Just a little unarmed help.

[CIDE]

Alright,

In the time I've been here I've offhandedly remarked about a GM and friend of mine and may have even made a thread or two dedicated to issues found within his game. And while I'm not currently in a game I do want to bring around a semi-hypothetical build for the next time I participate.

See, he's the kind of player that things Monks are perfect classes and well balanced. Wizards are cool but ToB classes are OP as #@$@# 'cause they can do stuff all day without running out. Warlocks are just as bad or worse. And psionics are the work of the devil both because they don't fit and they're more OP than all the rest 'cause of the massive damage dealt per turn. Which...also kind of throws out builds like uber chargers for the same reason.

I'm not trying to break his game though. I don't even want to try to show him up with a tier 1 beating the snot out of one of the aforemented "OP" classes or anything of the sort no matter how much fun that would be. I would personally like to go for something very super specific that also fits an idea I've had for other games for quite some time now.

I would like to go with an unarmed build that can out-monk a monk. Even at the most basic level. I would like to avoid the two level monk dip if I can but will allow it if required. Other than that there's a shopping list of excluded resources. It goes without saying that anything psionic is out. Likewise I don't think feats like Superior Unarmed STrike from ToB would be allowed. Most things Dragon Magazine are out and no third party. Races restricted to basically PHB races just to be safe (though may be expanded later).

So all said and done how could I do it, playground? A thematic brawler built from a fighter seems awesome if a bit lackluster. Barbar I know could do it especially if Fist of the Forest were used but definitely goes away from brawler/monk type and more into savage human Tarzan ape man territory. We'll assume WBL as well even if it is more than likely going to be more than the actual game will give in rewards.

Thanks ahead of time.


Edit:

Forgot to mention it's 3.5 Some PF material may be allowed upon request. Same with Dragon Magazine. The latter is unlikely though.

[Extra Anchovies]

Barbarian 4/Fist of the Forest 3/Bear Warrior 1/Warshaper 1/Bear Warrior +9/Warshaper +2. Pick up Beast Strike and Improved Natural Attack for both claws and unarmed strike.

[True believer]

The best would be to go with the unarmed swordsage alternative class feature if that is not optional then i suggest

Battle dancer ( Dragon compedium p.26) 1/ Fighter X

The main problem with unarmed builds is that you have to invest a lot of feats in order to work so fighter works well.
Also it is always good to beat up a monk with a single little fighter :P

What ever you do you should consider 2 items:

Neclace of natural attacks
Fang ring


Feats:
Snap kick
Stunning fist etc

[CIDE]

Barbarian 4/Fist of the Forest 3/Bear Warrior 1/Warshaper 1/Bear Warrior +9/Warshaper +2. Pick up Beast Strike and Improved Natural Attack for both claws and unarmed strike.

I knew I forgot some things. He's not a fan of MoMF or Bear Warrior. The latter though could be passed with some persuasion. I know he'd also nerf MoMF.


The best would be to go with the unarmed swordsage alternative class feature if that is not optional then i suggest

Battle dancer ( Dragon compedium p.26) 1/ Fighter X

The main problem with unarmed builds is that you have to invest a lot of feats in order to work so fighter works well.
Also it is always good to beat up a monk with a single little fighter :P

What ever you do you should consider 2 items:

Neclace of natural attacks
Fang ring


Feats:
Snap kick
Stunning fist etc

Most of the stuff you mentioned was on my banned list though. ToB, Dragon Magazine (in this case compendium), etc. Not trying to sound unappreciative but uh...it's like you didn't read the OP.

[True believer]

Most of the stuff you mentioned was on my banned list though. ToB, Dragon Magazine (in this case compendium), etc. Not trying to sound unappreciative but uh...it's like you didn't read the OP.


In the case of Tob i just needed to stress the awesomeness of unarmed swordsage in case you would decide to make a diplomacy check on your dm :P


In my knowledge and my tables dragon compendium considers as a book itself. Moreover a lot of sites about dnd (dndtools etc) are considering it a book.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Without Snap Kick and Superior Unarmed Strike, your best bet is size enhancers. Of course, the best of those are psionic, so...

You're going to want a source of pounce, obviously, and barbarian is probably the best one. Flying Kick from Complete Warrior gives you +1d12 damage per hit on a charge. There really aren't very many great unarmed strike feats, and prohibiting psionics, Tome of Battle and Dragon Mag winnows an already-small pool to pretty crap levels.

Maybe if you're really serious about the Monk-without-Monk thing, boost your Wisdom and go for Intuitive Attack and Shiba Protector 1 to get 2x Wis to attack and wis to damage, and look into Freezing the Lifeblood and/or Touch of Golden Ice.

[gorfnab]

Shou Disciple from Unapproachable East will get you the unarmed strike damage you may be looking for.

You could do something like this build. It's definitely not the most optimized but it would maybe work as a brawler with the restrictions you've listed.
Swashbuckler 3/ Fighter (Hit-and-Run Tactics Fighter ACF) 2/ Shou Disciple 5/ Duelist 10
The feat Versatile Unarmed Strike will allow Unarmed Strikes to count as piercing for the Duelist abilities.

[Psyren]

Totemist 20, it's not Unarmed Strike but you're still unarmed.

Failing that, Druid.

Failing that... uh... optimized factotum with brass knuckles?

[CIDE]

In the case of Tob i just needed to stress the awesomeness of unarmed swordsage in case you would decide to make a diplomacy check on your dm :P


In my knowledge and my tables dragon compendium considers as a book itself. Moreover a lot of sites about dnd (dndtools etc) are considering it a book.

The dragon compendium isn't a guaranteed out book but it would take some natural 20 diplomacy roles more than likely. Additionally those feats may be usable but he's had bad experiences with people abusing feats from ToB. The issue is that I think he and the people he has played with in the past are the ones that misread the book and took it to extremes.

Then again if something outdoes a monk it has to be over powered.


Without Snap Kick and Superior Unarmed Strike, your best bet is size enhancers. Of course, the best of those are psionic, so...

You're going to want a source of pounce, obviously, and barbarian is probably the best one. Flying Kick from Complete Warrior gives you +1d12 damage per hit on a charge. There really aren't very many great unarmed strike feats, and prohibiting psionics, Tome of Battle and Dragon Mag winnows an already-small pool to pretty crap levels.

Maybe if you're really serious about the Monk-without-Monk thing, boost your Wisdom and go for Intuitive Attack and Shiba Protector 1 to get 2x Wis to attack and wis to damage, and look into Freezing the Lifeblood and/or Touch of Golden Ice.

The pouncing and stuff is fine. So that all works. And yeah, I knew it was going to be a very small pool of resources to choose from. That's why I needed the help.

As for Touch of Golden Ice it's cool as long as it wasn't done via VoP. He thinks that's broken too.



Shou Disciple from Unapproachable East will get you the unarmed strike damage you may be looking for.

You could do something like this build. It's definitely not the most optimized but it would maybe work as a brawler with the restrictions you've listed.
Swashbuckler 3/ Fighter (Hit-and-Run Tactics Fighter ACF) 2/ Shou Disciple 5/ Duelist 10
The feat Versatile Unarmed Strike will allow Unarmed Strikes to count as piercing for the Duelist abilities.

I had considered Shou Disciple for the fight specific unarmed brawler even if it was really underwhelming.


Totemist 20, it's not Unarmed Strike but you're still unarmed.

Failing that, Druid.

Failing that... uh... optimized factotum with brass knuckles?

I really don't know how he feels about Totemist or incarnum but it'd be worth asking.

[DMVerdandi]

Use Tier one classes, and only use them to buff unarmed combat. If you are going to cast any offensive spells, they must be cast with smiting spell.

Show him that tier 1 can out monk a monk any day.

What is he gonna do staring down the fist of a wiz/sorc using a maximized greater mighty wallop, bull's strength, wraith strike, celerity, and blur? He ain't gonna do nothin. He gonna die.

[Username.]

Dragon Compendium is both a book and Dragon Magazine, simultaneously.


***

Get Serpent Kingdoms and Savage Species approved. Put Viper on a Necklace of Natural Attacks. Wear the latter. Be a druid. Cast Venomstrike on yourself. Wear a hat of disguise if you want to disguise the fact that you are now snakes.

Less plausible alternative: don't be a druid, but still get the viper-necklace. Make a custom item that casts Venomstrike once per day at CL getthe@#$#@outtahere.

Getting your attack roll higher is a trivial exercise. You are dealing damage equal to your caster level plus change, so getting damage much higher is a pointless exercise.

Also: you are now made out of snakes. It is against the OP's restrictions to take a level of monk, but were you to do so, then each part of your body is a quantum potential snake allowing you to simultaneously emulate Cronenbergian body horror and Thulsa Doom.


***

Boring alternative: be a druid, wildshape into a form that has venom, and cast venomstrike on yourself. Ho hum.


***

Get Spell Compendium approved Select whatever spells you like from Spell Compendium because if non-core is allowed, spell compendium automatically allowed. Cast Babau Slime, Enlarge Person, and Fearsome Grapple. At higher levels, cast Balor Nimbus, Bladeweave, and the best spell-that-dozens-of-other-concepts-deserve-more-than-the-wizard Gutsnake. Get an octopus familiar. Take Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Aberration Blood (Flexible Limbs). You are better than a monk -- and a fighter -- at grappling.

Feel free to indulge in toys like Spell Flower and various touch spells.

Once you get polymorph, you can legitimately, in good faith, complain that noncasters are holding back the party.

Whenever you are not grappling, be a wizard and do everything that needs doing. Feel free to point out that the ToB initiates are your pathetic inferiors and invite the DM to stat some up as villains for both comedic value and easy xp.


***

N.B.: All wizard options described herein are fully compatible with DMVerdandi's suggestions. In addition, a wizard can qualify for Enlightened Fist without monk levels and get most of what a monk gets as a result, but entering that class (outside of gestalt) would be stupid. This should give one some perspective on monk worth versus wizard worth when it come to emulating a monk.


***

If Pathfinder is allowed:

Be a Naga Greensnake (3.0 explictly allowed in 3.5), serpentfolk, or get an Anaconda’s Coils Belt. You now qualify for the Final Embrace feat. Take it. You now have grab and constrict -- and you have constrict at either your unarmed strike damage or your natural attack damage, whichever you like, whenever you like. That's scaling constrict damage.

At this point, you can take any classes or combinations thereof that boost attack rolls and unarmed damage. A paladin archetype can give you monk unarmed strike progression. Mighty Wallop and Enlarged Person are still the big winners here, though. Vivisectionist Beasmorph Alchemist could be a change of pace. Synthesist Summoner is full of wi-- you get the picture: it doesn't really matter.

What does matter is that Pathfinder changed grapples to allow you to release your grapple target as a free action. This change from 3.5 means that you can grab and grapple someone repeatedly in the same turn. . . constricting them each time.

Even without this change, this feat/race combination grants you an additional unarmed strike whenever you grapple someone (or additional natural attack, if you've optimized one of those). And Naga Greensnake is the only non-LA race with Large size, so that's nice.

