Proof that you can off hand attack with unarmed strikes!

[SangoProduction]

Battle Dancer class (3.5)

The battle dancer's knowledge of martial arts allows her strikes to deal far more damage than an untrained person's blows.
Note that, unlike a monk, the battle dancer does not gain the ability to use a flurry of blows, but she can make an off hand attack as normal using a weapon or unarmed strike.

[Mike Miller]

Too bad you have to be a battledancer

[SangoProduction]

Too bad you have to be a battledancer

"As normal" implies (OK, explicitly states) that that's the normal state of things.

[SirNibbles]

"As normal" implies (OK, explicitly states) that that's the normal state of things.

So you're saying you can punch with your left hand and then your right hand, just like you can stab with your left hand and then your right hand if you have daggers?

That sounds too overpowered for monks, especially since they get a lot of class features, like slow fall and still mind.

[Falontani]

Does anything from flurry of blows specifically state you may not two weapon fight as well? Fob is already a -2 to hit, so adding in twf pushes that even further down, but it could be interesting.

Shuriken + FoB + rapid shot + gtwf + Palm throw = a lot of weak attacks

[Mike Miller]

"As normal" implies (OK, explicitly states) that that's the normal state of things.

"As normal using a weapon or unarmed strike" ... Why else would it be mentioned? Seems like a clear difference for the battle dancer being called out

[tedcahill2]

"As normal using a weapon or unarmed strike" ... Why else would it be mentioned? Seems like a clear difference for the battle dancer being called out

So you think the battle dancer is so much more advanced in their martial arts that of all the martial art themed classes they are the only ones that learned how to use their unarmed strike as an offhand attack?

[hamishspence]

Given that an unarmed strike is a light weapon normally - there is no obvious reason why a character with a free hand, could not use that as their "off-hand attack".

It's even mentioned under Two-Weapon Fighting:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting

Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way. 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.)



Monks, specifically, are different:



Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

[Mike Miller]

Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

That last bit is a reference to the fact that every part of the monk can be used as a lethal weapon. WotC was preventing monks from doing a flurry with extra offhand attacks a la TWF because they didn't gauge monks power level well. Also, they deny monk attacks ad light so that they may add full strength bonus.

[hamishspence]

Yup. But a fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting, can choose to count each fist (or a fist and a foot, or whatever) as their Unarmed Strike, and Two-Weapon Fight with them, with minimal penalties.

[Mike Miller]

So you think the battle dancer is so much more advanced in their martial arts that of all the martial art themed classes they are the only ones that learned how to use their unarmed strike as an offhand attack?

I didn't say that. WotC did...

@hamishspence: hurray for monks!

[hamishspence]

Dragon Magazine (July 2007)'s Monk Guide (page 92) says:

"A Monk may make a flurry of blows and an off-hand attack. Stack the penalties for two-weapon fighting with the penalties for flurry of blows. The flurry attacks still receive the monk's full strength bonus on damage rolls, but the off-hand attack receives only half her Strength bonus"


So, the flurry is effectively "the main hand" (even if it actually includes head-butts, foot kicks, etc).



It also takes the approach that a Monk is allowed to consider a Gauntlet an unarmed strike, and use one in a flurry of blows.

[MisterKaws]

Does anything from flurry of blows specifically state you may not two weapon fight as well? Fob is already a -2 to hit, so adding in twf pushes that even further down, but it could be interesting.

Shuriken + FoB + rapid shot + gtwf + Palm throw = a lot of weak attacks

I believe there's a line in the Monk's unarmed strike description that says "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack to a Monk".

[Andezzar]

Yup. But a fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting, can choose to count each fist (or a fist and a foot, or whatever) as their Unarmed Strike, and Two-Weapon Fight with them, with minimal penalties.No he cannot, just as a rogue with only one dagger cannot dual wield daggers even if he has a BAB of 6 or more. An unarmed strike is only one weapon, but you may get more than one attack with it.

