Unarmed Snake Attacks.

[ChudoJogurt]

A character has wildshaped into a giant snake. Can they use their iterative "Unarmed" attacks with normal Unarmed damage, or do they have to use the snake form's sole Bite?

[loky1109]

Nothing prevent this. He even can unarmed iterativs plus bite with -5.

[Fizban]

Yes, and as noted they can make an unarmed full attack while adding the natural weapons on at -5. Remember that unarmed attacks are not only not punches or kicks, but they're also the damage used for grappling, which can just be bashing people into things. You don't even need a functional appendage to make unarmed attacks.

Note that while sometimes it may look like an animal or monster would be better off making iterative unarmed attacks to use their BAB from high hit dice, it often ends up not being so. In the case of a grappling snake (or t-rex) for example, it might seem like they should take multiple grapple checks for unarmed damage, until you realize that Improved Grab already upgrades that grapple damage to match their bite.

Wacky PCs with Monk levels and shapeshifting do wacky things that don't make sense. I suppose the plan could be taking advantage of the viper's massive size/HD ratio (Huge at 6HD), with a character that's already Large size and is thus allowed to Polymorph into Huge or has some other feature that lets them Wild Shape into Huge early, to get a bunch of size increases to apply to their unarmed damage die while not caring about the viper's poison?

Oh right, already specified Wild Shape. I suppose then it's more likely this is a higher level Druid or MoMF with a Monk dip who turned into a giant snake and found that either the poison or grapple or both weren't working.

[Remuko]

yup just keep in mind the damage die for your unarmed will change based on size. so even if you were doing say d8 as a medium size character, if you turn into a tiny viper your damage die will be smaller.

[Darg]

Just remember that if you don't have improved unarmed strike/usable gauntlets, you provoke with every iterative and have to take a -4 penalty to deal lethal damage.

[Gruftzwerg]

If you want a full explanation:

The rules of the game archive (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg)has an article trilogy regarding "unarmed strikes". Part two (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a) covers how you can combine unarmed strikes with either manufactured or natural weapons in a full attack.

[ChudoJogurt]

I read the Unarmed strike/natural attacks interactions several times, and still not sure how they work, so decided to double check.

And yeh, I'm making an antagonist for the party, something along the lines of yuanti Fist of Forest/Primeval (Dire Snake), at ECL 13. With FoF, straight BAB and Huge size it should definitely be taking advantage of the iteratives.

[Gruftzwerg]

I read the Unarmed strike/natural attacks interactions several times, and still not sure how they work, so decided to double check.

And yeh, I'm making an antagonist for the party, something along the lines of yuanti Fist of Forest/Primeval (Dire Snake), at ECL 13. With FoF, straight BAB and Huge size it should definitely be taking advantage of the iteratives.

If you want to preserve your iterative attacks with your unarmed strike you need to designate your Unarmed Strike as Primary Attack(s) and all your Natural Weapons as secondary attack (-5 to hit or -2 with Multiattack).

Further, if you don't have the monks unarmed strike ability, you need to use your primary limb for the unarmed strike, which prevents that limb form doing other attacks (e.g. claw) that round.
Those who have the monk's unarmed strike can bypass this, since their unarmed strikes don't care for primary or secondary limbs and thus can do primary attacks with a kick (or headbutt) as example, leaving your hands free for a possible claw attack.

[Darg]

Further, if you don't have the monks unarmed strike ability, you need to use your primary limb for the unarmed strike, which prevents that limb form doing other attacks (e.g. claw) that round.
Those who have the monk's unarmed strike can bypass this, since their unarmed strikes don't care for primary or secondary limbs and thus can do primary attacks with a kick (or headbutt) as example, leaving your hands free for a possible claw attack.


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.

You can use any part of the body you can swing or strike with even without monk or ImpUAS. You are right that the part of the body used to make unarmed strikes cannot be used for natural attacks. Headbutts prevent bites, punches and kicks can prevent claw attacks (depending on the limbs used, some animals have 4 sets of claws, but only 2 claw attacks), etc. Dragon disciple is still one of my favorite PRCs, especially with the dragon breath feat from RotD.