[Darrin]

Consider: A Fighter armed with just Improved Unarmed Strike does 1d3 damage, but if he focuses his resources on buffing Strength and uses Power Attack, he can keep pace with the monk. At level 20, assuming he has 23 Str and Power Attacks for -5, his average damage per hit is 13.5, while the monk's 2d10 unarmed strike does an average of 11 damage. With Flurry of Blows, the monk gets five attacks at BAB +15, but the fighter can top that with Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF, and a pair of guantlets: 7 attacks at BAB +15, and we can add Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, and Melee Weapon Mastery on top of his damage, which now averages 19.5 if he Power Attacks for -5, or he can pick up Shock Trooper and Pounce, dumping AC for +20 damage.

Race: Human.
1) Fighter 1. Feat: Improved Unarmed Strike. Bonus: WF Unarmed Strike. Human: Power Attack.
2) Fighter 2. Bonus: TWF.
3) Fighter 3. Feat: Improved Bull Rush.
4) Fighter 4. Bonus: WS Unarmed Strike.
5) Barbarian 1. Spirit Lion Totem -> Pounce (Complete Champion).
6) Barbarian 2. Feat: Leap Attack. Wolf Totem -> Improved Trip (Unearthed Arcana).
7) Fighter 5.
8) Fighter 6. Bonus: Shock Trooper (Complete Warrior).
9) Fighter 7. Feat: Improved TWF.
10) Fighter 8. Bonus: Melee Weapon Mastery (PHBII).
11) Fighter 9.
12) Fighter 10. Feat: GWF Unarmed Strike. Bonus: Greater TWF.
13) Fighter 11.
14) Fighter 12. Bonus: GWS Unarmed Strike.
15) Fighter 13. Feat: Knock-Down (SRD:Divine feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown)).
16) Fighter 14. Bonus: Brutal Strike (PHBII).
17) Fighter 15.
18) Fighter 16. Feat: Crushing Strike (PHBII).
19) Fighter 17.
20) Fighter 18. Bonus: Weapon Supremacy (PHBII).

Even if you limit yourself to a Core-only Fighter 20, odds are pretty good you're going to out-hit and out-damage a comparable monk.

[Mato]

Consider: A Fighter armed with just Improved Unarmed Strike does 1d3 damage,Which when combined with a couple cross-class ranks to use a wand of greater mighty wallop it becomes 1d8, or 15.5 per hit.

Also the fighter, after power attack's penalty, has +20/+15/+10/+5 against an average 36 AC (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1118841), that's 20%/5%/5%/5% hit rates right? So 5.425 damage per round. It'll take your fighter build roughly seventy five rounds, excluding critical hits and misses, to kill an opponent.


Even if you limit yourself to a Core-only Fighter 20, odds are pretty good you're going to out-hit and out-damage a comparable monk.
A 20th level core-only monk at 22 str and improved natural attack (something the fighter cannot take) has +21/+21/+21/+16/+11 (4d8+6) or 20.4 damage per round. And if he has a +5 enhancement bonus this is increased to 81.2 damage per round, it still need some help if you want to call it optimized but all it's been handed is less than core's supplies so far and it's dealing sixteen times the damage your splat-book build does that's supposed to better.

You need unarmed progression if you want to use unarmed strike. Several prcs can help, fist of the forest is a great one to consider.

[Darrin]

Also the fighter, after power attack's penalty, has +20/+15/+10/+5 against an average 36 AC (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1118841), that's 20%/5%/5%/5% hit rates right? So 5.425 damage per round. It'll take your fighter build roughly seventy five rounds, excluding critical hits and misses, to kill an opponent.


The Fighter still has a higher BAB than the monk, who has to deal with MAD ability scores. I'm not sure why you're picking 36 AC, or not accounting for the TWF vs. Flurry?



A 20th level core-only monk at 22 str and improved natural attack (something the fighter cannot take) has +21/+21/+21/+16/+11 (4d8+6) or 20.4 damage per round.


The fighter absolutely can take Improved Natural Attack. Unarmed strike is a natural weapon by RAW. And I was assuming that the Monk would have a lower Str because they also tend to prioritize Wis/Dex.



And if he has a +5 enhancement bonus this is increased to 81.2 damage per round, it still need some help if you want to call it optimized but all it's been handed is less than core's supplies so far and it's dealing sixteen times the damage your splat-book build does that's supposed to better.


I'm not sure what enhancement bonus you're referring to, as monks have some difficulty enchanting their fists, while fighters are perfectly happy with enchanted masterwork gauntlets. I'm also not sure why the same enhancement would not also be available to the fighter?



You need unarmed progression if you want to use unarmed strike. Several prcs can help, fist of the forest is a great one to consider.

The difference in average damage between 1d3 and 2d10 is 9.5 points of damage. The point I was trying to make was with Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Specialization/Melee Weapon Mastery, using Power Attack, and focusing on Str, a Fighter build without Superior Unarmed Strike or some other unarmed damage progression can make up the difference and maybe even outperform a Monk 20.

[Telonius]

As for Touch of Golden Ice it's cool as long as it wasn't done via VoP. He thinks that's broken too.


Well, it is, but probably for the opposite reason than what he thinks....

Anyway, yeah, the Monk is behind on damage, even with the unarmed progression. At 20th level, a Monk with no size alteration is doing an average of 11 points per hit. A Fighter who's just power attacking for 5 is dealing 7 points per hit, and hitting exactly as often as the Monk. If he has the Greater Weapon Specialization chain (awful, I know), he's got a +2 to hit and a +4 to damage - meaning he can either hit more often (+2 to hit) for exactly the same damage as a Monk, or hit exactly as often as the Monk and outdo him on damage (power attack more for an extra +2 damage). Add Weapon Mastery and Supremacy on top of that, and Monk's in the dust. That's all before making any purchases. And he can still switch to a Greatsword and get 2-to-1 power attack if he needs to.

EDIT: The one thing that could fudge that is Flurry.

[Hal0Badger]

Okay everybody talked about Unarmed Strike, but I would like to emulate more of the monk abilities.

Barbarian 3/Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Runescared Berserker 10

Feats:
1st level: Survivor
3rd level: Wolf Berserker
Fighter1 : Improved Unarmed Strike
6th level: Iron Will (feat tax)
Fighter2 : Improved Trip
9th level: Snow Tiger Berserker
12th level: Improved Graple
15th level: Power Attack

Rest is up to you to be honest. Items to take : Gloves of Balanced Hand, Armbands of might (after power attack), probably monk's belt.

Idea: Snow Tiger Berserker gives pounce, but only with light weapons (and req. 13 dex). I choose this, because I want to have fast movement class feature, to make it similar to monk. You have the basics of unarmed strike, and two-weapon fighting (Improved with Gloves of balanced hand) to emulate flurry of blows abilitiy. Trick with the armbands of might, they give another +2 to your damage if you use "at least -2 PA", so basically 1:2 ratio up to -2 PA. Runescarred berserker can emulate some of the magical abilities of monk (Heal: check, epic saves: you have Anti Magic aura, slow fall: you have Air walk (which is better) ) and with RB you can cast Righteous might, + size and +4 str bonus, very nice for the maneuvers like trip or grapple.

You said, races could be expanded. Then pick Goliath, it is really REALLY worth it, especially with a LA buyoff at level 3. You get +4 str, +2 con, count as large size (thus righteous might brings you huge size) which gives +4 bonus to your improved trip and grapple as well. with 17 str starting, and putting 3 points in to str for 4,8,12 levels, you got 24 str goliath. When you rage, you at least get another +6 bonus, with righteous might it is +10, so 34 str

17 BAB, +12 to hit, -2 for TWF, -2 for Power Attack, -1 from size, we are lookint at +24/+24/+19/+19/+14/+9 attack rolls, with 3d6+16 per attack, without Amulet of might fists. Assuming you can trip for your first attack (and very highly to succeed) you can take out another -4 from your attack and add it to your damage. Don't forget a RS can also cast Divine favor on himself, for another +3 to attack and +3 to damage.

So far:
Unarmed Combat: Check
Many attacks: Check
Fast Movement: only +10 (though Haste is on the spell list of RB)
Slow Fall: Check
Heal yourself: Check (even better than monk)
Super saves: Check (even better than monk against magic)
Abundant Step: We took Antimagic field and Heal, so no
Quivering Palm: who uses this anyway.
Ki strike: Well, you can't have everything now, can you? Though you can always 2 adamant hand axe ?

[Sacrieur]

Can you use VMC, or is that OP as well?

[The Viscount]

Most of the good ideas have already been said, so I'm going to say Binder. Ronove gives Unarmed Strike of Monk Level (with some of the faux material like magic and cold iron), Feather Fall instead of slow fall, +10 speed, and weird telekinesis if you want that. Zagan gives improved Grapple, constrict, and lets you count as large for grappling. It'll take 10 levels of binder (assuming improved binding). You have 3 pact augmentations to shore up saves, attack, damage, initiative, even AC. You obviously also have lots of other vestiges with a variety of abilities, but this is the fake monk build.

[CIDE]

Use Tier one classes, and only use them to buff unarmed combat. If you are going to cast any offensive spells, they must be cast with smiting spell.

Show him that tier 1 can out monk a monk any day.

What is he gonna do staring down the fist of a wiz/sorc using a maximized greater mighty wallop, bull's strength, wraith strike, celerity, and blur? He ain't gonna do nothin. He gonna die.

I actually really like that. It kind of goes towards the point I wanted to make too. Maybe not in the same way I envisioned but it works.


Dragon Compendium is both a book and Dragon Magazine, simultaneously.


***

Get Serpent Kingdoms and Savage Species approved. Put Viper on a Necklace of Natural Attacks. Wear the latter. Be a druid. Cast Venomstrike on yourself. Wear a hat of disguise if you want to disguise the fact that you are now snakes.

Less plausible alternative: don't be a druid, but still get the viper-necklace. Make a custom item that casts Venomstrike once per day at CL getthe@#$#@outtahere.

Getting your attack roll higher is a trivial exercise. You are dealing damage equal to your caster level plus change, so getting damage much higher is a pointless exercise.

Also: you are now made out of snakes. It is against the OP's restrictions to take a level of monk, but were you to do so, then each part of your body is a quantum potential snake allowing you to simultaneously emulate Cronenbergian body horror and Thulsa Doom.


***

Boring alternative: be a druid, wildshape into a form that has venom, and cast venomstrike on yourself. Ho hum.


***

Get Spell Compendium approved Select whatever spells you like from Spell Compendium because if non-core is allowed, spell compendium automatically allowed. Cast Babau Slime, Enlarge Person, and Fearsome Grapple. At higher levels, cast Balor Nimbus, Bladeweave, and the best spell-that-dozens-of-other-concepts-deserve-more-than-the-wizard Gutsnake. Get an octopus familiar. Take Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Aberration Blood (Flexible Limbs). You are better than a monk -- and a fighter -- at grappling.

