would disqualify the wielder.

Just because it references AN UAS, doesn't mean you only have one. Just that in that individual case, or for that one application, or in that one instance, you are referencing a specific aspect.

Again, IMO, but I'm an engineer, not an English major.

[Coidzor]

I can't even penetrate the morass of the RAW vs RAI and have always just played/ruled that it's a single weapon that one can use as a virtual "double" weapon for TWFing purposes, or if one qualifies for MWF, to fill however many attacks of someone with MWFing they are afforded by the feat and choose to allocate to their unarmed strike.

[Telonius]

I think there are a couple of indications that there are several different sorts of natural attacks. First is in the description of Natural Weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons):

A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. ... Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.

"Fist" is not listed here, but the phrase "most common" gives a large amount of wiggle room. The "Magic Fang" spell also lists Fist as a specific sort of natural weapon.

The second is found in the Kensai PrC from CWar:


The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists) is the same as for a manufactured weapon, except all of the kensai's natural weapons of one type are imbued at 100% of the cost + 10% per natural weapon.

So, at minimum, the Magic Fang spell and the Kensai PrC establishes that, in addition to the natural weapons listed in the natural weapon special ability description, "fist" is also a type of natural weapon.

However, the bigger problem seems to be that "unarmed strike" and "natural attack" seem to be used interchangeably, even when they are not. Most crucially, a creature attacking with a Natural Attack is considered armed:

A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

... while a typical adventurer without Improved Unarmed Strike is not considered armed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedUnarmedStrike):

Normal

Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

The Monk entry makes no mention of unarmed strikes being identical with natural attacks, except to say that:

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

So, here's my ruling. I think it's pretty clear that "fist" is a natural attack, and can be enchanted by Magic Fang. A random non-Monk would get benefits to their fist and fist only. However, a Monk's "unarmed strike" (which includes the bonus feat Improved Unarmed strike, but also grants other special things) is a special exception to the general rule. The Monk's Unarmed Strike (which includes things like headbutts, elbows, etc) counts as a single natural weapon. (The wording is "strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon," not "strikes are treated both as manufactured weapons and natural weapons"). Therefore, it falls under the "or other natural weapon" clause in Magic Fang. No errata is needed for the spell. One casting of Magic Fang is sufficient to cover the whole Monk and all of the ways he can use his special Monk unarmed strike. Same way with Weapon Focus; it would cover the whole Monk.

Unfortunately the Kensai description seems to contradict this ruling, treating individual component parts of the Monk's unarmed strike as separate things. (We know this is the case by reading the sample character). I can see two ways to square this. First, treat Kensai as a specific exception to the general Monk rule. If the Kensai enchanted his fists and he's carrying something, tough luck. Second, treat the sample character the same way we treat every other sample character (i.e. ignore it totally and assume it contains egregious errors), say that the "singular unarmed strike" rule is still in effect, and that the descriptions in the class abilities list were assuming a non-Monk character using his regular non-Monk unarmed strike.

[Godskook]

Mr. Strawmen would like to talk to you about your reasoning, my friend. Seeing as what I said is in no way oberoni.

Frankly, Mikau, I'm left with a choice. Either (A)I assume you committed the Oberoni fallacy by making implied reference to rule 0 or (B)you spoke gibberish. Like Lord Gareth, I assumed (A) on the first read-through.

Either way, Lord Gareth very blatantly did not commit the Strawman.

[NineThePuma]

Mr. Strawmen would like to talk to you about your reasoning, my friend. Seeing as what I said is in no way oberoni.

It's a bit. I see the point you're making.

I call your monk, and raise you 150% complexity (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226857)!

[Coidzor]

Actually monks are fine if you play monks as well, just don't be limited to what the d&d rulebooks say what monks should be.

Well, the problem is that it's not really a monk anymore, it's homebrew or a houserule, depending upon its extent/one's personal definitions, so you come off as saying that monks are fine because you can homebrew/houserule. Or possibly because you can depart from the written rules via stunting or something along those lines. But if you're talking about stunting and its ilk, an actually mechanically viable-ish class would be just as serviceable.

Personally, I would agree that most monk homebrew fixes that look even halfway reasonable would be better for all involved if one just printed it out and taped it over the monk in the book, but I wouldn't say that this makes monks fine because one can do so, just that one has fixed them.