Aforementioned rogue could however attack twice with the dagger and once with the unarmed strike or twice with the unarmed strike and once with the dagger. The penalties would be determined by the feats he has.

Just to lay the misconception to rest that only monks can use head butts, pelvic thrusts etc.:
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

[hamishspence]

No he cannot, just as a rogue with only one dagger cannot dual wield daggers even if he has a BAB of 6 or more. An unarmed strike is only one weapon, but you may get more than one attack with it.

Each fist is a separate unarmed striking surface. A monk has two fists. A rogue with a dagger in each fist, has two daggers. The only thing stopping the monk from using each, is low BAB.

If you had a high-level marilith monk, with a different metal gauntlet on each hand, fighting several different enemies with different vulnerabilities - they could pick which fist to hit which target with.



I believe there's a line in the Monk's unarmed strike description that says "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack to a Monk".

That's designed to avoid penalising the monk, to ensure all hits do full Strength damage.

Dragon Magazine makes it clear that a monk can off-hand attack anyway - but it must be done separately from the flurry, and gains the appropriate penalties.

[MisterKaws]

Each fist is a separate unarmed striking surface. A monk has two fists. A rogue with a dagger in each fist, has two daggers. The only thing stopping the monk from using each, is low BAB.

If you had a marilith monk, with a different metal gauntlet on each hand, fighting several different enemies with different vulnerabilities - they could pick which fist to hit which target with.




That's designed to avoid penalising the monk, to ensure all hits do full Strength damage.

Dragon Magazine makes it clear that a monk can off-hand attack anyway - but it must be done separately from the flurry, and gains the appropriate penalties.

Sage Advice also says so, but they never errata'd that in, so it's still ambiguous regardless.

[hamishspence]

An "off-hand weapon" doesn't even have to be in a hand. A character wearing spiked armour can use jabs from that as their "off-hand weapon" (or, for that matter, their main weapon) - even if both hands are actually full. But they can't use it if they've used another off-hand weapon.

[Andezzar]

Each fist is a separate unarmed striking surface. A monk has two fists.True, but there is no rule saying that having multiple striking surfaces adds additional weapons. A longsword has (at least) two striking surfaces, the one edge and the other edge. It does not count as two weapons and neither does the unarmed strike. There is no rule saying that any character can have more than one unarmed strike, or that having different anatomy increases the number of unarmed strikes.


A rogue with a dagger in each fist, has two daggers. The rogue has two manufactured weapons and the unarmed strike, a natural weapon.

The only thing stopping the monk from using each, is low BAB.Not only that, also the lack of weapons, the monk only has one, unless he picks up a quarterstaff or something.


If you had a high-level marilith monk, with a different metal gauntlet on each hand, fighting several different enemies with different vulnerabilities - they could pick which fist to hit which target with.No to that as well no matter how many appendages a creature has it only has one unarmed strike.

[hamishspence]

A monk, using flurry, specifically can mix attacks. Blow from fist. Blow from one end of quarterstaff. Etc.

What's so illogical about allowing it to be "Blow from fist, followed by blow from other fist?"

Different anatomy doesn't increase the number of attacks - but it does increase the number of sources from which to choose an attack from.

If a character is a 20th level monk with 6 arms and a different gauntlet on each hand, why should they not be able to "pick a different limb to deliver each of their 5 blows" (the standard number of blows in a Flurry)?

As long as you're not trying to increase the number of attacks - the whole point of Unarmed Strike is that any body part can be used to deliver it - so, you pick a body part each time you roll an attack.

[Meditation]

Does anything from flurry of blows specifically state you may not two weapon fight as well?

No. In fact, I remember thinking it was implictly states as fine, back in the day when 3.0 was new. This only became a problem because Skip Williams' online "clarifications" confused the issue thoroughly. It certainly, as you noted, isn't imbalancing, and it's far more rules-consistent.