Feel free to indulge in toys like Spell Flower and various touch spells.

Once you get polymorph, you can legitimately, in good faith, complain that noncasters are holding back the party.

Whenever you are not grappling, be a wizard and do everything that needs doing. Feel free to point out that the ToB initiates are your pathetic inferiors and invite the DM to stat some up as villains for both comedic value and easy xp.


***

N.B.: All wizard options described herein are fully compatible with DMVerdandi's suggestions. In addition, a wizard can qualify for Enlightened Fist without monk levels and get most of what a monk gets as a result, but entering that class (outside of gestalt) would be stupid. This should give one some perspective on monk worth versus wizard worth when it come to emulating a monk.


***

If Pathfinder is allowed:

Be a Naga Greensnake (3.0 explictly allowed in 3.5), serpentfolk, or get an Anaconda’s Coils Belt. You now qualify for the Final Embrace feat. Take it. You now have grab and constrict -- and you have constrict at either your unarmed strike damage or your natural attack damage, whichever you like, whenever you like. That's scaling constrict damage.

At this point, you can take any classes or combinations thereof that boost attack rolls and unarmed damage. A paladin archetype can give you monk unarmed strike progression. Mighty Wallop and Enlarged Person are still the big winners here, though. Vivisectionist Beasmorph Alchemist could be a change of pace. Synthesist Summoner is full of wi-- you get the picture: it doesn't really matter.

What does matter is that Pathfinder changed grapples to allow you to release your grapple target as a free action. This change from 3.5 means that you can grab and grapple someone repeatedly in the same turn. . . constricting them each time.

Even without this change, this feat/race combination grants you an additional unarmed strike whenever you grapple someone (or additional natural attack, if you've optimized one of those). And Naga Greensnake is the only non-LA race with Large size, so that's nice.


You are REALLY about them snakes, aren't you? A lot of cool ideas there. I did also bring up statting ToB classes too as opposition. Didn't really go over well.


Well, it is, but probably for the opposite reason than what he thinks....
.

Oh, I know. I've done all the reading on VoP. I love the feat for flavor reasons and that's initially how I found out the DM's thoughts on the matter when I tried to build a character around it.


Okay everybody talked about Unarmed Strike, but I would like to emulate more of the monk abilities.

Barbarian 3/Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Runescared Berserker 10

Feats:
1st level: Survivor
3rd level: Wolf Berserker
Fighter1 : Improved Unarmed Strike
6th level: Iron Will (feat tax)
Fighter2 : Improved Trip
9th level: Snow Tiger Berserker
12th level: Improved Graple
15th level: Power Attack

Rest is up to you to be honest. Items to take : Gloves of Balanced Hand, Armbands of might (after power attack), probably monk's belt.

Idea: Snow Tiger Berserker gives pounce, but only with light weapons (and req. 13 dex). I choose this, because I want to have fast movement class feature, to make it similar to monk. You have the basics of unarmed strike, and two-weapon fighting (Improved with Gloves of balanced hand) to emulate flurry of blows abilitiy. Trick with the armbands of might, they give another +2 to your damage if you use "at least -2 PA", so basically 1:2 ratio up to -2 PA. Runescarred berserker can emulate some of the magical abilities of monk (Heal: check, epic saves: you have Anti Magic aura, slow fall: you have Air walk (which is better) ) and with RB you can cast Righteous might, + size and +4 str bonus, very nice for the maneuvers like trip or grapple.

You said, races could be expanded. Then pick Goliath, it is really REALLY worth it, especially with a LA buyoff at level 3. You get +4 str, +2 con, count as large size (thus righteous might brings you huge size) which gives +4 bonus to your improved trip and grapple as well. with 17 str starting, and putting 3 points in to str for 4,8,12 levels, you got 24 str goliath. When you rage, you at least get another +6 bonus, with righteous might it is +10, so 34 str

17 BAB, +12 to hit, -2 for TWF, -2 for Power Attack, -1 from size, we are lookint at +24/+24/+19/+19/+14/+9 attack rolls, with 3d6+16 per attack, without Amulet of might fists. Assuming you can trip for your first attack (and very highly to succeed) you can take out another -4 from your attack and add it to your damage. Don't forget a RS can also cast Divine favor on himself, for another +3 to attack and +3 to damage.

So far:
Unarmed Combat: Check
Many attacks: Check
Fast Movement: only +10 (though Haste is on the spell list of RB)
Slow Fall: Check
Heal yourself: Check (even better than monk)
Super saves: Check (even better than monk against magic)
Abundant Step: We took Antimagic field and Heal, so no
Quivering Palm: who uses this anyway.
Ki strike: Well, you can't have everything now, can you? Though you can always 2 adamant hand axe ?

This is almost perfect, actually. Out-monk the monk and in more ways than just damage. Goliath is out though. I don't even think they exist in his homebrew setting.

I could ask though.


Can you use VMC, or is that OP as well?

VMC?


Most of the good ideas have already been said, so I'm going to say Binder. Ronove gives Unarmed Strike of Monk Level (with some of the faux material like magic and cold iron), Feather Fall instead of slow fall, +10 speed, and weird telekinesis if you want that. Zagan gives improved Grapple, constrict, and lets you count as large for grappling. It'll take 10 levels of binder (assuming improved binding). You have 3 pact augmentations to shore up saves, attack, damage, initiative, even AC. You obviously also have lots of other vestiges with a variety of abilities, but this is the fake monk build.

I really have no idea how he feels about Binders either. Never came up in conversation at all.

[Andezzar]

The Fighter still has a higher BAB than the monk, who has to deal with MAD ability scores. I'm not sure why you're picking 36 AC, or not accounting for the TWF vs. Flurry?You cannot use TWF with an unarmed strike alone. An unarmed strike is only one natural weapon. You need two weapons for TWF.


I'm not sure what enhancement bonus you're referring to, as monks have some difficulty enchanting their fists, while fighters are perfectly happy with enchanted masterwork gauntlets. I'm also not sure why the same enhancement would not also be available to the fighter?An attack with a gauntlet is not an unarmed strike but an unarmed attack. Both fighter and monk have no problem however with benefiting from Greater Magic Fang or an amulet of mighty fists or a necklace of natural attacks. The monk can also receive GMW.

[Psyren]

VMC?


Variant Multiclassing, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement#TOC-Variant-Multiclassing) a new subsystem introduced in Pathfinder Unchained, allows you to trade 5 of your feats for a selection of secondary class features from another class.

[Hal0Badger]

You cannot use TWF with an unarmed strike alone. An unarmed strike is only one natural weapon. You need two weapons for TWF.

This is almost perfect, actually. Out-monk the monk and in more ways than just damage. Goliath is out though. I don't even think they exist in his homebrew setting.
I checked that issue earlier, it is vague that you can or you cannot use TWF with unarmed strike alone by RAW, but I have managed to find this line along the articles "Rules of the Game":

"As noted in Part One, you must use the full attack action to attack with two weapons at once; if you use the attack action, you can attack only once despite the number of weapons you wield. You also need a weapon or two, though you can use unarmed strikes as your "weapons" in a two-weapon attack ". As you can see, it does not say "a weapon", it is "weapons", plural.

With unarmed strike, you are considered to be using fists, kicks, headbutts or any combination of those. Rules treat you are fighthing with one weapon when it comes to "iterative attacks", but in terms, you are "armed" with both of your fists. A person who has a dagger in his right hand, and nothing is left hand, considered armed with left hand as well if he has Improved Unarmed Strike. I see no problem letting a player using TWF with unarmed strikes alone.


This is almost perfect, actually. Out-monk the monk and in more ways than just damage. Goliath is out though. I don't even think they exist in his homebrew setting.

If that is the case, human is a nice choice because of the extra feat, or one of the other core races, a half-orc, for a strength boost. Dwarf is also another good choice, +2 to con, -2 cha (dump stat), and you will look AWESOME: 140 cm height, 140 cm width due to being PURE MUSCLE, I can see it choking a dragon to death, with his bare hands.

EDIT: I was wrong about rules treating you fighting with 1 weapon.

To my understanding, you can use your iterative attacks, with any weapons you can use at the moment : Lets say, after attacking from your highest BAB, if you have a quick draw feat, you can drop your current weapon, take out another one and continue your iterative attacks with newly drawn weapon.

I will elaborate with 2 examples:

A character, with BAB 6, and attack rolls +10/+5, with no IUS, but with TWF, armed with 1 longsword and 1 shortsword:

You can use +10 bonus with longsword, +5 bonus with short sword. He is not incurred to TWF penalties, because he did not use the feat and get the extra attack.
If he wishes to use TWF, short sword being his off-hand weapon, He can attack with his longsword from +8, with his short sword from +8 and half str bonus to damage, and with +3, he can either use longsword or shortsword, applying his full str to damage.

With Improved Unarmed Strike, you are considered to be armed with all the acceptable parts of your body (if you can fight with your butt, be my guest), and can use any combination of those during your iterative attacks, because changing weapons you have access to during iterative attack is legit. You may indeed need more than 1 weapon to TWF, but with IUS, you do have more than 1 weapon, so it is legit to use TWF only with unarmed strikes.

Earlier, I asked in the forums about "changing weapons during iterative attacks". Relevant topic can be found here : http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?404807-Changing-weapons-(or-hands)-during-iterative-attacks

[Andezzar]

I checked that issue earlier, it is vague that you can or you cannot use TWF with unarmed strike alone by RAW, but I have managed to find this line along the articles "Rules of the Game":

"As noted in Part One, you must use the full attack action to attack with two weapons at once; if you use the attack action, you can attack only once despite the number of weapons you wield. You also need a weapon or two, though you can use unarmed strikes as your "weapons" in a two-weapon attack ". As you can see, it does not say "a weapon", it is "weapons", plural.The rules of the game articles are not RAW and blatantly contradict the RAW in several places. This is one of those places. The actual rules make the unarmed strike one natural weapon. A creature only has one such weapons no matter how many extremities or other dangerous bits it has. TWF requires two weapons.


I see no problem letting a player using TWF with unarmed strikes alone.That is your prerogative, but it is a houserule.


You may indeed need more than 1 weapon to TWF, but with IUS, you do have more than 1 weapon, so it is legit to use TWF only with unarmed strikes.No, you don't.

[Hal0Badger]

The rules of the game articles are not RAW and blatantly contradict the RAW in several places. This is one of those places. The actual rules make the unarmed strike one natural weapon. A creature only has one such weapons no matter how many extremities or other dangerous bits it has. TWF requires two weapons.

That is your prerogative, but it is a houserule.

No, you don't.

Can you quote a rule in RAW, where it says you are only armed with 1 weapon when using unarmed strike?

And those articles are presented on the official wizards web site. Why do you totally "dispose" them?

EDIT: I can actually quote where Unarmed strike gives you more than 1 weapon:

Player' Handbook, PG 121:
"Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack."

Player's Handbook, pg 96:
"
IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE [GENERAL]
You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed — that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.
In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option."