[mikau013]

Well, the problem is that it's not really a monk anymore, it's homebrew or a houserule, depending upon its extent/one's personal definitions, so you come off as saying that monks are fine because you can homebrew/houserule. Or possibly because you can depart from the written rules via stunting or something along those lines. But if you're talking about stunting and its ilk, an actually mechanically viable-ish class would be just as serviceable.


Without homebrew/houserules you can make perfectly fine monks too. There are a couple of mechanically viable-ish classes that you can use. For example psychic warrior or cleric. They can make great monks.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Frankly, Mikau, I'm left with a choice. Either (A)I assume you committed the Oberoni fallacy by making implied reference to rule 0 or (B)you spoke gibberish. Like Lord Gareth, I assumed (A) on the first read-through.

Either way, Lord Gareth very blatantly did not commit the Strawman.
Oberoni is not about mentioning Rule Zero. Oberoni is about justifying flaws in the rules because Rule Zero exists.
He never said that 3.5 did a good job with the monk because you can apply rule zero to it.
He just suggested to apply rule zero to it. It is vastly different.

[Godskook]

Oberoni is not about mentioning Rule Zero. Oberoni is about justifying flaws in the rules because Rule Zero exists.
He never said that 3.5 did a good job with the monk because you can apply rule zero to it.
He just suggested to apply rule zero to it. It is vastly different.

What he said(under assumption (A)) still counts as Oberoni, I just didn't explain why. Its Oberoni cause the argument is that monks as written can be fixed via rule 0, and thus, by the rules as written, monks are fine.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

the argument is that monks as written can be fixed via rule 0
Sure. This is not oberoni. This is simple reality. You cannot deny that rule 0 exists, and can be used. Oberoni is not about denying the use or existance of rule zero. Oberoni is not against reality. The use of rule zero does not automatically summon oberoni. Oberoni and rule 0 coexist peacefully. Oberoni is only involved when Rule 0 is used to justify or deny the problems with the system. Which is definitely not the case.

and thus, by the rules as written, monks are fine.
No, he never said this. This is your interpretation, with arbitrary added meaning.
Actually, he suggested to rule 0 the monk because he acknowledges the monk is not fine. He is not defending the 3.5 system. He just suggested to use the rule 0, because it is appropriate in this context.
This by no means implies that using rule 0 cancels the faults of the system.

TL;DR: Using rule zero to fix problems is not the same as justifying problems because of rule zero.

[Godskook]

Sure. This is not oberoni. This is simple reality. You cannot deny that rule 0 exists, and can be used. Oberoni is not about denying the use or existance of rule zero. Oberoni is not against reality. The use of rule zero does not automatically summon oberoni.

1.Yo dawg, I heard you liked commenting on half a sentence, and thus not my point(which was a full and complete sentence). Strawman much?

2.Rule 0 exists, but its use to justify RAW is the definition of Oberoni.


No, he never said this.

Yes, he did. You gotta follow the context from the post he quoted, but he said it.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Yes, he did. You gotta follow the context from the post he quoted, but he said it.
No he didn't :smallbiggrin:

Using rule zero to fix problems is not the same as justifying problems because of rule zero. It is so obvious.
Tell me you're joking.

p.s. randomly quoting strawman won't make you look smarter

[NineThePuma]

And we've gotten derailed from the point.

[Coidzor]

so... any actual balance concerns to treating it as a virtual double weapon with identical heads?

[Keld Denar]

None from me. I think that's a great idea. It works with the rules too, if you don't get too hung up on singular tenses WRT collective nouns.

[Darrin]

so... any actual balance concerns to treating it as a virtual double weapon with identical heads?

Only good things can come of this. I heartily approve.

[charcoalninja]

The answer is actually both. You can attack with as many different parts of the body you want, and you use the rules for TWF, so flurrying you take a -2 / -2 to attack. But you get full STR damage on all attacks.

When you're using spells like Magic weapon and Magic Fang, the spell applies to your single weapon "unarmed strike" and thus grants the bonus to all attacks regardless of if you attack with your head, fist, or butt.

It's actually really straightforward. Flurry is a full attack action just like TWF, you get extra attacks as per TWF, you're considered using light weapons as per TWF except you get full STR mod. However unarmed strike is designed to be free formed, so you can head butt, ass kick, face punch willy nilly without worrying about any stupid mechanical rigamarole.