[Wildstag]

You can use any part of the body you can swing or strike with even without monk or ImpUAS. You are right that the part of the body used to make unarmed strikes cannot be used for natural attacks. Headbutts prevent bites, punches and kicks can prevent claw attacks (depending on the limbs used, some animals have 4 sets of claws, but only 2 claw attacks), etc. Dragon disciple is still one of my favorite PRCs, especially with the dragon breath feat from RotD.

Technically, monks are even more restricted, since the examples they give require limbs (in the SRD at least)... Funnily enough, Pathfinder 1e has the same issue, since they copy-pasted a lot of their rules from the 3.5 SRD. So monks can't use their heads with unarmed strikes but someone that takes IUS without monk levels can.


A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet.

[Gruftzwerg]

You can use any part of the body you can swing or strike with even without monk or ImpUAS. You are right that the part of the body used to make unarmed strikes cannot be used for natural attacks. Headbutts prevent bites, punches and kicks can prevent claw attacks (depending on the limbs used, some animals have 4 sets of claws, but only 2 claw attacks), etc. Dragon disciple is still one of my favorite PRCs, especially with the dragon breath feat from RotD.

First let me say that I agree with the part that anybody can use any limb for their unarmed strike.

But what the "rules of the game" is implying here is, that the designers assume that a creature needs to use their primary limb for the primary attack. Otherwise you have to face the consequences of the "offhand" rules.
For a regular humanoid without the monk's unarmed strike ability the primary limb is the right hand/arm (unless you called out your character as left-handed at creation).




A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.
This means that any unarmed strike not using your primary limb (headbud, offhand, kicks..) would be an offhand weapon for a regular humanoid.


Those with the monk's unarmed strike ability bypass this with:

There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
Downside of this is, that the monk can't make offhand attacks with sole unarmed strikes and monk weapons by default.
He either needs to use a non-monk weapon or natural weapons as primary weapon to use his unarmed strike as offhand weapon by default.
If the monk wants to add unarmed strikes/monk weapons to unarmed strikes/monk weapons as offhand attack, he needs the TWF feat line to trump his monk's unarmed strike limitation.

edit:
Since the request was to preserve the iterative attacks, the unarmed strike has to be designated to your mainhand/primary limb. General iterative rules are for your mainhand or both hands together when using a 2h weapon. Thus, you can't use your head/kick/.. for your primary attack. Monks can bypass this and use any other part as their primary unarmed strike attack and use even both Claws as secondary attack.

[loky1109]

This means that any unarmed strike not using your primary limb (headbud, offhand, kicks..) would be an offhand weapon for a regular humanoid.

I don't see how does this follow from the your PHB quote.


Downside of this is, that the monk can't make offhand attacks with sole unarmed strikes and monk weapons by default.
FAQ doesn't agree with you.

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't see how does this follow from the your PHB quote.
The general rule for mainhand-offhand assumes 2 limbs (your arms). Unarmed Strike allows you to use more than just your 2 arm limbs. It allows you to attack with other body parts too. But they still fall under the mainhand/offhand rules unless you have the monk's unarmed strike ability. Normal unarmed strikes lack the "no offhand rule" that the monk's unarmed strike ability has.



FAQ doesn't agree with you.

If you already read the FAQ and invested time into finding another explanation, why don't you quote it and share it with us?
Should we waste time searching and guessing which text passage you mean? Sorry but I have lost my fortune telling crystal ball. *joke*
So, if you expect an answer to this, pls give me at least a quote to work with if you don't want to explain your interpretation of the rules ;)

[loky1109]

The general rule for mainhand-offhand assumes 2 limbs (your arms). Unarmed Strike allows you to use more than just your 2 arm limbs. It allows you to attack with other body parts too.

All yes. But why do you think that something but left hand is off-hand? Rules talk about "weaker or less dexterous hand". Head or leg aren't hand at all.

[Darg]

First let me say that I agree with the part that anybody can use any limb for their unarmed strike.

