Warpriest - Sacred Weapon and TWF, How do they interact?

[TheFamilarRaven]

Okay, so this thread was created because the discussion became too large for the Q&A Pathfinder thread. Below is the original question, and spoilered below are the responses so far from that thread.



Q 246a As a basic Warpriest (no archetypes), can you use Two Weapon Fighting with unarmed strikes. (Assuming he has Improved Unarmed strikes, TWF etc).

Q 246b If a warpriest can TWF with unarmed strikes, and Unarmed Strikes are his Sacred Weapon, when he uses his level 4 ability to enhance his sacred weapon (e.g his unarmed Strikes) does the benefit apply to just "main hand" unarmed strikes or to both "main hand" and "off hand" unarmed strikes?





A246b: Normally, IUS turns your whole body into a "weapon". Incidentally, that´s why a AoMF is more expensive than a regular weapon enhancement. Unlike Flurry of Blows, using regular TWF forces you to declare an abstract "main" and "off" "weapon", even if that is, using IUS, your body.
So while an AoMF would work, as does the basic damage dice increase from Sacred Weapon, you do have to allocate the enhancement bonus on your "main" or "off", no matter if it´s headbutt, fist or knee. (Had to edit this, my first version didn't´t bring the point across)




A246a: Yes, (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qie) you can TWF with Unarmed Strikes in PF. (You cannot however combine TWF and Flurry, if you are a Sacred Fist.)

A246b correction: You still only have one unarmed strike, you are simply allowed to TWF with it. You do not have to enhance it twice.



Psyren, small corrections.

You´re wrong with your judgement on 246B. The class feature is self-contained and by itself handles the difference between main and off. The "weapon" being the same, in this case IUS, doesn´t change it, as it wouldn't´t a double-sword.




For unarmed strike, I disagree with your ruling and your analogy. Double-weapons explicitly count as two separate weapons for enhancement purposes; unarmed strike does not. If you cast Magic Weapon on a Brawler, you would not have to cast it twice to enhance "both strikes" - you only need to cast it once.




As for the other point, I fear that you´re mixing general and specific on this one.
Yes, IUS makes the whole body count as "a/one weapon", making it the sole legal target for spells like "magic fang" or similar effects that target "one creature" or "one weapon" and yes, you´re pretty free to describe what part of the body you use as part of an attack.

But: If you do have specific natural attacks or if you use basic TWF, you must break that down into specific sub-sets of weapons, in the case of TWF it´s "Attack A" and "Attack B", even if you use the same "body". So an Inquisitor still must get the Double Bane feat to activate Bane for both sides of the TWF, and a Warpriest must activate Sacred Weapon twice, to affect both sides.



Looks like this might need a thread.

For the twf unarmed strike, raw is quite clear to me... Amulet of Mighty Fists applies to "unarmed strikes."
If you twf with unarmed strike, is the second offhand attack an unarmed strike? Yes. Therefore the amulet applies. It is unambiguous. Same with IUS.



You need a gm judgement call, then an ability can´t be resolved by RAW.

And please re-read the Warpriest issue. It is not about the AoMF, as that is unambiguous, it is about the weapon-enhancement feature of that class and how that interacts with TWF.



The "weapon" is unarmed strike, per the weapons table.

As mentioned, if you want to debate this further, make a thread and I'll be happy to head there.
.


I would like to, but I refrain from it so far. Reason is that I´m locked into using the mobile version of this site and can´t tag or using premade tags when starting a topic. You know what un-tagged threads will lead to.



Please note, that answers such as "Up to the GM", while possibly being a correct response, is not helpful. :smallbiggrin: I'm the GM in question, the player is currently trying to build a warpriest using TWF unarmed strikes. I like to keep things as close to RAW as reasonably possible in order to have a consistent game experience. So any input on the subject is greatly appreciated.

Some relevant links: Two Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/two-weapon-fighting-combat-final/), Improved Unarmed Strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-unarmed-strike-combat-final/) probably others I'm missing...