The problem is that 3x uses "off-hand" to refer to spacio-positioning AND mechanical offensive bonus, simultaneously, creating confusion. And if a Monk uses a Gauntlet (with weapon enhancements) and a kick (both of which are affected by a Necklace of Natural Weapons), the two attacks are both "unarmed strikes" yet are mechanically distinct, further disputing the notion that characters cannot commit unarmed-strike-only-two-weapon-fighting routines.

The simplest solution, and the one with the least rules baggage, is to let creatures use unarmed strikes with two-weapon fighting, well, normally. The result is a pile of misses unless the character is badass, in which case they are badass, which is rather the point of playing D&D.

[hamishspence]

The simplest solution, and the one with the least rules baggage, is to let creatures use unarmed strikes with two-weapon fighting, well, normally. The result is a pile of misses unless the character is badass, in which case they are badass, which is rather the point of playing D&D.

I agree with this.

"Off-hand unarmed strike" gets +1/2 Str bonus to damage, "Main-hand unarmed strike" gets +Str bonus to damage, and all characters get at least one "off-hand" and one "main-hand".

[Mato]

OP: Proof that you can off hand attack with unarmed strikes!



Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack with that weapon when you make a full attack. Fighting in this way is very difficult, however, and you take a –6 penalty on your attack rolls with your primary hand and a –10 penalty on attack rolls 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, as is an off-hand attack with a double weapon.
• The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6. The table below summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

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.

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon. Light: A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a onehanded weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

Melee Fighting with Two Weapons
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 (see page 160 in the Player's Handbook).

If you're making any unarmed attacks in addition to an attack with your primary hand (for instance, a sword slash and a kick or head butt), consider the unarmed attacks as off-hand attacks even if you aren't making them with a hand. See Part Two for notes about using unarmed strikes as primary and secondary weapons.

Unarmed Strikes and Manufactured Weapons
From time to time, characters might find it useful to throw in an unarmed attack along with an attack from a manufactured weapon, such as a sword. Doing so requires the full attack action. If the character in question isn't a monk, the rules governing attacks with two weapons cover this situation well. Most often, the character will use the unarmed attack as the off-hand weapon. The character makes one extra attack with the off-hand unarmed attack and gets the benefit of a light off-hand weapon; see the excerpt presented on this page for more details concerning two-weapon fighting. If the character does not have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the unarmed off-hand attack provokes an attack of opportunity from the foe the character attacks. The attacker gains only half his Strength bonus to damage for the off-hand attack.

Yes, we all know that.

I think you are referring to cherry picked information quoted out of context and only specifically applies when discussing monks. And anyone's thoughts on that matter have no attribution or value to the current thread.

[hamishspence]

OP: Proof that you can off hand attack with unarmed strikes!

I tend to look at it this way.

Four identical, high level characters - All right-handed, for the purpose of determining which is main attack.

One uses their left fist as their off-hand attack and their right hand with dagger as their main attack. Legal? Yes
One uses their right fist as their main attack and their left hand with dagger as their off-hand attack. Legal? Yes
One uses a dagger in each hand - right dagger is main attack, left dagger is off-hand attack. Legal? Yes
One uses fists - right fist is main attack, left fist is off-hand attack. Legal?? If no, it really doesn't fit.

[Tectorman]

Question:

If I have two gauntlets, they are considered separate objects, separate weapons, and thus one can two-weapon fight with them. However, the argument against two-weapon fighting with your two fists (even if other parts of your body are being subbed in for one or both of them) seems to primarily be that they are both connected by the same body, that it's all one "unarmed attack".

So, what happens when I'm wearing a suit of full plate armor, which includes AND CONNECTS two gauntlets? Does the fact that I put a connecting suit of armor between the two gauntlets make them both into one "gauntlet attack", and summarily prevent me from two weapon fighting with my two gauntlets?

[Andezzar]

I tend to look at it this way.

Four identical, high level characters - All right-handed, for the purpose of determining which is main attack.