It is again, plural.

As far as I read, you are considered to be armed with a kick, headbutt, fist or any other type of appropriate attack., therefore you can qualify for TWF.

This being said, I will not discuss this further in this thread, because we are going off-rail now. OP wanted some advice to build a monk-like creature, not a discussion about unarmed strikes.

[Darrin]

You cannot use TWF with an unarmed strike alone. An unarmed strike is only one natural weapon. You need two weapons for TWF.


The idea was the fighter would be using two gauntlets, but I wasn't clear about that. I should have specified the Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization feats were for gauntlets, not unarmed strikes. Although how exactly the rules can tell the difference is a bit of a head-scratcher. For a fighter dual-wielding gauntlets, Improved Unarmed Strike at least lets him make unarmed attacks without provoking. The gauntlets themselves can do either lethal or nonlethal damage.



An attack with a gauntlet is not an unarmed strike but an unarmed attack. Both fighter and monk have no problem however with benefiting from Greater Magic Fang or an amulet of mighty fists or a necklace of natural attacks. The monk can also receive GMW.

The difference between an unarmed strike and an unarmed attack as far as the rules are concerned is considerably murky. As far as enhancement bonuses go, the fighter can get a pair of +5 gauntlets with considerably less fuss and bother than the monk.

As far as TWF with multiple unarmed strikes... that's another area of murkiness. For my TWF OffHandbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279079), I assume the RAW is "unarmed strike = one weapon", but in actual play I allow multiple striking surfaces. There are a couple work-arounds if you want to stick to the rules (Unorthodox Flurry, Dragonfang Gauntlets, Scorpion Kama). My strongest recommendation here is not to get so concerned about the RAW and find what works best for your own game.

[Psyren]

OP mentioned that PF is fair game, and you're definitely allowed to TWF with unarmed strike (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qie) there. So it may be helpful for the OP to clarify which system "wins" in the case of conflicts like these.

[Mato]

OP mentioned that PF is fair game, and you're definitely allowed to TWF with unarmed strike (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qie) there. So it may be helpful for the OP to clarify which system "wins" in the case of conflicts like these.The D&D FAQ also lets you TWF your unarmed strike so you don't have to go as far as pathfinder.

The rules of the game articles were also originally listed under the game rules along side the errata and FAQ as well and someone already mentioned those.

So that's two rule sources confirming how to interpret the ambiguous text.

[Username.]

Keep in mind: wizard grapplers get to molest people they are grappling with more grappling (and quasi-grappling). You can, for example, cast Web and Black Tentacles, as well as things like Grease and Stinking Cloud, all while getting your freak on with every NPC in the area. If you're willing to lose a caster level, you could prestige into Eldritch Theurge after one level of Warlock (get a Chausible of Fell Etc. to boost Eldritch Blast, then take two levels of Eldritch Theurge, causing the class to self-qualify even without the chausible). This is Almost Inevitably Not Worth It, but it does get you Chill Tentacles all day every day (and slightly higher BAB). And you can summon more, better grapplers; see the Grapple Handbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=585.0).

Keep in mind, once you have Polymorph or mid-level Wild Shape, this exercise is insulting.

Also, Druids can transform into mega-grapplers and whatnot and get animal companions that are also mega-grapplers and may be able to summon a few -- I can't be arsed to check the nature's ally list. So, once again, not only are your numbers higher than the monk's but you can overwhelm foes with numbers AND have maximum out of combat utiltiy.

And then there's:

You, sir, want nothing so much as Bearington Bearman The Bearbearian.

Incarnate Dustform Anthropomorphic Black Bear Afflicted Were-Black Bear/Bear Totem Barbarian/Bear Lord/Bear Warrior. Take the feats Wild Cohort, Improved Unarmed Strike, and Vow of Poverty.

(the Incarnate Dustform bit is only done once, to establish the Humanoid base type). You're a humanoid bear who can turn into a bear, get angry and turn into a bear, talk to bears, summon bears, have a pet bear, fight with your bear hands, and carry only the bear essentials. Can you bear any more of this?

5 Animal HD+15 class levels at ECL20 with LA buyoff, 5HD+11 class levels without.

Is that better at grappling than a Monk? Yes. Yes it is. And that's silly.

But hey, you sounded like you were tired of snakes.

Also: being unbearable can be combined with venomfire and viper, so if you want to be a bear that transforms into a bear that shapeshifts into a bigger bear that can talk to bears which is convenient because his best friend is a bear which is odd because he's made out of super-poisonous snakes, you can do that.

[Psyren]

The rules of the game articles were also originally listed under the game rules along side the errata and FAQ as well and someone already mentioned those.

Ooh, they were? Do you have a source for that?

[Andezzar]

The D&D FAQ also lets you TWF your unarmed strike so you don't have to go as far as pathfinder.The FAQ are not RAW.


The rules of the game articles were also originally listed under the game rules along side the errata and FAQ as well and someone already mentioned those.When? Where? i've never heard about that.

[IZ42]

The FAQ are not RAW.

The FAQ are rules clarifications by the company that originally wrote the rules, so yeah, that's completely wrong. The FAQ are basically edits to the original language to the book that are too small to re-print, and are equally correct as the book RAW, and they are the RAI spelled out by the creators.

[Andezzar]

They are clarifications, nothing more. FAQ cannot alter RAW. If in any case a FAQ answer contradicts the rules as written, that answer is irrelevant. To change rules, WotC needs to issue an erratum. You may also want to reread the primary source rule in various errata documents. They don't even mention FAQ as a source that may or may not ovewrite the rules in the books.

[emeraldstreak]

Alright,

In the time I've been here I've offhandedly remarked about a GM and friend of mine and may have even made a thread or two dedicated to issues found within his game. And while I'm not currently in a game I do want to bring around a semi-hypothetical build for the next time I participate.

See, he's the kind of player that things Monks are perfect classes and well balanced. Wizards are cool but ToB classes are OP as #@$@# 'cause they can do stuff all day without running out. Warlocks are just as bad or worse. And psionics are the work of the devil both because they don't fit and they're more OP than all the rest 'cause of the massive damage dealt per turn. Which...also kind of throws out builds like uber chargers for the same reason.

I'm not trying to break his game though. I don't even want to try to show him up with a tier 1 beating the snot out of one of the aforemented "OP" classes or anything of the sort no matter how much fun that would be. I would personally like to go for something very super specific that also fits an idea I've had for other games for quite some time now.

I would like to go with an unarmed build that can out-monk a monk. Even at the most basic level. I would like to avoid the two level monk dip if I can but will allow it if required. Other than that there's a shopping list of excluded resources. It goes without saying that anything psionic is out. Likewise I don't think feats like Superior Unarmed STrike from ToB would be allowed. Most things Dragon Magazine are out and no third party. Races restricted to basically PHB races just to be safe (though may be expanded later).

So all said and done how could I do it, playground? A thematic brawler built from a fighter seems awesome if a bit lackluster. Barbar I know could do it especially if Fist of the Forest were used but definitely goes away from brawler/monk type and more into savage human Tarzan ape man territory. We'll assume WBL as well even if it is more than likely going to be more than the actual game will give in rewards.

Thanks ahead of time.


Edit:

Forgot to mention it's 3.5 Some PF material may be allowed upon request. Same with Dragon Magazine. The latter is unlikely though.



You cannot easily out-monk a well-optimized Monk with other non-ToB martials. Presumably your GM has no idea about optimization in general, so you will likely be fine with a non-ToB martial (as far as the lowly standards of your GM go); but honestly it's far better to go tier 1 to drive your point.

[IZ42]

They are clarifications, nothing more. FAQ cannot alter RAW. If in any case a FAQ answer contradicts the rules as written, that answer is irrelevant. To change rules, WotC needs to issue an erratum. You may also want to reread the primary source rule in various errata documents. They don't even mention FAQ as a source that may or may not ovewrite the rules in the books.

Correct, they are clarifications on what a particular piece of text means, which means they are the RAI from the mouths (or keyboards, I should say) of the developers. Could you provide me with citations on both where it says that a FAQ is null and void if it contradicts the original text and where it says that WotC needs to issue an erratum to clarify or answer a rules question? Or is that just your personal dictation that everybody should follow?

[emeraldstreak]

which means they are the RAI from the mouths (or keyboards, I should say) of the developers.


Not the same developers.


The difference between an oft-updated, somewhat haphazard FAQ, and actual errata, is that FAQs are updated by whoever has time and under whatever the public pressure of the day is. This is often cause for flip-flopping or hurried rulings. Meanwhile, errata that has been given thorough consideration before printing it in a more official way is far more likely to take under consideration all repercussions of a ruling.


And I'm not talking about DnD only, but all of the industry. And not only of FAQs, but of dev quotes pulled from forums, podcasts, etc.

[Brookshw]

The FAQ are not RAW. Sure it is, it just loses the primacy battle if/where it directly contradicts a primary source. Aside from that its free to add and clarify to its heart's content.



When? Where? i've never heard about that.
He's right, it's explicitly listed under game rules on the website.

[Andezzar]

Correct, they are clarifications on what a particular piece of text means, which means they are the RAI from the mouths (or keyboards, I should say) of the developers. Could you provide me with citations on both where it says that a FAQ is null and void if it contradicts the original text and where it says that WotC needs to issue an erratum to clarify or answer a rules question? Or is that just your personal dictation that everybody should follow?I never said that WotC needs to issue an erratum to answer a rules question, but if that answer contradicts the rules, it simply is a wrong answer and as such irrelevant.
WotC also gives a hierarchy or rules sources. The FAQ is not even mentioned in that hierarchy. The FAQ documents don't give themselves any authority to overwrite actual rules either.


He's right, it's explicitly listed under game rules on the website.Please show me, I cannot find that statement.

[Brookshw]

The FAQ is not even mentioned in that hierarchy. Neither is any other secondary source listed by name :smallconfused:
The FAQ documents don't give themselves any authority to overwrite actual rules either. Yup, that's why as you put it
if that answer contradicts the rules, it simply is a wrong answer and as such irrelevant. so I think everyone's in agreement on that :smallcool:


Please show me, I cannot find that statement. Sure, it's right under the banner (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a).

[Andezzar]

so I think everyone's in agreement on that :smallcool:Unfortunately not:
The D&D FAQ also lets you TWF your unarmed strike so you don't have to go as far as pathfinder.That's what spawned the whole debate on what publications can change the rules. RAW still is the Unarmed Strike is one weapon, You need two weapons to use two-weapon fighting. So you cannot use TWF unless you have another weapon.

[gooddragon1]

I think you might need to rub in the point. Druid 20. And don't fight the monk yourself. Have your animal companion do it. Meanwhile, you need to wildshape into... a chicken. Then cast animal growth on yourself. Don't fight though, just run away while your animal companion attacks. You must also cast airwalk on yourself to allow yourself to stay out of range while in chicken form (flap the chicken wings to make flight more believable). If the monk is really being mean, use the giant vermin spell on a scorpion too. This gives you a colossal monstrous scorpion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousScorpion.htm).

