Two-handed fighting with bare hands?

[etrpgb]

By RAW can a character use both hands for doing more attacks?
(See: Rules Compendium pag. 148)

(i.e., -4,-8 to BAB normally; -2,2 to BAB with Two-Weapon fighting feat)


What do you think by RAI?

Thanks.

[Darrin]

By RAW can a character use both hands for doing more attacks?


RAW, this isn't clear. Some people feel that an unarmed strike is treated as a single weapon. If you attack with it as your primary weapon, then it's no longer available as an off-hand weapon.

Others are of the opinion that an unarmed strike can come from multiple striking surfaces, and even if you use a kick or knee as your primary attack, you can still head-butt or elbow as an off-hand attack.

Other than an FAQ entry that says you can mix Flurry of Blows (primary attacks) with TWF (off-hand attack), there's no official ruling. Around these parts, the FAQ isn't commonly recognized as official RAW... it tends to run the gamut from mildly unhelpful to wildly inaccurate.



What do you think by RAI?


I actually support the FAQ on this issue. I allow unarmed strikes to be both primary and off-hand attacks. But I can understand why some people would rule differently.

[Telonius]

For what it's worth, the Kensai PrC (Complete Warrior) treats a human's fists as two separate natural weapons of the same type.

[prufock]

Even if it isn't clear in the rules, I can't imagine it being a problem.

[Spiryt]

This issue is generally a huge mess in 3.5, but I would allow it, and pretty sure I allowed it when I was DMing.

Even with bare hands, it's hard to 'break' TWF, it's even still not that easy to make it worthwhile.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd let it work. Unarmed fighting is already a massive uphill battle just to remain relevant. Between being considered light weapons for PA, needing a feat tax to use without provoking AoOs, not adding 1.5xStr, having a very poor damage die by default, and being extremely difficult to enhance, Unarmed Strikes need all the love they can get.

Pathfinder let's you TWF unarmed strikes, if that helps.

[dextercorvia]

The main benefit I can see to allowing it vs. normal TWF is that you only have to maintain one set of enchantments -- unarmed strike. Although, since those are already priced pretty ridiculously, it isn't much of a benefit.

[Diarmuid]

You always have the option (when making a full attack) to make an attack with your "offhand" weapon.

If you have the appropriate feats, this lessens those penalties accordingly. Unarmed attacks are always considered light weapons.

If you attack with your "unarmed strike" as your primary weapon using your iteratives, and have a dagger in your other hand...you certainly could make additional attack(s) (taking all the appropriate penalties). I dont see why taking the dagger away changes this all of a sudden.

[Keld Denar]

I'd let it work. Unarmed fighting is already a massive uphill battle just to remain relevant. Between being considered light weapons for PA, needing a feat tax to use without provoking AoOs, not adding 1.5xStr, having a very poor damage die by default, and being extremely difficult to enhance, Unarmed Strikes need all the love they can get.

Pathfinder let's you TWF unarmed strikes, if that helps.

UASs get 1:1 PA because they are more like natural weapons. Even offhand UASs.

[Acathala]

Superior Unarmed Strike(ToB) sorts the damage issue.. As for enchantments, as long as you are recording them seperately for each hand, I don't see a problem. .

[dextercorvia]

As for enchantments, as long as you are recording them seperately for each hand, I don't see a problem. .

But, that is explicitly not the way that works.

[roguemetal]

As for enchantments, as long as you are recording them seperately for each hand, I don't see a problem. .
Sorry, Unarmed Strike is considered to be one body slot. You can't enchant each of your hands separately.

[Keld Denar]

Actually, that would make sense. If you have a main hand UAS, and you have an offhand UAS, it would make sense to enchant them separately. There is already precedent set with Kensai. Its not "left hand" and "right hand", as much as the abstract concepts of main hand and offhand. If you had a NoNA, I'd say you have to pay for 2 separate weapons. If you had an AoMF, however, you'd only pay once, since AoMF specifically enhances all natural weapons (and includes the appropriate markup).

I think you have as many UASs as you need. For each, it doesn't matter which part of your body you actually strike with, so long as you don't get more sets of strikes than a person of your limb-ed-ness would normally get. A human gets 2 sets (main hand iteratives + 1 offhand with TWF), a Xill gets 4 (main hand iteratives + 3 offhands from MWF), and a Marilith gets 6 (main hand iteratives and 5 offhands with MWF). Again, totally irrelevant to how you RP your character striking (headbutts, shoulder checks, punches, kicks, budda belly bumps) and is ONLY factored in for determining attack routines and offhand Str bonuses.

This is more consistent with the rules for TWFing with weapons, and internal consistency within the mechanics is generally the most appropriate reading.

[Darth Stabber]

In my current campaign one of my players is playing an unarmed swordsage, and focused on tigerclaw, and the enchantment issue was resolved via Amulet of Natural Weapons from Savage Species. It's an expensive solution to the problem of enchanting your fists, and it is from a 3.0 book noted for being wonky, but it is a simple solution. As far as TWFing fists, I have never had an issue with that, even without the feat if you are willing to accept the penalty, though this feels logically incongruous with the rules regarding UAS and natural weapons. Given that melee rarely gets nice things I am willing to let that slide, since claw, claw, punch, punch is still not as good as spell casting.