But what the "rules of the game" is implying here is, that the designers assume that a creature needs to use their primary limb for the primary attack. Otherwise you have to face the consequences of the "offhand" rules.
For a regular humanoid without the monk's unarmed strike ability the primary limb is the right hand/arm (unless you called out your character as left-handed at creation).



This means that any unarmed strike not using your primary limb (headbud, offhand, kicks..) would be an offhand weapon for a regular humanoid.


Those with the monk's unarmed strike ability bypass this with:

Downside of this is, that the monk can't make offhand attacks with sole unarmed strikes and monk weapons by default.
He either needs to use a non-monk weapon or natural weapons as primary weapon to use his unarmed strike as offhand weapon by default.
If the monk wants to add unarmed strikes/monk weapons to unarmed strikes/monk weapons as offhand attack, he needs the TWF feat line to trump his monk's unarmed strike limitation.

edit:
Since the request was to preserve the iterative attacks, the unarmed strike has to be designated to your mainhand/primary limb. General iterative rules are for your mainhand or both hands together when using a 2h weapon. Thus, you can't use your head/kick/.. for your primary attack. Monks can bypass this and use any other part as their primary unarmed strike attack and use even both Claws as secondary attack.

3.5 doesn't have an off-hand penalty and the glossary definition is defunct. The only time an off-hand exists in 3.5 is when you are two weapon fighting. In 3.0 you declared if your character was right or left handed. The off-hand was the other hand at all times. When not two weapon fighting, at all times the off hand would suffer a -4 attack penalty and only benefit from half your str bonus. The feat Ambidexterity was required to remove this penalty. A monk using UAS and another weapon to fight wouldn't need the Ambidexterity feat because a monk does not suffer off-hand penalties for UAS.

The Rules of the Game article appears to not realize that primary and off-hand declarations are not part of the 3.5 rule structure. The only other relevant portion of the rules are shield bash attacks; then again, WotC forgot to migrate the definition for "off-hand weapon" to the 3.5 glossary from the 3.0 glossary. The more I read the 3.0 PHB the more I come to realize that one needs an understanding of 3.0 rules and definitions to understand how the rules and terms are perceived to be by WotC.

[Gruftzwerg]

All yes. But why do you think that something but left hand is off-hand? Rules talk about "weaker or less dexterous hand". Head or leg aren't hand at all.
Now that's a reply I can work with, thx <3

First we have the general definition what an off-hand attack is. It differentiates between main-limb and off-limb and gives a STR penalty for the off-hand/limb.

Unarmed Strike expands the list of available limbs to use in combat (from sole your forelimbs for a humanoid character to any limb).

But the normal (non-monk) unarmed strike ability doesn't give you the permission to use them as you primary limb. Thus, the off-hand rule kicks in for not using your primary limb

edit: (for completeness sake)

There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
This sentence allows the monk to use any limb as mainlimb for his primary attacks. The regular unarmed strike rules don't have this luxury..


3.5 doesn't have an off-hand penalty and the glossary definition is defunct. The only time an off-hand exists in 3.5 is when you are two weapon fighting. In 3.0 you declared if your character was right or left handed. The off-hand was the other hand at all times. When not two weapon fighting, at all times the off hand would suffer a -4 attack penalty and only benefit from half your str bonus. The feat Ambidexterity was required to remove this penalty. A monk using UAS and another weapon to fight wouldn't need the Ambidexterity feat because a monk does not suffer off-hand penalties for UAS.

The Rules of the Game article appears to not realize that primary and off-hand declarations are not part of the 3.5 rule structure. The only other relevant portion of the rules are shield bash attacks; then again, WotC forgot to migrate the definition for "off-hand weapon" to the 3.5 glossary from the 3.0 glossary. The more I read the 3.0 PHB the more I come to realize that one needs an understanding of 3.0 rules and definitions to understand how the rules and terms are perceived to be by WotC.


Sorry but I disagree here from a RAW point of view. (RAI this is a good argument, I admit)

Glossary is still part of the book and thus still bears the right to provide rules.