[Brookshw]

Unfortunately not:That's what spawned the whole debate on what publications can change the rules. RAW still is the Unarmed Strike is one weapon, You need two weapons to use two-weapon fighting. So you cannot use TWF unless you have another weapon.

Actually that position has been called into question over the years and was much contested based on PHB content. US is a hot mess in primary sources alone. I'm not sure what you want for me to take away from this.

[Andezzar]

I don't know what contesting points people mentioned over the years but the PHB (which is the primary source for playing the game) is pretty clear on this one:

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
So the Unarmed strike is (always considered) only one weapon no matter how many attacks you get with it. With only one weapon you cannot use two-weapon fighting.

[Brookshw]

I don't know what contesting points people mentioned over the years but the PHB (which is the primary source for playing the game) is pretty clear on this one:


So the Unarmed strike is (always considered) only one weapon no matter how many attacks you get with it. With only one weapon you cannot use two-weapon fighting.

Referencing that same quote,
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. That's tense agreement where they're talking about using a singular unarmed strike, telling us it is a singular light weapon, not that all unarmed strikes collectively used still constitute attacking with a single weapon.

[Mato]

Ooh, they were? Do you have a source for that?Yes.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080304143216/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rules
:smallsmile:


The FAQ are not RAW.Contrary to what your belief what RAW means, "Rules as Written" doesn't mean "Please excuse my interpretation and personal beliefs on which rules should be followed or ignored".

Of course realistically, someone that posts like that would never use the word please so I am politely paraphrasing.

[Andezzar]

The FAQ are texts about the rules, not rules themselves, just like a synopsis/critique of a book is not the book itself.

Even if the FAQ are rules, they can never take precedence over the actual books because of the primary source rule. So whether the FAQ are rules that are never applicable or not rules at all is an entirely irrelevant distinction.

I assume you deduce the status of the FAQ as rules from the heading. By that logic a stay at an inn or a ship's passage (PHB p. 131 f., in the chapter titled Equipment) would also be equipment. :smallconfused: Try equipping those.
Neither the short text under the Game Rule FAQ subheading nor the introduction in the actual document indicate that the answers are rules instead of confirmations/clarifications what the rules say.

@Brookshw: where is the rule that a creature has more than one unarmed strike? By definition the Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon (with additional rules, that differentiate it from other natural weapons)
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike. You get iterative attacks with an unarmed strike, but I can find no rule saying that a creature with BAB 6 or more has more than one Unarmed Strike.

[Psyren]

Yes.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080304143216/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rules
:smallsmile:

Isn't only one of those boxes labeled "official?"

[Mato]

Isn't only one of those boxes labeled "official?"Sure, "Official D&D Game Rule FAQ" :smallbiggrin:

Look, I know your yet another one of those guys that don't understand what is or isn't official, or what is or isn't the rules, but it's pretty old to hear about how you think some rules should be ignored because you disagree with them. Like older than hearing about how psionics is so broken it needs banned or how the tome of battle is too anime and needs banned old because it's all the same dead horse based on the same idea that disagreement means removal. The FAQ is an official product that's part of the rule structure unlike the dragon magazine material that gets brought up so often on. Now maybe an old RAW argument based on original Errata's primary source rules could have stood almost eight years ago, which also banned most splat for contradicting the PHB/DMG, but the rules compendium made exception > specific > general the official method for adjudicating the rules that the FAQ is very much a part of and it's really about time you learned how the rules work if you want to continue talking about the rules in a forum and stop bogging down thread with your opinion on what you think should be canonical or not.

[The Viscount]

It is not an uncommon statement held by a few fanatics that FAQ is not RAW. There are many people who will weigh in on this topic. Curmudgeon has spoken several times on why FAQ and rules of the game cannot trump anything else, and he's a reliable source on precise rules.

[Andezzar]

Can you use the two-weapon fighting rules to make an extra unarmed attack if your first attack was also an unarmed attack?
In the Sage’s opinion, yes. Unarmed attacks are described as using any part of your body to attack in several places, so using two parts of your body to attack, like both hands, seems permissible.This does not sound definitive at all. Contrary to most answers this is qualified by "In the Sage's opinion" and "seems permissible". So even that guy, who to my knowledge was not one of the writers for the rulebook, is not sure.

Adding official, game rule to FAQ does not make that term a rule any more than adding car to the term key would make such a construct a car. Those words are an adjective and noun adjuncts to FAQ and key. While they describe FAQ and chain and differentiate them from other FAQs/keys they do not change the fact that the term is a FAQ/key. A FAQ is a publication talking about a subject (D&D game rules in this case) but not the subject itself. That this publication is issued by the same entity (WotC) as the subject (D&D game rules) doesn't change that either.

BTW I don't disagree that an unarmed strike should be allowed to be used as both weapons in TWF, I only disagree that the rules allow it.

[SangoProduction]

Well, this got off topic quick. Let's get back to the OP's request.

[CIDE]

You cannot easily out-monk a well-optimized Monk with other non-ToB martials. Presumably your GM has no idea about optimization in general, so you will likely be fine with a non-ToB martial (as far as the lowly standards of your GM go); but honestly it's far better to go tier 1 to drive your point.

He's not unaware of how powerful the T1 classes are. Maybe ignorant of some of the best tricks but he does at least realize that they are at the top. The Druid especially in his mind. I'm not sure after rethinking it that building a Wizard/Cleric/etc to out-monk the monk class would actually mean anything. As much fun as it would be to include "fist" into my list of spells known.

[IZ42]

Well, this got off topic quick. Let's get back to the OP's request.

But someone is wrong on the Internet! (https://xkcd.com/386/)

[SangoProduction]

But someone is wrong on the Internet! (https://xkcd.com/386/)

lol. I loved that web comic so much.

[Brookshw]

Well, this got off topic quick.

I'm pretty sure that's an unofficial slogan round these parts :smallwink:




This does not sound definitive at all. Contrary to most answers this is qualified by "In the Sage's opinion" and "seems permissible". So even that guy, who to my knowledge was not one of the writers for the rulebook, is not sure. I can't speak to this particular part of the publishing industry but not being one of the original authors and still providing content is par for the course in general, content created by contributors, supplements created by subcontracted vendors, ghost writers, various layers of editors, sometimes simply that guy on the email chain who comments "how about X wording" when something's under discussion. Not really sure why it would matter even if it wasn't standard in publishing unless WoTC has some rule saying only the original author can create, clarify, elaborate, or comment on the content. And the parts quoted from the FAQ aren't saying "we don't know and aren't sure", looks to be saying that according to their review it's acceptable, that's pretty straight forward.


@Brookshw: where is the rule that a creature has more than one unarmed strike? By definition the Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon (with additional rules, that differentiate it from other natural weapons) You get iterative attacks with an unarmed strike, but I can find no rule saying that a creature with BAB 6 or more has more than one Unarmed Strike.

Yeah, like I said, hot mess. Sure, natural weapons,..... and manufactured weapons,..... and simple weapons, and break the rules of all of them on a regular basis. Without getting to deep into it, we have parenthetical examples of various types of unarmed strikes in iirc the monk section, for example "A monk’s attacks may be with either fist", we know that unarmed strikes fit in both a main hand and offhand slot so the criteria is met as we've now established the monk is armed with two unarmed strikes.

A better counter argument is to look at two weapon defense which specifies you don't qualify for it with just unarmed strikes (differentiated from natural weapons incidentally). However the two weapon fighting section and feats make no mention of the disqualification so in accordance with the rule structures it's more likely that the verbiage in two weapon defense is creating a specific exception outside of the standard two weapon rules for unarmed strike.

Alternatively, as we discussed and seemed to be in agreement on, if the FAQ isn't directly contradicting a rule we can assume it, the FAQ, is valid. In this case it's telling us that unarmed strikes can be used for two weapon fighting. Until we find that this rule it's provided is actually in conflict with a primary rule then, really, the problems solved. One part I wonder about down this road is the FAQs capacity to create specific exceptions to a more general rule, since secondary sources are readily recognized for their capacity to make these specific exceptions (and generally don't bother to specify when they're actually making the exception).

Aside, I used to have the same opinion you did, that unarmed strikes don't qualify for twf and I do get why that seems to be appropriate. I'm no longer convinced that sufficiently holds up but will gladly admit I could be wrong.

[Username.]

Get yourself a Scorpion Kama (which has damage equal to your unarmed strike) or a ward cestus (ditto) and you enable two-weapon fighting, sidestepping the debate. (Personally, I'd much rather have such a debate hashed out at my table, but that isn't always practical.)

Just to drive home just how nutty full-casters are, keep in mind that full casters don't have to bother with any of that mess. If you like, you can prestige into enlightened fist and play at being a monk with few costs (other than being human to handle feat costs), but unlike the fighter discussion above, there really isn't any doubt that a wizard doesn't need an unarmed progression to melt your face.

Y'know what, screw enlightened fist. That was bad advice on my part. You should early-entry into Anima Mage (which costs you NO LEVELS -- compare to losing a level to get into the warlock-wizard PrC). That gives you metamagic that is legitimately high-op -- as in, an Incantrix build could look at that and say, "Yeah, I could use some of that" -- and it gives it to you front-loaded. While you're a binder, you can grab Ronove and get scaling monk damage. So you're a wizard/binder with half of the goodies monk has. Then, as you go up in levels, you can bind stuff that's far better than what monk gets. I can't stress this enough: you lost no levels to get this. Your BAB is crap, but you can get 3/4 BAB with a weapon enhancement on the Necklace of Natural Attacks or Scorpion Kama or Ward Cestus or all of the above combined with various enhancements. And you have a vestige with infinite summons. And vestiges that grant teleportation. And grappling abilities. And invisibility. And --

I'll stop there. You get the idea. The downside is that Anima Mage is Tome of Magic, not core -- but then again, your DM is not forbidding non-core, he's forbidding ToB precisely because it helps non-casters. So you might be good to go there.

[Mato]

One part I wonder about down this road is the FAQs capacity to create specific exceptions to a more general rule, since secondary sources are readily recognized for their capacity to make these specific exceptions (and generally don't bother to specify when they're actually making the exception).And you'd be right.

Basically rule A does X.
Another rule says that when A interacts with B it does Y.
So whenever A interacts with B the is the specific rule.
By RAW it's impossible for the FAQ to be wrong on anything and everything else is just opinion on how you may think things should be adjudicated in contrary to how you're told to do it.



Let's take a very quick tour of the rules.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and 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. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:

If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table 8–10: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.Here we establish two things in the rule structure. If you wield a second weapon you can TWF and an unarmed strike is treated as a light-weapon which is included in the possibilities of your off-hand weapons. In other words the rules already allow you to TWF with unarmed strikes.