One uses their left fist as their off-hand attack and their right hand with dagger as their main attack. Legal? Yes
One uses their right fist as their main attack and their left hand with dagger as their off-hand attack. Legal? Yes
One uses a dagger in each hand - right dagger is main attack, left dagger is off-hand attack. Legal? Yes
One uses fists - right fist is main attack, left fist is off-hand attack. Legal?? If no, it really doesn't fit.Your description is wrong:
One primarily wields a dagger and and also uses his body to attack
One primarily uses his body to attack and secondarily attacks with a dagger
One wields two daggers.
One only attacks with his body. Why would it be logical for him to do that twice when the others cannot attack twice with one dagger?

If the amount of applicable striking surfaces were relevant, why only the two fists? Everyone, not just monks, can attack with all parts of their body. So why leave it at two attacks and not 20, 40...? On one hand alone I can think of 5 striking surfaces. And then there is the head, the elbows, knees, feet etc.

So you only get one unarmed strike that can be delivered through all parts of the body, unless you quote a rule saying you get more than one.

@Tectorman: No, you do not get extra attacks and you cannot dual wield gauntlets, whether they are bought separately or part of the armour you are wearing. All Gauntlets do is allow you to convert the nonlethal damage of your unarmed strike to lethal damage (PHB p. 117 f.).

[MrSandman]

So you only get one unarmed strike that can be delivered through all parts of the body, unless you quote a rule saying you get more than one.


Well, apparently thw wizards thought that the rules they wrote in PHB p160 allowed a character to use only unarmed attacks for two-weapon fighting.



http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a
Melee Fighting with Two Weapons
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 (see page 160 in the Player's Handbook).


Bold: notice the plural forms of the words "strikes" and "weapons".

[Andezzar]

These articles unfortunately are not RAW and differ quite substantially from the books. According to the primary source rule they cannot change the rules in the books.

[hamishspence]

All Gauntlets do is allow you to convert the nonlethal damage of your unarmed strike to lethal damage (PHB p. 117 f.).

They may also allow you to overcome the relevant damage reduction, if made from the relevant substance.

Character has a cold iron gauntlet on one hand, a silver gauntlet on the other, and is fighting a mixed horde of demons and devils (say, Malkizid and Sarya Dlardrageth's forces).

Of course they'll be attacking with the gauntlets only, and not any other body parts.


According to the primary source rule they cannot change the rules in the books.

And the rules in the book are not as straightforward as you seem to think they are. There are times when it matters which body parts are being used to "deliver unarmed strikes".

If a gauntlet can be a "main hand" and another gauntlet can be an "off-hand" - why can't a character use both in a Full-Round Attack? With appropriate Two-Weapon Fighting penalties of course.

[Mato]

These articles unfortunately are not RAW and differ quite substantially from the books. According to the primary source rule they cannot change the rules in the books.This is wrong and fairly self conceited. WotC doesn't need the personal opinion of a nobody posted on third party site to tell them what they can or cannot do. If WotC wants to reword the rules as many times as they think it's necessary for people to grasp what the rules are trying to explain to them, they can. It's not only as simple as that, but every time you talk about a supplement you have already accepted that they can change whatever they want when they want. Plus if you paid attention to my post, you'd see there is no such substantial difference either.


I tend to look at it this way.
Four identical, high level characters - All right-handed, for the purpose of determining which is main attack.
Handedness like that hasn't been defined in the game since the 3.5 update released sixteen years ago deliberately removed it for clarity. So there is no such definition for a "right-handed" character in the rules.

TWF actually has nothing to do with hands or limb counts. That's why it's possible for four armed creatures can take two-weapon fighting against advice and why it's possible to use both ends of a single weapon with two-weapon fighting. From a rules stand point, TWF is a modification to the combat rules meant to stimulate using more than one dangerous area simultaneously. And how the player chooses to portray their character doing this is fluff.