Magic fang goes fwoosh, all your unarmed strikes get a +1. Even your pinky.

EDIT: Monks as written are also just fine and enjoyable. They aren't balanced but then nothing is in D&D since Tier 1 exists. A fighter, monk, ranger, bard and Magus can have a grand ol' time and contribute pretty well equally. Just nothing really compares to a Batman wizard...

[Lord_Gareth]

EDIT: Monks as written are also just fine and enjoyable. They aren't balanced but then nothing is in D&D since Tier 1 exists. A fighter, monk, ranger, bard and Magus can have a grand ol' time and contribute pretty well equally. Just nothing really compares to a Batman wizard...

A Wild Erinyes appears!

The wizard casts a spell. It's super effective!

The Fighter attempts to shoot with a bow! It's not very effective...

The Ranger casts a spell, then shoots with a bow! It's effective.

The bard buffs his party members!

The Magus casts a spell, flies up and beats face! It's super effective!

The Monk throws a shuriken! Wild Erinyes was immune! The Monk attempts to Jump, then beat face! Wild Erinyes was too high! The Monk gets a Fly spell from the wizard and tries to beat face! It's not very effective....

That scenario happens at about level eight. It only gets worse from there. The reason it's said that different classes don't contribute equally is because they don't, and the Monk contributes just about the least of anybody.

[mikau013]

{{scrubbed}}

[TuggyNE]

I fixed it for you :smalltongue:
((I might have not been 100% fair with my fix either though))

... You're going the candle of invocation route? Really? :smallsigh:

Hey, a commoner with dust of sneezing and choking can contribute too! :smallannoyed:

[Siosilvar]

so... any actual balance concerns to treating it as a virtual double weapon with identical heads?

This is fairly close to the way I play. I'm completely unsure on RAW, but I've always allowed people one unarmed strike per spare hand and with magic fang enchanting all the unarmed strikes you make. Monks get the ability to make unarmed strikes even without spare hands. I also let monks add their flurry attacks to any attack sequence so long as the flurry ones are made with an unarmed strike or monk weapon.

It's not really as complicated as it sounds, and it works reasonably well. Nobody's bothered to make a Monk who two-hands and TWFs at the same time, which is perfectly possible under these rules, but I don't think it's a balance issue since Monks have a hard time getting enough to-hit bonuses and damage to give their attacks any "oomph".

[Lord_Gareth]

I fixed it for you :smalltongue:
((I might have not been 100% fair with my fix either though))

I'm curious as to how you think the Bard buffing everyone with a Haste or an Inspire courage isn't going to be effective. I'm also highly curious as to how you think the fighter's archery attacks are going to go over well unless he's already a dedicated bowman (and even then, he's a little low level for archery to come online).

I'll also echo the above comment. Candle of Invocation? Really?

[Cieyrin]

though it completely falls apart with the recently retconed flurry.

Where is said retcon, anyways? I've heard it mentioned but it's not linked in the Core FAQ, on PF SRD, the PRD and googling Paizo for nerfs on flurry only gets me posts from 2-3 years ago. Unless it's in the errata somewhere...

[Baka Nikujaga]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
The "retcon" is found in this for the normal Flurry of Blows:

Flurry of Blows (Ex)
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

-- Source (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk#TOC-Flurry-of-Blows-Ex-)

The short answer is that there was no errata or change, just an angry player base that was apparently unaware of the exact language in their materials.

[Edit]
The Zen Archer's problems are completely the fault of whoever wrote it though.


Flurry of Blows (Ex)

Starting at 1st level, a zen archer can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action, but only when using a bow (even though it is a ranged weapon). He may not make a flurry of blows with his unarmed attacks or any other weapons. A zen archer does not apply his Strength bonus on damage rolls made with flurry of blows unless he is using a composite bow with a Strength rating.

A zen archer’s flurry of blows otherwise functions as normal for a monk of his level.

-- Source (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/zen-archer)

Personally, I'm too tired to determine whether or not the ability feature allows the Zen Archer to complete a Flurry despite the limitations, and default to "by my tired eye, RAW does not exempt it."

[Edit the Edit]
All underline marks for quoted materials are points emphasized by me.