While it gets superseded by any Primary Source rules in chase of a contradiction, in the absence of another source it becomes the Primary Source for the topic.

Since we haven't found any other primary source definition for "off-hand", the Glossary becomes the primary source for that topic by RAW/the PSR.

Thus, anytime you are using another limb than you strong main limb, the off-hand rules (which are scattered all over the place..) apply.

[loky1109]

Now that's a reply I can work with, thx <3

First we have the general definition what an off-hand attack is. It differentiates between main-limb and off-limb and gives a STR penalty for the off-hand/limb.

Unarmed Strike expands the list of available limbs to use in combat (from sole your forelimbs for a humanoid character to any limb).

But the normal (non-monk) unarmed strike ability doesn't give you the permission to use them as you primary limb. Thus, the off-hand rule kicks in for not using your primary limb

edit: (for completeness sake)

This sentence allows the monk to use any limb as mainlimb for his primary attacks. The regular unarmed strike rules don't have this luxury...

I see your point. But quote from monk still doesn't expand off-hand to "all but right hand". Yes, off-hand exists for unarmed strike, you prove it. But nothing says that legs are offhand. "Monks can strike with any part of the body" plus "monks don't suffer offhand penalty" doesn't means that all body parts are offhand. It means that there is at least one body part which is offhand. For example it can be left hand. And only left hand. This is enough.

[loky1109]

If you already read the FAQ and invested time into finding another explanation, why don't you quote it and share it with us?
Should we waste time searching and guessing which text passage you mean? Sorry but I have lost my fortune telling crystal ball. *joke*
So, if you expect an answer to this, pls give me at least a quote to work with if you don't want to explain your interpretation of the rules ;)
...............

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 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. 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.
To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains only half Strength bonus to damage. If the off-hand attack is a weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry (if it can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). For example, a 4th-level monk with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a Strength score of 14 decides to use a flurry of blows and decides to throw in an off-hand attack as well. The monk has a base attack bonus of +3 and a +2 Strength bonus. With a flurry, the character can make two attacks, each at +3 (base +3, –2 flurry, +2 Strength). An unarmed strike is a light weapon, so the monk suffers an additional –2 penalty for both the flurry and the off-hand attack, and the monk makes three attacks, each at an attack bonus of +1. The two attacks from the flurry are primary attacks and add the monk’s full Strength bonus to damage of +2. The single off-hand attack adds half the monk’s Strength bonus to damage (+1).
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.

[Gruftzwerg]

@Loky1109: a lil tip how to quote multiple posts:
On the right side of the "Reply with Quote"-button is an "+ -icon. Use that to start selecting multiple post to quote and the "Reply with Quote"-button for the last post to quote. The site will automatically put all quotes into a single reply message window.
Just a lil hint to avoid double posts and keep the forum clean ;)



I see your point. But quote from monk still doesn't expand off-hand to "all but right hand". Yes, off-hand exists for unarmed strike, you prove it. But nothing says that legs are offhand. "Monks can strike with any part of the body" plus "monks don't suffer offhand penalty" doesn't means that all body parts are offhand. It means that there is at least one body part which is offhand. For example it can be left hand. And only left hand. This is enough.

The (general) unarmed strike rules alter the rules for off-hand and main-hand. While the general rules for off-hand speaks of main-hand and off-hand, the unarmed strike rules expand/exchange them to limbs overall. Due to the interaction the off-hand rules get altered to work with limbs in this specific chase caused by unarmed strikes. So we are now speaking of primary limb and off-(hand)limbs (or however you wanna call it now..). If this change doesn't fit your point of view, you would also be denying any possibility to make unarmed off-hand attack. And I guess we can agree that this seems to be possible by the rules (making unarmed off-hand attack in the mentioned specific situations).




...............

Thx for the quote. The important part of the reply is here:


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.
The part I did bold admits that a strict RAW reading suggests otherwise. This means that the entire rest of the answer is to be seen as RAI, since they themselves admit that this is not the strict interpretation of what the rules (RAW) say.