And the ability in question...



At 1st level, weapons wielded by a warpriest are charged with the power of his faith. In addition to the favored weapon of his deity, the warpriest can designate a weapon as a sacred weapon by selecting that weapon with the Weapon Focus feat; if he has multiple Weapon Focus feats, this ability applies to all of them. Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The damage for Medium warpriests is listed on Table 1–14; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon’s base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made. (If the weapon’s base damage exceeds the sacred weapon damage, its damage is unchanged.) This increase in damage does not affect any other aspect of the weapon, and doesn’t apply to alchemical items, bombs, or other weapons that only deal energy damage.

At 4th level, the warpriest gains the ability to enhance one of his sacred weapons with divine power as a swift action. This power grants the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus. For every 4 levels beyond 4th, this bonus increases by 1 (to a maximum of +5 at 20th level). If the warpriest has more than one sacred weapon, he can enhance another on the following round by using another swift action. The warpriest can use this ability a number of rounds per day equal to his warpriest level, but these rounds need not be consecutive.

These bonuses stack with any existing bonuses the weapon might have, to a maximum of +5. The warpriest can enhance a weapon with any of the following weapon special abilities: brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, frost, keen, and shock. In addition, if the warpriest is chaotic, he can add anarchic and vicious. If he is evil, he can add mighty cleaving and unholy. If he is good, he can add ghost touch and holy. If he is lawful, he can add axiomatic and merciful. If he is neutral (with no other alignment components), he can add spell storing and thundering. Adding any of these special abilities replaces an amount of bonus equal to the special ability’s base cost. Duplicate abilities do not stack. The weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus before any other special abilities can be added.

If multiple weapons are enhanced, each one consumes rounds of use individually. The enhancement bonus and special abilities are determined the first time the ability is used each day, and cannot be changed until the next day. These bonuses do not apply if another creature is wielding the weapon, but they continue to be in effect if the weapon otherwise leaves the warpriest’s possession (such as if the weapon is thrown). This ability can be ended as a free action at the start of the warpriest’s turn (that round does not count against the total duration, unless the ability is resumed during the same round). If the warpriest uses this ability on a double weapon, the effects apply to only one end of the weapon.

[exelsisxax]

There are two completely separate, clear questions here.

1: can you TWF unarmed?
2: Can a warpriest have unarmed strikes as sacred weapons?

The answer to 1 is yes. Any character that has TWF and can use it(i.e. two appropriate limbs) can TWF unarmed strikes, even without improved unarmed. This has nothing to do with warpriest.

The answer to #2 seems to me to be yes per RAW, as unarmed strikes are a listed weapon and AoMF benefits them. Sticking to that, all usable unarmed strikes would benefit from sacred weapon and its temporary enhancements from a single use of the ability.

[Psyren]

As I mentioned in that thread, every creature has a single unarmed strike, whether they TWF with it or not. If you cast Magic Weapon on a Brawler or Monk, all their attacks will be enhanced - you do not have to cast it twice. Compare that to if the the Brawler used TWF with any other pair of weapons or a double weapon, where you would need to enhance both individually.

[Krazzman]

I'll throw my opinion into this too. Considering that you can use the same Unarmed Strike in a flurry multiple times.

I think TWF has a more stricter reading than flurry BUT the main issue stems from how to enchant it and as the Warpriest could take Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and not WF (Fist/Kick) he defacto has only one available. He still needs to pick one that deals only half str damage until double slice but that's still better than sacred Fist as he can use armor.

[Necroticplague]

A. Yes. One of the responses links to the FAQ that says you can TWF unarmed strikes. It's kinda stupid (for reasons you'll see below), but them's the breaks
B.He'd have to select which one he wants to enhance.
TWF specifically says that

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
So, in order for the above mentioned FAQ to be correct, you must have two different unarmed strikes. Sacred Weapon can only enhance a weapon, singular. So you'd need to use it twice to enhance both of your unarmed strikes. Just like how you'd need to use it twice if you wield two identical daggers, you'd need to enhance each separately to enhance each of your identical unarmed strikes.