Now you cut over to the monk's unarmed strike. The entry does not contain the necessary text to be an exception and it doesn't specifically address TWF rules either by RAW. You can quote the "no offhand strike" out of context and interpret something that appears contradictory. But in context the section is about a monk applying his full strength bonus even if he's carrying a torch in his main, or even off, hand. But what you fundamentally have here is a debate based on intent of the words; "no offhand strike" in context (RAI) or out of context (myth) and how to quantify it.

Now to clear up ambiguity in that line being quoted out of context even through the base rules already allow you to do so the FAQ issued this statement a decade ago.

The description of the flurry of blows ability says there’s no such thing as a monk attacking with an off-hand weapon during a flurry of blows. What does that mean, exactly? Can the monk make off-hand attacks in addition to flurry attacks?
Actually, the text to which you refer appears in the entry for unarmed strikes. When a monk uses her unarmed strike ability, she does not suffer any penalty for an off-hand attack, even when she has her hands full and attacks with her knees and elbows, using the flurry of blows ability to make extra attacks, or both.
The game rule entry reminds you that the section in question is talking about a monk that's holding (not wielding), objects in his or her hands. In other words, the FAQ is acknowledging RAW/RAI over myth.

The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike (although the exact wording of the unarmed strike ability suggests otherwise), and no compelling reason why a monk could not do so exists.
This section reminds you that the monk's unarmed strike rules don't actually prohibit it as I already mentioned. It lampshades how some of you are confused over how you're interpreting that it does, but since rules already allow it so the FAQ's author is looking for a reason it shouldn't and there isn't one.

When using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, the monk suffers all the usual attack penalties from two-weapon fighting (see Table 8–10 in the PH) and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits.
This section also seems to disagree with that 'no off-hand attacks' until you realize what's going on here. Since the monk's unarmed strike doesn't address TWF when monk chooses to employ the TWF mechanics the TWF mechanics are the most specific rules applied, so the contradiction is handled exactly how it's supposed to.

Example text removed.
And there you go. RAW you can, RAI you can, FAQ you can, rules of the game you can, and now maybe you understand why they say you can. And maybe your interpretation that's based on misunderstanding the entry and discussing one sentence ripped out from it's paragraph you can't, but that is what it is and what it is isn't what matters.

[Andezzar]

Nothing in the FAQ entry says or even insinuates that the unarmed strike can be considered as two separate weapons, which are necessary for TWF.

[Darrin]

Nothing in the FAQ entry says or even insinuates that the unarmed strike can be considered as two separate weapons, which are necessary for TWF.

This was my conclusion as well. The FAQ discusses monks using TWF in two places, but in each example, they are mixing manufactured weapons with unarmed strikes. On page 20, the FAQ says:

"If the monk in our example has two sais to use with the flurry, plus the off-hand attack, she can use both in the flurry (in which case she must make the off-hand attack with an unarmed strike) or one sai for the off-hand attack and one with the flurry. The sai used in the off-hand attack is not available for the flurry and vice versa."

In the next question, on the same page:

"Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks, each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to be with her off-hand weapon. [...] Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any weapons she carries in her primary hand."
(emphasis added)

So, yes, monks can mix TWF with flurry, but there is no example in the FAQ where both the primary and offhand weapons are unarmed strikes. The FAQ assumes that the monk is wielding a light weapon, presumably manufactured, such as a sai.

Actually, in that second section, it's not clear if "wielding a light weapon" must mean a manufactured light weapon. Use of the term "wielding" is suggestive, as the common dictionary definition suggests a handheld weapon or tool, but "wield" is never explicitly defined by the rules. Another common definition of "have and be able to use" would still cover unarmed strikes.

To sum up: the D&D FAQ is ambiguous about unarmed strikes being used as both the primary and offhand weapon. It doesn't explicitly forbid or allow it in a way that clearly conveys the designers' intent.

[Brookshw]

Nothing in the FAQ entry says or even insinuates that the unarmed strike can be considered as two separate weapons, which are necessary for TWF.

We need evidence all unarmed strikes collectively are a single weapon, which hasn't been proven. The first attempt at that proof didn't pan out, the second attempt is inconclusive at best given the inconsistent treatment of US. Even if that's proven it wouldn't be proof that a specific exception for US and TWF is somehow impossible. I'm not sure that could really be proven even if the first hurdle was overcome.

[Darrin]

We need evidence all unarmed strikes collectively are a single weapon, which hasn't been proven. The first attempt at that proof didn't pan out, the second attempt is inconclusive at best given the inconsistent treatment of US. Even if that's proven it wouldn't be proof that a specific exception for US and TWF is somehow impossible. I'm not sure that could really be proven even if the first hurdle was overcome.

It's still murky. And somewhat contradictory. For example, a Kensai imbuing his natural weapons has to treat his fists as two separate weapons, as per Complete Warrior p. 51:

"A kensai who imbues a particular type of natural weapon must imbue all his natural weapons of that type (so a human kensai with two fists must imbue both fists)."

It's not clear what happens when a Kensai wants to imbue his single unarmed strike that does not involve any fists, or what happens if a Kensai goes beyond his fists to imbue his elbows, knees, earlobes, eyelids, etc. This is the only example I'm aware of where what sounds like an unarmed strike is treated as multiple striking surfaces.

[Andezzar]

We need evidence all unarmed strikes collectively are a single weapon, which hasn't been proven. The first attempt at that proof didn't pan out, the second attempt is inconclusive at best given the inconsistent treatment of US.
Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell. Both of these say that the unarmed strike is one weapon. It would have interesting consequences if you considered the unarmed strike as several weapons. You would have to cast those spells an undefined number of times (as no rule says that it is one weapon per attack) for the character to get the benefit, making both spells effectively unable to enhance the unarmed strike. I doubt anyone does that.


Even if that's proven it wouldn't be proof that a specific exception for US and TWF is somehow impossible. I'm not sure that could really be proven even if the first hurdle was overcome.There could be a specific exception in a publication that has the authority to change rules, but this exception would have to be explicit. I have yet to read something along the lines of "you can use two unarmed strikes for TWF".

[Brookshw]

Both of these say that the unarmed strike is one weapon.
I see where you're coming from but it looks like it's saying the spells can/can't be used to enchant one weapon, not anything about all of those weapons being the same which makes sense, it would be a bit silly to enchant one longsword and have all longswords be affected. Or another example would be a creature with two claw attacks, you enchant one claw you don't get both, but that doesn't mean the creature only has one claw attack. Kinda consistent with Darrin's Kensai reference and fists being separate weapons.


It would have interesting consequences if you considered the unarmed strike as several weapons. You would have to cast those spells an undefined number of times (as no rule says that it is one weapon per attack) for the character to get the benefit, making both spells effectively unable to enhance the unarmed strike. I doubt anyone does that. I don't know what the upper limit would be on the number of them that you could be said to have on you at once is, US being the hot mess that it is, but you're still limited by the number of attacks you could make so that's a bit of a plus. And why wouldn't you simply use the one's enchanted for your attacks? You could have twenty swords on your person but it's not like you need to enchant them all to use an enchanted one. As an aside the Amulet of Mighty Fists used a bit of good word choice by specifying the bonuses affect plural weapons though I don't think that has much relevance here.


There could be a specific exception in a publication that has the authority to change rules, but this exception would have to be explicit. I have yet to read something along the lines of "you can use two unarmed strikes for TWF". Well, yes, you did, but it's in the FAQ. But back to what I said before, most secondary sources don't bother to spell out when they're creating a specific exception to a rule so I don't see why this case should be different, and making a specific exception doesn't require the capacity to change rules, that the point really, you're making an exception but leaving the underlying rule intact.

I keep looking at page 20 of that doc actually and the line that stipulates "Making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks" but I'm not convinced that has any bearing outside of it's context.

Kinda wish I had a copy of Sword and Fist handy, wonder if that has anything relevant to the discussion.

[Andezzar]

I see where you're coming from but it looks like it's saying the spells can/can't be used to enchant one weapon, not anything about all of those weapons being the same which makes sense, it would be a bit silly to enchant one longsword and have all longswords be affected. Or another example would be a creature with two claw attacks, you enchant one claw you don't get both, but that doesn't mean the creature only has one claw attack. Kinda consistent with Darrin's Kensai reference and fists being separate weapons. Contrary to a creature with two claws, the rules never say that a creature has more than one unarmed strike, regardless of how many attacks it can make with that weapon.
The Kensai rule effectively makes it impossible to get the kensai bonuses on an unarmed character, if you use the notion that the unarmed strike is more than one weapon, because you do not know how many weapons it counts as and you are required to augment all of them. It also violates the rule that an unarmed strike can be performed with any part of the body (by any character, not just monks). That rule comes from the primary source.



I don't know what the upper limit would be on the number of them that you could be said to have on you at once is, US being the hot mess that it is, but you're still limited by the number of attacks you could make so that's a bit of a plus. And why wouldn't you simply use the one's enchanted for your attacks? You could have twenty swords on your person but it's not like you need to enchant them all to use an enchanted one. As an aside the Amulet of Mighty Fists used a bit of good word choice by specifying the bonuses affect plural weapons though I don't think that has much relevance here.If you have one enchanted sword and one normal one you can choose which to use. You cannot choose which appendage to use with an unarmed strike. They all are the same attack.

The Amulet of Mighty fists gives a bonus on unarmed attacks, not just the unarmed strike. Unarmed attacks also include attacks with gauntlets and the touch attack during a trip attempt for example.


Well, yes, you did, but it's in the FAQ.Please rephrase that sentence, I don't understand it. I never claimed that any publication said you could use TWF with an unarmed strike alone. You can use the unarmed strike as primary or off-hand weapon in TWF but not as both.


But back to what I said before, most secondary sources don't bother to spell out when they're creating a specific exception to a rule so I don't see why this case should be different, and making a specific exception doesn't require the capacity to change rules, that the point really, you're making an exception but leaving the underlying rule intact.I'm not saying that a rule in a secondary source must be marked as an exceptiuon, but that the rule itself must be spelled out to exist. As I said before, to my knowledge no publication says that you can use TWF with an unarmed strike alone.

[Brookshw]

I can reply to the your response when I get back to a computer if you'd like but I kinda get the feel we're just going to spiral into a fundamental difference of opinion on how to read the things from here on out. Is this conversation feeling constructive for you?

[Mato]

As I said before, to my knowledge no publication says that you can use TWF with an unarmed strike alone.
Can you use the two-weapon fighting rules to make an extra unarmed attack if your first attack was also an unarmed attack?
In the guy who did the entire PHB revision to 3.5 on his own's opinion, yes. Unarmed attacks are described as using any part of your body to attack in several places, so using two parts of your body to attack, like both hands, seems permissible.And we've come full circle back to someone complains about the FAQ not being a publication in order to avoid admitting they were wrong.


I can reply to the your response when I get back to a computer if you'd like but I kinda get the feel we're just going to spiral into a fundamental difference of opinion on how to read the things from here on out. Is this conversation feeling constructive for you?For what it's worth, not at all to me.

[Andezzar]

First Unarmed Attack =/= Unarmed Strike. So the FAQ may or may not even be applicable to the situation we are talking about. A character with two gauntlets can use TWF and all his attacks are unarmed attacks, whether he uses TWF or not.

