Improved Unarmed Power Attack [3.5/3.p]

[Seatbelt]

Is there a way to get the two handed power attack bonus with unarmed strikes? Unbuffed my unarmed strikes have the better damage numbers, but as soon as I rage or cast a spell or pretty much do anything, it makes more sense to use my quarterstaff and power attack for full, because the damage is significantly higher, and it breaks the flavor of my character a little bit.

[VGLordR2]

I think there is a feat called Power Lunge in Ghostwalk that lets you double the damage of one-handed Power Attacks.

[White_Drake]

You're right, it's on page 37. Unfortunately you provoke an attack of opportunity, and it can only be used on a charge.

[eggs]

There's that Dwarf feat from Races of Faerun that lets them KIRK-SMASH with their fists.

[vrigar]

I think it's one of the times where a house rule could save you hours of cramming the books.
When using weapons the "price" of 2 handed is losing the shield, right? Do talk to the DM and introduce a "double fist" which penalizes you with -2 to AC and grants you a 2 handed unarmed attack. I think as a DM I would find it reasonable - especially when it comes from wanting to preserve the flavor of the character.

[Curmudgeon]

There's that Dwarf feat from Races of Faerun that lets them KIRK-SMASH with their fists.
You're a little behind the times. Hammer Fist was redone from the 3.0 racial feat as a General feat for 3.5; see Dragon Compendium on page 100.

[Murmaider]

Is it possible to full-attack, when using the Hammer Fist feat? The wording is a bit ambiguous about that part.

My guess was yes, since the exception that is mentioned where it can't be used, is together with Flurry of Blows. But it says nothing about any other full-attack actions.

[Feralventas]

You're right, it's on page 37. Unfortunately you provoke an attack of opportunity, and it can only be used on a charge.

What if it's done in combination with the maneuver "Battle Leader's Charge," which deals an additional +10 damage on a charge and removes AOO's?

[Curmudgeon]

Is it possible to full-attack, when using the Hammer Fist feat?
Yes. If they specifically exclude use with flurry of blows ─ which is only possible with a full attack ─ then it must be possible for Hammer Fist to be used in a full attack action. If it's not possible to use Hammer Fist in a full attack then it makes no sense to mention flurry of blows at all.

Now, if you want to get really fancy, try adding TWF with a boot blade or some such "off hand" weapon. :smallsmile:

[Boci]

Yes. If they specifically exclude use with flurry of blows ─ which is only possible with a full attack ─ then it must be possible for Hammer Fist to be used in a full attack action. If it's not possible to use Hammer Fist in a full attack then it makes no sense to mention flurry of blows at all.

Now, if you want to get really fancy, try adding TWF with a boot blade or some such "off hand" weapon. :smallsmile:

Whilst you can full attack with hammer fist, only one attack will benefit from the 1.5 strength to damage

[Curmudgeon]

Whilst you can full attack with hammer fist, only one attack will benefit from the 1.5 strength to damage
Where are you getting that from? The feat doesn't have a 1/round limit. The only constraints listed are:

Your attack with both hands is a single attack (not two attacks).
You cannot be holding anything in either hand.
You cannot use flurry of blows.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Whilst you can full attack with hammer fist, only one attack will benefit from the 1.5 strength to damage


Where are you getting that from? The feat doesn't have a 1/round limit. The only constraints listed are:

Your attack with both hands is a single attack (not two attacks).
You cannot be holding anything in either hand.
You cannot use flurry of blows.



You may make a single unarmed attack with both hands to add 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the damage roll

That's where, probably. If Boci hadn't mentioned it, I would have missed that clause, and I imagine other DMs might too.

And if not, just ask if you can ignore that bit, and let it apply to all of your attacks. It's kinda stupid.

[Curmudgeon]

That's where, probably. If Boci hadn't mentioned it, I would have missed that clause, and I imagine other DMs might too.

And if not, just ask if you can ignore that bit, and let it apply to all of your attacks.
That word applies to each attack: even though you're using two hands, it's a single attack, not two attacks. There's nothing to ignore.

[The Dark Fiddler]

That word applies to each attack: even though you're using two hands, it's a single attack, not two attacks. There's nothing to ignore.

That's certainly how I'd rule it, but I can definitely see DMs thinking otherwise, that the feat only functions if you make just one attack. Even worse, it totally seems like a design decision that WotC would make. The feat's a bit ambiguous, and while I agree that that's the way it should be ruled, the fact is that somebody might not rule it that way.

As a side note, I don't feel like it should require a feat to attack with a two-handed unarmed strike in the first place.