[Psyren]

It's kinda stupid (for reasons you'll see below), but them's the breaks

If you intentionally read something in a stupid way, then of course it's going to seem stupid. The FAQ that lets you TWF with Unarmed Strike simply means that Unarmed Strike is an exception to the normal rule that you need two different weapons to TWF.

EDIT: On reread this came out harsher than I intended. My point was not to call names, but simply to uphold the tenet contained in my sig - if reading something a specific way doesn't make sense and you can easily read it in a different way that does, why not just do that?

[Florian]

"Sacred Weapon" has two functions, one passive and one active. That the passive function normally affect IUS and any subsequently created additional attack types using IUS stands to reason, no need to argue about that.

The active function of "Sacred Weapon" need you to target a specific weapon and if you have two of those, even when both are affected by the passive function, you need to wait for your next round and activate the active function again on the second weapon.

So there´s no difference between using "Sacred Weapon" on IUS when using TWF, or on Katanas when using TWF, the passive version is active, the active version has to be done twice.

[Psyren]

There's another FAQ you're both forgetting:

"A creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes." (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qd3)

Unless you somehow have two bodies, you don't have two unarmed strikes.

[Necroticplague]

There's another FAQ you're both forgetting:

"A creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes." (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qd3)

Unless you somehow have two bodies, you don't have two unarmed strikes.

Then how are you TWFing with your second unarmed strike if you only have one?


If you intentionally read something in a stupid way, then of course it's going to seem stupid. The FAQ that lets you TWF with Unarmed Strike simply means that Unarmed Strike is an exception to the normal rule that you need two different weapons to TWF.

EDIT: On reread this came out harsher than I intended. My point was not to call names, but simply to uphold the tenet contained in my sig - if reading something a specific way doesn't make sense and you can easily read it in a different way that does, why not just do that?
In following with your sig, I'm not making any assumptions. You're the one creating the unsupported assumption that Unarmed strikes are some kind of weird exception to TWF rules, despite this never being explicitely said. I'm assuming that they're following the rules. Which means you need two.

[Psyren]

Then how are you TWFing with your second unarmed strike if you only have one?

There is no "second unarmed strike." You're simply allowed to TWF with the one. I don't care how and neither should you.



You're the one creating the unsupported assumption that Unarmed strikes are some kind of weird exception to TWF rules

I have posted numerous pieces of support for this actually.

1) The FAQ says (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qd3) your entire body is your unarmed strike (singular), and the FAQ also says (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qie) you can TWF with it in spite of that.
2) Magic Weapon (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/magic-weapon)/Fang (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/magic-fang) cast on an unarmed strike user needs only to be cast once. Similarly, item-based enhancements like AoMF need only be applied once. If it were two weapons as you claim, you would need to apply these twice.
3) The weapons table (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/) and the Unarmed Strike entry (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/strike-unarmed) contains no subdivisions of unarmed strike. There are no entries for fists, kicks, headbutts, elbows, or knees - they're all collectively one weapon per the rules.

Yours is the position with no support - save wishful thinking, or perhaps some confusion with 3.5's much more ambiguous treatment of the issue. But this is Pathfinder.

[Necroticplague]

Yours is the position with no support - save wishful thinking, or perhaps some confusion with 3.5's much more ambiguous treatment of the issue. But this is Pathfinder.It can't really be wishful thinking when I'd much rather you be right. I'd like for unarmed strikes to have something unique enough about them to make them useful above other options in some scenarios (and 'paying for enchantments/boosts once, while still getting TWF benefits', would be one. I just don't think they are, looking at things.


3) The weapons table (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/) and the Unarmed Strike entry (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/strike-unarmed) contains no subdivisions of unarmed strike. There are no entries for fists, kicks, headbutts, elbows, or knees - they're all collectively one weapon per the rules.
And? I never said that your two unarmed attacks were some kinds of subdivisions. Both of them are abstract attacks you can make with any part of your body.