Secondly from what the guy wrote I assume he meant the Unarmed Strike and not unarmed attacks in general, because not all of the latter can be performed with any part of the body (the whole argument why it seems permissible), which in turn shows us that he does not really know what he is talking about, even though you claim he did the 3.5 revision himself. I cannot find anyone called Sage in the list of authors of the PHB.

Thirdly that bit only claims that using two unarmed attacks with TWF seems (not actually is) permissible. On top of that he says it is his opinion, not that it is in any way backed up by rules.

As I said before, the distinction between a non existent rule and an existing rule that cannot ever be applied due to other rules, is a pointless one.

I have quoted more than one passage from the PHB (the primary source for playing the game) that support the Unarmed Strike being one weapon. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

[Psyren]

I have to agree that "seems permissible" and "opinion" are pretty weaksauce statements to use in a ruling. Rulings should be authoritative, and that FAQ is anything but.

But that's what happens when the designers can only speak for themselves and not as a cohesive unit.

[Andezzar]

I have to agree that "seems permissible" and "opinion" are pretty weaksauce statements to use in a ruling. Rulings should be authoritative, and that FAQ is anything but.Other statements in that document sound a lot more assertive.


But that's what happens when the designers can only speak for themselves and not as a cohesive unit.When they speak with an authoritative voice, it is called an erratum

[Brookshw]

I have to agree that "seems permissible" and "opinion" are pretty weaksauce statements to use in a ruling. Rulings should be authoritative, and that FAQ is anything but.

But that's what happens when the designers can only speak for themselves and not as a cohesive unit.

An affirmative response is an affirmative response no matter how you slice it. When its an affirmative response vs. No rule or at best murky rules I think its a clear winner. I don't see sufficient evidence anywhere that's been brought up that proves it would be discounted under the guise of primacy but this is probably indeed an agree to disagree situation.

[Psyren]

An affirmative response is an affirmative response no matter how you slice it. When its an affirmative response vs. No rule or at best murky rules I think its a clear winner. I don't see sufficient evidence anywhere that's been brought up that proves it would be discounted under the guise of primacy but this is probably indeed an agree to disagree situation.

I'm not doubting its affirmation, I'm doubting its authority. It's like a judge saying "meh, I guess" when rendering a verdict - he's just begging to be reversed on appeal.

(I mean, not that I care either way, since Pathfinder settled this pretty definitively.)

[Brookshw]

I'm not doubting its affirmation, I'm doubting its authority. It's like a judge saying "meh, I guess" when rendering a verdict - he's just begging to be reversed on appeal.

(I mean, not that I care either way, since Pathfinder settled this pretty definitively.)

I hope that you're getting as much of a chuckle as I am that the current point under discussion is "well I don't like its tone". I can respect what you're saying, but taking a step back and looking at it, this is kind of funny.

[Psyren]

I hope that you're getting as much of a chuckle as I am that the current point under discussion is "well I don't like its tone". I can respect what you're saying, but taking a step back and looking at it, this is kind of funny.

"Like" has little to do with it really. I'm as down with plain speak from designers as anyone, but if you're going to make a ruling, being wishy-washy about it is not going to solve any arguments - as we are pretty clearly seeing right here.

Put another way - the whole point of FAQ is to resolve an ambiguity. If the resolution is itself ambiguous rather than definitive, what has been resolved?

[Brookshw]

. If the resolution is itself ambiguous


I'm not doubting its affirmation

These seem a bit contradictory :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

These seem a bit contradictory :smallconfused:

Assertion then, rather than affirmation - I know what he seems to want to say, but he himself has relegated it to the land of opinions and supposition rather than rulings.

[Brookshw]

Assertion then, rather than affirmation - I know what he seems to want to say, but he himself has relegated it to the land of opinions and supposition rather than rulings.

Kinda like how justices write judicial/legal opinions to go along with a ruling, which in this case was unambiguously "yes". Strikes me as a bit strange to hold the FAQ to a higher standard than the judicial system. Choosing to toss something out because of its tone is arbitrary. Assuming of course that we're viewing this as a ruling.

Eh, I feel like we've run out of road on this.

[Andezzar]

Actually it is not an unambiguous yes, but "The rules don't say so, but I can find no reason why not." Also judicial opinions are not binding unless they conform to the ruling. The minority opinion of a few SCOTUS justices for example is not law.

[Brookshw]

Actually it is not an unambiguous yes,



Can you use the two-weapon fighting rules to make an extra unarmed attack if your first attack was also an unarmed attack?
In the guy who did the entire PHB revision to 3.5 on his own's opinion, yes
Bolded, underlined, and italicized for emphasis. That's a "yes".


Also judicial opinions are not binding unless they conform to the ruling. The minority opinion of a few SCOTUS justices for example is not law. If we had a panel of opinions from WoTC that might be one thing, but we don't, we just have the one opinion, from the guy who wrote the thing. Call it a single judge ruling as most cases are.

One of the funniest line's I've ever seen in an opinion was
The court [...] is thankful that the parties did not ask the court to compare The Sound and the Fury with Sharknado
Wish they all could be as entertaining, probably the only opinion I've read that had me laugh out loud at a few points.

[Psyren]

Kinda like how justices write judicial/legal opinions to go along with a ruling, which in this case was unambiguously "yes". Strikes me as a bit strange to hold the FAQ to a higher standard than the judicial system. Choosing to toss something out because of its tone is arbitrary. Assuming of course that we're viewing this as a ruling.

A legal opinion is not at all the same as the kind of opinion being written here. Judges cite precedent, interpret the text, even consider its intent - there's nothing here but a glorified shrug.


Eh, I feel like we've run out of road on this.

If WotC wants to fix it and stop these arguments forever, they have all the tools they need to do so. If they choose not to use any of them that's their problem.

[Brookshw]

A legal opinion is not at all the same as the kind of opinion being written here. Judges cite precedent, interpret the text, even consider its intent - there's nothing here but a glorified shrug.


. It's like a judge saying "meh, I guess" when rendering a verdict You were satisfied with legal analogies before :smallconfused:


If WotC wants to fix it and stop these arguments forever, they have all the tools they need to do so. If they choose not to use any of them that's their problem.
Pretty sure they fixed it when they said "Yes".

[Psyren]

You were satisfied with legal analogies before :smallconfused:

Did you read that quote? I was saying judges don't do that.


Pretty sure they fixed it when they said "Yes".

If "seems permissible" and "imo" were good fixes this thread wouldn't exist.

[Andezzar]

Pretty sure they fixed it when they said "Yes".No they didn't fix it. One writer wrote in a document, which has no authority to change rules, "meh, I guess", as Psyren put it. That is quite a ways from fixing anything.

To be honest I don't care if the unarmed strike is one or a specified number of weapons, but it needs to be consistent. Right now we have no definitive rule that the unarmed strike is more than one weapon. More importantly we are not given a rule how many weapons an unarmed strike is. If we assume that an unarmed strike is not one weapon but several, a lot more things stop working than not being allowed to use TWF with an unarmed strike alone e.g. a kensai cannot imbue his unarmed strike, because we do not know as how many weapons it counts and the rules clearly state that the kensai must imbue all of them. Also what happens if a character receives a magic fang spell? It only applies to one natural weapon. Can such a character just use that one virtual weapon without any drawbacks?

[Brookshw]

Did you read that quote? I was saying judges don't do that. alright, I'll give you that its was a poor comment on my part. Instead ill go with a) a judge rendering a verdict of "yes" is not giving some willynilly verdict, b) what you're doing is applying a double standard for rules presentation where some need to spell out why they work the way they do and others don't, assuming that you think fireballs explanation for why it caps at 10d6 is sufficient on its own without refering to the spell construction logic in the DMG.


If "seems permissible" and "imo" were good fixes this thread wouldn't exist. I'm going to side with Mato on this one, yes means yes, you need to decide to construe "seems permissible" into its weakest possible interpretation to get to where you're going and basically take "yes" to be "maybe, sure, why not". To tie it back to the verdict issue, a verdict is derived from the opinion.



No they didn't fix it. One writer wrote in a document, which has no authority to change rules, "meh, I guess", as Psyren put it. That is quite a ways from fixing anything. See above re: "meh". Did you want to revisit if its changing a rule? I believe where we left off you were explaining how the number of weapons were determined outside of the evidence you were saying was used to determine the number of weapons. Seemed oretty odd to me.


To be honest I don't care if the unarmed strike is one or a specified number of weapons, but it needs to be consistent. Right now we have no definitive rule that the unarmed strike is more than one weapon. More importantly we are not given a rule how many weapons an unarmed strike is. If we assume that an unarmed strike is not one weapon but several, a lot more things stop working than not being allowed to use TWF with an unarmed strike alone e.g. a kensai cannot imbue his unarmed strike, because we do not know as how many weapons it counts and the rules clearly state that the kensai must imbue all of them. Also what happens if a character receives a magic fang spell? It only applies to one natural weapon. Can such a character just use that one virtual weapon without any drawbacks? Agreed consistency is important though the Kensai issue is ultimately a separate question and more muddy waters, what with two fists (why both if its all one?). Two problems here though, if we look at the outcomes and start saying one outcome us undesirable and using that to decide how to analyze things we're doing a pretty substantial disservice to logical analysis. The other problem is that its a nitch case and other niche cases likewise become problems, such as there's a poorly edited creature in, I want to say mm2 or ff that can disarm an unarmed strike. Wrapping your head around that is hard enough as is though I can see flirting it as a dislocation or something, having it disarm your whole body is much harder to resolve.

If we're continuing this I owe you a few more responses but have to run atm.

[Andezzar]

I believe where we left off you were explaining how the number of weapons were determined outside of the evidence you were saying was used to determine the number of weapons. Seemed oretty odd to me.Please rephrase that part. I don't understand what you are trying to say. I said that there is evidence that the unarmed strike is one weapon. The example, not the rule itself (and we all know how good WotC is with examples), in the imbue weapon class feature of the Kensai claims that the unarmed strike is more than one weapon, but erroneously restricts the unarmed strike to two fists. So this either is a false example that is to be ignored or it is a rule, that makes the kensai unable to imbue his unarmed strike, because it cannot overwrite the rule that an unarmed strike can be performed with any part of the character's body nor does it waive the requirement to imbue all natural weapons.

I'm still waiting for evidence that a rule states that the unarmed strike is a specific number of weapons greater than one.


Agreed consistency is important though the Kensai issue is ultimately a separate question and more muddy waters, what with two fists (why both if its all one?). Two problems here though, if we look at the outcomes and start saying one outcome us undesirable and using that to decide how to analyze things we're doing a pretty substantial disservice to logical analysis.I agree. I already wrote my logical analysis and then went with the assumption that the unarmed strike were more than one weapon and came to more logical conclusions under that assumption which lead to more dysfunctional rules. On the other hand with the unarmed strike being only one weapon you only have the (possibly undesired but) perfectly functional situation that you cannot use TWF with an unarmed strike alone.