[Boci]

That's certainly how I'd rule it, but I can definitely see DMs thinking otherwise, that the feat only functions if you make just one attack. Even worse, it totally seems like a design decision that WotC would make.

Possibly, but I'm pretty sure the first incarnation of the feat required a standard action to use, so you could make the argument that the change in wording means WotC wanted it to be more powerful.

[Ashtagon]

The reason two-handed weapons get a bigger strength bonus is because the two hands allow you to use their different positions on the weapon as a lever. There are three pieces at work here: left hand, right hand, and lever. If you are attacking unarmed, you don't have a lever.

So yeah. It's probably not realistic, sadly. But it's reasonable in terms of balance.

Sometimes I get an urge to take the old 1e Oriental Adventures martial arts rules and make them into new exotic unarmed weapons using the EWP feat. That would be a good place to allow these kinds of attacks.

[Boci]

The reason two-handed weapons get a bigger strength bonus is because the two hands allow you to use their different positions on the weapon as a lever.

What about piercing weapons like a spear?

[Ashtagon]

What about piercing weapons like a spear?

Levers! Levers all the way!

[Curmudgeon]

Possibly, but I'm pretty sure the first incarnation of the feat required a standard action to use ...
Nope.
Benefit: You add one and a half times your Strength bonus on your damage when you hit with an unarmed strike. This extra damage does not apply if you make a flurry of blows attack or if you are holding anything in either hand. You must use both hands to make the unarmed attack. It's always been per strike, not per round.

[Boci]

Nope. It's always been per strike, not per round.

I'm talking about the dragon magazine one.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm talking about the dragon magazine one.
Still no.
Benefit: You add one and a half times your Strength bonus to your damage when you hit with an unarmed strike. This extra damage does not apply if you make a flurry of blows attack or if you are holding anything in either hand. You must use both hands to make the unarmed attack. The Benefit text is identical to the Races of Faerûn version except for one word, and "dwarf" is omitted from the Prerequisites.

[Boci]

Still no. The Benefit text is identical to the Races of Faerûn version except for one word, and "dwarf" is omitted from the Prerequisites.

Great, so they made it less clear when they rewrote it.

[Curmudgeon]

Great, so they made it less clear when they rewrote it.
That tends to happen with the developers involved: Mike Mearls and Jason Bulmahn. :smallannoyed:

Edit: For another example, look at the revision from Expedition to Castle Ravenloft Lightbringer Penetrating Strike ACF to Dungeonscape Penetrating Strike ACF. EtCR LPS's benefit is reduced sneak attack damage. Dungeonscape PS's benefit is some ambiguous bonus damage (not specifically sneak attack), and you need to argue with your DM about whether Craven applies. Same guys at work.

[Ashtagon]

What about piercing weapons like a spear?

Okay, serious answer time. A spear still enables you to focus the effort of both your arms into a single point. Without a tool, your arms simply aren't in the right position to combine their strength efficiently.

[Gavinfoxx]

Why are we arguing realism in melee combat in D&D again?

If you want realism in D&D melee combat, pick up the Codex Martialis set.

[Ashtagon]

Why are we arguing realism in melee combat in D&D again?

If you want realism in D&D melee combat, pick up the Codex Martialis set.

You do realise Codex Martialis pays even less attention to unarmed combat than the SRD does, right? I just checked my copy to make sure.

[Gavinfoxx]

Because hitting people with fists when people wear armor is stupid. You grapple when people wear armor.

[Gavinfoxx]

Buh? I could've sworn I saw something for ringen in one of the three books. holdonatic.

Lets see...

Danse De La Rue...

Ringen

Bind and Batter

Morstrosse

Hand Checking

Limb Destruction

...changes to Improved Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist... talk about grapple range...

There is TONS of stuff for Unarmed Combat in that book!

[Seatbelt]

The DM let me take it to get two handed damage and power attack and stuff. I made a druid using all the alternate variants from Unearthed Arcana and the one from PF that gives you favored terrain. So I'm this crazy feral naked fights like a monk, rages like a barbarian, hunts like a ranger, casts like a Druid character and I'm enjoying it soooo much. The only missing element was the power attack on my unarmed strikes.

At ECL 12 I had 12 lbs of gear. The gnome bard had almost 40. Made me laugh. :D

[The Dark Fiddler]

Sometimes I get an urge to take the old 1e Oriental Adventures martial arts rules and make them into new exotic unarmed weapons using the EWP feat. That would be a good place to allow these kinds of attacks.

This sounds really interesting, might you be willing to share one or two of those as an example?