1) The FAQ says (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qd3) your entire body is your unarmed strike (singular), and the FAQ also says (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qie) you can TWF with it in spite of that.
1. Actually, it says that your unarmed strike is your entire body, not the other way around. This doesn't seem contradictory to the idea you could have two of them. Both unarmed strikes are your whole body.
2. It doesn't say you can TWF with it despite it only being one weapon. It says you can TWF with it. This, again, doesn't contradict having two.


2) Magic Weapon (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/magic-weapon)/Fang (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/magic-fang) cast on an unarmed strike user needs only to be cast once. Similarly, item-based enhancements like AoMF need only be applied once. If it were two weapons as you claim, you would need to apply these twice.
1. Claiming that you only need Magic Weapon/Fang once is begging the question, since it starts from your conclusion to get to your conclusion.
2. AoMF affects all natural attacks and unarmed strikes, so it would apply to both UAS, regardless of how many you have.
3. Magic fang is explicitely called out in the FAQ as affecting all unarmed strikes,plural. This actually shows that you can have multiple unarmed attacks.


This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
So, at least for magic fang, they do get a discount package deal when enhancing it.

Although, being consistent with that FAQ would make the answer 'it doesn't matter'. If anything that enhances the first one also enhances the second (extrapolating outwards from 'or similar'), then whether it's actually two weapons that both get boosted together, or one weapon that can be used like two for TWF, is ultimately meaningless pedantry.

It also shows that I was wrong on my face value: either way, regardless of one or two weapon status, the Sacred Weapon enhancement applies to both UAS.

[Psyren]

I just don't think they are, looking at things.

Which brings me back to "if you look at it in a nonsensical way..." A way that the designers have clearly debunked, no less.



And? I never said that your two unarmed attacks were some kinds of subdivisions. Both of them are abstract attacks you can make with any part of your body.

You're mistaking attack and weapon. It's two attacks, but still one weapon.



1. Actually, it says that your unarmed strike is your entire body, not the other way around. This doesn't seem contradictory to the idea you could have two of them. Both unarmed strikes are your whole body.

Except it doesn't say anywhere that "strikes are your body" - only you are saying that. The FAQ entry clearly says one strike and one body. One weapon that is capable of multiple attacks, including an extra attack when combined with the TWF feat (as though it were two weapons.)


2. It doesn't say you can TWF with it despite it only being one weapon. It says you can TWF with it. This, again, doesn't contradict having two.

That's why you read both FAQs together.



Although, being consistent with that FAQ would make the answer 'it doesn't matter'. If anything that enhances the first one also enhances the second (extrapolating outwards from 'or similar'), then whether it's actually two weapons that both get boosted together, or one weapon that can be used like two for TWF, is ultimately meaningless pedantry.

It also shows that I was wrong on my face value: either way, regardless of one or two weapon status, the Sacred Weapon enhancement applies to both UAS.

If that helps you get there then fine, I'll take it.

[Necroticplague]

Except it doesn't say anywhere that "strikes are your body" - only you are saying that. The FAQ entry clearly says one strike and one body. One weapon that is capable of multiple attacks, including an extra attack when combined with the TWF feat (as though it were two weapons.)
Saying 'that cat has four legs' doesn't imply that other cats can't have four legs. Similarly saying one unarmed strike is your whole body doesn't imply that another can't also be.

[Psyren]

Saying 'that cat has four legs' doesn't imply that other cats can't have four legs. Similarly saying one unarmed strike is your whole body doesn't imply that another can't also be.

Your analogy is flawed. One person can have multiple cats. One person cannot have multiple bodies (Dvati aside.)

[Necroticplague]

Your analogy is flawed. One person can have multiple cats. One person cannot have multiple bodies (Dvati aside.)