I'm not saying that RAW is the better solution in these situations. Just pointing out how RAW handles it. The FAQ makes a good suggestion about how to rule it and showcase the designer intentions really well in this answer. But that is sadly not RAW.

And as always, these things should be decided by the DM or the entire table. And even then these things should not be set into stone, but should be revised from time to time to see if it still fits the needs of the table/group. Just my humble opinion ;)

[loky1109]

The (general) unarmed strike rules alter the rules for off-hand and main-hand.
No, they don't.


While the general rules for off-hand speaks of main-hand and off-hand, the unarmed strike rules expand/exchange them to limbs overall.
No, they don't number two.

General rules actually don't speak about hands. You can do off-hand (or main-hand) attack with weapon not in any hand (if you can handle weapon not in the hands). For example armor spikes, or mouthpick weapons.


So we are now speaking of primary limb and off-(hand)limbs (or however you wanna call it now..).
You need to prove it. With quote from rules. Now it is only interpretation equivalent to interpretation that are one off-hand and all other is primary. Or interpretation that "off-hand" isn't real hand/limb, it is type of penalty. You can do two strikes with one same limb and first will be main-hand strike and second will be off-hand strike.

As I see, regular two-handed creature* has only one main-hand and only one off-hand. And every attack can be in one or other category, doesn't matter that body part does it. You can strike with armor spike as main weapon if you have nothing more, or as off-hand plus to greatsword in your two hands.

*Two-handed as opposite to more-than-two-handed. Snakes are two-handed. As wolves, cat, elephants, etc.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, they don't.


No, they don't number two.

General rules actually don't speak about hands. You can do off-hand (or main-hand) attack with weapon not in any hand (if you can handle weapon not in the hands). For example armor spikes, or mouthpick weapons.


You need to prove it. With quote from rules. Now it is only interpretation equivalent to interpretation that are one off-hand and all other is primary. Or interpretation that "off-hand" isn't real hand/limb, it is type of penalty. You can do two strikes with one same limb and first will be main-hand strike and second will be off-hand strike.

As I see, regular two-handed creature* has only one main-hand and only one off-hand. And every attack can be in one or other category, doesn't matter that body part does it. You can strike with armor spike as main weapon if you have nothing more, or as off-hand plus to greatsword in your two hands.

I thought I already have proved my point with rules, but I guess I need to be more precise...

The primary source for combat and off-hand rules is the combat section.
The off-hand rules provided there and in the glossary definition distinguish between the weaker and stronger hand. Anyone using somehow off-hand attacks or using his weaker hand has to follow the general off-hand rules or call out an specific exception.

The monk's unarmed strike ability does call out a specific exception:

A monk's unarmed strike is more specific and alters the off-hand rules for (a monk's) unarmed strikes to:

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.
The rules got altered to "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack" and the part to distinguish between strong and weak hand gets altered to "a monk's attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet". (you can't deny that the monk's unarmed strike is changing the general rules here for their niche. here is the evidence that you requested)

Armor spikes and Toothpicks are specific exception who change the general rules similar, but different way unarmed strikes do. No dysfunction here from my point of view. Those are a niche of specific weapon types that don't follow the normal rules for primary and secondary limb presented in the off-hand rules, since their description tells us where they are equipped and thus which body part you are using for em. And the exception created by these weapons don't designate these body parts (for using armor spikes/toothpicks/..) to main-hand and off-and attacks as the general rules do for your hands. Thus these weapons create a specific niche where you are free to use em either as main weapon with the general rules for attacking (without TWF) or as off-hand weapon if you use em as secondary weapons.



*Two-handed as opposite to more-than-two-handed. Snakes are two-handed. As wolves, cat, elephants, etc.
Sorry, I don't know if I can follow you here, so I have to ask if I did understand you correctly.

If you mean that every creature (even wolves, cats, elephants), have by default the "option" (!!!) to make use of the general off-hand rules, yeah I agree on that.