The other problem is that its a nitch case and other niche cases likewise become problems, such as there's a poorly edited creature in, I want to say mm2 or ff that can disarm an unarmed strike. Wrapping your head around that is hard enough as is though I can see flirting it as a dislocation or something, having it disarm your whole body is much harder to resolve.I'm not familiar with that monster but to me the situation is no more silly with several weapons than with one. Whether the monster ends up with part of the character's body or all of it in hand does not make much of a difference.

[Brookshw]

Please rephrase that part. Sure. We stared off using Magic Fang/Weapon as the argument for US being one weapon. I pointed out that MF/W specify only that they affect one weapon rather than a collective of weapons, and citing claws and longswords for examples of how we can tell MF/W doesn't establish that the target weapon(s) collectively are a single weapons. You pointed out that the books tell us in other places that these things aren't single weapons, establishing precedence that the rules for the number of weapons exist outside of MF/W, so MF/W is irrelevant as it only has verbiage regarding affecting a single weapon while saying nothing about how many weapons may exist within, I don't know what word we should use here, groups? types?, but we also know we can't find the number of weapons inside of MF/W so there's no point in looking there. Sorry, it was hard to type all that from my phone but I'm at a computer for a few minutes so figured I'd elaborate.



I said that there is evidence that the unarmed strike is one weapon. The example, not the rule itself (and we all know how good WotC is with examples), in the imbue weapon class feature of the Kensai claims that the unarmed strike is more than one weapon, but erroneously restricts the unarmed strike to two fists. So this either is a false example that is to be ignored or it is a rule, that makes the kensai unable to imbue his unarmed strike, because it cannot overwrite the rule that an unarmed strike can be performed with any part of the character's body nor does it waive the requirement to imbue all natural weapons. Yup, US is indeed a hot mess. Nitpick: US isn't explicitly a natural weapon, bugger's some kind of quantum weapons that's manufactured/natural.


I'm still waiting for evidence that a rule states that the unarmed strike is a specific number of weapons greater than one. I mostly agree with that except I'm also still looking for evidence that a rule states US is only one weapon. If we had something on either side we'd be squared away here, what we have instead is a rule that says they can be used for twf.


I agree. I already wrote my logical analysis and then went with the assumption that the unarmed strike were more than one weapon and came to more logical conclusions under that assumption which lead to more dysfunctional rules. On the other hand with the unarmed strike being only one weapon you only have the (possibly undesired but) perfectly functional situation that you cannot use TWF with an unarmed strike alone. Glad we're agreed then on that much, even if we disagree on how to consider the analysis.

[Mato]

I agree. I already wrote my logical analysis and then went with the assumption that the unarmed strike were more than one weapon and came to more logical conclusions under that assumption which lead to more dysfunctional rules.I don't recall that.

You did complain about having to use magic weapon/fang more than once to enhance different unarmed strikes, but that's not a rules dysfunction. Like it doesn't matter if your chin is +1, an elbow is +2, and a knee is +5. Just because you have multiple weapons doesn't mean you can inherently attack with them at once, unarmed strike uses manufactured weapon's iterative attacks (bab/twf) not natural weapon's primary/secondary. And even if you rotted around to find some type of ability that lets you attack once for every weapon you own, how is that any different than someone using warshaper to argue natural weapons are dysfunctional?

Also you continually complained unarmed strike =/= unarmed attack.

Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably to describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked.But the two terms can in fact mean the same thing. And you have been trying to use the monk's class feature, which allows headbutts and such, as the actual unarmed strike entry. So a "=/=" to you.

You were also quick to dip into rules that are not at all connected to defining what unarmed strike is to claim it's singular. But at the same time you are ignoring dozens of similarly dissociated rule entries that treat it as a multiple. Such as improved ki strike says, "Your unarmed strikes are treated as epic magic weapons". In other words, your multiple weapons are treated as these other multiple weapons.

[Andezzar]

I don't recall that.

You did complain about having to use magic weapon/fang more than once to enhance different unarmed strikes, but that's not a rules dysfunction. Like it doesn't matter if your chin is +1, an elbow is +2, and a knee is +5. Just because you have multiple weapons doesn't mean you can inherently attack with them at once, unarmed strike uses manufactured weapon's iterative attacks (bab/twf) not natural weapon's primary/secondary. And even if you rotted around to find some type of ability that lets you attack once for every weapon you own, how is that any different than someone using warshaper to argue natural weapons are dysfunctional?Then read my posts please:
If we assume that an unarmed strike is not one weapon but several, a lot more things stop working than not being allowed to use TWF with an unarmed strike alone e.g. a kensai cannot imbue his unarmed strike, because we do not know as how many weapons it counts and the rules clearly state that the kensai must imbue all of them. Also what happens if a character receives a magic fang spell? It only applies to one natural weapon. Can such a character just use that one virtual weapon without any drawbacks?The problem is that no rule says a character has unarmed strike (left fist), unarmed strike (right fist), unarmed strike (left ellbow) etc. As such you cannot select unarmed strike (left fist) you can only select unarmed strike. How do you calculate an attack of an only partially enhanced unarmed strike? Which part of the unarmed strike is enhanced and which isn't?


Also you continually complained unarmed strike =/= unarmed attack.
But the two terms can in fact mean the same thing.The Rules of the Game articles are not an authoritative publication. They cannot change rules. Here, as in several other places, they are in conflict with the rules and thus to be ignored for discerning what the RAW are.


And you have been trying to use the monk's class feature, which allows headbutts and such, as the actual unarmed strike entry. So a "=/=" to you.While these options are also listed in the Monk class feature, they are available to all characters
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack.


You were also quick to dip into rules that are not at all connected to defining what unarmed strike is to claim it's singular. But at the same time you are ignoring dozens of similarly dissociated rule entries that treat it as a multiple. Such as improved ki strike says, "Your unarmed strikes are treated as epic magic weapons". In other words, your multiple weapons are treated as these other multiple weapons.I have not seen that feat before. That finally is a good argument for a character having more than one unarmed strike. But still how many? How is he hindered when one of them is removed? How does he benefit if only some of them are enhanced? Is he allowed to make all his attacks with only one of those multiple weapons? The rules answer none of these questions.

[Mato]

Then read my posts please:The problem is that no rule says a character has unarmed strike (left fist), unarmed strike (right fist), unarmed strike (left ellbow) etc. As such you cannot select unarmed strike (left fist) you can only select unarmed strike. How do you calculate an attack of an only partially enhanced unarmed strike? Which part of the unarmed strike is enhanced and which isn't?The problem is that no rule says a character has longsword (left edge), longsword (right edge), longsword (hilt) etc. As such you cannot select longsword (left edge) you can only select longsword. How do you calculate an attack of an only partially enhanced longsword? Which part of the longsword is enhanced and which isn't?
The above sarcasm works on natural weapons too, like it magic fang doesn't say bite or claw just natural weapons so how does that work?

Your reply is a red haring (only a distraction) based on the homunculus fallacy (unassociated middleman, in this case how magic fang/weapon chooses to work) and the nirvana fallacy (answers must be perfect or not accepted).


The Rules of the Game articles are not an authoritative publication. They cannot change rules.Proof by assertion is also a logical fallacy.


Here, as in several other places, they are in conflict with the rules and thus to be ignored for discerning what the RAW are.Affirming the consequent is a fallacy too, just because one statement disagrees with RAW doesn't mean they all are wrong. Also dinging you with false attribution since you can't prove that claim.

RAW stands for rules as written, game rules are very much a part of those. Please stop using the terminology to mean something else.


I have not seen that feat before. That finally is a good argument for a character having more than one unarmed strike. But still how many? How is he hindered when one of them is removed? How does he benefit if only some of them are enhanced? Is he allowed to make all his attacks with only one of those multiple weapons? The rules answer none of these questions.So this entire thing is about your argument from ignorance, that's a logical fallacy too.

btw, "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)" appears right in the monk entry. You've seen it dozens of times by now and it doesn't say "a monk may attack only with unarmed strike or with special monk weapons" like you think it does.

Also shotgun argumentation, firing off rapid pointless questions in an attempt to overload someone, it's not a real point. And an etymological fallacy is where you think rules must meet your criteria of specific rather than it's own. But enough of that. Let's flip things.



Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack. While these options are also listed in the Monk class feature, they are available to all charactersAnd would you look at what it says.
* You can choose to punch someone.
* You can choose to kick someone.
* You can choose to head butt someone.
* You can even choose "other".
And they all are different types of an attack. you just claimed I couldn't choose them, but I can.

fyi, the term "unarmed strikes" is an umbrella, collecting several other types under it. And is predominately used throughout the rule structure alongside "natural weapons" and "manufactured weapons" which are also umbrella-type terms encompassing several other types of weapons. You should never have assumed it was some kind of exception.

[torrasque666]

Your reply is a red haring (only a distraction) based on the homunculus fallacy (unassociated middleman, in this case how magic fang/weapon chooses to work) and the nirvana fallacy (answers must be perfect or not accepted).

Proof by assertion is also a logical fallacy.

Affirming the consequent is a fallacy too, just because one statement disagrees with RAW doesn't mean they all are wrong. Also dinging you with false attribution since you can't prove that claim.

RAW stands for rules as written, game rules are very much a part of those. Please stop using the terminology to mean something else.

So this entire thing is about your argument from ignorance, that's a logical fallacy

Also shotgun argumentation, firing off rapid pointless questions in an attempt to overload someone, it's not a real point. And an etymological fallacy is where you think rules must meet your criteria of specific rather than it's own. But enough of that. Let's flip things



Only the guilty use fallacies!

[koboldwins]

If sword and fist book is allowed the prestige class called ninja of the crescent moon order would give sudden strike (sneak attack) as well as the ability to go invisable hit ghosts and become gas as gaseous form spell and it gets monk ac bonuse so you can add wis mod if you dont wear armor. Depending on how many levels you can take 10 there plus the number of levels of the class you take to qualify for the class. End after that use the complete adventure book and become a nightsong infiltrator/enforcer and give all allies within 30 feet of you sneak attack bonuses to sneak and find traps and grant allies move actions during your turn or use the enforcer and get bonuses to find your allies and other bonuses.

Also my DM told me about a weapon a while ago that monks can use and still be considered unarmed they are called butterfly daggers and you are still considered unarmed while attacking with them I don't know what book it is in because I ended up not playing a monk like I had planed

[Mato]

Only the guilty use fallacies!Heh, I get the blue text but saying that would a fallacy too :p

The post is primary meant to get him to reflect on his points and methods of debating, but how people treat RAW on here really is a little pet peeve of mine. :smallfrown:

@koboldwins, the invisible fist monk alternative class feature out of examplars of evil allows a monk to continually turn invisible throughout the day. You trade evasion in for it, but since you can buy evasion it's a pretty good deal to net at-will immediate action invisibly usable every couple of rounds. Both in combat and out.