How's it flawed? Saying something is true of one thing ("Your first unarmed attack is your whole body") doesn't make a similar statement about a second thing false just because they're similar ("Your second unarmed attack is your whole body")
I never said you had two bodies, just that both unarmed strikes can have the same 'whole body'.

[Florian]

@Psyren:

I begin to see at what point we´re talking by each other. I think you make the error of ignoring the specific over the general.

Naturally, there is only "one body". But from a rules perspective, that body can be separated into multiple individual parts that can be treated differently or as individual rules entities.

A creature with IUS and TWF (so: IUS (x2)) is no different than one with IUF and a Bite attack or one with Claw (x2).

These are now legal individual targets and still part of the "one body". That makes the difference in "one creature", "all natural attacks" or "one sacred weapon".

Edit: Contrast a 6 BAB Kitsune Monk to a 6 BAB Kitsune Warpriest: Monk IUS Flurry +6/+6/+1/+1 and +1 Bite, Warpriest +6/+1 IUS and +6 IUS and +1 Bite.

For the Warpriest, IUS is broken down into IUS Main and IUS Off, while the Monk keeps it as one single weapon, IUS FoB.

[Psyren]

How's it flawed? Saying something is true of one thing ("Your first unarmed attack is your whole body") doesn't make a similar statement about a second thing false just because they're similar ("Your second unarmed attack is your whole body")
I never said you had two bodies, just that both unarmed strikes can have the same 'whole body'.

You're still confusing the weapon with the attack. It's understandable because they have the same name, but the FAQ makes the distinction clear. Excerpt:

"This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes."

A creature has one weapon - unarmed strike - that is capable of multiple attacks - unarmed strikes. The former, the weapon, is what you enhance with spells and abilities, TWF with, etc. The latter is just how many attacks your one weapon can make. The FAQ explicitly states that enhancing the former once is therefore enough to ensure that all of the latter get that bonus.

If it's still not clear to you after that, I'll just stop there and use your own words:




Although, being consistent with that FAQ would make the answer 'it doesn't matter'. If anything that enhances the first one also enhances the second (extrapolating outwards from 'or similar'), then whether it's actually two weapons that both get boosted together, or one weapon that can be used like two for TWF, is ultimately meaningless pedantry.

It also shows that I was wrong on my face value: either way, regardless of one or two weapon status, the Sacred Weapon enhancement applies to both UAS.

If that helps you get there then fine, I'll take it.

As you yourself said, we agree with the overall ruling, and the rest of this debate is nothing but pedantry that we can simply differ on.

@ Florian: Bites are explicitly separate weapons than unarmed strikes so I'm not sure what your example is meant to accomplish. See above.

[Necroticplague]

You're still confusing the weapon with the attack. It's understandable because they have the same name, but the FAQ makes the distinction clear. Excerpt:

"This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes."

A creature has one weapon - unarmed strike - that is capable of multiple attacks - unarmed strikes. The former, the weapon, is what you enhance with spells and abilities, TWF with, etc. The latter is just how many attacks your one weapon can make. The FAQ explicitly states that enhancing the former once is therefore enough to ensure that all of the latter get that bonus.
Except the rules for unarmed combat disagree with saying that an attack with an unarmed strike is also called an unarmed strike.

Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as shed light (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Note that it consistently refers to the weapon as the unarmed strike (when it refers to it's nonlethal vs. lethal nature and damage it does), and the ensuing attack as an unarmed attack (for the rest of it). Thus, nothing but your wishful thinking would seem to indicate that the attack and the weapon are both unarmed strikes when the base rules for unarmed attacks differentiate between unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks (in that you make the latter using the former).


As you yourself said, we agree with the overall ruling, and the rest of this debate is nothing but pedantry that we can simply differ on.
Indeed. End result either way it that you only need one use of Sacred Weapon to boost both attacks, answering the OPs question. Doesn't mean there's no point to trying to figure out the nature of unarmed strikes through debate.

[Psyren]

Except the rules for unarmed combat disagree with saying that an attack with an unarmed strike is also called an unarmed strike.