[Andezzar]

This is wrong and fairly self conceited. WotC doesn't need the personal opinion of a nobody posted on third party site to tell them what they can or cannot do. If WotC wants to reword the rules as many times as they think it's necessary for people to grasp what the rules are trying to explain to them, they can. It's not only as simple as that, but every time you talk about a supplement you have already accepted that they can change whatever they want when they want. Plus if you paid attention to my post, you'd see there is no such substantial difference either.The substantial difference is that per RAW the unarmed strike is one weapon. You cannot use one weapon alone for TWF, unless the weapon has a rule saying otherwise like the quarterstaff.

According to WotC own errata, The PHB is the primary source for playing the game. So it supersedes any other document unless it itself is errataed. Random archived articles written by someone working for WotC have no more power to change those rules than any other random person. For rules changes you need errata. Allowing the unarmed strike to count as more than one weapon is a rules change and a quite substantial one.

For your convenience:
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.Emphasis mine.
The articles you quoted are not official errata files.


TWF actually has nothing to do with hands or limb counts. That's why it's possible for four armed creatures can take Two-Weapon Fighting against advice and why it's possible to use both ends of a single weapon with two-weapon fighting. From a rules stand point, TWF is a modification to the combat rules meant to stimulate using more than one dangerous area simultaneously. And how the player chooses to portray their character doing this is fluff.That is your opinion. It is not backed by any rules.

Additionally why should that be allowed for the Unarmed strike when it is not allowed for weapons? A long or bastard sword for example could deal damage once which the point, once with one edge, once with the other edge once with one end of the cross guard once with the other end of the cross guard, once with the pommel. As an extra bonus you would be able to deal all three types of damage. It gets pretty silly pretty fast.

[MisterKaws]

I'm 99% sure that there's a line in Multiweapon Fighting that says a creature with multiple limbs and TWF automatically gets converted to MWF.

[Mato]

I'm 99% sure that there's a line in Multiweapon Fighting that says a creature with multiple limbs and TWF automatically gets converted to MWF.Gaining a limb doesn't change TWF to multiattack.

Multiweapon fighting is also a holdover from the 3.0 rule set. While the base feat, and not the expansions, was reprinted as near-copypasta for 3.5 it still discusses arms and is limited to a hand count. For example a tail blade equipped to a tail and two different swords in two different hands doesn't allow you to take multiweapon fighting.

[hamishspence]

Additionally why should that be allowed for the Unarmed strike when it is not allowed for weapons? .

Because the body's limbs are much more independently directable.

In real life, the average boxer does punch with both fists in a fight. And not locked together, Captain Kirk style but right jab, followed by left cross, etc.

Fast enough, that it does not suspend belief, that the boxer is "two-weapon fighting".

The fact that an unarmed strike is a light weapon, and that light weapons are normally "one-handed" is what leads me to the conclusion that it should be be treated as a punch unless the player specifically states otherwise.

And that, just as with any light weapon, a character may use up to two of them at a time by default.

[Andezzar]

I am not arguing what should be but what the rules say. And (un)fortunately there is no rule saying you have more than one unarmed strike weapon.

Well a boxer uses both fists, but an MMA fighter uses a lot more. So why limit it to two? In six seconds someone could just as well connect more than once with a manufactured weapon, whether you use the same or different surfaces. Getting more attacks out of a single weapon is a function of BAB and two weapon fighting needs two weapons. An Unarmed strike is only one.

[hamishspence]

Left fist is one weapon. Right fist is another weapon.

In a world where you can put a different gauntlet on each hand, each made of a different metal - each of which is a light weapon - why should the character be required to only use one at a time?

When a character is in possession of multiple light weapons, or multiple one-handed weapons, by default they may use two of them.


I am not arguing what should be but what the rules say. And (un)fortunately there is no rule saying you have more than one unarmed strike weapon.


When I search the forum - I find this discussion has been had multiple times before.

The last time it came up: the epic feat Improved Ki Strike was given as an example of "A character has multiple unarmed strikes not one"

Improved Ki Strike [Epic]
Prerequisites
Wis 21, Ki strike (adamantine).