[Cieyrin]

Ah, I see. I also found the kerfluffle that's stewing over at Paizo about it. From what I read of what the PF designers were saying, it looks like they are recognizing unarmed strikes as a virtual double weapon (give talk of left fist/right fist) and that Zen Archer has issues as written. So at least from Paizo's perspective, it would appear they agree with Keld's assessment of you have as many unarmed strikes as hands and you have to enchant them separately, unless you go Amulet of Mighty Fists.

[Coidzor]

Ah, I see. I also found the kerfluffle that's stewing over at Paizo about it. From what I read of what the PF designers were saying, it looks like they are recognizing unarmed strikes as a virtual double weapon (give talk of left fist/right fist) and that Zen Archer has issues as written. So at least from Paizo's perspective, it would appear they agree with Keld's assessment of you have as many unarmed strikes as hands and you have to enchant them separately, unless you go Amulet of Mighty Fists.

Except they don't let you as they want to nerf the one item that lets you enchant them separately. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/brass-knuckles)

[Baka Nikujaga]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
Personally, I think a better explanation would have been "the Unarmed Strike is a descriptive mechanic used to represent attacks utilizing any number of limbs or body parts. Brass Knuckles, Cesti (?), or any manner of Gauntlets, however, specifically alter the damage done by fists and break with the greater majority of what the Unarmed Strike is meant to represent" (not that I like it). In any case, I agree with Keld Denar as well.

[Cieyrin]

Except they don't let you as they want to nerf the one item that lets you enchant them separately. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/brass-knuckles)

I'm not exactly pleased about that or the design team doing so so they can avoid answering questions about how that would work, either. I think the whole deal against enchanting unarmed strikes is a veritable crock but I doubt I could persuade the design team otherwise, so getting upset about it isn't very fruitful. I'd rather be perturbed about why the errata for UC isn't out yet. :smallannoyed:

[Andion Isurand]

Except they don't let you as they want to nerf the one item that lets you enchant them separately. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/brass-knuckles)

An alternative might be to convert the 3.0 Bracers of Striking from Magic of Faerun pg 155.

[Coidzor]

An alternative might be to convert the 3.0 Bracers of Striking from Magic of Faerun pg 155.

If you have a DM who isn't PFS or so [redacted] that they'd never even considering using 3.X content in a thousand years, necklace of natural attacks would work just fine. Or they'd houserule the brass knuckles to still work as they should or any number of things that would let it work, yes.

The fact that it is over a decade after the d20 system launch now and people are still having to rule 0 it into functionality is just plain depressing.

[Cieyrin]

If you have a DM who isn't PFS or so [redacted] that they'd never even considering using 3.X content in a thousand years, necklace of natural attacks would work just fine. Or they'd houserule the brass knuckles to still work as they should or any number of things that would let it work, yes.

The fact that it is over a decade after the d20 system launch now and people are still having to rule 0 it into functionality is just plain depressing.

You don't have to house rule brass knuckles yet, the nerf so far is '**** Sean K. Reynolds says,' not errata or even FAQ, so feel free to ignore it. I refuse to to consider it till it's actually published somewhere, not just some post in a product discussion thread.

And yes, it is stupid annoying that designers are still making the same mistakes again and again. If we could get them to study past works and learn from previous designer mistakes, we could possibly have a better game, like how Legend is continuing to evolve or the material Malhavoc Press and Dreamscarred Press has put together.

[mikau013]

You don't have to house rule brass knuckles yet, the nerf so far is '**** Sean K. Reynolds says,' not errata or even FAQ, so feel free to ignore it. I refuse to to consider it till it's actually published somewhere, not just some post in a product discussion thread.

And yes, it is stupid annoying that designers are still making the same mistakes again and again. If we could get them to study past works and learn from previous designer mistakes, we could possibly have a better game, like how Legend is continuing to evolve or the material Malhavoc Press and Dreamscarred Press has put together.

Isn't it already errrata'd in the adventurers armoury or whatever that book is called?

[Baka Nikujaga]

http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
Apparently, there's a discrepancy between what Sean K. Reynold said and the errata update last July. But...his correction came after the latest errata...so...I'm not sure...

/is up too late again

[Cieyrin]

Isn't it already errrata'd in the adventurers armoury or whatever that book is called?

Even if it were, it got republished in the APG without any such errata and it takes precedence over AA as the most current version. I've already checked the APG errata last time it came up and it's definitely not in there, at least right now.