That's not a disagreement. They simply use an umbrella term in the passage you quoted ("unarmed attacks") that includes both the unarmed strike weapon and natural weapons. Nothing in your quote contradicts the designers' FAQ that distinguishes between the US weapons and US attacks.


Doesn't mean there's no point to trying to figure out the nature of unarmed strikes through debate.

It's sure starting to seem pointless to me.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Okay, I hate to bring this up now. But I have another, somewhat related question.

Given that, yes you can use TWF with your unarmed strikes. Now, since IUS is flavored as not just using your hands, can you TWF with IUS while also wielding a shield? The reason I ask is because I'm looking over my player's character sheet, and while currently incomplete, I'm just REALLY scratching my head over some of these things.

My initial reaction to my question is "no". As I look at the Brawler class, it specifically says they can. Which mean it's a special feature for them rather than the rule.

Edit: Remember this character is a Warpriest with no archetypes added.

[Necroticplague]

Okay, I hate to bring this up now. But I have another, somewhat related question.

Given that, yes you can use TWF with your unarmed strikes. Now, since IUS is flavored as not just using your hands, can you TWF with IUS while also wielding a shield? The reason I ask is because I'm looking over my player's character sheet, and while currently incomplete, I'm just REALLY scratching my head over some of these things.

My initial reaction to my question is "no". As I look at the Brawler class, it specifically says they can. Which mean it's a special feature for them rather than the rule.

1. Not sure what text you're looking at for the brawler. CTRL-F'ing 'shield' only mentions them being proficient with shields, unless I'm missing something.
2. Yes. What you have in your hands is unrelated to your UAS.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a brawler gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A brawler may attack with fists, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a brawler may make unarmed strikes with her hands full. A brawler applies her full Strength modifier (not half ) on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.


And there is actually a similar text located in the Monk's class feature of the same name.


And since my player now has a level of Monk, my above question is pointless, (in regards to my player), but in general I think it holds true.

[Psyren]

The whole point of that FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qd3) was to let everybody, not just monks, unarmed strike with their entire body. So yes, provided you're not using your hands, you can unarmed strike with your hands full.

For non-monk/brawler/similar characters, actually doing so is usually a lot of trouble for little benefit, but it is possible for all.

[Florian]

Ah, I think I know where this is heading.

The rules consider a character with two arms and hands the norm and are written for that.
So normally, one of the two hands is blocked when using a Shield, so you´d either TWF using a shield bash or you use a buckler when using two distinct weapons.

This is why the FAQ explanation is singularly unhelpful. Yes, it tries to explain that you can use any part of the body, not only the fists (So a Fighter with a pole arm could use "kicks" against targets under his reach), but it doesn´t make it clear that you can´t override regular rules with it.

This can lead up to the arguments that you can TWF using IUS and still have an active shield, because you, well use "kick" or "knee" or something.

That again leads back to my prior point: You have to consider each character to have two "weapon slots" to equip, unless you have a race or class feature that let´s you override that, like the aforementioned "bite" that gives a third but fixed "slot".

Edit: What the FAQ tries to explain is that a "weapon slots" is not automatically a "hand" and that you can, similar to some games, have "item sets" to toggle between. So in case of the Fighter, it´s M and O: Glaive or M and/or O IUS. Monks have the special allowance to mix and match between using weapons and IUS during a Flurry.

That is why I wrote earlier that it should be treated like a double weapon. Basic Sacred Weapon affects both "ends" of it, but you have to activate Sacred Weapon twice to TWF with it. Same holds true for IUS, because what the FAQ tries to say is aimed at a totally different topic.

[Psyren]

That is why I wrote earlier that it should be treated like a double weapon. Basic Sacred Weapon affects both "ends" of it, but you have to activate Sacred Weapon twice to TWF with it. Same holds true for IUS, because what the FAQ tries to say is aimed at a totally different topic.

Why on earth would I do that? IUS doesn't have the "double" property, therefore it is not a double weapon.