But if you mean that this is the general rule for "normal attacking", I have to say no. The general rule is a single attack with a single weapon (defined as "attack"). Off-hand rules, are specific optional rules. Everybody has access to em, but they are not constantly in effect when you attack (e.g. when you attack with a single manufactured weapon, or when you sole want to rely on Natural Weapons) unless you make use of em.

[loky1109]

A monk's unarmed strike is more specific and alters the off-hand rules for (a monk's) unarmed strikes to

(you can't deny that the monk's unarmed strike is changing the general rules here for their niche. here is the evidence that you requested)
Last try. Monk's specific exception doesn't tell us what is regular off-hand rule for unarmed strikes.


The rules got altered to "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack"
I can agree whit it, but nothing here doesn't say us what is off-hand for non-monk, only that it exists.
Regular off-hand definition doesn't work here, because you don't "held" your unarmed strike.


and the part to distinguish between strong and weak hand gets altered to "a monk's attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet".
No. This is separate parts. Yes, monk's attacks may be with every body parts (non-monks can, too, actually), and yes, monk doesn't suffer off-hand penalty. But this doesn't mean that everything with what monk can attack is off-hand.

We have no RAW proofs for any reading option:
1) all but right hand is off-hand;
2) all but left hand is main-hand;
3) everything can be off or main hand.

Your opinion (first) has exactly much proofs as a second, maybe third has few less.



Armor spikes and Toothpicks are specific exception who change the general rules similar
This is exceptions in different way that you argue. This is exceptions of rule "weapon should be held in hand", but TWF rules work for them in general way. As for unarmed strike.


If you mean that every creature (even wolves, cats, elephants), have by default the "option" (!!!) to make use of the general off-hand rules, yeah I agree on that.
This.

And look at Imp Trip:


Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent.
If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt. For example, at 11th level, Tordek gets three attacks at bonuses of +11, +6, and +1. In the current round, he attempts to trip his opponent. His first attempt fails (using up his first attack). His second attempt succeeds, and he immediately makes a melee attack against his opponent with a bonus of +6. Finally, he takes his last attack at a bonus of +1.
Normal: Without this feat, you provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. See Trip, page 158.
There are nothing about -4 off-hand penalty and nothing prevent trip while you handle weapons, but this is regular unarmed attack in all ways.

[Milodiah]

I gather that the most practical answer, given the exchange above, is that this is one of those rabbit holes in the rules that obfuscates what could be a simple answer into a complex series of incongruities and contradictions.

Best approach would be to take the rules as written that were laid out here, put them in front of your particular DM, and let them decide, because WotC sure seems to have fouled this one up.

But since I see after re-reading that you're the DM and you're building an encounter that I assume is meant to be a Rather Big Deal for the party, I'd be inclined to say that you'd probably be best served by taking the interpretation which least hinders their combat effectiveness. The players won't necessarily be privy to the fact that you did this unless you have a high tier rules lawyer at your table, and even then they'd probably concede you're stuck with RAI because the RAW is a mess.

[Telonius]

I feel like this whole thread deserves a build to rival the bearbarian. A sneaky snake who makes unarmed snake sneak attacks. Has a backup weapon, a Vorpal blade (so it can go snicker-snack, obviously).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Can I post a clip from Kung-Fu Panda with Viper fighting as an example of how a snake would fight using its unarmed strike, or would that be too much Chan-ish behavior for around here?

[Gruftzwerg]

Last try. Monk's specific exception doesn't tell us what is regular off-hand rule for unarmed strikes. Sorry for the late response. I've been busy the last days. I agree, this will also be my last try here for this topic ;)



I can agree whit it, but nothing here doesn't say us what is off-hand for non-monk, only that it exists.
Regular off-hand definition doesn't work here, because you don't "held" your unarmed strike.
That's the reason why I said, by a strict RAW reading a monk needs the TWF feat line to be able to make off-hand attacks. This is due to the monk's unarmed strike ability ignoring the offhand rules by default.
Further, you don't need to "held" a weapon for TWF. That is not in the rules for TWF (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting).