Benefit
Your unarmed strikes are treated as epic magic weapons for the purposes of damage reduction.

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.

[Tectorman]

Left fist is one weapon. Right fist is another weapon.

In a world where you can put a different gauntlet on each hand, each made of a different metal - each of which is a light weapon - why should the character be required to only use one at a time?

When a character is in possession of multiple light weapons, or multiple one-handed weapons, by default they may use two of them.


When I search the forum - I find this discussion has been had multiple times before.

Building off of that, why does one get more attacks by putting additional weight on?

What do you have? Two gauntlets.

How many times can you attack? Once with each, per six seconds.

So if we take that weight off and lighten your fists, and then have you go through the exact, same, identical motions (motions that should be easier because there's less weight), how many attacks do you get now?

Something is very wrong if the number goes down from where it was.

And again, if the argument is that two fists on one body count as parts of the same object, why then do two gauntlets on the same suit of full plate armor not count as one object?

[hamishspence]

What do you have? Two gauntlets.

How many times can you attack? Once with each, per six seconds.

So if we take that weight off and lighten your fists, and then have you go through the exact, same, identical motions (motions that should be easier because there's less weight), how many attacks do you get now?

Something is very wrong if the number goes down from where it was.

I have no problem with treating Unarmed Strike as something that can be dual-wielded, because it is a Light Weapon, IMO the rules are more consistent if it's handled that way.
As such, for me, the number would remain the same - not going down (but not going up either).


Take a person who is dual-wielding light weapons - a Kama, and an Unarmed Strike - and their unarmed strike is their off-hand weapon.

Now, take the weapon out of their "main hand". What happens? That hand is now free to make unarmed attacks as a "main hand". But their "off-hand" unarmed strikes are still available - their body hasn't suddenly changed.

The argument that a guy who has "Kama and fist" should have more attacks than the guy who has "two fists" doesn't make sense to me.



Imagine an Epic Fighter, with Perfect Two weapon Fighting, a gauntlet, and a Kama (exotic weapon proficiency)

Their Full Attack routine is 8 attacks - 4 with their main hand, 4 with their off-hand.

Now say they replace their Kama with another gauntlet. Why would they suddenly have their number of attacks reduced to 4?

[Karl Aegis]

I have no problem with treating Unarmed Strike as something that can be dual-wielded, because it is a Light Weapon, IMO the rules are more consistent if it's handled that way.
As such, for me, the number would remain the same - not going down (but not going up either).


Take a person who is dual-wielding light weapons - a Kama, and an Unarmed Strike - and their unarmed strike is their off-hand weapon.

Now, take the weapon out of their "main hand". What happens? That hand is now free to make unarmed attacks as a "main hand". But their "off-hand" unarmed strikes are still available - their body hasn't suddenly changed.

The argument that a guy who has "Kama and fist" should have more attacks than the guy who has "two fists" doesn't make sense to me.

If you lose your weapon you don't suddenly gain a new weapon. You keep what weapon(s) you had on you.

[hamishspence]

If you lose your weapon you don't suddenly gain a new weapon. You keep what weapon(s) you had on you.

For a character with Improved Unarmed Strike, their hand is a weapon.







If you had a high-level marilith monk, with a different metal gauntlet on each hand, fighting several different enemies with different vulnerabilities - they could pick which fist to hit which target with.



No to that as well no matter how many appendages a creature has it only has one unarmed strike.

Even without two-weapon fighting, monks can still choose their appendages for attacking with.


Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet.

Translation - if you have 3 attacks, you can pick "first and second attacks are with silver gauntlet, last attack is with cold iron gauntlet".

Monks can, effectively, "multiweapon-fight" without the appropriate feats - but they get less attacks than a character with the appropriate feats, would.

[Karl Aegis]

For a character without Improved Unarmed Strike, their hand is a weapon. Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't change that.

[hamishspence]

Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't change that.

It does mean the character is no longer "unarmed" for the purposes of things like Attacks of Opportunity though.