The special interaction of monk + twf see below.



No. This is separate parts. Yes, monk's attacks may be with every body parts (non-monks can, too, actually), and yes, monk doesn't suffer off-hand penalty. But this doesn't mean that everything with what monk can attack is off-hand.
As said, the monk relies on the TWF feat line to be able to make off-hand unarmed strikes.
Normally, a monk bypasses the general off-hand rules. But due to the TWF feat, the off-hand rules now have to be combined in a mechanically correct way. The monk's "body parts" are more specific than the general offhand rules for limbs, and the twf feats off-hand rules are more specific than the monk's unarmed strike ability (which enables you to make off-hand unarmed strikes with 1/2 Str dmg bonus). Since the monk's unarmed strike enables you to chose your primary limb and even change that within a Full-Attack, you can do the same with your off-hand attack now (imho the sole rule legal interpretation here).



And look at Imp Trip:


There are nothing about -4 off-hand penalty and nothing prevent trip while you handle weapons, but this is regular unarmed attack in all ways.

Because there is no reason to imply that all (improved or not) trip attacks are made as off-hand attacks. Why should the imply that you have a weapon in your hand when you want to trip someone? The off-hand rules only apply if the situation demands it, and I see no reason why Trip or Imp. Trip should mention the off-hand rules. Does sneak attack mention off-hand rules? No, but the off-hand rules still apply when the situation demands it. Same here with Imp.-/Trip.

[loky1109]

Sorry for the late response. I've been busy the last days. I agree, this will also be my last try here for this topic ;)
Don't worry, all ok.


That's the reason why I said, by a strict RAW reading a monk needs the TWF feat line to be able to make off-hand attacks. This is due to the monk's unarmed strike ability ignoring the offhand rules by default.
I didn't told here about monk. About monk I mainly agree with you. This is dysfunctional, but... Only disagreement is TWF. If monk can't do off-hand unarmed attack - he can't. TWF does nothing about this, it doesn't grant extra attack, only changes penalties.



Further, you don't need to "held" a weapon for TWF. That is not in the rules for TWF.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand...


As said, the monk relies on the TWF feat line to be able to make off-hand unarmed strikes.
As said, he doesn't.


But due to the TWF feat, the off-hand rules now have to be combined in a mechanically correct way.
And we don't know this "correct way". We have no any rules about unarmed off-hand attacks by default, we have only exceptions.
And even your reasoning about monks is right, this doesn't say us anything about non-monks. We can't reverse this more specific on more specific on more specific way to more general. You assumption is only assumption, not RAW, not undeniable.

If we need RAI - problems aren't. We have two assumptions and can choose.
If we need RAW - we are doomed.

[Darg]

That's the reason why I said, by a strict RAW reading a monk needs the TWF feat line to be able to make off-hand attacks. This is due to the monk's unarmed strike ability ignoring the offhand rules by default.
Further, you don't need to "held" a weapon for TWF. That is not in the rules for TWF (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting).

The special interaction of monk + twf see below.


As said, the monk relies on the TWF feat line to be able to make off-hand unarmed strikes.
Normally, a monk bypasses the general off-hand rules. But due to the TWF feat, the off-hand rules now have to be combined in a mechanically correct way. The monk's "body parts" are more specific than the general offhand rules for limbs, and the twf feats off-hand rules are more specific than the monk's unarmed strike ability (which enables you to make off-hand unarmed strikes with 1/2 Str dmg bonus). Since the monk's unarmed strike enables you to chose your primary limb and even change that within a Full-Attack, you can do the same with your off-hand attack now (imho the sole rule legal interpretation here).

I disagree.


A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
A monk fighting with a one-handed weapon can make an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, but she suffers the standard penalties for two-weapon fighting (see Table 8–2: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties, page 125). Likewise, a monk with a weapon (other than a special monk weapon) in her off hand gets an extra attack with that weapon but suffers the usual penalties for two-weapon fighting and can’t strike with a flurry of blows (see below).

You can TWF with the UAS as the off-hand attack without the TWF feats, you just suffer the attack penalties.

In 3.5 a monk's UAS retains full strength bonus even when TWF.

[Gruftzwerg]

Since there still seems to be interest in discussing this further..^^




As said, he doesn't.


And we don't know this "correct way". We have no any rules about unarmed off-hand attacks by default, we have only exceptions.
And even your reasoning about monks is right, this doesn't say us anything about non-monks. We can't reverse this more specific on more specific on more specific way to more general. You assumption is only assumption, not RAW, not undeniable.

If we need RAI - problems aren't. We have two assumptions and can choose.
If we need RAW - we are doomed.
You aren't applying the Primary Source Rule (PSR) correct (for your RAW interpretation).

The PSR can only compare 2 rules at a time to each other, to see which one is primary. If you are combining multiple abilities/affects you have an ability chain where you always check 2 rules at a time and see how it unfolds. And you go from the most general rule and apply the next specific rule, until you reach the most specific rule in the chain:

1. Rules for Attacking
2. Unarmed Strike rules
3. Off-hand rules
4. Monk's Unarmed Strike rules
5. Monk's Unarmed Strike + TWF feat rules


When a monk wants to make unarmed off-hand attacks, all these rules are in affect. And the PSR dictates how they resolve.
"1" is the most general rule, while "5" is the most specific situation.

If you are a monk, you trump 2 & 3.

If said monk also has TWF, 3 & 4 get trumped. But you take the altered state for the off-hand rules due to the more specific monk unarmed strike rules. This includes the change from limbs to body parts (hands, elbows, knee, feet..). The TWF rules picks up from here to make it changes for the monk. Because a monk with TWF is more specific than a monk without.




I disagree.



You can TWF with the UAS as the off-hand attack without the TWF feats, you just suffer the attack penalties.
Nice to hear your opinion. But could you explain how you did come to this conclusion?


In 3.5 a monk's UAS retains full strength bonus even when TWF.

That is an interesting point to debate. Since the monk's unarmed strike trumps the general 1/2 Str mod rules for off-hand weapons and the most specific TWF feats rules leave that rule untouched, we could argue that a monk with TWF still has full STR mod for his offhand attacks.

[loky1109]

What in TWF text does let you think, that this feat lets monk do attacks more than he can? How does this feat affect number of attacks?

[Darg]

Nice to hear your opinion. But could you explain how you did come to this conclusion?



That is an interesting point to debate. Since the monk's unarmed strike trumps the general 1/2 Str mod rules for off-hand weapons and the most specific TWF feats rules leave that rule untouched, we could argue that a monk with TWF still has full STR mod for his offhand attacks.

In the 3.0 quote I quoted above, the intent was that you could still make off-hand attacks with UAS in relation to TWF as shown in the example presented in the quote. The statement about there not being an off-hand attack for UAS for monk refers to the primary and off-hand selection rule in 3.0 where during character creation you decide whether you are left or right handed. Attacking with your left hand even though your right hand is your primary won't incur the off-hand penalties because there is no such thing. TWF penalties are a separate set of rules from the off-hand rule: -6 for TWF, -4 with TWF feat, -4 with light off-hand, and -2 with feat and light off-hand weapon. The off-hand penalty is a separate -4 that stacks with the TWF penalty to get the -6/-10 primary/off-hand combo you normally see. Ambidexterity feat makes it so you ignore any off-hand penalties (note: 1/2 str bonus is not a penalty).

Considering 3.5 got rid of off-hand attacks entirely as a rule and the full strength bonus text is new and unique to 3.5, the only thing it could apply to is when you are TWF. Otherwise there is no need to even make the statement as your main hand already receives full str bonus. Not to mention the ability says specifically that you apply your full str bonus to all UAS damage rolls. The only time I know of when you don't normally get full str bonus is when TWF with UAS as the off-hand. I guess Snap kick provides an exception to that.

[ShurikVch]

Nature's Warrior PrC (Complete Warrior): Serpent's Coils may work for you, if it's ruled Nature's Armament works not just for Wild Shape